[P2P-F] [NetworkedLabour] Fwd: Are the Trades Putting Labour’s Head in the Gas Oven?

Mon Nov 7 20:28:02 CET 2016

Am I correct to read 'fully public' as no place for coops and citizen
initiatives ?

On Sat, Nov 5, 2016 at 5:11 PM, peter waterman <peterwaterman1936 at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Sid Shniad <shniad at gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 10:58 PM
> Subject: Are the Trades Putting Labour’s Head in the Gas Oven?
> To:
>
>
>
>
> *http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/1325.php#continue
> <http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/1325.php#continue>T h e B u l l e t
>       A Socialist Project e-bulletin       November 4, 2016*
>
>
>
>
> *Standing Rock Solid with the Frackers:*
>
>
>
> *Are the Trades Putting Labour’s Head in the Gas Oven?**Progressive
> labour must, however, develop its own vision of an energy future, one
> grounded in fully-unionized public renewable power systems, scaled up
> low-carbon mass transit, and radical energy conservation in the country's
> housing stock and commercial buildings. This is a political ‘construction’
> project that, if implemented, could create millions of ‘climate jobs.’ *
>
> *Sean Sweeney*
>
> [image: Inline image 1]
>
> If anyone were looking for further evidence that the AFL-CIO remains
> unprepared to accept the science of climate change, and unwilling to join
> with the effort being made by all of the major labour federations of the
> world to address the crisis, the fight over the Dakota Access Pipeline
> (DAPL) provides only the most recent case in point. Taking direction from
> the newly minted North American Building Trades Unions (NABTU) and the
> American Petroleum Institute (API), the federation stood against
> <http://www.aflcio.org/Press-Room/Press-Releases/Dakota-Access-Pipeline-Provides-High-Quality-Jobs> the
> Standing Rock Sioux and other tribal nations.
>
> In a recent video interview
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r89lKwockYY?t=15m50s>, NABTU president
> Sean McGarvey dismissed those who oppose the expansion of fossil fuels
> infrastructure. “There is no way to satisfy them... no way for them to
> recognize that if we don't want to lose our place in the world as the
> economic superpower, then we have to have this infrastructure and the
> ability to responsibly reap the benefits of what God has given this country
> in its natural resources.”
>
> Although the leaders of NABTU no longer identify with the AFL-CIO and the
> letterhead does not mention the Federation, the Trades continue to
> determine the shape the AFL-CIO's approach to energy and climate. This is
> despite the fact that a growing number of unions have opposed the DAPL,
> among them the Amalgamated Transit Union, Communication Workers of America,
> National Domestic Workers Alliance, National Nurses United, New York State
> Nurses Association, Service Employees International Union (SEIU); SEIU
> 1199, and the United Electrical Workers. Union locals (branches or
> chapters) have also opposed the DAPL, among them, GEU UAW Local 6950
> <https://m.facebook.com/GEUUAW/photos/a.636140453102387.1073741828.631404886909277/1067738039942624/>
>  and Steelworkers Local 8751
> <https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B__d4zO7hqfdVUVsc0k2V3lxX00/view>.
>
> These unions have been joined by the Labor Coalition for Community Action,
> which represents well established AFL-CIO constituency groups like LCLAA,
> APALA, Pride at Work, CBTU, CLUW and the A. Philip Randolph Institute.
>
> Reacting to the progressive unions’ solidarity with Standing Rock Sioux,
> NABTU's president Sean McGarvey wrote a scathing letter
> <https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzZWcWkNKmz_enJFNXpMVzFVTlhhTmh3ZzUta0lmYmNJaE1Z/view?usp=sharing> to
> AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka, copies of which were sent to the
> principal officers of all of the Federation's affiliated unions. In a
> fashion reminiscent of the Keystone XL fight, McGarvey disparaged the
> unions that opposed DAPL. A day later, on September 15th, the AFL-CIO
> issued its own already infamous statement
> <http://www.aflcio.org/Press-Room/Press-Releases/Dakota-Access-Pipeline-Provides-High-Quality-Jobs> supporting
> DAPL. “Trying to make climate policy by attacking individual construction
> projects is neither effective nor fair to the workers involved” said the
> statement. “The AFL-CIO calls on the Obama Administration to allow
> construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline to continue.”
>
> Split, Coup, or Both?
