Dateline: Copenhagen

September 2007 photo of summer ice breaking up in the Northwest Passage. Courtesy New York Times

The security concerns around the Arctic are quickly becoming hot topics in Washington but it was still a little jarring to hear Dr. Robert Huebert, a professor at the University of Calgary in Canada, speak so bluntly about the military implications of melting ice in one of the few truly placid regions remaining on the planet.

“We are already in an Arctic arms race,” said Huebert, during a panel discussion at the Center for National Policy on February 2. “We’re just not aware of it.”

Even more ominously, Huebert compared the current situation in the Arctic to Europe in 1935, implying that it is a powder keg ready to explode with dire implications for the entire world.  “Everybody is preparing for the worst-case scenario,” Huebert says.

By “everybody,” Huebert is mainly referring to the nations ringing the Arctic—the United States, Canada, Russia, Norway, and Denmark. Norway and Denmark have focused their security efforts on the Arctic, Russia famously planted a flag on the North Pole seabed in 2007 and has been more assertive in its Arctic policy, the United States is increasing its presence in Alaska, and Canada, Huebert said, is “talking a lot, but not doing anything.”

China, Japan, and South Korea also have interests in the Arctic, though these nations do not border the region. China and Japan have their eyes on the Arctic’s resources while South Korea has recently emerged as the world’s leading developer of Arctic commercial vessels.

The Council on Foreign Relations’ Dr. Scott Borgerson, who moderated the panel, said the Arctic has been losing 1,000 kilometers in ice volume each year since 1995. The ocean could be ice free during the summer months at some point between 2016 and 2030 and this would open up many new shipping routes and increase the military significance of the region.

Gary Hart, the former Democratic senator from Colorado, echoed Huebert’s concern about security concerns in the Arctic. Hart compared the Northwest Passage, which could become a major shipping passage in the next decade or so, to some of the most militarized areas of the last 60 years. He likened the Passage to the Fulda Gap, which, during the Cold War, was a strategic corridor separating East and West Germany, and the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway between Iran and Oman, which today is a major choke point for the oil trade and a focus for the world’s military planners.

“Quite often geography symbolizes how we see our security,” said Hart.

One of the main issues surrounding the Northwest Passage and a strong point of contention between Canada and the U.S. is under whose jurisdiction does the waterway fall. Canada says it is their water, while the U.S. maintains that it is an international passage.

Still, United States Coast Guard Rear Admiral Gene Brooks, who has served in Alaska, said the Canadian and American militaries share intelligence in the Arctic and the forces have worked together seamlessly. The larger problem is simply getting the average American to realize that the U.S. is, indeed, an Arctic nation. This goes beyond military security, he said, and extends to issues of culture and economics.

“We need a national debate on what to do as an Arctic nation,” said Brooks.

 

Last week, Gazprom executives stated that the Russian gas giant might need to revise its investment strategy in light of the newfound abundance of North American shale gas.

Looking back on the October Revolution in 1917, Lenin famously remarked, “We found power lying in the streets and simply picked it up.” Just replace “power” with “a newfound abundance of domestic energy,” and you get the kind of gushing we’ve been hearing from the gas industry and policy makers since the United States’ so-called “shale gas revolution” began. Recent developments in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing have dramatically increased the amount of technically recoverable shale gas in the U.S. As a result, the U.S., which a few short years ago was discussing major investments in new liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals to support its growing gas imports, will be able to meet most – if not all – of its gas demand with domestic supply.   

The expected future backwash of LNG into the global market, along with new production of unconventional gas in North America, will force exporters of conventional gas to rethink their energy outlooks. Chief among those will be Russia, the world’s largest exporter of natural gas.  In a statement last week, Alexander Medvedev, deputy chairman of Russian energy giant Gazprom, said that America’s shale gas revolution “could fundamentally reshape the whole world gas market.” 

As long as natural gas means dependence on Russian supplies, European countries will be leery of making natural gas a larger component of their clean energy transition strategies. The European Union’s desire to improve its energy security by diversifying its energy portfolio will be a good argument for increased investment in renewables – but it will also be a good argument for increased investment in coal. Unfortunately, coal emits more than twice as much carbon dioxide as natural gas when combusted in power plants. By freeing more LNG for Europe, and even potentially leading the way for Europe to identify and develop its own shale gas resources (French energy giant Total recently acquired a 25 percent stake in Chesapeake Energy’s Barnett Shale gas fields in North Texas), the U.S. shale gas revolution could change Europe’s energy security calculus, allowing it to wean itself off coal with more confidence.

