Saskatchewan Federation of Labour Policy Statement On the Environment and Sustainable Development
Saskatchewan Federation of Labour
Environment Committee
Saskatchewan Federation of Labour Environment Committee
Saskatchewan Federation of Labour Policy Statement on the Environment and Sustainable Development Introduction The Saskatchewan Federation of Labour (SFL) represents over 75,000 workers in 34 trade unions in Saskatchewan. As the coalition of organized labour in this province, we are often required to raise our voice in support of broad social issues which directly impact upon workers and their families. The SFL has advocated and fought for social policies which benefit both organized and unorganized workers, and which benefit the whole community of citizens. Through our collective strength and determination, we have won many battles in the social arena and consistently fought for a progressive public policy agenda. The time has come for the voice of labour to speak loudly and clearly in demanding that immediate action be taken to reverse the trend of environmental degradation in this province, and beyond. As workers and citizens, we must take up the challenge to effect a substantial renewal of our economic and social system. A new spirit of ecological thinking must be a central tenet of this renewed social and economic programme, and not just a minor postscript to other policies. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the environment is under severe threat. Ecological degradation associated with the way our society organizes its economic activity threatens all our futures - both human and the other species with which we share the planet. Workers have many reasons to be concerned by these phenomena. The health and safety of our families is at stake. Indeed, in some ways workers were the first environmentalists, with workplace pollution being a major concern of the labour movement for the last century. Workers care about the future we are leaving to our children and grandchildren, facing potentially catastrophic problems such as climate change. And beyond these issues of collective self-interest, workers also recognize the necessity to protect and restore a strong, healthy natural environment as an inherently good thing, in and of itself. As workers, we must recognize that workers' rights and environmental protection go hand in hand: both ideals are viewed by those in power as things to be trampled on, in the name of 'economic growth' (i.e. profits). We must recognize that false divisions such as "jobs versus the environment" only serve the interests of those in power. We believe that we can have it all - a clean and healthy environment, and a strong sustainable economy with full employment, strong workers' rights and a progressive social infrastructure to protect all citizens.
1
Sustainable Development The foundation principle upon which the SFL has based its environmental policy is that of 'sustainable development'. This term was originally coined in 1987 by the World Commission on Environment and Development, in its report Our Common Future (commonly known as the Brundtland Report). The Commission defined sustainable development as material improvement to meet the needs of the present generation, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. This definition is suitably vague: it speaks towards our moral obligation to our descendents, while recognizing that the current generation has some (unspecified) 'needs' which are also important. Unfortunately, the term sustainable development has gained wide currency, even amongst those who are hostile towards the environment. These people have defined the concept to mean just about anything that suits their purposes. Workers must reclaim the idea of sustainable development, by clearly staking out what we see as the needs of workers and their families in modern society, and creating a society that meets these needs while guaranteeing the future of our children. Sustainability is based on the idea that if you destroy the ecological base, economic activity will eventually cease because the environment will be unable to sustain economic activity and, ultimately, life. The ecological base can be destroyed in two main ways. The first is on the 'front end' of the industrial process, in terms of the natural inputs needed for economic activity, such as wood, minerals and fuels. The second is on the 'back end' of the industrial process, in terms of the ability of the Earth's natural ecosystems to absorb and dissipate waste products from the industrial process, such as toxic emissions or greenhouse gases. Both these factors must be addressed in our efforts to move towards a sustainable society. 'Sustainability indicators' have emerged as a tool to evaluate whether or not a process counts as sustainable. Sustainable activities would use materials in continuous cycles; they would use continuously renewable sources of energy; and they would primarily involve and grow from the qualities of being human - i.e. creativity, movement, and spiritual and intellectual development. By contrast, non-sustainable activities require continual inputs of non-renewable resources; they use renewable resources faster than their rate of renewal; they cause cumulative degradation of the environment; they require resources in quantities that undermine other people's well-being; and they lead to the extinction of other life forms. Sustainable development, then, means economic and social development without growth in "throughput" (the flow of energy and materials used by humans in the economy) beyond the ability of the Earth's natural ecosystems to provide materials for our use, and absorb our waste. Whereas 'growth' means a quantitative increase in size, 'development' means qualitative change, realization of potentialities, and transition to a fuller and better state. A key notion which can help the labour movement advocate and incorporate sustainable development is that of Clean Production. This is more than just simply trying to produce