>
> It is important to note that the AFL-CIO issued its statement on the basis
> of a generic ‘pipelines’ Executive Council (EC) resolution passed in
> February 2013. Does this DAPL statement therefore speak for the 55
> affiliates of the Federation? Hardly. The use of a vague EC resolution to
> support the DAPL is therefore something of a coup for NABTU, one that will
> further damage the reputation of the entire U.S. labour movement both at
> home and abroad.
>
> In a New Labor Forum column almost a year ago
> <http://newlaborforum.cuny.edu/?p=2285>, I tried to draw some of the
> lessons for the labour movement following the acrimonious fight among union
> leaders around the Keystone XL (KXL) pipeline. I said KXL could be a
> precursor to a more protracted and serious leadership-level conflict in the
> years ahead, and that this could be avoided if certain union officers were
> to rethink their close relationship to coal, oil and gas industry groups
> (the so called Black-Blue Alliance) and take the lead in driving a
> different conversation about ‘extractionism’, climate change, and jobs.
>
> The DAPL fight suggests that the split in labour is deepening. McGarvey's
> letter to Trumka warrants careful study. Referring to the fact that many of
> the unions that opposed KXL are now opposing DAPL, McGarvey writes, “It
> seems the same outdated, lowest common denominator group of so-called labor
> organizations has once again seen fit to demean and call for the
> termination of thousands of union construction jobs in the Heartland. I
> fear that this has once again hastened a very real split in the labour
> movement at a time that, should their ceaseless rhetoric be taken
> seriously, even they suggest we can least afford it.”[1]
> <http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/1325.php#fn1> For now, NABTU has
> managed to align the federation squarely with the fossil fuel industry.
>
> So What is U.S. Labour's Climate and Energy Policy?
>
> The AFL-CIO's statement on DAPL says that it is “neither effective nor
> fair” to make climate policy by attacking individual construction projects.
> So what kind of climate policy *does*the AFL-CIO support? The 2013
> Executive Council ‘pipelines’ resolution
> <http://www.aflcio.org/About/Exec-Council/EC-Statements/Statement-on-Energy-and-Jobs> begins:
> “The AFL-CIO supports a comprehensive energy policy focused on investing in
> our nation's future, creating jobs and addressing the threat of climate
> change.” Fine words, but have there been any actions to back them up?
>
> At the global level, the Federation has never supported the International
> Trade Union Confederation's (ITUC) commitment
> <http://www.ituc-csi.org/IMG/pdf/ituc_contribution_to_unfccc_cop22_en.pdf> to
> the science-based emissions reduction targets proposed by the
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Every other major
> national labour body supports these targets, but not the AFL-CIO.
> Similarly, it was the only major national trade union center to oppose the
> Kyoto Agreement in the 1990s and, again, the only one to applaud the State
> Department's voluntary ‘pledge and review’ approach to emissions reductions
> expressed in the 2009 Copenhagen Accord. Global labour was unanimous in its
> condemnation of the weak, non-binding and science-denying content of the
> Accord – with the AFL-CIO once again being the exception.
>
> During the 2008 Congressional debate on the (failed) climate bill during
> president Obama's first term in office, the AFL-CIO, urging ‘a cautious
> approach’, could only support the weakest bill, one that ensured more free
> pollution allowances for the fossil fuel sector than any other bill
> drafted. Following the defeat of the climate bill in the Senate, the
> AFL-CIO essentially stepped away from energy climate policy altogether. And
> with Congress obstructing action on climate change, the Obama
> Administration ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take
> the lead. The EPA developed the Clean Power Plan (CPP) that seeks to
> achieve a 32 per cent reduction in carbon emissions from coal and gas-fired
> power plants by 2025 based on 2005 levels. The CPP was the basis of the
> U.S. contribution to the Paris Climate talks in late 2015 and in the more
> recent bilateral climate talks with China.
>
> In a June 2014 statement, AFL-CIO president Trumka expressed concern
> <http://www.aflcio.org/Press-Room/Press-Releases/Statement-by-AFL-CIO-President-Richard-Trumka-on-New-EPA-Power-Plant-Emission-Rules> about
> the CPP's impact on the U.S. coal industry and warned that climate
> protection not “be another excuse to beat down working Americans.” But in
> the absence of both a coherent policy and a clear lead coming from the
> AFL-CIO, key affiliates have moved in to stake out their own space. Several
> energy and construction unions have signed onto a lawsuit to prevent the
> EPA's implementation of the CPP regulations, with SEIU siding with a broad
> set of groups who seek to defeat the legal threat.[2]
> <http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/1325.php#fn2> Led by West Virginia
> and more than 20 States, the challenge to the EPA would bar the agency from
> regulating GHGs <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas> from
> existing power plants altogether. If successful, this would essentially
> wipe out any federal climate policy because the Administration is relying
> almost exclusively on the EPA to comply with the commitments made in Paris.