In a briefing at the Center for American Progress last week, Ambassador Richard Morningstar, Special Envoy for Eurasian Energy, emphasized the United States’ commitment to improved European energy security, especially with gas pipelines that are not at the mercy of Russia’s political decision making. In addition, a U.S.-EU Energy Council will strengthen research collaboration on clean technology, energy efficiency, and energy diversification through LNG and renewables. Ambassador Morningstar noted that diversifying gas supplies – in Europe and elsewhere – will be critical in reducing climate forcing:

As the world looks to reduce carbon emissions and meet climate change goals, demand for clean burning gas will likely increase. Analysts speculate that gas will function as a “bridge fuel,” filling the gap until significant quantities of renewables and nuclear power can come on line.

The beaches of Cancun will be hosts of COP 16. After a lukewarm result from Copenhagen it will be up to the Mexican government to create the environment that will make a legally binding international agreement more likely. Beyond excellent logistics and security, the COP in Mexico will have to tackle the challenge of reaching consensus from a group of countries that appears to be even more fragmented after COP 15. The division has led many analysts to speculate that this year the Climate Change debate will shift to regional or G forums (G8, G8+5, G20 etc.), or even to bilateral negotiations between the most influential states. Reducing the number of Parties might be a good strategy to reach concrete results more efficiently, without the hassle of building consensus, but it threatens principles embedded in broader multilateralism (like equity and transparency). Historically, Mexico has been a keen adherent to these principles. The COP presidency will give the Mexicans an opportunity to uphold the UNFCCC process as the forum to reach a Climate Change global agreement.

Politically, the Mexican government has a large stake in the COP 16 success. President Felipe Calderon Hinojosa has made Climate Change a top priority for Mexico. Indeed, the Special Climate Change Program (PECC) published in the Official Gazette of the Federation late last summer offers a 51 MMt CO₂e unilateral reduction target by 2012. On the international stage, Mexico’s Green Fund proposal is one of the most significant contributions from a single country to the international climate debate, designed to work effectively with broad participation from developed and developing countries alike. President Calderon was part of a handful of heads of state to drill down the Copenhagen Accord last December. And he has been active behind the scenes as well: Last November, along with Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, he brought in the Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, to host an unofficial breakfast on Climate Change during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in November in Singapore. It’s safe to say that Mexico’s Administration has adopted Climate Change as the centerpiece of its foreign policy (some internal Mexican bureaucratic divisions non-withstanding).

The Mexican government faces the urgent need to “walk the talk.” A key piece for Mexico to meet its domestic emission reduction target will require the Energy Ministry to mandate the national public utility company (CFE) to double its renewable energy installed capacity from 3.3 to 7.6 % by 2012. This transition, neglected for too long, would mainly rely on expanding the wind energy base operated by private developers, mostly for self-supply – a scheme that makes CFE uncomfortable as it weakens its monopolistic power. Other actions contemplated in the PECC’s mitigating strategy like a REDD pilot project and the expansion of the “Green Mortgage” initiative will also face similar power struggles.

In the international sphere, consensus building needs to start now as well. President Calderon and his team need to enhance their facilitator role in the months leading up to COP 16. There is a strong opportunity this year to frame one of the most ambitious global agreements in history. It will require flexing high-level diplomatic muscle on three different fronts. First, they need to build on the willingness to cooperate from latecomer countries like China, India, Brazil and the United States to close the dividing line between Annex 1 and Non-Annex 1 countries. Second, it is essential for them to address the concerns of the most vulnerable countries, like Tuvalu, and least developed countries, like Mali, to ensure a smooth flow of discussions. Third, they should reach out to countries like Venezuela, Ecuador and Saudi Arabia that consider a Climate Change accord as another plot for developed countries to get their way. This three-tier strategy will have to move forward while keeping an eye on talks behind closed doors at forums in which Mexico does not participate, as well as U.S. domestic politics. Mexico appears to have the diplomatic willingness to lead on this effort, and its international climate initiatives are not only sound and well-received but are also fairly consistent with its domestic policy. If President Calderon and his team manage to succeed, negotiations at COP 16 could be as rejuvenating as a sunny day at the beach.

This blog has been contributed by Juan Pablo Osornio, International Policy Analyst at the Center for Clean Air Policy in Washington DC, and Jonathan Pinzon, Research Director at Cassals & Associates in Mexico City.

