Blog sobre la COP25 – 9 de diciembre de 2019

Estamos en un punto importante en las negociaciones. Las presentaciones técnicas ya han terminado. Los delegados sindicales hemos insistido sobre nuestros objetivos frente a todos los negociadores a que los pudimos acceder. Se ha estado trabajando en el texto para presentar ante los responsables a nivel político, que en teoría hoy tendría que ser casi definitivo. Los grupos de trabajo y los órganos subsidiarios deberían estar concluyendo en esta jornada para presentar su trabajo completo.

Sin embargo, en cuanto a las negociaciones climáticas, el lunes fue una decepción. Tengo la sensación de que, nuevamente, los negociadores están buscando los términos más débiles que pueden encontrar y participando en juegos políticos tontos entre ellos, al tiempo que ignoran los datos científicos, la creciente indignación pública y las exigencias de acción.

Los debates sobre las medidas de respuesta no terminaron el sábado ni el domingo, y la escabrosa cuestión del Artículo 6 (posibles mercados de intercambio de emisiones de carbono) sigue siendo un despilfarro de tiempo y recursos. Los negociadores parecen más interesados en ganar puntos que en redactar un texto claro que proteja tanto al medioambiente como a los derechos humanos. El Artículo 6 es la única parte del Acuerdo de París que todavía no se ha reglamentado. El comercio de emisiones sin mecanismos de protección para los derechos humanos y los derechos de los indígenas podría ser catastrófico. Por este motivo, es bastante probable que sea preferible no tomar ninguna decisión respecto al Artículo 6 que establecer un conjunto de reglas incorrecto. Si quedamos atrapados en reglas perjudiciales, se creará un agujero en el Acuerdo de París. El último texto no menciona la protección de los derechos humanos y sociales, ni tampoco logra proteger el medioambiente del abuso de un sistema de intercambio mal diseñado. Solamente queda una reformulación débil de algunas palabras del preámbulo al Acuerdo de París. Esto es inaceptable.

Las negociaciones adicionales en torno a la financiación de las pérdidas y el daño también siguen sin resolverse. Del mismo modo, el Fondo Verde para el Clima sigue estando penosamente lejos de lograr los compromisos que necesita por parte de los países desarrollados.

Quiero reiterar que a pesar del alboroto acerca de cuánto dinero se necesita, la cifra es trivial en comparación con lo que se gastó para rescatar a los bancos en 2009 o con el presupuesto militar mundial, para nombrar dos ejemplos. Las otras alternativas para subsanar estas deficiencias incluyen un impuesto sobre el carbono o una tasa Tobi (sobre las transacciones financieras). No es una cuestión de escasez de recursos. Es una cuestión de voluntad y prioridades políticas.

La implementación con perspectiva de género podría permitirle a las partes acelerar una Transición Justa para la fuerza laboral. Pese a lo que parecía un buen comienzo, los negociadores también están ocupados proponiendo términos más débiles con respecto a este tema.

En un momento de la historia donde se precisa liderazgo y ambición, nuestros negociadores por el clima se están preguntando: “¿Cuáles son los términos más débiles que podemos implementar en este punto?”

Pero no todo es sombrío: algunos países han anunciado objetivos ambiciosos de reducción de emisiones.

Evento paralelo sindical

Hoy se llevó a cabo un evento paralelo sindical importante: Transición Justa para la acción climática. Los panelistas que expusieron y los mensajes que transmitieron fueron, entre otros:

• Laura Martín Murillo, asesora para empleo y Transición Justa del Ministerio para la Transición Ecológica de España, describió algunos de los desafíos para la creación de una Transición Justa en las regiones dedicadas a la minería del carbón en el sur de España.
• George Heyman, ministro de Medio Ambiente y Estrategia del Cambio Climático de la Columbia Británica, Canadá, habló sobre la manera en la que las comunidades basadas en recursos y las Naciones Originarias respondieron al proceso consultivo iniciado por el gobierno en ese lugar.
• Ibu Nur Masripatin, ex líder de la delegación de Indonesia en la COP, explicó algunos de los desafíos experimentados en Indonesia a causa de la explotación empresarial del aceite de palma, por ejemplo.
• Tamara Muñoz, secretaria internacional de CUT Chile, recordó a todos las injusticias actualmente sufridas en Chile.
• Brian Kohler, director de sostenibilidad de IndustriALL Global, habló sobre la necesidad de abordar simultáneamente el cambio climático y la Industria 4.0 por medio de una Transición Justa que conduzca a un futuro promisorio y sostenible.

Moderadoras:

• Sharan Burrow, secretaria general de ITUC, moderó parte de los debates.
• Alison Tate, directora de ITUC, moderó los debates restantes.

Fue un evento bastante exitoso y mis observaciones fueron bien recibidas. Muchos participantes se acercaron a hablar conmigo luego del evento.

Esta es una transcripción aproximada de mi discurso (solo en inglés):

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Good afternoon! IndustriALL Global Union has over 700 affiliates in 140 countries, and through our affiliates we speak for some 50 million workers, globally. These are workers in the resource, processing, and manufacturing sectors. Our members include coal miners, oil workers, energy workers, steelmakers, automobile workers, cement makers, shipbuilders, aerospace workers, electronics manufacturing, chemical workers, paper makers, and more. We create the energy and all of the industrial products that people believe are an essential part of today’s world.

Stabilizing the climate means reaching for a sustainable future: sustainable in all of its dimensions; social, economic, as well as environmental. I’m here to tell you that the way forward, if we are serious about protecting the planet, is a Just Transition that respects and protects today’s and tomorrow’s workers, their families, and the communities and cultures that rely on them.

