English

Español

Français

Русский

Aerospace

Automotive

Base metals

Chemical, pharmaceutical and bio-science

Energy

Glass, cement, ceramic and associated industries

ICT, electrical and electronics

Mechanical Engineering

Mining and DGOJP

Pulp and paper

Rubber

Shipbuilding and shipbreaking

Textile, garment, shoes, leather and textile services

Sectors

Action on textile and garment industry

Clean up shipbreaking

Ratify ILO C176

United for a just future - time to pay up!

Disinvest from Myanmar

Action Plan 2021-2025

Global Framework Agreements

Union building

Women

Youth

White-collar workers

Health & safety

Industry 4.0

Just Transition

Organizing with industriALL

What we do

Affiliates

Statutes

Elected Officials

Executive Committee

Geneva head office

South East Asia

Eastern Europe, Central Asia and the Caucasus

Latin America and the Caribbean

Middle East and North Africa

South Asia

Regional offices

About us

Global worker No1 2022

Global worker No2 2022

Publications

Resources

Press

In a series of fact sheets about the COP 15, the UNFCCC states that the following four issues on the table at Copenhagen are essential to reaching a deal.1. Emission reduction targets for developed countriesDeveloped countries must accept the need to continue to take the lead in reducing global GHG emissions. In order to do so an agreement must be reached on an ambitious mid-term target for the group of developed countries as a whole, with each one making an effort of comparable scale in line with their historical responsibility and current capabilities.To date most developed countries have announced their mid-term target for emission reductions for 2020. However despite the fact that key developed country forums such as the G8 have recognized a 2°C limit, pledges for mid-term woefully short of the IPCC range (25 to 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020). Negotiations could raise the current level of ambition.What are our key demands and what would we like to see included?•    A strong legally-binding, comprehensive global agreement ensuring ambitious reduction of green house gas emissions;•    Social justice and long-term employment policies as an integral element of climate policy;•    Environmental protection through reduced emissions (a social cost) whilst increasing employment (a social benefit) and largest emitters should lead;•    Sectoral concerns addressed, including a fair global carbon trading regime - climate change legislation should ensure a level playing field and eliminate the possibility of carbon leakage; and•    Insurance that any agreement includes international competitiveness provisions that do not disadvantage those companies and nations that are first to adopt carbon pricing schemes.2. Nationally appropriate mitigation actions of developing countries.The biggest contribution to the global emissions increase over the next decades is projected to come from developing countries; though their per capita C02 emissions will remain substantially lower than those in developed country regions. In previous meetings developing countries have indicated a willingness to undertake nationally appropriate mitigation actions, provided that they receive support for such actions.A major concern for developing countries is that mitigation could distract resources away from their overriding policies, which are poverty eradication and economic growth. The Copenhagen deal could build on domestic mitigation actions underway or planned in developing countries, and identify how they can be enhanced with international support.What are our key demands and what would we like to see included?•    Sustainability which integrates environmental, social and economic concerns. For labour the social dimension is crucial and must promote trade union values of economic development, a fair distribution of wealth, social welfare, equity, peace and human rights, thereby creating a complete framework for sustainability;•    Technology transfer that allows for a fair regime for the transfer of advanced technologies for materials and processes, and use of an international fund for research and development and largest emitters should lead; and•    Developing programmes which ensure a requirement that companies and corporations use best available technologies when they move production.3. Scaling up financial and technological support for both adaptation and mitigationAdequate financial, technological and capacity-building support is the engine for advancing international cooperation on climate change as well as national action. An essential part of a comprehensive deal at Copenhagen is identifying how to generate new, additional and predictable financial resources and technology. Resources that are needed for both adaptation and mitigation have been estimated to up to USD250 billion per annum in 2020.Start up funding is essential and the financial challenge is unique and stark. At the moment adaptation costs are primarily borne by the affected countries, including poor vulnerable communities which have no responsibility for emissions. Kick starting the action initiated in Copenhagen requires start up funding in the order of USD10 billion.What are our key demands and what would we like to see included?