Exxon Mobil and XTO announced their merger last month.

When Exxon Mobil and XTO Energy Inc. announced their $41 billion merger last month, the news was big enough to penetrate the fog of war in Copenhagen – and to prompt Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), co-author of the House climate and energy bill, to call a hearing on the merger’s impact on U.S. energy markets. Congress and the natural gas industry have a lot to talk about this year, and as the hearing, which took place last week in the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, revealed, concerns over consolidation in the industry will be only a small part of the agenda. 

After their notable absence from the table while the House crafted climate and energy legislation last year, natural gas interests began the new year with newfound momentum. Natural gas caucuses have formed in both the House and Senate, and environmental leaders including Worldwatch Institute president Chris Flavin and former Sierra Club president Carl Pope have expressed optimism about the role that natural gas, which emits less than half as much carbon dioxide as coal when burned, can play in the transition to a low-carbon economy.

In the coming year, Congress will consider the NAT GAS Act (H.R. 1835, S. 1408), which creates and expands incentives for natural gas vehicles. Natural gas could offer numerous benefits over gasoline and diesel as a transportation fuel, chiefly its lower emissions and domestic availability, now thought to be almost a hundred year supply thanks to technological advances unlocking vast reserves of shale gas.

The natural gas industry will also have an opportunity to redefine its role in the national discussion of climate and energy legislation. As the cleanest fossil fuel, natural gas stands to gain in the power and transportation sectors – if Congress succeeds in putting a price on carbon. 

At Wednesday’s hearing, Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon-Mobil, and Bob Simpson, XTO’s Chairman of the Board, proved that they are polishing their message. In virtually identical language, each declared that their companies’ merger would “support our nation’s economic recovery, strengthen our nation’s energy security, and help meet our nation’s environmental goals.” These sentiments were echoed by congressmen on both sides of the aisle, who expressed interest – and in some cases, outright glee – over the jobs the merger might bring to their state, and the supply of abundant and relatively clean energy that the companies could unlock in American shale gas formations. Nevertheless, hydraulic fracturing, the controversial technique driving the shale gas boom, quickly emerged during Wednesday’s hearing as an area of concern for congressmen on both sides of the aisle. 

Representative Joe Barton (R-TX) lamented congressional attempts to restrict hydraulic fracturing.  “If we can prevent the Congress or EPA from mucking around in hydraulic fracturing,” Barton noted, “this merger should go through….Because you have a codicil in your pending merger agreement that if Congress passes legislation then I guess either party has the right to call the merger off.” 

Read the rest of this entry

Dan Reicher, Nigel Jollands, Chris Flavin, Christian Kjaer, and Kelly Sims Gallagher at the Worldwatch side event at COP15 in Copenhagen.

As Worldwatch Senior Researcher Janet Sawin and William Moomaw of Tufts University lay out in Worldwatch’s latest report, Renewable Revolution: Low-Carbon Energy by 2030, technologies available today can go a long way to addressing climate change, and we don’t need to replace fossil fuels unit by unit in order to reach a low-carbon energy future. In fact, we waste an enormous amount of energy today through the conversion of fossil fuels to energy services like light, heat, and mobility. Instead, we can bypass the losses that result from fossil fuel combustion through the use of renewable resources and energy efficiency opportunities, thus meeting the same level of energy services with far less and cleaner primary energy. And pairing energy efficiency with renewable energy creates four key synergies:

• Efficiency improvements enable us to enjoy energy services, and to expand those services, without encouraging skyrocketing demands for energy. This also makes it easier, cheaper and faster for renewables to achieve a large share of total energy production and for society to reduce energy-related emissions.
• Thermal processes like combustion, used in fossil fuel power generation and conventional cars, have inherent inefficiencies due to physics (e.g. Carnot cycle) which can be avoided through renewable energy processes.
• Many renewable technologies, including solar PV, are well-suited for distributed generation. Distributed generation, which produces power close to the point of demand, can minimize the amount of electricity lost in the transmission of power from power plant to user.
• Directly using energy from the sun through passive heating and lighting allows us to bypass the entire conversion of fuel to power or heat, and reduces the overall amount of energy needed for the services desired.

Furthering the discussion on renewable energy and efficiency, Worldwatch convened a gathering of energy efficiency and renewable energy experts at an official side event at the climate negotiations in Copenhagen last month, launching the Renewable Revolution report, made possible through the generous support of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP).