>
> Exporting Carbon
>
> Meanwhile, in mid-2015 the Laborer's Union (LiUNA) and the Operating
> Engineers successfully linked arms with the likes of the Koch-funded
> Americans for Prosperity, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the API in a
> call on Congress to lift the export ban on U.S. crude oil that was
> introduced in 1975 during the Middle East oil crisis. The two unions stated
> that, “Lifting the ban will result in increased domestic crude production
> and deliver hundreds of thousands of jobs across all sectors of the
> American economy.”[3] <http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/1325.php#fn3>
>
> AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka had publicly stated his opposition to
> lifting the ban
> <http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/afl-cio-president-opposes-lifting-ban-on-crude-oil-exports/444186/> in
> January 2014. Significantly, the reason for Trumka's opposition had nothing
> to do with concerns about ‘carbon lock in’ or the need to support the USA's
> climate commitments. Rather, the main concern was the impact lifting the
> ban would have on U.S. refineries, which are well organized by the United
> Steelworkers (USW). In a July 2014 statement, the Federation said
> <http://www.aflcio.org/About/Exec-Council/EC-Statements/America-Should-Exploit-the-Advantages-of-Domestic-Oil-Production-Not-Give-Them-Away>
> :
>
> “The surge in U.S. oil production should fuel a surge in U.S. refinery
> investment, creating highly paid construction and refinery jobs. American
> ingenuity and hard work have put the United States in the fortunate
> position of being the world's top oil producer and given us more energy
> security than we have had in decades. The AFL-CIO believes the nation
> should build on this success to create prosperity and restore the middle
> class.”
>
>
> In lobbying against lifting the ban, the USW (joined by the Sierra Club) acknowledged
> that
> <http://www.usw.org/workplaces/oil/oil-documents/USW-SC-ltr-opposing-lifting-the-crude-oil-export-ban-6-8-15.pdf>,
> aside from threatening the jobs of U.S. refinery workers, exporting U.S.
> crude would also lead to 22 million metric tons more CO2 emissions on an
> annual basis. Within six months of the ban being lifted (December 2015 to
> May 2016) U.S. crude exports have risen 9 per cent to 501,000 barrels per
> day, according to the Energy Information Agency.
>
> Avoiding The F Word
>
> With U.S. oil exports rising, LiUNA and other unions have helped the U.S.
> oil industry meet the growing global demand for U.S. crude. Union concerns
> about climate change were blindingly absent in this campaign (as was the
> case in the effort to acquire a permit for Keystone XL). Instead, lifting
> the export ban would, we were told, help the U.S. become “an energy
> superpower.”
>
> More recently, LiUNA developed its own Clean Power Progress
> <http://cleanpowerprogress.org/>, an initiative apparently driven by a
> desire to “fuel a realistic, fact-based conversation” in order to “advance
> responsible policies that reduce GHGs and reach the climate change goals
> advanced by the Obama Administration.” With Clean Power Progress, LiUNA is
> attempting to project a new and greener message. But the union's plan is
> focused on helping the U.S. meet its climate commitments – by promoting
> gas
> <http://www.liuna.org/news/story/hillary-clintons-natural-gas-policy-common-sense-approach-to-address-climate-change-create-good-jobs-and-affordable-energy>
> . According to Clean Power Progress
> <http://cleanpowerprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Factsheet-UnitedStates-11.pdf>,
> “Transitioning from higher-carbon energy sources (read: coal) toward
> abundant natural gas will help the United States meet its ambitious and
> responsible clean energy targets and our country's growing electricity
> needs.” This is pretty much the gas industry line. It is also clear that
> the industry and LiUNA are united on the need to export more gas
> <http://cleanpowerprogress.org/update-u-s-natural-gas-production/> (maybe
> to help the world fight global warming?)
>
> Clean Power Progress deserves a more detailed critique, and will be the
> subject of a future article. But there are some obvious red flags. For
> example, nowhere in the proposal is there any mention of the word
> ‘fracking.’ Fracking for gas in shale rock is producing a higher proportion
> of U.S. gas every year as yields from conventional gas drilling steadily
> decrease. This can hardly be explained as an innocent omission. It is as
> if, by not mentioning fracking at all, LiUNA hopes to sidestep rising
> concerns regarding the health-related and other impacts associated with
> fracturing. Meanwhile, the AFL-CIO has not taken an official stand on
> fracking, but in states where drilling has proceeded the Trades have moved
> several State AFL-CIO's behind a pro-fracking stance.