2
items in factories in a "cleaner" way. Instead, it involves the thorough evaluation of industrial processes over their complete life cycle, with a holistic look at how our design and consumption of products is causing severe ecological problems. Clean Production has four main elements: 1. Precaution: When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. 2. Prevention: It is cheaper and more effective to prevent environmental damage than to attempt to manage or cure it. Prevention requires examining the entire product life cycle from raw material extraction to ultimate disposal and choosing the least damaging alternative (including, in some instances, doing nothing). 3. Real democracy: Clean Production involves in decision-making all those affected by industrial activities, including workers, consumers and communities. Access to information and involvement in decision-making, coupled with power and resources, will help to ensure democratic control. Clean Production can only be implemented with full involvement of workers and consumers. 4. An integrated and holistic approach: Society must adopt an integrated, "systems" approach to resource use and consumption. For each product we buy, we need to have information available about the materials, energy and people involved in making it. A holistic approach would avoid moving hazards around from one location or group to another, but focus instead on creating locally sustainable and appropriate solutions. Also, it would avoid solving one problem by creating another (such as replacing pesticides with genetically engineered plants). Jobs AND the Environment The corporate economy is wedded to short-term economic performance and the satisfaction of their shareholders' quest for immediate profits, and so tends to ignore the potential long-term consequences of their actions on the environment. The logic of competition under which they operate necessitates that they do everything possible to reduce costs, and since it is generally more expensive (in our system of marketdetermined prices) to produce in a sustainable, clean manner, protection of the environment has not been high on the business agenda. However, society is beginning to demand change. Issues like climate change and pollution are forcing more and more people to ask questions about the way our economy operates. In the slightly longer term, continuing resource depletion and overtaxed natural waste assimilation systems will only push these issues higher on the public agenda. Industry and politicians will not ignore these calls forever. When structural shifts in the economy do finally take place, the needs of workers and regular citizens will assuredly be ignored if we are not at the forefront of designing this change. And if we wait for
3
corporations and politicians to respond to the ecological crisis, will any solutions be enacted in time to prevent catastrophe? Workers need to take the long-term view: we must take on the responsibility to force change in current economic practices which threaten the future of our children and grandchildren. Unfortunately, change does not come easy. The transition from current unsustainable production methods to a sustainable economy will involve short-term costs and hardships for all. The alternative - potential future ecological collapse - makes these costs worthwhile and essential. Clearly, workers should not be expected to bear the brunt of environmental change. The Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) has developed and promoted the principle of "Just Transition": workers need a structural shift in our current economic practices towards sustainability, but at the same time we demand that workers not bear the brunt of shortterm hardship arising from the transition. The CLC defines “Just Transition” as: • • • • •
Fairness: Just Transition is the fair treatment of workers and their communities when employers close facilities for whatever reason. It is a moral and political imperative. Re-employment or alternative employment: The prime aim of Just Transition is the continuation of employment without loss of pay, benefits or seniority. Job equity is at least as deserving of preservation as the equity of corporations. Compensation: Where continuation of employment is not possible, just compensation is the next alternative. Sustainable Production: Just Transition is essential to the move to more sustainable production methods and the service sector which supports it. Programs: Just Transition will express itself in a variety of ways, according to the issue, but there must always be a program, suitable to address the environmental change that is about to take place.”
The SFL endorses the “CLC Policy on Just Transition for Workers During Environmental Change”. Programs and policies directed at protecting workers through the transition, and assisting them to acquire the skills necessary in the new economy, are the foundation of a just transition to a sustainable economy. Among the options for transition programmes are: •
An equitable programme of industrial restructuring and retraining to recruit laid-off workers from the affected industries to the new alternative industries or ventures;
•
A programme of retraining and re-employment in the affected industries;
•
A placement service inside and outside of the affected industries, which may include severance pay, counselling, retraining, adjustment programmes and a placement service; and
•
Stable and universal social, health and education services.