•    Modification of WTO rules to ensure that trade rules including those governing intellectual property do not undermine environmental objectives;•    Sharing science which allows developing countries to effectively measure emissions;•    Ensuring significant public and private investment in education and training, as well as research and development innovation; and•    Worker participation in the formulation and implementation of these programmes, as well as information and consultation rights on the sustainable development of companies.4. An effective institutional framework with governance structures that address the needs of developing countries Copenhagen needs to deliver on an efficient mix of financial instruments with effective means for disbursement and for measurement, reporting and verification. Much of the available funding has not reached developing countries in a way that is regarded as efficient or beneficial. It is critical that the funds are agreed as part of the Copenhagen outcome. In addition, governance principles must be founded on equity, respecting the interests and needs of developing countries, and that includes them as equal decision-making partners.What are our key demands and what would we like to see included?•    Recognition that although all countries have a responsibility to mitigate climate change, it is clear that the greatest responsibility lies with the largest industrial nations;•    Financial and environmental crisis must not be used as an excuse for cost and job cutting or delaying action on environmental protection. The so-called &quot;free market&quot; will not create solutions by itself; and·    Emissions-trading is insufficient in isolation from other policies.Jargon Busting for Copenhagen:Green house gases The atmospheric gases responsible for causing global warming and climate change. The major GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N20). Less prevalent, but very powerful, greenhouse gases are hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6). Climate change The United Nations Convention on Climate Change defines climate change as &quot;a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.&quot;Carbon Footprint A Carbon Footprint is a measure of the amount of green house gases produced as a result of particular human activities.Carbon Leakage Carbon leakage refers to the part of emissions reductions that are made in one of the countries bound to reduce emissions, which are offset by an increase in emissions in a country that is not bound to reduce emissions. For example this can occur through relocation of energy-intensive production from a country that controls emissions to a country that does not.Carbon Offsetting The idea is to reduce the impact of carbon dioxide emissions from everyday activities such as driving cars, heating homes and flying. The emissions from such activity are calculated by a carbon offsetting provider and then paid for through a donation to a project that reduces carbon by the equivalent amount.Jargon Busting for Copenhagen:Emissions trading scheme (ETS) The ETS is a &quot;cap and trade system&quot;. Countries are given a national allocation of how much carbon dioxide they can emit, which is then divided up among the companies covered by the scheme. If companies emit more than they are allowed they must purchase permits to make up for the excess. If they emit less, they can sell their unused allocations.Border adjustment Border adjustments, also known as Border Tax Adjustments or Border Tax Assessments, are import fees levied by carbon-taxing countries on goods manufactured in non-carbon-taxing countries. For example a product manufactured in a country that adopts an ETS scheme should not be cheaper in a non-ETS country as a result of the extra costs for emissions trading. A tax would be applied to level the playing field.Green Jobs According to the International Labour Organization green jobs reduce the environmental impact of enterprises and economic sectors, ultimately to levels that are sustainable. However many traditional jobs such as steelworkers could also be considered green as alternative energy sources such as wind, solar and wave all have major steel components.In October 2009, the International Metalworkers' Federation (IMF), International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and General Workers' Unions (ICEM), European Metalworkers' Federation (EMF) and the European Mine, Chemical and Energy Workers' Federation (EMCEF) organized a conference in Germany entitled &quot;Cutting Emissions, Transforming Jobs&quot;. The meeting discussed the position industrial workers will take at the upcoming United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change conference in Copenhagen Denmark. Photo: Anita Gardner/IMFUnited Steelworkers joined with other unions and environmental groups in a nationwide Made in America jobs tour in 2009, highlighting the benefits to American workers and businesses of transitioning to a clean energy economy that will create millions of jobs. Photo: Steven Dietz/USW

