Greener Jobs Alliance

Budgeting for a slow march to war when a “mad dash to net zero” is what we need to be safe

Photo by flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/

John Healey’s first budget nudged and nurdled but  certainly didn’t challenge 45 years of neoliberalism and chart the “new course” that Andy Burnham hinted at in September.

And, while there was a resounding statement about being “unshakably committed to net zero” the measures taken indicate a hollowing out of that commitment under the pressure to prepare for war. 

In particular, it showed a willingness to bend the knee to Trump’s demands on the North Sea, with headlines announcing that Healey will veto new offshore wind projects “if they will not lower bills” at the same time as Treasury tax calculations factored in income from the development of Rosebank. As there are about half a dozen other fields waiting in the wings for this decision, this looks like an attempt to defy geology, economics and safety to appease the White House and its local attack dogs.

In the rest of the budget that was clear from what was not said as much as what was. 

To end the upward pressure on energy pieces we need to end the war on Iran

The fact that the increases in energy bills that have already had a big impact on the cost of living – and are hovering over the future like a pyro-cumulonimbus cloud – has been caused by the US/Israeli attack on Iran was acknowledged. But this was taken as a given. Just one of those things that happens. Least of all was there any commitment by the UK government to oppose it, or step back from complicity in it; and “defensive” attacks on Iran will still be launched from Diego Garcia. 

As a result of the war, Fossil Fuel companies are making colossal windfall profits. Shell’s have nearly doubled and BPs have quadrupled. This enables them to invest in more marginal oil and gas extraction; because the increased prices everyone is paying for them makes that potentially profitable, though a sign that the industry doubts its own future is that it is not rushing to do that. Increased emissions if they do. Increased damage. The banks that finance them -and arms companies – are also quids in from this war. A 100% tax on war profiteering would act as a disincentive to all this while raising billions to invest in the transition. Silence on that. Free pass.

Breaking with neoliberalism requires putting social needs above profitability. The chancellor appears to be as relaxed about these companies getting ”filthy rich” from war profiteering as Peter Mandelson was; and he’s not proposing to increase their taxation even though there is majority support for it.

The proposed Energy Wealth Fund from current rates of taxation on Fossil Fuels is a gesture in this direction so minimal as to constitute deflection more than commitment.

Clean energy is the solution

The recognition by the chancellor that the renewable energy already installed in the UK has massively cut the impact of fossil fuel prices rises is vital – especially in the face of the Fossil Opposition in Reform and the Conservative Party – who argue (with a straight face) that an 83% increase in wholesale gas prices since this time last year means that we need to use more of it to bring bills down – and that investing much, much more in the most expensive possible source of electricity generation – nuclear power – will do the same. 

In 2020 gas set the price for electricity 90% of the time. It is now much more expensive, but sets it for just 60% of the time, and it’s coming down. That cuts bills. The chancellor’s stated ambition to “break the grip of gas on bills” is vital. But, how far do the measures in his budget rise to that challenge?

The decision to hold back on new renewable capacity that cannot easily be connected to the grid requires prioritising investment into grid upgrades to open up bottlenecks like the one between Scotland and England, which causes frustrating curtailment costs and unnecessary gas back up use. Without that investment, all this will do is slow up the growth of renewable capacity. 

Approving Jackdaw, Rosebank and, by implication, the other fields that are queuing up for approval, the government will lock us into expensive fossil fuel dependence, and the planet wrecking emissions that go with them, and the costs of that, for longer than we need to. The phrase that we will “rely on oil and gas for decades to come” is designed to fudge the key question of how much; and avert the obvious point that the less we have to use the better it will be. 

Bombs not Jobs

While the forced march of military expenditure increases is now being set at a slower pace than he was arguing for when he resigned as Defence Minister in the Summer – a 3.5% increase projected for 2035, not the 5% he saw as an imperative then – nevertheless, he’s still undermining security through climate action by diverting funds to war. And there remains the risk that the 10 year plan spending review will seek to step up the pace again. Meanwhile:

• £1 billion will be cut from the Warm Homes Fund “to help cover a shortfall in defence expenditure”. The WHF is set to provide loans of between £7500 and £35,000 for households to install solar panels, heat pumps and batteries; initially with £15 billion in funding and aiming to support 5 million households. Leaving aside GJA’s longstanding critique of this market led subsidy approach – which benefits those who can afford it, leads to work being done in penny packets by small firms which are not always competent or even honest, misses out on economies of scale and thereby gets a smaller bang for a buck – this cut will lead to over 330,000 households missing out. There’s also a threat that a further £4.7 billion will be “reallocated” from this scheme to pay for “Your First Home” scheme. That would cut a further 1.5 million households from benefitting from this. Higher bills, Higher emissions. A lower level of economic activity doing this work, so fewer jobs.
• The heat pump grant via the Boiler Upgrade Scheme will be cut by £800, leading to 100,000 fewer installations in the next 3 years. Again. Higher bills. Higher emissions, A lower level of economic activity. Fewer jobs.

Wider aspects of the transition are also being undermined.