4
Quite apart from the issue of Just Transition, the potential for 'green job creation' is enormous. For instance, environmental protection measures and the resulting green industries have created over 110,000 jobs within 4000 companies over the past 25 years in Canada. This trend can only continue with the maintenance and enhancement of environmental regulatory programmes. Sustainable or 'green' jobs are not necessarily as high-paying as some of the jobs they will displace; nor are they secure as long as employers alone make the decisions. However, we believe that progressive societal changes are the best way towards achieving a fullemployment economy, where displaced workers from unsustainable industries still have wide employment options. The labour movement needs to be fully engaged in charting the course towards sustainable production, to ensure that our goals of a full employment economy are an integral part of the agenda. Agenda for Action The SFL supports a broad-based platform of action on the major environmental issues facing our planet. These issues generally revolve around the following three themes: climate change, pollution prevention, and protection of biodiversity. However, all these environmental problems are connected, and often negatively reinforce each other. Likewise, solutions to one problem will often result in improvements in the others. It is important to always recognize and acknowledge the fundamental, interconnected nature of the ecological crisis facing our planet, and its roots in our economic system. Climate Change Human economic activity is changing the Earth's climate. Climate (the "average" weather experienced by a region) is not static; it has always gone through cycles of change throughout the planet's history. However, the vast majority of scientists who study the climate are convinced that the rise in the Earth's average temperature over the past century can largely be attributed to human causes, such as the burning of fossil fuels for energy, and deforestation. These actions are increasing the concentration of 'greenhouse gases' such as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which act basically as a heat-trapping blanket over the planet. Natural variations in global temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have coincided throughout Earth's history with major climatic shifts, ranging from ice ages to periods with polar forests. This time, however, it is humans who are causing the change. The climate system is immensely complicated and interconnected, both to itself and to the planet's ecosystems. Rising temperatures will change the patterns of transportation and distribution of heat and precipitation around the globe. Local ecosystems evolve slowly over time to be well-adapted to a region's climate; rapid changes in this climate could easily outpace the ability of some ecosystems to adapt. The implications for humanity on issues such as our food supply and shelter should be obvious. The expected
5
rise in sea levels which will accompany warmer oceans could displace a billion people around the globe in low-lying regions. This 'environmental refugee' crisis could easily precipitate social chaos and immense human misery. And these are only two examples of the many potential effects of climate change. Record floods, droughts, fires and heat waves around the world in recent years are only the beginning. Solutions to this problem do exist, and are already technically feasible. Society could begin today to take significant steps to reducing the amount of heat-trapping carbon released into the atmosphere, and avert future tragedy. General solutions involve: restructuring of the energy system towards low- and non-carbon energy fuels and renewables; support for deployment of new energy-efficient technologies in transportation, electricity, and industry; protection and renewal of forests; a shift in transportation patterns towards mass transit; and many others. These solutions have wide-ranging potential implications for workers, but so do the possible effects of climate change. Restructuring of the energy system implies restructuring of our entire economy, and while new opportunities, industries and employment opportunities would arise, some of the older industrial sectors would suffer and jobs would be lost. Transition measures to protect and retrain workers must be an integral component of a climate change strategy. Canada and Saskatchewan could begin with the development of a comprehensive national and international action strategy on climate change, with the central participation and involvement of the labour movement to ensure that the concerns of workers are heard. If labour is not a central player in this process, we risk the serious possibility that elite corporate interests may proceed with addressing the issue of climate change on their own (with "solutions" that only cause more problems, such as nuclear power). The solutions produced by this process will be sure to serve the interests of business, with little thought for the needs of labour. Pollution Prevention Pollution is perhaps the most visible environmental threat we face. Workers and their families have been the primary victims of industrial pollution since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. Cleaner production practices and workplaces have always been a priority for the labour movement. Yet despite over a hundred years of action on this front, too many workers still must endure unsafe working conditions, and too many communities must deal with the degradation of their health due to industrial pollution. Air, water and ground pollution are a huge problem in this province. A few examples: -
Saskatchewan has very high rates of leukemia and fast-rising rates of childhood asthma, both of which are directly linked to environmental pollution. Pesticide and herbicide use in Saskatchewan is widespread, and has led to groundwater contamination. Our resource extraction based economy produces significant local environmental contamination at many mining, drilling and processing sites in the province.
6
-
While not yet as severe as that found in Canada's largest urban centres, urban air pollution from vehicle exhaust is an issue in Saskatchewan's cities too.
