The
Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) has produced a booklet ‘Just
Transition and Energy Democracy’ which says: ‘The real solutions to the climate crisis are also our best hope of
building a much more enlightened economic system— one that closes deep
inequalities, strengthens and transforms the public sphere, generates
plentiful, dignified work and radically reins in corporate power’.
It
calls for ‘an open and urgent discussion
amongst workers is needed to develop an industrial strategy that gives real
protection to workers’ jobs, pay and conditions through the economic
transition. It means learning from various initiatives like the Lucas Plan, One
Million Climate jobs and campaigns and projects taking place in many
parts of the world. These are a good start point in formulating an alternative
to the anti-worker and environmentally destructive role of the energy giants
who wield such economic power; where from the dawn of the industrial age a mere
90 companies are responsible for over two thirds of global emissions.’
PCS
says that to meet the UK climate targets as part of the Paris global
commitment, ‘we need an energy transition
to a zero carbon economy based on public ownership and democratic control of
our energy system. A system of energy democracy that will underwrite a just
transition for workers and communities across all sectors of the economy and
re-vision our public services’.
It
goes into some detail of what might be involved, based on the principle of Energy
democracy – public ownership and democratic control. It notes that ‘community energy and cooperatives are
posited as
an example of regaining control. With some success in Germany and
Denmark there are certainly models to
learn from. However often these will be small scale, suit certain types of
environment, and mostly those with some initial wealth to pool to make them
happen. Therefore whilst there is an important place for different models of
energy generation and certainly in rural
areas this may make more sense, to address the scale needed including to
run our public services of schools, hospitals and transport, the focus for PCS
is on the need to remunicipalise our energy system as part of a worker- public
partnership’.
It
notes that a shift to municipal energy is already happening. Nottingham City
council set up Robin Hood Energy in 2015. Leeds City Council have partnered with
Robin Hood Energy to establish White Rose Energy. Bristol Energy set up in
early 2016, is like Nottingham wholly owned by the City Council on a
not-for-profit basis. They are also going beyond a standard business model with
wider social and economic aims such as tackling fuel poverty and promoting
renewable energy generation. The London Mayor, Sadiq Khan has committed to a
municipal energy company – Energy for Londoners – which would be by far the
biggest and challenging yet. The Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA)
made up of ten councils is also looking at
establishing a publicly owned municipal energy company. Scotland has been
developing its own energy democracy programmes through Our Power, a community
benefit society owned by a number of local authorities and housing
associations. It aims to supply 30% of its energy from renewable sources and
equally tackle fuel poverty with a focus on social housing tenants.
These
are good starting point, but PCS looks to a much more radical approach
nationally. It notes that a key element of the ‘One Million Climate Jobs’
campaign is the creation of a National Climate Service (NCS) similar to the
National Health Service (NHS), to ensure there is a body to create the jobs
needed to lower greenhouse gas emissions. But it also wants other radical
government services, including a ‘Ministry for Climate Change’ (MforCC) that
can oversee an energy democracy transition to a zero carbon economy. However as
well as needing a body like this for centralised planning it says there is also
a need for Commissions to support local democrat control and protect worker and
community rights, with the civil service in these new bodies ‘working in the interest of a people service
not just a government run public service’.
It’s
a brave vision, based in part of work done by Prof. David Hall of the
Public Services
International Research Unit (PSIRU). It
would involve breaking up much of what exist at present- the nationalisation
and municipalisation of much of the power system, at a cost put at £24bn in
compensation to the current owners: ‘Transmission and distribution companies would be brought back into the
public sector with new legislation brought forward to enable the creation of
regional and local supply companies’. But unlike previous nationalisations,
it would be subject to meaningful local worker and community control- and with
climate issues being central. That’s a big ask- not all workers or communities
may see climate issues as central. However, PCS is convinced that it is both in
their interests and necessary: ‘climate change and the industrial struggle of unions against workers
continued exploitation opens up the opportunity to think and develop a strategy
and programme that puts workers at the centre of the economic transformation
that will be needed’.
So
PCS wants a new approach-very different from some of the others on offer. For
example, the World Energy Council has looked to three possible futures, using ‘musical
, analogies:
Modern Jazz – driven by markets, strong innovation and rapid
deployment of new technologies.
Unfinished Symphony – strong states direction with energy policy
priorities focused on security and climate change.
Hard Rock – a fragmented world with a weak economy and strong
nationalism.
PCS
believe there is a fourth scenario, the Brass Band – an energy transition based
on real workers participation, public ownership and democratic control – a
workers and public partnership. It notes
that ‘A Just Transition’ was a ‘topline’ priority for the trade union movement
led by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) at the UN climate
talks in Paris, and is recognised in the Preamble to the agreement by way of
the following text:
“Taking into account the imperatives of a just transition of the
workforce and the creation of decent work and quality jobs in accordance with
nationally defined development priorities.”
While PCS welcomes that, it says it means nothing ‘without action by trade unions and others
involved in labour issues such as those working for social justice to make it
happen’. It is certainly trying. It realises
that it approach is radical, even maybe utopian, but seeks at the very least to
challenge the
economic orthodoxy of governments and financial institutions by:
1.Questioning
the claims that cost-cutting means greater efficiency
2.Arguing that civil and
public services are vital to the economic, political and social well-being of
the nation
3.Arguing for public
ownership and control over all aspects of service delivery in the civil and
public services
4. Making the case for
accountable public services with staff involved through their trade unions
building public services for the future, including in the energy transition.
The PCS approach has a lot
in common with Corbyn’s views, as reflected in the last Labour Manifesto, but
with more details. It will be interesting to see if any of it get taken up by
Labour, and by other progressive parties, who do share many of the same ideas
about local control. In terms of technology, the PCS certainly backs renewables
strongly, is critical of fracking and uncertain about nuclear- much like the
Labour leadership, although it is constrained by the strong pro-nuclear
position of the GMB, the big engineering union: see my last post in the series.
But the Greens are no so constrained
and may want a stronger anti-nuclear line. However, Labour is pushing the
ownership issue: https://labourenergy.org/2017/09/13/who-owns-offshore-wind/And the Unions, via the TUC, are are
backing that: http://unionsforenergydemocracy.org/tued-bulletin-64-backing-corbyn-uks-tuc-votes-for-public-ownership-of-energy/