UNFCCC four focus issues

BELGIUM: On January 21, 2010 the European Opel management announced its intention to wind-down production at its plant located in the port of Antwerp.For Belgian trade unions this is a &quot;shot in the neck&quot; of the 2,600 workers at the Antwerp plant and a &quot;slap in the face&quot; for the thousands of workers in the supply chain at companies such as Johnson Controls, Plastic Omniun, Continental and Belplas.&quot;Industry and the automobile industry in particular do not need to be treated with such arrogance by the current GM management. Stealing away the right to an income of thousands of workers in such a disgusting way, especially after all their efforts and endeavours over the years to produce top quality, is simply a crime,&quot; said Guido Nelissen, economic advisor of Belgian trade union ACV-CSC METEA.After having decided to phase out production of the Opel Astra, GM signed an agreement with trade unions to replace the Astra by two small SUV's at the Antwerp plant. The company brutally broke this written agreement. For trade unions in Belgium, this decision is inspired by mere political considerations which have no economic grounds whatsoever. On September 23, 2009 all local and European trade unions announced that they would not accept any plant closures nor imposed lay-offs and that they counted on a fair distribution of available production. After GM halted its advanced negotiations with Canadian Magna for a take-over of Opel, it announced 8,300 redundancies in its European plants. In addition to Belgium, GM has plants in the UK, Spain, Sweden, Germany, Poland, Austria and Hungary. However workers' representatives never had a chance to see a real plan for the future for Opel Europe. So the announced shutdown of Opel Antwerp, is viewed as just a step in a large but hidden European restructuring plan. Previously Saab, the Swedish subsidiary of GM, went into bankruptcy protection. After failed negotiations with investors such as Koeningsegg and Spyker, the future of 3,400 workers in Trollhättan remains very uncertain. The Belgian trade unions have already started a spontaneous blockade of the parking sites of their plant, so no new car can leave the factory. This 'war chest' should help to increase the pressure on the management in order to secure an industrial future for a highly productive facility. Other actions are in preparation.According to the so-called 'Renault-law', approved in the Belgian Parliament after the closure of the Renault Vilvoorde plant in 1997, management can only decide to make people redundant after respecting an information and consultation period, whereby the workers' representatives can introduce alternatives to the proposed redundancies. The Belgian trade unions will make full use of this possibility to convince GM to maintain production in Antwerp.On Thursday January 26, 2010 a European solidarity meeting will be organised at the Antwerp site and on Friday January 29, the Belgian trade unions will hold a country-wide march for jobs in Brussels.

Workers take action to try and secure jobs after GM announces closure of Opel plant in Antwerp, Belgium

Save Saab in Sweden

GM workers across Europe mobilise in Antwerp

G(eneral) M(ess) in Antwerp

GLOBAL: Celebrating its tenth year of existence, the <a href="http://www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/index.php?cd_language=2" target="_blank">World Social Forum (WSF)</a>, will take place in 2010 in a permanent way all year-round with at least 27 regional, national and local events throughout the world during the year.Opening this process, the regional event &quot;Greater Porto Alegre 10 Years Social Forum&quot;, which is going to happen from January 25 to 29, 2010 in the Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul, will have over 500 decentralized activities in the cities of Porto Alegre, Gravataí, Canoas, São Leopoldo, Novo Hamburgo and Sapiranga.One of the main activities of the Greater Porto Alegre Social Forum is the international seminar &quot;10 Years Later: Challenges and proposals for another possible world&quot;, which aims to examine the new challenges of alter-globalist civil society and to design future directions to be followed by the WSF. It also aims to provide a more systematic reflection on what has been done thus far, including mistakes and successes. The WSF is an open meeting place where social movements, networks, NGOs and other civil society organizations can engage in a permanent world process seeking and building alternatives to neo-liberal policies. Many trade unions affiliated to the International Metalworkers' Federation will take part in WSF activities throughout the year.The dates of the 2010 Porte Alegre event overlap with the World Economic Forum's annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, taking place from January 27 to 31, 2010. The 40th anniversary of the WEF meeting will be held under the theme &quot;Improve the State of the World: Rethink, Redesign, Rebuild&quot;, where organizers hope that the 2,500 leaders from over 90 countries representing business, government and civil society participating will show true &quot;corporate global citizenship&quot;. You can find the complete list of World Social Forum events and activities <a href="http://www.forumsocialmundial.org.br/dinamic.php?pagina=eventos%202010%20EN" target="_blank">here</a>. Go <a href="http://www.weforum.org/en/events/AnnualMeeting2010/index.htm" target="_blank">here</a> for more details on the World Economic Forum.&#160;