• The continuing freeze on the fuel duty escalator will cost £4.3 billion by 2030. This continuing Fossil subsidy is presented as providing a relief for drivers but as Social Market Foundation Chief economist Gideon Salutin points out: “it does not work. Many savings are gobbled up by fuel retailers, who keep the price level and pocket the difference. Most of what’s left is taken by rich motorists who tend to drive more and own less fuel-efficient cars. Previous freezes have seen the richest tenth of earners save three times as much as the poorest tenth….  If government really wants to help hard-up drivers, it would support them into an EV, which are cheaper to operate than petrol cars, and support affordable transport services like buses and rail.”

• The welcome but minimal £100 million to cut the cost of public EV charging is 1/43rd of the fuel duty freeze cost. Charging 20% VAT on workplace charging will also slow the shift to EVs.
• There is to be no extension of the 0% VAT rating on “energy saving materials” including solar panels from next April – increasing costs, slowing the transition, increasing emissions, depressing jobs.
• At the same time, 10,000 “energy hungry” companies will get a 20-25% discount from next April, with back payments to cover this year comes with no conditional requirement to reduce energy or provide renewable on site supply.
• Data Centres difficult to connect to the grid that are considered “exceptionally strategic projects” will be allowed to generate their own power with gas or diesel generators even though the experience of the United States is that the surge in construction of gas-fired power plants to run AI data centres is “set to undo 15 years’ worth of greenhouse gas reductions from US electricity generation”.
• New planning powers will also be used to accelerate Data Centre grid connections; which begs the question, over what?
• Exempting brownfield development sites of <1.5 hectares from biodiversity net gain regulations is a bit like Donald Trump paving over the White House Rose Garden; but doing it again and again and again, all over the country.

Social Justice Measures?

• The £100 Council Tax rebate for households in bands A-D will do little to dent the impact of the sharp rise in the energy price cap; which is projected to be £470 above current levels by the middle of next year. This is in a context of household energy debt projected to total £7 billion by the end of the year. 
• The VAT relief on electricity bills worth £45 a year is already in place, so won’t dent this any further.
• The cut in the gas standard charge is a small but progressive measure that will benefit lower income households, also by about £45 a year, and marginally reduce the price differential between gas and electricity per unit from 3.3 to 3; because the loss of the standing charge will be covered by an increase in charges per unit. So, those who use the least will benefit the most, so this is a small nudge towards electrification away from gas for heating and cooking. The electricity standing charge remains in place until next year, but if the same method is employed to get rid of it, it would make the price imbalance between gas and electricity worse.
• This is a marginal, and typically market led, gesture when it has been established that installing solar panels with batteries could cut energy costs for the poorest households by two thirds.  But that would require a state led investment plan carried out as a social service, not a vehicle to generate business for micro firms, as it would not be affordable for the people who need it most, nor profitable for private companies to deliver. That is what a break with neoliberalism would actually look like.

The chancellor sticks with the mantra that “growth” will solve all problems, without reflecting on the problem that expenditure on war preparation – leaving aside more profound objections to it – is one of the least effective ways of generating any; because the kit you buy with it won’t do anyone any good – just harm if it is used. Investing in any other sector of the economy – health, education, transport, social housing and infrastructure construction – generates actual benefits as well as the economic activity that goes with it. 

If you want a “growth sector” that will pull the rest of the economy into a healthier place, it’s the green sector; currently growing at 9% a year as the rest of the economy flatlines. So, if you want a healthier, livelier economy, green it! 

The “breathing space” the Chancellor has given the government, before its course is set by the pending 10 year plan, should be used to push them in the right direction, because there is no breathing space in the rate at which climate breakdown is accelerating.

The GJA’s model motion is a useful way to take up the debate about the policies we need in union and party branches, and student unions too. Feel free to adapt it to your circumstances.

By Paul Atkin

 

Join the debate

Send us your contribution to the debate. We will contact you about using it here on our News & Debate page.

Name

Email

Contribution

Submit

The post Budgeting for a slow march to war when a “mad dash to net zero” is what we need to be safe first appeared on Greener Jobs Alliance.

National Emergency Briefing Film – What about the workers?

Photo by Ashley Gorringe on Unsplash

Review by Mick Holder

I attended a showing of the campaign film National Emergency Briefing in St John’s Church, Leytonstone recently. Whilst I have issues with its focus on parliamentary action and failure to address work and trade unions I’d still recommend everyone tries to attend a showing, even if you have no knowledge or plenty. It presents a very honest but equally bleak picture and the campaign around the showing of the film locally is to try and get more action on the issue of climate change, which is no bad thing.

In case you don’t know already, the film is based on an event held in Westminster Central Hall last year where experts gave their stark opinion on how far we’re in the shit already climate wise and what the future looks like. At the time we said to them their focus missed out work, workers, the role of unions etc. and we were told they were too far down the line to change, although we were welcome to join in from the floor. They subsequently haven’t picked up on the issue in the film and today’s event wouldn’t have said anything about that if I hadn’t said my piece towards the end – FBU, wildfires and floods, Unite bus workers strike over impossibly hot cab conditions etc. 