“Zero Emission” of Pollutants. The CLC has endorsed the “zero emission” philosophy, which says that there should be a zero discharge of pollutants into the environment. Examples of how this can be achieved include banning the production of key pollutants altogether; substituting a pollutant with a non-polluting alternative; and implementation of 100% effective control measures. Is this feasible? The general answer is that 'near-zero' emissions are almost always technically feasible. Even for the most polluting industries, a blend of environmental conversion together with the implementation of a strict clean-up plan can lead towards the goal of zero emission. The roadblocks to zero emission are inevitably economic. The “zero emission” philosophy is the only one that will lead to a clean environment without degradation and gross threats to human health. Selected experience from the past proves that it can be implemented. Protection of Biodiversity Biodiversity, short for biological diversity, refers to the variety of life on Earth. There are three levels of biodiversity: - the genetic diversity or variability of genetic composition of individuals within or among species, - the diversity in number and variety of species, and - the diversity of ecosystems, the dynamic network of plant, animal, and microbial communities and their non-living environment. Canada is home to an estimated 140,000 species of plants, animals, micro-organisms and fungi. This biodiversity has resulted in a rich range of ecosystems which provide many “services” to humans and other life forms. These include, but are not limited to: - supplying oxygen to the atmosphere - water purification - prevention of floods - prevention of soil erosion - nutrient recycling - pollination. Natural ecosystems function as highly complex and massively interconnected systems to provide these "services" to all living organisms. They are highly resilient, but like all natural systems they can be pushed beyond a 'breaking point' at which its self-supporting mechanisms collapse. No one knows where this breaking point lies for a given ecosystem - perhaps one key insect species could be the linchpin upon which the whole system turns. The strength of an ecosystem comes from its diversity: when
7
environmental conditions change (i.e. new predators, new diseases, changing temperatures or precipitation patterns) the system needs a lot of genetic resources available to find the key evolutionary shifts that will allow it to adapt and survive. Each different ecosystem contains many different sets of species and ecological processes. Therefore, the best way to protect species or the genetic diversity within a species is to protect their habitat. It is estimated that natural habitat in Canada is being lost at a rate of 240 hectares every hour. Wildness areas, most notably forests and grasslands, are being destroyed or degraded by resource extraction, pollution, overharvesting and agriculture as well as urban development with little regard for the wild plants and animals. In 1994, Environment Canada reported that more than 75% of 177 terrestrial regions are at risk of losing biodiversity. Saskatchewan landscapes include native prairie grasslands, sandhills, wetlands, lakes, rivers, bogs, fens, sparsely treed shield and boreal forests. In Saskatchewan, the effects of habitat loss and fragmentation have been most severe in the Prairie Ecozone, where 70% of native grasslands and parklands and 50% of wetlands have been converted for agricultural use. In addition, Saskatchewan’s exceptionally high per capita road network has aggravated fragmentation. Endangered species are those threatened with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their range and will remain threatened unless the factors affecting their vulnerability are reversed. Currently, Canada has 280 endangered species at varying levels of risk. Some estimate that there are as many as 8000 species in danger across the country. Approximately 80% of all endangered species in Canada have become so due to habitat loss or fragmentation. The number of species threatened in Canada will continue to increase at disproportionate rates unless precautions to protect habitats are put in place. Canada does not currently have Endangered Species Legislation. Environmentalists continue to lobby the Federal Government for such legislation. Environmentalists call for legislation that: • requires the listing of all endangered species, sub-species, populations and ecosystems; • requires recovery plans for all listed species on an individual or ecosystem basis within one year of being listed; • is proactive in ensuring the recovery of species before populations dwindle to nonrecoverable numbers; • prohibits activities that reduce the health or abundance of endangered species and their habitats; • protects wilderness areas and their immediate surroundings to ensure species survival and recovery; • assesses the impacts of projects on species at risk prior to development; and • includes penalties and enforcement mechanisms to act as genuine deterrents to harming endangered species. Genetically Modified Organisms
8
Genetically engineered food is one of the most dramatic examples of a dual threat to biodiversity and human well being. Transferring genes to one organism from another creates genetically engineered food. This is different from traditional crossbreeding because molecular biologists use bacteria and viruses to insert fragments of DNA from completely foreign organisms into the foods we eat - for example, transfer of genes from fish into wheat. Genetically engineered foods are then sent to supermarkets for general consumption. Many scientists from around the world have expressed their concern with this process. Genetic engineering is dangerous because of the possible side effects on human health and the environment. The following are some of the major concerns: • Genetic engineering changes the nature of the food we eat by introducing foreign materials and organisms into it. There has not been adequate long term testing done to fully understand the effect that this will have on people. • Genetic engineering, without adequate testing, could trigger unexpected mutations resulting in unforeseen toxins and allergens in our food. • There is no accountability mechanism in place for large multi-national