>
> Greenwashing with the Union Label?
>
> Equally remarkable is that LiUNA is keeping alive the discredited idea
> that gas is a ‘bridge fuel’ that is good for the climate because, when
> compared to burning coal, gas generates only half the CO2 per unit of
> energy generated. But peer-reviewed studies over the past several years
> have shown that, when methane leakage associated with fracking is
> accurately measured, gas harvested from shale rock is worse than coal
> <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/us-methane-emissions-prove-higher/> from
> the standpoint of generating greenhouse gas emissions. Respecting the
> science, most of the major environmental groups stopped talking about gas
> as bridge fuel some years ago. Globally, methane emissions levels are
> increasing, and scientists have estimated that 40 per cent of the increase
> in the U.S. is due to the growth of the oil and gas sector.[4]
> <http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/1325.php#fn4> The EPA's
> ‘inventoried’ methane emissions levels are based on companies reporting
> their own methane leakage rates. However, the actual atmospheric
> concentrations have been found to be much higher
> <http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends_ch4/>. This gap suggests that
> gas companies have underreported the levels of methane
> <http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/EPA-OIG_NCWARN_Complaint_6-8-16.pdf> being
> vented or leaking from drill sites, and have funded ‘studies’ that have
> been used to provide ‘scientific’ data suggesting the levels of methane
> being released are far lower than they actually are
> <http://www.skepticalscience.com/frackingupdate2016.html>.
>
> It would be difficult to exaggerate the significance of this issue. Even a
> modest level of methane leakage from drilling sites – between 1.5 to 3 per
> cent – would erase all of the climate-related benefits of burning gas
> instead of coal.[5] <http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/1325.php#fn5> Statistically,
> CO2 emissions from fossil fuel have fallen in the U.S. since 2007 due to
> the recession and switching to natural gas from coal to generate
> electricity. Leading climate scientist Robert Howarth told the White House
> recently:
>
> “Total greenhouse gas emissions – after dipping slightly in 2007 – have
> been rising since at their most rapid rate ever, due to shale gas
> development and large methane emissions... Reliable data from satellite and
> airplane surveys show much higher emissions and indicate that global
> increases in methane in the atmosphere over the last decade may well be the
> result of increased emissions from the United States.”[6]
> <http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/1325.php#fn6>
>
>
> According to Howarth
> <http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2016/06/howarth-alerts-white-house-growing-methane-danger>,
> “If the U.S. wants to meet the COP21 target – to which we have agreed – we
> need to recognize that natural gas – and shale gas, in particular – is not
> a bridge fuel.”
>
> That LiUNA might be unaware of the data on methane is, frankly,
> inconceivable. Overall, Clean Power Progress looks like union greenwashing
> of the most irresponsible kind, a poor attempt to sanitize an industry that
> resists even the weakest of regulations and refuses to allow independent
> verification in the chemicals it uses during the fracturing process.
>
> Progressive Labour's Construction Project
>
> The unions that opposed Keystone XL and the Dakota Access Pipeline, along
> with those who have opposed fracking and coal and gas export terminals, are
> becoming ‘energy unions’ because energy fights will largely dictate what
> type of future we can look forward to. For NABTU, having unions in health
> care, public transport, and public services, etc. invade and trample on the
> sacred territory they call home – energy and infrastructure development –
> is beyond infuriating.
>
> Progressive labour must, however, develop its own vision of an energy
> future, one grounded in fully-unionized public renewable power systems,
> scaled up low-carbon mass transit, and radical energy conservation in the
> country's housing stock and commercial buildings. This is a political
> ‘construction’ project that, if implemented, could create millions of
> ‘climate jobs.’ But this will require consistent engagement. Many in the
> Trades can and will support such a progressive approach to climate and
> energy policy.
>
> For now, having waged a successful *putsch*, NABTU is the voice of the
> AFL-CIO regarding a big chunk of labour's energy policy. The Federation's
> reputation is now so low that it seems to be no longer concerned about
> ‘reputational damage.’ By linking arms with Standing Rock Sioux,
> progressive labour is keeping alive the best traditions of labour
> environmentalism pioneered by Tony Mazzocchi
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Mazzocchi> and the Oil, Chemical and
> Atomic Workers in the 1970s.