At a World Social Forum event in Porto Alegre in January 2010, civil society groups will seek alternatives to neo-liberal policies and reflect on ten years of work.

WSF celebrates ten years

CANADA: The Canadian Auto Workers' Union (CAW) is demanding that the federal government release the details of the agreement it made with Xstrata when it took over Falconbridge in 2006, to see if that deal is violated by Xstrata's plans to close its copper and zinc operations at Kidd Creek, near Timmins, Ontario.The Switzerland-based company's December 7, 2009 announcement of the closures has sparked a massive campaign by the CAW in an effort to save 500 of the union's members' jobs, another 170 Xstrata employees and 200 workers hired on contract. The CAW estimates additional 3,000 - 4,000 jobs will be lost in Timmins and surrounding communities due to the proposed closures.&quot;Canadians deserve to know exactly what was in that 2006 agreement,&quot; said CAW President Ken Lewenza.  The CAW will press for government action to reverse the closure decision, if indeed, as is expected, the 2006 deal required Xstrata to continue operating value-added facilities.In a letter to Xstrata CEO Mick Davis, International Metalworkers' Federation general secretary Jyrki Raina called on the company to &quot;postpone taking such drastic measures and allow for constructive dialogue between the CAW, Xstrata and community leaders in an effort to explore alternative long-term solutions that will prove beneficial to all parties.&quot;The CAW, workers, their families and community members held a rally on January 17 to show solidarity with the workers facing lay-off and activate the community in how they can take action against the closures. Rally participants were asked to contact their government representatives and explain how the lay-offs would impact their families and community.The CAW campaign titled &quot;Our Resources Stay Here&quot; is similar to the fight the United Steelworkers (USW) has launched against Brazilian-owned mining giant Vale in nearby Sudbury, Ontario. The CAW has supported USW Local 6500 on picket lines and with financial support in its current six-month strike against Vale Inco, and it has also joined USW in calling on the Canadian Parliament to enact legislation that would give transparency to deals made under the Investment Canada Act. For more information about the CAW's struggle against Xstrata, go to the union local's website at: <a href="http://www.caw599.ca/" target="_blank">http://www.caw599.ca/</a>

Canadian miners are protesting the Swiss mining company's plans to close its copper and zinc operations, calling on government to intervene.