Worldwatch President Christopher Flavin framed the discussion with the need for a transformation of the current global energy system from one that is heavily reliant on fossil fuels to one that more fully utilizes the renewable resources and efficiency opportunities available now and in the near-term. In order to face the climate challenge head-on, we must put in place policies that encourage this evolution of the energy system on a global scale.

Read the rest of this entry

On NPR this morning, a commentator noted in the aftermath of the Massachusetts Senate election yesterday that the Obama administration now more than ever needed to decide what its agenda will be for this “critical mid-term” year. The commentator went on to note that “the American people want [the Obama Administration to] focus on jobs and the economy, not climate change, not immigration, not…”

The irony is that if Congress were to effectively focus on climate change, it would also be focused in fundamentally important ways on jobs and the economy. Why are we unable to connect these dots?

Whether Congress were to act on climate legislation that enabled U.S. participation in the emerging international carbon market through “cap and trade” or “cap and dividend,” or if it were to act to place a direct tax on carbon, it would be acting to create essential pools of capital required for transformation of the energy economy. If that capital is then invested wisely, it will be all about broadening the fuel portfolio of that energy economy (read: increasing our energy security and better protecting us against the volatility of fossil fuel markets). It will, as importantly, also be about creating thousands and thousands of new jobs for a healthier, more prosperous and more sustainable 21st century economy. This, incrementally, can create a low-carbon economy in a win-win-win scenario for the economy, the environment and for increased energy security. But that might require true political leadership, by both the people of this country and those whom we elect to represent both the individual and collective interest.

The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority has found that transit buses running on compressed natural gas emit less carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and oxides of nitrogen than their diesel counterparts.

T. Boone Pickens is at it again. Following on his initial $62 million ad campaign touting the benefits of both wind power and natural gas, he’s back on the advertising trail. This time, Mr. Pickens’ ad campaign focuses on the role of natural gas in reducing our dependence on imported oil through increasing its use in transportation.

Pickens is proposing that natural gas be deployed strategically in fleets of heavy trucks as a first priority, and not advocating a broader immediate takeover of the transport sector by natural gas as the primary fuel as he seemed to do initially.

His plan triggers a broader set of questions. Whether it’s because we agree to address humans’ contribution to climate change, or because we see the necessity of transforming an energy economy currently primarily reliant on coal, oil and natural gas—three finite fossil fuels—we are at a profound juncture regarding what that 21^st century low-carbon energy economy can and should look like.

Natural gas is an interesting fuel in that mix. It is the least carbon intensive of the three fossil fuels. New-found reserves in “unconventional” formations have altered supply estimates dramatically.

But important questions remain regarding use of the resource. At what cost can these unconventional sources be exploited? What are the environmental, economic and community impacts to be expected? At what scale will we choose to develop the resource, and what then are commensurate impacts?

What is the most strategic deployment of the resource? Is Mr. Pickens right about the merits of increasing use of natural gas in the transportation sector? What are the infrastructure investments required to make that happen effectively and is that also factored in to a broader strategy regarding an optimal low-carbon transportation vision for the U.S.?

From the perspective of lowering carbon in the atmosphere, the first best strategy resides in the power production sector. Retiring coal plants that have reached or are near the end of their useful life and repowering a good portion of those with cleaner burning natural gas could have an enormous effect on GHG contributions from the U.S. power sector.  Thinking through further innovations on combined heat and power and significant efficiency gains in which natural gas can be an ally is also a sound strategy.

Strategic deployment of all fossil fuels going forward is an extraordinarily important topic. We owe it to ourselves to place that question squarely before us for hard and honest examination. 

Because we agree with Mr. Pickens that natural gas may have a particularly distinct role to play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and transforming our energy economy, Worldwatch has started a specific initiative on natural gas, renewables and energy efficiency. Strategic deployment recommendations will be part of that. Stay tuned!

Video of Worldwatch’s Copenhagen event on Natural Gas, Renewables and Efficiency: Pathways to a Low-Carbon Economy is available on the American Clean Skies Foundation website.