Despite the pessimism that I am sometimes accused of, it cannot be denied that the 25th Conference of the Parties shows several positive signs. People and parties are talking seriously about the climate crisis who couldn't be bothered as recently as five years ago. Greta Thunberg arrived on Friday and the youth movement she started is having a huge impact. Hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets to demand action. There is no doubt that this is having an impact on the negotiators.

And Just Transition, a phrase I first used in 1994, is now on everyone’s lips, and in everyone’s position papers and policies. Or so it seems. Even those who do not really know what it means are eager to use the phrase. I’m flattered. You should be flattered. We did this. This is progress. Really.

There has been discussion at this conference about potential climate “tipping points”. Trade unions believe that there are social tipping points as well. Anger resulting from inequality, injustice, violations of human rights and the destruction of decent work and living standards – and the destruction of the environment as experienced by individuals – can also reach a tipping point. Mass public discontent could erode public support for climate action, or depending on the circumstances, harden public demands for it. Political leaders should be very wary.

Let me tell you something you really should already know, but perhaps you haven’t thought of in exactly this way: people are tired of contemplating a bleak future. Of being asked to fight for a future that might be “less bad” than it would otherwise be. But it does not have to be that way. Why can’t we promise a bright future? I could ask 50 million workers to help me fight for a good future! I can’t ask them to fight for a bleak one.

Let’s plan a Just Transition to a future that sounds good to people! And let’s deliver it! We can do it!

Here’s how. The future world of work will certainly be transformed by the need to decarbonise the economy, but changes are simultaneously being driven by a wide range of advanced and disruptive technologies being rapidly introduced in our workplaces. Some of these technologies will play a vital role in limiting climate change, although there are indeed some wild and unsubstantiated claims being made. Indeed, these drivers of change, and others such as changing demographics, cannot be considered in isolation. We are in a rapidly changing world, and I don’t simply mean the climate.

(I leave to one side, for a moment, the fact that the social implications of these changes are not being considered seriously enough, and that trade unions are the main voice for the social dimension of sustainability.)

But, look, let me make this simple. Decarbonisation of industry, along with digitalization, the “internet of things”, artificial intelligence, advanced semi-autonomous robots, 3-D printing, nanotechnology, biotechnology – all of these techniques and more, sometimes labelled the Fourth Industrial Revolution or Industry 4.0 – will deliver greater productivity. This is not in doubt, because if these technologies did not promise increased productivity, we would not be witnessing the rush to adopt them. This means fewer hours of labour to produce the same goods or services.

And that means, potentially at least, a lot of good things! Increased leisure time, shorter working hours, earlier retirement, more opportunities for self-fulfilment and creativity, better access to the workplace for women and traditionally disadvantaged groups of workers, and safer healthier and more fulfilling work. All of these things should be possible! Properly deployed, these changes could takes us quite a distance towards the UN Sustainable Development Goals!

Why then are workers, globally, instead experiencing worse and more precarious jobs, “gig” work, zero-hour contracts, poorer working conditions, reduced real income, demands for raising the age of retirement, long working hours, short vacations, and resistance to even such basic demands as maternity and paternity leave? Why are trade unions under relentless attack? Why are we creating a surveillance culture, a culture of fear and hate, instead of a sense of community and a culture of happiness? Why are we not solving the climate crisis?

It is because so long as the only driving force for companies to adopt these technologies is to cut costs and increase profits, all will suffer save those few who own the technologies. The introduction of disruptive new technologies must be people-centric rather than profit-centric. We need companies, employers, who are committed to sustainable development in all of its dimensions.

But we also need sustainable industrial policies – public policies in the public interest – created via real and meaningful social dialogue. We must consciously direct these changes towards building a better world. We must simultaneously protect people and the planet, and not sacrifice both to an irresponsible search for short-term profits. To navigate these changes we need a guarantee of a genuinely Just Transition that leaves no-one behind.

If you want workers to support giving up what they are doing today, you have to tell them what they will be doing tomorrow. And it should sound good to them! That’s what a Just Transition is fundamentally about.

You know, you have probably seen, Trade Union’s Topline Demands for COP25. They are:

1. to raise ambition with Just Transition,
2. to get Parties to sign on to the Climate Action for Jobs Initiative that was launched at the Climate Action Summit in New York earlier this year; and
3. to win commitment for finance for a low-carbon development path that supports the most vulnerable.

These are not wild or unreasonable demands, in fact in many ways we are simply asking governments to do what they have already said they would.

Our demands are entirely reasonable, technically possible, and affordable. The transition to a cleaner, more sustainable economy must be economically and socially just and fair for workers and their communities. Advanced technologies, or sustainable energy, or greener industries, must benefit everyone and not just a handful of billionaires. The Paris goals are technically and economically feasible. What is lacking is the political will to take action and a Just Transition plan to maintain social coherence through the necessary transformations.

The future we seek – a Just Transition to a future in which the environment is protected and the economy is thriving – can be won with sustainable industrial policies, with strong social protections, and support for workers. It can be won by us!

That’s why trade unions demand social dialogue on these changes. We need to be at the table discussing the plan, the sustainable industrial policies, the Just Transition programmes that are necessary. Change is coming. If we are not at the table to jointly direct these changes, we fear that we’ll be on the menu.

But it doesn’t have to be that way. Will you join us at that discussion table? Yes I mean you, business people. And you, representatives of governments. Could we build a sustainable future on respect, and trust, and dialogue? Will you help us lay out a better future?

That’s my question and my challenge. Thank you.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -