Abstract
The emergence of the Climate Jobs National Resource Center and the support from several unions for the Inflation Reduction Act are recent examples of the US labour movement supporting climate action. Given the historical tension between labour movements and environmental/climate movements, does this recent support for climate policy from US unions signify a new era in Blue-Green relations? We argue that the marked increase in climate advocacy does not signal a fundamental shift in values or tactics. Rather, by applying Dimitris Stevis’ idea of “relational labour-environmentalism,” we posit that as green capital expands, labour unions advocate for policies that will create jobs for their members within green capitalism versus an explicit commitment to ending fossil fuel use. While not indicative of a fundamental shift, the importance of these types of policy campaigns is not diminished. In discussing these new labour-climate developments, we introduce the idea of intra-labor coalitions, where a coalition of unions advocate for climate policies, specifically labor standards in renewable energy legislation to help contexualize this new development in labor-climate organizing. We draw a contrast between these efforts and more traditional Blue-Green coalitions in order to understand and position these recent advancements within the broader discussion on labor movements and climate change.
Keywords
Introduction
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) was the largest infusion of money into addressing the climate crisis in US history (Bang, 2024). Among its advocates, several labour unions strongly supported the passage of the IRA, with Liz Schuler, head of the AFL-CIO, calling the legislation “an incredible step forward” (Schuler, 2022). The vocal support from unions, particularly in the energy, transportation, and construction industries, was a marked change from the last ambitious climate effort in 2019 when the Green New Deal resolution was introduced. At that time, the AFL-CIO's energy committee said it was “not achievable or realistic” and argued it “could cause immediate harm to millions of our members and their families” (Roberts and Stephenson, 2019).
Alongside support for the IRA, the Climate Jobs National Resource Center (CJNRC), a coalition of unions advocating for climate policy, has seen several US state-level legislative successes in recent years that advance pro-climate, pro-worker policies. Given the historical tensions between labor movements and environmental/climate movements, we ask whether this recent support for climate policy from US unions signifies a new era in Blue-Green relations where labor unions prioritize and advocate for climate action? We argue that while there is a marked increase in climate advocacy, this recent advocacy does not signal a fundamental shift in values or tactics. Rather, the recent advocacy is an example of labor reacting to current socio-political circumstances, specifically the ascendency of green capital as evidenced by the IRA. Applying political scientist Dimitris Stevis’ idea of “relational labor-environmentalism,” we argue that as green capital expands, labor unions react by advocating for policies that will create jobs for their members within green capitalism rather than embracing a social justice unionism type of commitment to addressing climate change. However, the importance of these types of policy campaigns or their legislative achievements is not diminished as they are necessary, but not sufficient, for advancing a just transition.
In discussing the development of labor–climate campaigns, we identify a development within labor-environmentalism of intra-labor coalitions, where a coalition of unions, as opposed to a multi-interest coalition, advocates for climate policies, specifically labor standards in renewable energy legislation. We draw a contrast between these efforts and more traditional Blue-Green coalitions in order to understand and position these recent advancements within the broader discussion on labor movements and climate change. In particular, our paper discusses what concerns the labor movement in the US expresses about efforts to combat the climate crisis, specifically the job creation potential of low-carbon efforts in various sectors. We argue that the focus of the labor movement efforts are around job creation and standards and not more ambitious policies, such as fossil fuel drawdown, which would more directly address climate change but would also result in job losses.
Using the case study of the CJNRC, we explore the evolution of labor and the environment and how workers view and engage with climate action. We use the case study to highlight the emergence of intra-labor coalitions and also note what policies are absent from their advocacy. We begin with a brief history of labor–environment and labor–climate discussions and the emergence of Blue-Green configurations. In particular, we discuss worker demands and interests in these different configurations and how they emerged. We then move to a discussion of relational labor-environmentalism and a brief history of the alliance between labor and employers. We then present the case of the CJNRC and its US state-based climate jobs campaigns to highlight the promise of intra-labor coalitions and also illustrate the relational labor-environmentalism approach of their advocacy. We conclude with questions for further research and analysis.
A brief history of labor and environmental movements: moving from jobs versus the environment to jobs and the environment
For much of the mid-twentieth century, the rhetoric of “jobs versus the environment” dominated the relationship between labor and environmental interests. In Fear at Work, Richard Kazis argues that companies often utilized the tactic of “environmental job blackmail,” claiming that environmental protection would lead to economic hardship and job loss (Kazis, 1982). Workers were told that the increased costs associated with environmental regulations would result in job loss and displacement. Rather than protecting work and workers, this framing is often deployed to protect the interests of firms opposed to the increased cost of environmental and climate compliance by feeding division between labor and environmentalists (Gordon, 1998). This framing pits workers and environmentalists against each other, encourages workers to be hostile to environmental and climate protections, and forces workers into choosing between retaining their jobs or stronger environmental protections. Indeed, this type of rhetoric in the 1980s caused national labor federations, such as the AFL-CIO, to abandon much of their commitment to environmental causes out of fear of lost employment during an era of declining union membership and resources (Gordon, 1998).
In industrial settings, the jobs versus environment frame has often led to fundamental conflicts between environmental protection or livelihoods that are presented as a “zero-sum game,” where either jobs or the environment is preserved but not both (Kalt, 2021; Loomis, 2021). Labor sociologists Todd Vachon and Jeremy Brecher discuss how the tension between environmentalists and workers was used to advance policies advantageous to the employer (Vachon and Brecher, 2016). They note the example of when logging companies held meetings during work hours to convince their employees to oppose the Endangered Species Act even though proper regulation of the logging industry may have actually allowed for extending employment. The timber industry in the 1980s and 1990s was a lightning rod for conflict between labor and environmental groups with media framing these tensions through slogans such as “Jobs v. Owl” (Rose, 2000: 1–5). Middle-class environmentalists accused unions of not understanding the ecosystem, while loggers argued that these middle-class activists cared little for their jobs, livelihoods, or culture.