COP 15 attendees queue outside the Bella Center

The Copenhagen UN climate conference ended last Saturday with a weak agreement, not the groundbreaking treaty many had hoped for. Not only did Worldwatch send its biggest team ever to the Danish capital; with more than 100 heads of governments and many more parliamentarians and dignitaries, COP-15 became the largest assembly of world leaders in diplomatic history. The Copenhagen conference had been planned out for two years in many small informal and large official meetings, following the 2007 Bali Action Plan in which nations had agreed to finalize a binding agreement this December. The outcome falls far short of this original goal. Delegates only “noted” an accord (“the Copenhagen Accord”) struck by the United States, Brazil, China, India, and South Africa that has two key components: first, it sets a target of limiting global warming to a maximum of 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial times; second, it proposes $100 billion in annual aid for developing nations starting in 2020 to help them reduce emissions and adapt to climate change.

2 degrees Celsius is seen by mainstream science as a threshold for dangerous climatic changes including sea-level rise and accelerated glacier melt, as well as more intense floods, droughts, and storms. Many scientists also believe that a majority of worldwide ecosystems will struggle to adapt to a warming above that mark, and more recently have set the threshold even lower, at 1.5 degrees Celsius. The accord, however, lacks any information on how this goal of preventing “dangerous” climate change, which had already been set by the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention, would be achieved. It is generally assumed that in order to keep global warming below 2 degrees, worldwide emissions have to peak before 2020 and have to be at least halved before mid-century, but the Copenhagen accord doesn’t outline global emissions scenarios nor individual countries’ pathways towards either of these two goals. Regarding the money for developing countries, the declaration does not specify precisely where the $100 billion annual support would come from nor who would profit from it.

Accordingly, the assessment of the accord was mixed. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon praised the Copenhagen Accord as “an important beginning” and U.S. President Obama said that “for the first time in history, all of the world’s major economies have come together to accept their responsibility to take action on the threat of climate change.” Others, like German chancellor Angela Merkel, could hardly hide their disappointment. “The decision has been very difficult for me. We have done one step, we have hoped for several more,” Merkel said. Likewise, many U.S. commentators considered the deal just a small step forward, however an essential one in the domestic context. A friend of mine wrote to me that “without the accord, the Senate process would be dead. I think we can push forward domestically with the elements in the accord.”

The next COP is set for November 2010 in Mexico City, with a likely high-level preparatory meeting mid-year on invitation of the German government. “We have a big job ahead to avoid climate change through effective emissions reduction targets, and this was not done here,” said Sergio Serra, Brazil’s climate change ambassador. Worldwatch might have to send an even bigger team to the Mexican capital.

When the heads of states were delivering their speeches late last night and early this morning, I was reminded of the most touching moment in Copenhagen, when I watched the United Nations University film Indigenous Voices on Climate Change at the National Museum of Denmark. Those were the voices that touched my heart, with compelling local stories of the global problem, outside the Bella Center. 

Copenhagen International airport is decorated with advertisements that depict some world leaders, such as Spanish President Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, in 2020, offering a belated apology for their failure to address climate change in 2009

I was shocked by the harsh reality faced by the indigenous people in the documentary film. People become victims of climate change in different regions of the world. Climate patterns are no longer predictable by the locals who have lived in the same places for many generations.  Droughts are more frequent and severe.  People walk a longer distance to find their hope for life. Animals migrate to adapt to climate change, but those that cannot go far, die – not only the vulnerable cows, the resilient zebras, as well.  People who depend on animals suffer from malnutrition, after the film showed a mother and her breastfeeding her baby both die. Little girls just “feel hopeless”…  I could not help being sentimental watching the film – although the languages and cultures were foreign, the human emotions were universal.  

After the film, I had a chance to meet Marilyn Wallace, one of the indigenous characters in the film. She told me how crucial “bubu” (”land”  in her  native aborigine language) meant to her.  “Bubu” is the source of life. When “bubu” is hit hard by climate change, animals and people cannot escape from their miserable destiny.

 The losses, especially lives and species, are irreversible.  They are, however, preventable, through mitigation, adaptation, financing, technology transfer, avoided deforestation, and capacity building. Among all, mitigation is the key. The difference between adaptation and mitigation is that the losses can be reduced to none with mitigation but not so with adaptation. As Saleem Huq, Climate Change Senior Fellow at International Institute for Environment and Development, remarked, “There is a limit to adaptation.” Adaptation is less effective with more global warming. Adaptation is not a substitute of mitigation!

Dear leaders, when you put various issues on the negotiation table, please take a moment to hear the voices of the perhaps less heard, to turn their vulnerabilities into strengths. COP15 is the place to, in the words of Michael Jackson, “heal the world. Make it a better place, for you and for me, and the entire human race.” We ask for vision and action in the “construction” of the new agreement: we need “architects” who dare to dream, and “structural engineers” who are capable of transforming the dream into reality, in a practical and effective manner.