>
> If it is constructed, the DAPL will require union labour digging a ditch,
> and the only difference between a ditch and a grave is that one is normally
> a little deeper than the other. •
>
> Sean Sweeney is Director of the Murphy Institute's International Program
> on Labor, Climate, and the Environment. And he writes for New Labor Forum
> <http://newlaborforum.cuny.edu/> and Trade Unions for Energy Democracy
> <http://unionsforenergydemocracy.org/>, where this article first appeared.
>
> Endnotes:
>
> 1. <http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/1325.php#ref1> Sean McGarvey
> NABTU, letter to Richard Trumka, AFL-CIO, Sept 15, 2016
>
> 2. <http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/1325.php#ref2> Environmental
> Defense Fund, “List of Supporters of the Clean Power Plan in Court
> <https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/content/list_of_supporters_of_the_clean_power_plan_in_court.pdf>
> .”
>
> 3. <http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/1325.php#ref3> LiUNA and
> Operating Engineers, Letter to the Honorable John Boehner, Speaker and
> The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader
> <https://energycommerce.house.gov/news-center/letters/letters-support-hr-702-adapt-changing-crude-oil-market-conditions>,
> Sept 9, 2015. See also: “Oil export ban support pits Obama against allies
> in Congress, labor,
> <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/9/oil-export-ban-support-pits-obama-against-organize/?page=all>
> ”; www.ongil-mc.org/about Leadership Chairman: Sean McGarvey, President,
> Building-Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO; Secretary/Treasurer Jack
> Gerard, President and CEO, American Petroleum Institute.
>
> 4. <http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/1325.php#ref4> Karlsruher
> Institut für Technologie (KIT). “Oil and natural gas boom causes methane
> emissions to increase
> <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160315104213.htm>: Study
> reveals relationship between oil and natural gas production in the USA and
> increase in atmospheric methane.” ScienceDaily, 15 March 2016.
>
> 5. <http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/1325.php#ref5> Alvarez, Ramon
> A., Stephen W. Pacala, James J. Winebrake, and William L. Chameides. “Greater
> focus needed on methane leakage from natural gas infrastructure
> <http://www.pnas.org/content/109/17/6435>,” Proceedings of the National
> Academy of the United States of America. 109.17 (2012): 6435-6440. Web. 13
> Dec. 2013. Howarth, Robert, et al. Climatic Change, Volume 106, Issue 4, pp
> 679-690. 6/11. “Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas
> from shale formations;” Lovett, Richard A. Scientific American. 2013.
> “Study Revises Estimate of Methane Leaks from U.S. Fracking Fields Leaks
> are minimal during removal of fracking fluids but increase once gas is
> flowing.” Retrieved 1/15/14 from: www.scientificamerican.c
> om/article.cfm?id=study-revises-estimate-of-methane-leaks-fr
> om-us-fracking-fields; Howarth, Robert W., Renee Santoro, and Anthony
> Ingraffea. Climatic Change. 1/10/12. “Venting and leaking of methane from
> shale gas development
> <http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/howarth/publications/Howarthetal2012_Final.pdf>:
> response to Cathles et al.” Retrieved 1/15/14.
>
> 6. <http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/1325.php#ref6> Howarth Alerts
> White House of the Growing Methane Danger
> <http://news.cornell.edu/stories/2016/06/howarth-alerts-white-house-growing-methane-danger>.
> See also: Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT). “Oil and natural gas
> boom causes methane emissions to increase
> <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160315104213.htm>,” Science
> Daily. Science Daily, 15 March 2016.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Labour-l" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to labour-l+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to labour-l at googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ms
> gid/labour-l/CACKppczq-7b2L0L%2B6dfeg_n2O8B-NAti59YCKoK9s7G-
> Z4%3D0kQ%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/labour-l/CACKppczq-7b2L0L%2B6dfeg_n2O8B-NAti59YCKoK9s7G-Z4%3D0kQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>
> --
> *Click here for Peter's recent writings*
> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/o8s52g2y905rq6w/WatermanGmailSignaturePanel%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20Updated.docx?dl=0>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NetworkedLabour mailing list
> NetworkedLabour at lists.contrast.org
> http://lists.contrast.org/mailman/listinfo/networkedlabour
>
>

-- 
Check out the Commons Transition Plan here at: http://commonstransition.org

P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates:
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20161108/0e233330/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 525266 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20161108/0e233330/attachment-0001.png>