IMF letter to Xstrata CEO in support of CAW

CAW fights proposed Xstrata plant closures

CHINA: In its urgent appeal for letters to be sent to Gold Peak, Good Electronics reports on calls for an inquiry into the violence used against workers by security guards at Power Pack, a Gold Peak subsidiary in Huizhou, China during a strike in December.Non-governmental Chinese labour groups, including Globalization Monitor and the Asia Monitor Resource Centre are also calling on Gold Peak to pay the full hospitalization costs of the workers injured by this violence and to compensate the workers sacked in relation to the incident.In December 2009 growing dissatisfaction with low wages at the plant resulted in a two-day strike, which turned sour when three workers were locked up and treated badly by the company's security guards. In the course of the strike, workers blocked the gates as well as the main road to the compound.Four employees of Power Pack were later summoned to the local police station to assist in an investigation into the road blockade. Among the four was Ms Wang Fengping, a 45-year old engineer employed with Gold Peak since 1995. Ms Wang suffers from severe kidney failure, caused by cadmium exposure while working for Gold Peak. Ms Wang was released after being questioned for more than 10 hours on account of her medical condition; the three other workers were kept in detention until January 2, 2010. Following the detention at the police station, Gold Peak has fired Ms Wang.These recent problems at Power Pack are set against the background of the unresolved issue of the compensation of Gold Peak workers who have been exposed to cadmium. Over the past years, hundreds of workers involved in the manufacturing of cadmium batteries have been diagnosed with cadmium poisoning or excessive cadmium levels in their urine. Till this date, the Gold Peak management and the workers have not been able to reach an agreement over diagnosis methodology and compensation packages.Gold Peak batteries are used in all types of toys and electronics products.Click here to join Good Electronics' urgent appeal to Gold Peak to improve its record: <a href="http://goodelectronics.org/urgent-appeals/letters/gold-peak/" target="_blank">http://goodelectronics.org/urgent-appeals/letters/gold-peak/</a>

Chinese battery producer Gold Peak Industrial Holding Ltd under fire by Chinese and international labour groups for failing to be a decent employer.

Cadmium poisoning at Chinese battery factory

Labour rights groups protest Gold Peak&#039;s performance

COP 15 refers to the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP), which this year takes place in Copenhagen. The negotiating process on climate change revolves around the sessions of the UNFCCC, which meets every year to review the implementation of the convention. The COP adopts decisions and resolutions, published in reports of the COP. The COP also serves as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP) which also adopts decisions and resolutions on the implementation of its provisions. Participation in COP15 and CMP 5 is restricted to duly nominated representatives of the parties, observer states, accredited observer organisations and accredited press/media.Thousands of participants including government representatives and observer organizations have attended previous climate change conferences. The sessions in Bali, Indonesia (COP13) attracted over 10,000 participants, including 3,500 government officials, over 5,800 representatives of UN bodies and agencies, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, and nearly 1,500 accredited members of the media. This year in Copenhagen the figure may be even higher with 20,000 people expected and at least half of them will be from civil society.More than 180 trade unionists have already registered to attend the meeting and the union delegation is being coordinated by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) in close cooperation with LO-Denmark. In addition to the negotiations, a number of major trade union activities have been planned, the largest of which is the World of Work Pavilion (WOW) in the LO-Denmark building on December 14 to 16. During this activity a whole series of events will take place to promote the views of trade unions and what we believe any future agreement should contain.<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1" align="center"><tbody><tr><td><a href="../index.cfm?c=21575&amp;mwId=21566&amp;l=2">&lt;&lt; back</a></td><td> </td><td><a href="../index.cfm?c=21574&amp;mwId=21566&amp;l=2">beginning</a></td><td> </td><td align="center" valign="middle"><a href="../index.cfm?c=21579&amp;mwId=21566&amp;l=2">forward &gt;&gt;</a></td></tr></tbody></table>