corporations to be held responsible for any unforeseen problems associated with genetic engineering. • Many genetically engineered crops are herbicide resistant to allow more frequent and intensive applications of herbicide. Some scientists estimate that the use of herbicides will triple as a result of genetic engineering. • Some genetically engineered crops are engineered to produce their own pesticides, dramatically increasing the levels of toxins in our food and in our fields. • Genetic pollution will likely arise from the unintended crossbreeding of genetically engineered crops and wild plants. Genetic pollution threatens ecosystems and food chains and is irreversible. These side effects could threaten the health and security of future generations. We must develop solid action strategies to vigorously oppose the further development and sales of genetically engineered foods and crops. Effecting Change There are many instruments by which we can address these fundamental ecological threats. Multiple approaches to solving these problems are to be encouraged: the primary requirements of an instrument of change is that it be effective and progressive. Society is running out of time to address these problems. Action must be taken now. Effectiveness implies that the time for ideological purity is behind us - we need to be open to looking at a wide array of potential solutions to the ecological crisis. If we approach this problem as one of collective problem-solving, rather than finger-pointing, we all stand to gain more in real results. If the voice of workers is not foremost in addressing the ecological crisis, then we are assured of eventually being on the receiving end of 'solutions' designed by and for elites. Genuinely effective options in the struggle to save the environment can only be those which are progressive: which are designed by and for working men and women, rather
9
than business elites. While sacrifice will be required by us all, those who have a greater ability to pay due to their greater historical exploitation of the environment must bear the higher portion of the costs. Workers and their unions must be at the forefront in demanding action on these issues at all of the following levels: Government Conventional economics is not concerned with the impact of industrial activity on the environment. The effects of pollution are considered to be 'externalities' to the decisionmaking process, because prices for goods bought or sold do not account for the cost of pollution damage or clean-up. Investment decisions are made based on analysis of actual revenue and cost flows, not on 'soft' factors such as environmental damages to local populations; indeed, until the price system is altered to accurately reflect these environmental externalities, individual firms operating in a competitive market would risk their survival by making these decisions on their own. Hence, it is the responsibility of government to involve itself in the economic arena in the interests of the common good. Unfortunately, the federal and provincial governments have consistently neglected their responsibility to maintain a clean and healthy physical environment. All too often, environmental considerations have been the first issue to be abandoned in the race to attract investment dollars into the province or country. The slavish attraction of our governments to the agenda of big business has left the environment without its most capable defender. In Canada, over the past decade we have witnessed an accelerating trend towards devolution of responsibility for environmental protection to the provinces under the label of 'harmonization'. While locally appropriate problem-solving is desirable in general, in this case it has been a disaster. Industry has been able to successfully play off one jurisdiction against another in a 'race to the bottom'. Provinces anxious to attract investment which might go to a neighbour (ex. Saskatchewan vs. Alberta) have a vested interest in tearing down roadblocks to that investment, such as environmental regulations. Strong, federally-regulated and enforced environmental standards can prevent this destructive scenario. A rebuilt and re-empowered Environment Canada, with powers exceeding those of the Environmental Protection Agency in the US, are a necessary first step. Governments have a wide variety of public policy options at their disposal, all of which should be considered in developing an action plan in lobbying for effective, progressive government action on the environment. Legislation, regulation, and enforcement are the traditional preferred approaches of workers and pre-1980s governments. Government should pass stringent legislation to protect the environment, intervene in the economy through regulation in the public interest, and vigourously monitor and enforce compliance with its rules. The current trend towards allowing polluters to make purely
10
"voluntary" commitments to improved environmental practices, and then monitor themselves on their own progress, is completely unacceptable. A radical shift has taken place over the last two decades, precipitated by the rise to power across the western world of neo-conservative leaders such as Reagan, Thatcher and Mulroney. The public discourse has been radically altered: it is now conventional belief that government regulation is inefficient, and the freeing up of market forces from 'red tape' will provide the greatest benefits to society as a whole. This myth has been repeated so often that regular citizens have been hoodwinked into accepting it as true. Of course, the real intent of business in their attack on governments has not been to remove inefficient regulation, but regulation which is effective in putting the interests of citizens above those of transnational corporations. We must recommit ourselves to educating the public about abuses against workers and the environment being carried out in the name of 'light-handed regulation'. We must pursue new ways of communicating to voters and governments about the urgency of the ecological crisis and the need to make the environment an issue at election time. Most legislators believe that their constituents do not really care about this crisis. They believe the environment is a 'motherhood' issue, which is important as a background issue but secondary in the minds of