As French President Nicholas Sarkozy said, we either change track now or we suffer disaster. Indeed, this is not a symposium on global warming – this is an alert to take action.

Climate change calls for consensus among parties despite differences in priorities. Ask not what the world can do for you – ask what you can do for the world. 

The last thing you want is the poster in CPH airport, depicting some world leader’s belated apology for the catastrophic failure in 2020.

Ting Lin is a PhD candidate in civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University. Her thesis will be on ground motion selection methodology for structural analysis and building design codes. She is a member of Worldwatch’s delegation in Copenhagen. 

Nearly every day at COP15 I have found myself surrounded by various government officials, clean tech CEOs, and energetic environmental youth.  Last night was a pleasant change of pace and conversation when I attended a discussion among leaders from US labor unions and environmental groups. Rather than dwell on emissions targets or parts per million CO2, this discussion dug into the values of American workers and their implications for climate action support in the US.

These values turn out to be very simple: People want jobs they can be proud of, that support their communities, and that provide security into the future. Members of the Blue-Green Alliance gathered in Copenhagen to remind people that the impact of climate legislation on these factors is just as important as the environmental impact – and both must be considered in concert if we are to build broad-based support for an environmentally sustainable economy.   The group also spoke to the positive global implications for an alliance between labor and environment groups.  As Jerry Hudson, Vice President of SEIU (Service Employees International Union), put it, “jobs will be affected by the way we think about the planet [so] we all have skin in this game. Labor and environmental standards are important the world over.” 

The Blue-Green Alliance stands as an important achievement in the US where regional, state, and non-governmental climate action fills the void left by an uncooperative federal government. The group hosts dialogues between its’ labor and environment member groups that include the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), SEIU, and Utility Workers Union of America (AFL-CIO) and sets joint positions on environmental issues.  The group has proposed Copenhagen outcomes that it claims would benefit workers and the environment.  The obvious points include support for clean energy and energy-efficiency technologies and support for job-transition training. Other demands are for financial support to adaptation and deforestation measures, as well as calls for  “transparency, verification and accountability” for every country’s climate mitigating actions.  The final request is extremely important for American businesses, the alliance said, so that U.S. and Canadian industries can adequately compare environmental responsibility against competitor businesses in foreign countries. These other countries have also caught on to the value of a blue-green alliance.  A European leader at last night’s discussion declared, “this is one of the American experiences we would like to import to Europe.”

The greatest value I see in joining labor and environment groups is the way in which both movements inform the other so that they are more effective in communicating their messages.  “Green jobs” are often communicated in vague terms by environmental groups.  We imagine hard-hatted workers at solar plants and wind turbine factories.  In fact, a massive variety of jobs can be turned Green.  Worldwatch writer Michael Renner has proposed a more robust definition of Green jobs:

We define green jobs as positions in agriculture, manufacturing, construction, installation, and maintenance, as well as scientific and technical, administrative, and service-related activities, that contribute substantially to preserving or restoring environmental quality. Specifically, but not exclusively, this includes jobs that help to protect and restore ecosystems and biodiversity; reduce energy, materials, and water consumption through high-efficiency and avoidance strategies; de-carbonize the economy; and minimize or altogether avoid generation of all forms of waste and pollution. But green jobs also need to be good jobs that meet longstanding demands and goals of the labor movement, i.e., adequate wages, safe working conditions, and worker rights, including the right to organize labor unions. (You can read the Worldwatch report here)

Labor groups have also helped define concrete and practical ways in which currently non-green jobs can be easily transitioned to green.  According to BGA Director Dave Foster, every job sector has reciprocal green opportunities. “Steel plants will make more wind turbine parts than car parts, the automotive industry will turn to smaller, more efficient, and fully electric vehicles, the nuclear industry will continue to play its role in generating carbon-free energy, and coal plants could potentially be converted for use with other fuel sources, although we all agree that carbon capture and sequestration technology needs additional research and funding.”

A representative from the American Federation of Teachers focused on green jobs outside of the service sector. “Training and retraining the workforce from early education to adulthood is a critical part of what our members do.”

Near-term action on climate change will surely require awareness of these opportunities and long-term action will require stronger and stronger links between labor and the environment.