Influencing the climate debate

How it all started

What is COP 15

Sustainable job creation

Special report Download the pdf file with illustrations >>

In 1979, the inception of today's modern day climate programme began, and the first world climate conference was held in Geneva, Switzerland. This conference was the first to recognize climate change as a serious problem. The mainly scientific gathering explored how climate change might affect human activities in the future. It also endorsed plans to establish a World Climate Programme (WCP) under the joint responsibility of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU). It also led to the creation, by WMO and UNEP, of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988.During the late 1980s and early 1990s awareness of the issue of climate change was beginning to develop and a number of intergovernmental conferences took place and, together with increasing scientific evidence, these conferences helped to raise concern about the issue. Gradually the issue of global warming and its potential impact on life on earth began to move up the political agenda.The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its first Assessment Report in 1990. Approved after a painstaking peer review process, the Report confirmed the scientific evidence for climate change. This had a powerful effect on both policy makers and the general public at its release and provided the basis for negotiations on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which was adopted at the &quot;Rio Earth Summit&quot; in 1992, and entered into force on March 21, 1994.The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the foundation of global efforts to combat global warming. The Convention on Climate Change attempts to set an overall framework for intergovernmental efforts to tackle the challenge posed by climate change. It recognizes that the climate system is a shared resource whose stability can be affected by industrial and other emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The ultimate objective of the treaty is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent human interference with the climate system. The Convention enjoys near universal membership, with 192 countries (the parties) having ratified but contains no enforcement mechanisms and in that sense is considered non-legally binding. In reality the fact that it was not binding probably helped its universal membership.Since the UNFCCC entered into force, the parties have been meeting annually in the Conference of the Parties (COP) to assess progress in dealing with climate change, and beginning in the mid-1990s to negotiate the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol, which was adopted in 1997 and entered into force in 2005, has 184 Parties of the Convention having ratified its Protocol. The major feature of this Protocol is that it sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European Community to reducing their emissions by an average of five per cent by 2012 against 1990 levels. The major distinction between the Protocol and the Convention is that while the Convention encouraged industrialized countries to stabilize Green House Gas emissions (GHG), the Protocol commits them to do so.The Protocol also recognizes that industrialized countries are principally responsible for the current high level of GHG in the atmosphere due to 150 years of industrial activity and is based on a cap and trade mechanism. So the Protocol also places a heavier burden on developed nations under the principle of &quot;common but differentiated responsibilities&quot;, which were listed and identified in Annex 1 of the UNFCCC and thereafter referred to as Annex 1 countries.Signatories to the UNFCCC are split into three groups, Annex 1 (Industrialized countries) Annex 2 (countries that have a special obligation to provide financial resources and facilitate technology transfer to developing countries, these include the 24 original OECD members plus the European Union) and Annex 3 (developing countries not expected to de-carbonize their economies unless developed countries supply enough funding and technology). So far 137 developing countries (including India and China) have ratified the Protocol but none of these nations are obliged to reduce emissions. Under the treaty, countries must meet their targets through national measures. However the Kyoto Protocol offers them an additional means of meeting their targets by way of three market-based mechanisms. They are:Emissions trading schemes (ETS) Known as &quot;the carbon market&quot;, emissions trading is a market-based scheme for environmental improvement that allows parties to buy and sell permits for emissions or credits for reductions in emissions of certain pollutants.Clean development mechanism (CDM) A Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) allows Annex 1 countries to buy carbon credits by investing in sustainable projects in developing countries, such as energy from waste power plants or wind farms, which will reduce GHG emissions in those countries. These credits can then be counted towards an industrialized country's emissions targets. Understandably the CDM has proved to be highly controversial as an easy way out for industrialized countries without tackling the problems at home.Joint implementation (JI)Any Annex I country can invest in emission reduction projects (referred to as &quot;Joint Implementation Projects&quot;) in any other Annex I country as an alternative to reducing emissions domestically. In this way countries can lower the costs of complying with their Kyoto targets by investing in greenhouse gas reductions in an Annex I country where reductions are cheaper, and then applying the credit for those reductions towards their commitment goal.The aim is for these mechanisms to help stimulate green investment and help parties meet their targets in a cost effective way.However, the Kyoto Protocol was not without problems as the United States, at the time the world's largest emitter, would have been required to reduce its total emissions by an average of seven per cent below 1990 levels, however neither the Clinton nor the Bush administration sent the Protocol to Congress for ratification. The Bush administration explicitly rejected the Protocol in 2001. While the Kyoto agreement accomplished little in terms of slowing emissions it has however been successful in making the heads of 90 per cent of the world's governments acknowledge that climate change is a real problem. The Kyoto Protocol is set to expire in 2012 and in Denmark the COP 15 will attempt to hammer out the details and construct a final agreement for the period 2012 to 2020 to be signed in Copenhagen. This needs to be done by December in order to allow national governments time to prepare for implementation beyond 2012. The signs of achieving this however do not look positive.<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1" align="center"><tbody><tr><td><a href="../index.cfm?c=21574&amp;mwId=21566&amp;l=2">&lt;&lt; back</a></td><td> </td><td><a href="../index.cfm?c=21574&amp;mwId=21566&amp;l=2">beginning</a></td><td> </td><td align="center" valign="middle"><a href="../index.cfm?c=21576&amp;mwId=21566&amp;l=2">forward &gt;&gt;</a></td></tr></tbody></table>