voters to the 'hard' reality of jobs and investment. Each individual elected official must be made to realize that they risk their re-election if they do NOT enact proactive environmental legislation. At the same time, workers must not reject solutions which involve the use of economic instruments and market mechanisms if they can be demonstrated to be effective and progressive. Like it or not, the market is an incredibly powerful mechanism for economic decision-making. Many progressive economists and ecologists have devised marketbased mechanisms in recent years which could harness the dynamism of the market for the betterment of the environment and workers at the same time. A prime example of this is ecological tax reform: shifting the tax system to place higher taxes on ecological 'bads', such as fossil-fuel energy consumption, and mitigating this with lowered taxes on social 'goods', such as reduced income or payroll taxes. This is an example of the new approach required by workers: we must be out in front of new thinking on environmental problem-solving, and ensure that our voice and concerns are integrated into the development of exciting new ideas. Ecological tax reform, emission permit trading, and other market-based approaches to environmental problem-solving are not necessarily bad for workers. However, having these concepts implemented in a progressive manner requires that workers begin taking on these new issues and making them their priority. Another important policy action which would help to steer society towards sustainability would be the development of new forms of economic indicators to (eventually) replace the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Widely publicized "sustainability indicators" like the Genuine Progress Indicator would serve an important educational function for the general public, and help direct pressure on governments to improve their performance in the areas of environmental and social well-being. Under the current system, GDP counts resource depletion and pollution-related expenditures as benefits, rather than costs - this
11
obviously sends the wrong signals to people and the market as to what kind of economy we need. Finally, there is the issue of the evolving global market and liberalized trading rules. Canada is involved with several international agreements and organizations - NAFTA, the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, and others - which aim to minimize the ability of governments to control the actions of capital. These organizations and agreements pose a new threat to the environment, in that they curtail the ability of a government to enact strong environmental legislation, even if it were so inclined. Although these pacts are accompanied with much rhetoric about harmonization of environmental standards, in reality this means the lowering of standards to the lowest common denominator. In a new era of truly global capital, the struggle by individual jurisdictions to attract investment will ensure that environmental safeguards get ignored. However, workers cannot simply ignore such agreements. While we fight for their abolition and replacement with trading rules which genuinely respect the rights of workers, and human rights in general, we must at the same time work for strong and binding international covenants to protect the environment. These protections might come through issue-specific processes sponsored by the United Nations, or they might take the form of side agreements to the same international agreements which we seek to overthrow (but could perhaps become the basis of overthrowing such agreements from within). Workers need to support efforts to build an international environmental regime which recognizes the global nature of both modern capital and the ecological crisis, and seeks to protect the common good of all populations and species around the planet. Workplace It is possible to reconcile full employment with environmental protection, given appropriate attention and planning in the transition to sustainable development. We need to pursue practices of sustainable development that would see human activity (and job security) be compatible with environmentalism. A new spirit of ecological thinking is essential to the pursuit of social and economic justice, as opposed to a minor or distinct aspect of our struggle. We must reject the idea that there is an absolute conflict between living standards and jobs on the one hand, and environmental protection on the other. Under an economic model based on sustainable development, acceptable industrial activity would be that which promotes human well being at the same time as promoting environmentalism. Sustainable development would also require sustainable resource management, which is of particular importance to workers in the resource-based sectors such as forestry, wood products, and agriculture. Workers can begin to implement Clean Production techniques in their workplaces. There are many practical strategies to achieve this goal, which might (for example) be developed under the auspices of a joint union-management environment committee. One such strategy is to measure resource use in the workplace, and work to reduce material
12
use and waste. Another is to perform Life Cycle Assessments of a company's products, to evaluate the environmental consequences of a product across its entire life. Such assessments can be useful tools in supporting purchase decisions or spurring product innovation. Also, workers can push their workplaces towards 'producer responsibility', in which companies file annual public reports on the environmental and social impacts of their production processes. If we force our employers to demonstrate on-going public accountability, we can encourage consumers to send the right signals to business with their purchase decisions. As organized workers, we possess immense capability to effect changes in current economic practices through the collective bargaining process. When we can make the environment a collective bargaining issue, we will have taken a major step towards sustainability. Joint union-management committees on the environment are one possible structure we can use, but we must be vigilant to ensure that these committees are meaningful, and are not just 'talk shops' which allow employers to "greenwash" their activities without taking genuine action. Workers' environmental rights in collective agreements should include: 1) Whistle blower protection that allows workers to inform the government, the public and the media of pollution, whether the pollution is legal or not. 2) The right (collectively and as individuals) to refuse to pollute without fear of retribution from the employer. This would include the restriction that management could not offer the work to another employee until the issue has been resolved in favour of zero emission or clean outflow. 