And maybe that’s where we are. Showing this film seems to have momentum so perhaps it’s down to us to attend and do our usual “What about the workers?” call. And a warning – celebrities are involved!

Today’s screening was attended by 200+, mainly a mix of people in their thirties upwards and it was reported there have been 4,000 screenings nationally so far. It is not currently available to watch online, deliberately trying to create events involving local communities rather than individuals watching in isolation at home or on their phones. Today’s session was kinda TU Ed style, watch film, break into small groups, report back etc. although I felt the activities were too touchy feely and not enough get active, and too reliant on parliament alone.

The campaign would benefit from a bit of history, not just Greenpeace and FoE but the trade union led Lucas Plan of the 70s calling for a move away from manufacturing for war to making renewable energy sources to end our reliance on fossil fuels, the 1972 book The Limits To Growth which warned us all of the problems we might face if we don’t act and which is still relevant now. I’m sure you can think of more examples. And details of how governments have used growth and de-regulation as an excuse not to act or to act in a way that weakens or removes worker and environmental protections (Grenfell, WHO air standards, many other exposure limits, shitty water etc.). And how global industry spends billions of their profits on making sure governments’ and regulators don’t do what they all know they really should all in the pursuit of profit.

Maybe the film wants to avoid the blame game. I don’t. We should call these fuckers out for what they truly are and ensure they are held to account. We also need to show the personal side of what their actions or inactions mean to us, our families and friends and people around the world, many who will probably suffer far more than we will, at least in the near future.

I think the film is being made available to local groups for free and would encourage people to consider this. Just make sure there’s someone on the panel who knows their stuff about work, trade unions and a bit of analysis too.

A further contribution we can make at any local showings is to complement the focus on lobbying MPs with organising – set up a local campaigning network where none exists, help coordinate existing groups where they do. To create a just transition we need organised forces pushing for it on the ground, as well as pressuring MPs to make the right decisions.

The Campaign Against Climate Change Trade Union group has produced an excellent 13 minute version specifically to be shown in union branches. GJA strongly urges all supporters to get this shown in their union branch, to coincide with the COP in November if possible, but any time soon if not. A link to this is here.

We also have this draft motion that could help focus discussion. 

The individual sections of the National emergency briefing are available here

Join the debate

Send us your contribution to the debate. We will contact you about using it here on our News & Debate page.

Name

Email

Contribution

Submit

The post National Emergency Briefing Film – What about the workers? first appeared on Greener Jobs Alliance.

NEU sets a Just Transition framework for workplace organising, campaigning and bargaining

The NEU has just done a massive service to the whole climate movement.

Its Model Just Transition Framework for Schools is not simply a statement of principles but an organising tool for union Reps and activists to use in their workplace.

Schools are a particular kind of workplace, but the approach could be used more widely by other unions if recast appropriately for each sector.

In setting out a checklist of actions that schools can take – under three headings, leadership, workplace, impact and opportunities –  it establishes a baseline for what is already being done, and a set of demands for further action where a school falls short.

It helps that the proposals in the checklists are often backed by the existing DFE “Net Zero Strategy”, introduced under pressure from the mass student strikes before COVID  very positive proposals like every school having a climate action plan, a sustainability lead and the option of joining up into the National Education Nature Park. However, all of this was left to schools discretion which, in the context of a climate emergency is a bit like setting off the fire alarm and saying that leaving the building is voluntary. 

This framework can be used by Reps, but most effectively done where school union members discuss and agree it in a union group, and where there is a drive by union Districts to coordinate use of the framework across a whole Local Authority area and through Multi Academy Trusts, with a Committee member responsible for driving it.

The emphasis on having “an inclusive, formally recognised, just transition group that gives voice to staff from all areas and roles” and “an active student eco club/group or nature club/group for

younger children and the opportunity for student voice to develop green policies” and schools using their “role as a community educator to drive change and climate awareness and action in its local community and with local businesses and stakeholders” makes this a tool for the wider social mobilisation we need.

A Just Transition will not be handed to us on a plate. We will have to fight for it. Where there is a national Jobs Transition Commission, as in Scotland or the North of Ireland, Just Transition work at the grassroots will add heft to their recommendations. Where there isn’t, as in England and Wales it will point up the need for them, as well as building the full scale social mobilisation we will need to make it a reality.

This is particularly the case because success in reducing a school’s carbon footprint, as with any other workplace, will depend on investment; for example to replace gas heating systems and Air Con with reversible heat pumps. So that can’t help but become a campaign for resourcing from central government, so each mobilisation at local level has to feed into a coordinated national campaign for that investment.

This framework is a terrific lever to that end.

Paul Atkin NEU Climate Change Network

 

Join the debate

Send us your contribution to the debate. We will contact you about using it here on our News & Debate page.

Name

Email

Contribution

Submit

The post NEU sets a Just Transition framework for workplace organising, campaigning and bargaining first appeared on Greener Jobs Alliance.