&quot;The hub could be elsewhere in Europe, or somewhere like Singapore. But if it was in the UK, then the BAs of this world would then be in a position to drive change.&quot; Bernie's point is that an international hub airport built in the UK would produce fewer emissions than the same hub anywhere else, because British industry would build and run the airport in a lower-carbon way. &quot;Companies [in the UK aviation sector] constantly strive to bring new technologies onto the market. They're striving to substantially reduce their emissions, but the green lobby wouldn't recognize that.&quot; So why doesn't Unite speak out for emissions cuts as clearly as it spoke out in favour of aviation expansion? &quot;Unite is already promoting cleaner technology. For example, Unite in Scotland is pushing for carbon capture on coal-fired power stations. There's lots of policy bubbling along but it hasn't been unified into a clear statement.&quot; The most recent research on aviation and climate change suggests that improved technology won't be enough to prevent the damage. Even with optimistic estimates of increased fuel efficiency and better air traffic management, the CO2 emissions from aviation are still set to quadruple by 2050.But according to Bernie, we already have technology that could go a long way towards cutting emissions; the real problem is a lack of interest and investment. &quot;Rolls-Royce has done work on a more fuel-efficient plane, and it's ready to launch, but they don't know if the market's ready. The new advanced planes are 20-30 per cent more fuel-efficient than current planes, but they won't launch because they fear they'll be a flop in the current climate. Airlines are on their knees just now; they don't have the liquidity [to invest in new solutions]. Any new technology is a new purchase.&quot;Bernie also believes that many workers in the union fail to see any connection between their jobs and climate change. &quot;It should be more linked. As unions we are here to address climate change, just as we're here to fight fascism or show solidarity for workers in Cuba. But the drive has to come from the top.&quot;<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1" align="center"><tbody><tr><td><a href="../index.cfm?c=21571&amp;mwId=21566&amp;l=2">&lt;&lt; back</a></td><td> </td><td><a href="../index.cfm?c=21567&amp;mwId=21566&amp;l=2">beginning</a></td><td> </td><td align="center" valign="middle"><a href="../index.cfm?c=21573&amp;mwId=21566&amp;l=2">forward &gt;&gt;</a></td></tr></tbody></table>