3) Protection for workers from being laid off due to environmental reasons without appropriate training and compensation i.e. a "Just Transition" strategy. 4) Entrenchment of all decisions resulting from the union / management environment committee. All the relevant information about this committee should be accessible to all interested members. No environmental action should take place without consultation with this committee. 5) Full participation by the union in any environmental audits. 6) The union should retain the right to seek outside expertise on environmental matters. 7) The union should retain the right to uniform high standards of occupational and environmental health. 8) The collective agreement should allow the union a process to obtain worker education and training on environmental matters. 9) Union members should retain the right to meet with environmental inspectors without the presence or interference of management. Workers whose jobs are affected by environmental reforms must be fully retrained and compensated. This must be incorporated into all governmental reforms and regulations developed with regards to environmental policy, and needs to be advocated by both the union and environmental movements. As outlined earlier, the SFL endorses the "CLC Policy on Just Transition for Workers During Environmental Change". Unions need to work with their local communities to develop and implement “Just Transition� programs
13
for the workers and communities affected by the movement toward a sustainable economy. As trade unionists, we need to build a commitment to environmental preservation amongst our membership. Essential to this process is the role of environmental education. We can only be effective if our membership is educated about and committed to the path towards true sustainable development. From an educational perspective, members can be educated on the importance of environmental initiatives and cooperation, the implications of various options and strategies for achieving sustainability, and the availability of green products and lifestyle choices, such as changing consumption habits to reflect the five “R’s”: reduce, refuse, reuse, recover and recycle. Finally, “green industries” that are based upon sustainable development should be supported, promoted, and organized by the labour movement. Returning to labourintensive techniques in resource extraction industries such as (for example) forestry, fishing and mining has proven to be safer for protection of biodiversity. Workers and environmentalists must join together to force industry to utilize these safer, more proactive methods of extraction. Community Community environmental action has a major role to play in addressing the environmental crisis. It is essential in changing corporate policies and government legislation, ensuring effective enforcement of the law, and also in stimulating workers and citizens to do their part at the individual level in saving the planet. In the past, there has been some level of mistrust between the labour movement and the environmental movement. Union culture and environment culture have clashed over many local issues. Thankfully, an awareness is growing that we all have a common goal and need each other's support. The labour movement needs to officially demonstrate support for and close coordination with community-based environmental organizations; likewise, the environmental movement must do the same. This can occur through mutual recognition and public education about our common interests, and commitment to resolving old disputes and divisions which served the interests of corporate and government elites (such as "jobs versus the environment"). Workers need to find proactive ways of cooperating with the environmental movement to seek meaningful change that meets both groups' goals. For example, the CLC has worked with environmental groups on the Canada Endangered Species Act. Environmentalists were concerned with the protection of endangered species and the CLC was also concerned with the protection and involvement of the many workers that encounter these species. In Saskatchewan, the U.S.W.A. has worked with Greenpeace to protect workers and their communities from radiation hazards associated with the mining of high-grade uranium deposits.
14
These are just two examples of the many concrete ways in which we can begin to build a new spirit of labour-environmentalist cooperation. These include community-based projects which involve workers; workplace-based projects with community involvement; and labour/environmental forums undertaking a variety of tasks bringing workers and environmentalists together in joint lobbies and campaigns. Building these bridges will not be easy. Tensions will arise on both sides, and we must be prepared to expend significant energy in resolving them in a manner which allows our two movements to grow together. The most difficult choices will involve jobs that affect a specific group versus environmental concerns that primarily affect a different, broader group. As we confront these situations on a case-by-case approach, we need to keep in mind the following: •
Those who make the environment the centre of their political activities can't build a constituency if they are perceived as being insensitive to jobs and livelihoods;
•
Workers and unions can't build the broader alliances they need today if they are seen as being insensitive to the wider community and the kind of environment we leave for future generations; and
•
Our common ground is the desire to build an environmentally sustainable economy where full employment and the protection of the environment are seen by all sides not only as the basis for conflict resolution, but as the foundation for a safe, equitable and ecologically sustainable society.
15