There is clearly space to argue around this topic and alternatives to the New Labourist scenario I presented, although I think this will win the day.

The day to day reality I experience is the demands of members around their own interests (which are entirely legitimate and valid, albeit very narrowly defined) and the ironically all-pervading apathy that makes it very difficult to fill meetings and get people to take up posts.

On top of Stewards and Health and Safety Reps, we now need Learning Reps (another New Labour agenda I am little ambivalent about, but at least its something that interests members) and Equality Reps (which interests me immensely). Are we really expected to recruit Environmental Reps as well?

I’ve often thought about the “Fortress Europe” thing. It really makes no sense for the capitalist media to spend so much time exciting antipathy to immigrants when migrant labour actually benefits the system. There’s three possible explanations for this 1)Appealing to people’s racist inclinations is a good way to sell papers 2) “Illegal” workers are exempt from employment law and easier to exploit and (most worrying) 3) The gates need to be sealed against the arrival of refugees from coming environmental cataclysms.

Looking at how the unions fudge around the issue of immigration controls doesn’t give much hope, and of course they can’t speak convincingly to the government, as New Labour knows that “The Daily Mail” is a better barometer of public opinion than what is written in union journals. (Despite my “bread and butter” tendencies I always try to speak up for asylum seekers and forward a progressive union view on migrant workers with my colleagues, but I end up having to deal with remedial-class arguments like “The BNP aren’t really Nazis, are they???” And this is from someone who works in “the caring profession”… a thoroughly nice guy, too!!!)

LOL You know I’d quite like to go to the conference, but I suspect I’d just depress everyone…

Yes, there are some clear working class demands that do help. For example one would be to renationalise the railways. Questions of transport choices must be opened up to collective and democratic control, rather than left as business choices by managerial elites. Some new high speed trains lead to higher emissions, but no one asked us if we wanted a more expensive and faster service, or a cheaper, slower and more ecological one.

And empowering workers and their collective voice must play a leading part of the general extension of democracy into the economy we need in order to address climate change.

Yet today’s trades unions are often unable to defend pay, jobs and conditions in their weakened and depoliticised state after years of defeats.

Furthermore, the kind of radical social changes we need to make to minimise greenhouse gas emissions are difficult to connect to a traditional trades unionism. This is a trades unionism necessarily locked into securing a bigger slice of the cake for workers within a consumer society of escalating capitalist growth.

We want to increase the quality and standard of living for the majority in society - but that is not the same as increasing consumerism, the individualised race to buy more pointless crap.

But your characterisation of folk who want to ‘raise the issue’ in their union reminds me of the old CP joke: “Those in favour, crawl up to the front and raise your right claw!”

I can’t see anyone here painting a different picture of the union movement than you have. But I have to agree with one of the earlier posters who made the point about ‘bread and butter’ issues.

Women workers and cars: Argue for a free cab service until there are enough buses.

Public Sector a polluter: Are you kidding? You know how much oil it takes to heat a small hospital. Argue for better insulation. For that matter, demand free insulation for homes.

Climate Change a class issue?: Your own points ably demonstrate that it is central. Our ‘job’ is to put the argument, not ignore it in favour of a new recruitment drive.

It’s an arena where your members are concerned and are looking for answers. If unions don’t take up these arguments then the decline you point to will simply accelerate. Unions, because of their leaderships, have become less relevent even on the ‘bread and butter’ issues, they don’t need much help in becoming more so.

Instead, we will no doubt be encouraged to have something like “carbon reduction partnerships” using smidgeons of government money filtered down into private pockets via a “Union Green Fund” whilst TUC bigwigs pat themselves on the back and membership figures continue to haemorrhage.

Another question is what do we do when this agenda provides an excuse to attack workers. Eg. cutting car allowances to encourage use of public transport or not providing car parks. If any of that sounds like a good idea to you, I’m talking about issues such as women with childcare responsibilities having unpaid hours added to the beginning and end of their working day and being put at risk by having to wait around in the cold and wet at badly-lit bus stops at the edge of some out-of-town industrial estate. Green? Definitely. In our members’ interests? Certainly not!

I’m sorry if that sounds too “bread and butter” to some people, but its the reality of class society. In our increasingly polarised society, the rich will be able to carry on as normal driving their 4×4s and jetting off for three exotic holidays a year, whilst the poor will bear the brunt of climate protection measures.

Look at Formerly-Red Ken and his “cars only for the rich” policy in Central London. (I was quited amazed, btw, to learn that expensive and fashionable “hybrid” cars are exempt from the Congestion Charge - do these vehicles somehow not cause congestion?)

Trade unions could get into a mess over this, because, ultimately, climate change is not a class issue. It affects everyone. OK, the rich will have more resources to ameliorate its effects on them personally (i.e. move from worse-effected areas), but that’s as far as it goes.

OK, there’s the “savage capitalism” argument, but that’s not going to take us very far, as socialist states have never had a good record on the environment. OK, there’s Cuba - but how many of their laudable achievements in the area of alternative energy and organic farming have come about as a result of the imperialist blockade? When you can’t get oil or fertiliser, you have to look for alternatives. Which is the same pattern as under capitalism - change only happens when there is no alternative.

(Cue comments about Stalinism not being true socialism; okay, I’m heard it before - “Neither Washington nor Moscow, but Somewhere Over the Rainbow” as we used to say - but you’ll have your work cut out convincing my colleagues who think the People’s Republic of China is going to be one the main causes of global warming).

Unions aren’t exactly in a position of power at the moment, are they? Neither is socialism in the minds of the workers… Solutions that “suit the rich and powerful” are all that are going to be looked at. The question is - how far are we willing to go along with these? With reflection, I think the Conference could be a good thing if it alerts trade unionists to the real issue and empowers to reject the inevitable crap “solutions” that will attack members’ conditions.

I’m extremely surprised, btw, that Roy thinks that bread and butter issues are “entirely containable within capitalism”. Erm, issues like a living wage, for example? Ending poverty and exploitation of vulnerable workers? It’s a possibility, but I don’t see it happening within the Anglo-American neoliberal model of capitalism that is ascendant at present.

The public sector is currently the stronghold of what remains of Britain’s decimated unions. Is the public sector a major polluter? Can we make a significant difference? If so (and it’s a big “if”!) - how high should this be prioritised against fighting cuts and privatisation? The public sector is being attacked and victimised left, right and centre. Soon we will have an atomised, privatised workforce that will be almost out of the reach of unions.

People need to stop warbling on about the historic achievement of unions “fighting for social change” and realise we’re on our back feet struggling to keep what we’ve got.

One final question which ties this all together, comrades: Would Karen Reissman have been sacked for speaking out about carbon emissions?

If you are a rich person in a rich country you’ll get off pretty lightly. You can buy your way out of trouble. If you are a poor person in a poor country your options range from starvation (check out what is happening to food prices), disease, flooding, drought.

The rich and powerful will find a solution that suits them. Unless the working class starts coming up with some ideas the future does not look too bright for the majority of humanity. It’s a modest start but this conference is the first attempt in Britain to start looking at climate change as a working class issue.

Read the Socialist Resistance piece “Savage Capitalism”.

Bollocks. My members want to know if they’re going to get an above-inflation pay rise this year and whether the local authority day centre they work in is going to be closed down or privatised. All this “greening the workplace” crap is New Labour froth to further distract from why the members pay their subs.

Even if the unions went all-out to save the planet, we haven’t got the muscle to do so. Let’s have an emergency conference to discuss why density is down to 25%. Inaction on climate change just ain’t the answer, comrades.