The cutting edge of tackling climate change

A global view

Advance warning

Protecting pensions

Negotiating solutions

Technology & investment

Feature: Download pdf file with illustrations >>

Technology &amp; investment

He joined TASS, an engineering union that later became part of Unite, shortly after starting the job at Stevenage, but didn't become active in the union until 1994, when BAE sold the plant to GEC Marconi and workers had to leave the BAE pension scheme. He explains: &quot;BAE at the time was sitting on a very large pension surplus, but they initially didn't want to let us have any of it!&quot; The union was instrumental in getting a much better pension settlement from BAE than the one originally proposed. A few years later, BAE bought the Stevenage plant back from Marconi and again the union successfully fought for a better pension deal.His most important union work so far was done in 2004, when Astrium was sold to EADS (European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company). Once again, the fight was about pensions. The new management planned to replace the existing final salary scheme with a money purchase scheme that would have left older employees worse off: it would have been in the financial interests of most workers over 50 to leave and take their pension payment straight away rather than to stay at the company and defer it.Peter sees the union at Astrium as &quot;guardians of the pension scheme&quot;. It's one of the few issues that staff would be prepared to strike over. But, thanks to Peter, it didn't come to that.He carried out negotiations in two ways. As shop steward for the UK plant, he negotiated with management at the site in the traditional fashion. But European law gave him another way of getting the company to listen. Companies of EADS's size and international scope are obliged to establish European Works Councils. These bodies bring together workers' representatives from all the countries the company operates in, so that they can meet with management and give their views on decisions that affect them.Peter's role as a workers' representative on the Works Council gave him access to EADS senior management in France and a chance to explain the problem with the pension scheme: that a money purchase scheme would be a financial incentive for anybody over 50 to leave sooner rather than later. In other words, the company risked losing a large proportion of its most skilled, experienced employees. Senior management saw Peter's calculations and recognized the strong business case for keeping the existing pension scheme, so they changed their plans. Existing employees would now get a final salary pension scheme that mirrored the one they'd been on before. New employees are on a hybrid scheme, a mixture of final salary and money purchase.When EADS saw how successful the mirror scheme was at Astrium, they extended the concept to the company's other subsidiaries, such as Airbus and McAlpine Helicopters. Peter believes that bringing a social conscience to bear on business decisions is a big part of European culture, which is why it was possible to get a good, lasting pension deal from French management. But his two-pronged approach, speaking to senior EADS management through the European forum as well as negotiating at the UK plant, must have been a major contributing factor. <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1" align="center"><tbody><tr><td><a href="../index.cfm?c=21569&amp;mwId=21566&amp;l=2">&lt;&lt; back</a></td><td> </td><td><a href="../index.cfm?c=21567&amp;mwId=21566&amp;l=2">beginning</a></td><td> </td><td align="center" valign="middle"><a href="../index.cfm?c=21571&amp;mwId=21566&amp;l=2">forward &gt;&gt;</a></td></tr></tbody></table>

But it's when the focus returns to our own planet that things get really interesting. The Earth-observing satellites built by Astrium are helping with the battle against the biggest threat the world has ever faced: climate change. Peter Cheney, thermal engineer and shop steward, explains why weather satellites are essential for monitoring climate change: &quot;To combat global change, you need to have a global view, and you can't have a global view from the ground.&quot; Currently that global view is given to us by ENVISAT, a satellite launched as part of Europe's biggest and most complex Earth observation mission to date. &quot;It's about the size of a bus, a single-decker bus,&quot; says Peter. ENVISAT orbits the earth every two hours and returns high-quality data on ten different aspects of environmental change including wave height, wind speed and ozone layer thickness. When the European Space Agency was planning ENVISAT, it chose Astrium UK for the most crucial part: creating all the instruments for measuring the Earth's environment and the technology for sending that data back to Earth. (The work was done at its now-defunct Bristol plant.) Astrium's French and German sites were also heavily involved. Scientists agree that the Earth's temperature risks hitting a &quot;tipping point&quot; where climate change becomes unstoppable. Where they disagree is how soon we'll reach it and whether or not it's already too late. Accurate measurements of global climate change indicators - sea temperatures, wind speeds, polar ice thickness and so on - are vital for feeding into computer models and helping scientists to evaluate the threat. But the potential for satellites to help us cope with climate change goes beyond even that. <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="1" align="center"><tbody><tr><td><a href="../index.cfm?c=21567&amp;mwId=21566&amp;l=2">&lt;&lt; back</a></td><td> </td><td><a href="../index.cfm?c=21567&amp;mwId=21566&amp;l=2">beginning</a></td><td> </td><td align="center" valign="middle"><a href="../index.cfm?c=21569&amp;mwId=21566&amp;l=2">forward &gt;&gt;</a></td></tr></tbody></table>

Archive

About IndustriALL

Follow us

Contact us