While it peaked in the twentieth century, the jobs versus environment tension continues today. For example, in the auto industry, workers can sometimes fall into the jobs versus environment perception in their opposition to a transition away from combustion engines and toward electric vehicles (Allan and Robinson, 2022). This concern is heightened by predicted job loss in the transition and the prevalence of non-union jobs in electric vehicle manufacturing, most famously at the Tesla Company (Charette, 2023).
The jobs versus environment frame may be seen as a form of protectionism for work and workers, but flattening people into only their identity as workers masks that many of the proposed regulations or policies would be beneficial for workers and workplaces. Regulations can lead to cleaner, healthier, and safer workplaces and/or cleaner and healthier communities where workers live. Indeed, the late labor leader Tony Mazzocchi noted this reality and claimed that workplaces should be considered as an environmental issue (Leopold, 2007). Moreover, workers are not excluded from having environmental concerns. In looking at a range of indicators, studies show that union members support various environmental initiatives (Vachon and Brecher, 2016). Other research has found that while no difference exists between union and non-union households in support of environmental policies, union households increase their concern for environmental issues and were more willing to spend money on environmental initiatives during stronger economic times, making solidarity more likely (Kojola et al., 2014). Union members may also be more willing to support environmental spending (Chen, 2017). Researchers also argue that a labor–environmental perspective may better take into account the activism of social movements in the Global South and working-class environmentalism in the Global North (Satheesh, 2020). Focusing on work and labor can include a view of environmentalism that has the potential to address issues of poverty, social justice, and inequality outside of a middle-class perspective that emerges from some traditional environmental groups.
At the heart of the jobs versus environment tension is the economic uncertainty that follows the loss of employment. Research by social scientists Nora Räthzel and David Uzzell on how to navigate the jobs versus environment tension within unions finds that, “engaging in a dialogue where the interests of workers are the point of departure, not something to be neglected,” can help overcome the tension (Räthzel and Uzzell, 2011: 1220). As a response to this rhetoric and tension, especially accelerating in the 1990s, both environmentalists and labor leaders crafted new frameworks that promised cooperation and solidarity that would address both labor and environmental issues. These formations, often called “Blue-Green” coalitions or labor–environment advocacy, are well studied. In analyzing the advocacy work of the Wisconsin Labor–Environmental Network, sociologist Brian Obach identified four advocacy campaigns in which labor and environmental organizations worked together, three successfully and one unsuccessfully (Obach, 1999). Environmental advocacy, Obach argues, is an example of value-based advocacy, a new form of social movement emanating from the 1960s, where people engage in advocacy based on a value alignment instead of political or class consciousness. The three campaigns that were successful all had some version of cooperation, whether it was that the interests of labor and environmentalists aligned completely or whether they were able to come together through repositioning and expanding framing or through building trust. Some coalitions even undertook “enlightened cooperation,” where union leaders embraced the values of environmentalism even when it threatened their class interests (Obach, 1999: 47).
To take a more structural approach to address jobs versus environment concerns, Tony Mazzochi argued for a “Superfund for workers,” to ensure that workers and communities were supported as societies transitioned away from hazardous industries (Leopold, 2007). Mazzocchi argued for a dedicated fund to help transition workers in toxic industries similar to the Superfund program, which required hazardous waste operators to contribute to future clean up funds. Mazzocchi's proposal, along with advocacy from environmental justice leaders, set the foundation for what is now known as “just transition” (Cha and Pastor, 2022; Farrell, 2012). Today, many labor and environmental groups utilize the language of just transition to advocate for a transition to a carbon-free economy that addresses inequality, the impact on fossil fuel workers, and the needs of frontline communities (Pollin and Callaci, 2019). Just transition requires that workers and community needs are addressed as economies transition away from fossil fuel use. As a result, to overcome any division within unions and lingering concern of jobs versus environment trade-off, any green jobs created from low-carbon initiatives must be decent jobs for a just transition to occur (Snell and Fairbrother, 2010). An extensive review of literature on just transition campaigns found that they can offer some of the most transformative policies in energy transition while pushing labor to be more inclusive (Wilgosh et al., 2022). A just transition framework may also aid in challenging retrenchment from the fossil fuel industry and in promoting a more equitable distribution of resources (Cha, 2024; Goddard and Farrelly, 2018).
Limitations of Blue-Green alliances
While philosophically and politically desirable, stable and durable Blue-Green alliances are challenging to create and sustain. In the fourth case Obach discusses, one dealing with toxics regulation, the labor–environment coalition was unable to reach alignment because of the immediate threat to work and workers that toxics regulation brought causing the coalition broke down (Obach, 1999). Even victories of Blue-Green initiatives, such as the coalition that formed around the closing of the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in California, have resulted in setbacks as the plant has continued to operate (Nelson and Ramana, 2023). Sociologist David Ciplet also finds that coalitions must overcome labor and environmental divides to have the strategic power to make transformative change occur (Ciplet, 2022). Labor unions can also be very hesitant in looking for external allies when taking collective action (Dixon and Martin, 2012). The threat to jobs and existing work can cause union members to fall back into a “jobs versus environment” mindset. Mayer et al. discuss how labor and environmental groups created a common discourse around framing issues of health and safety as a “basic human right,” but as the advocacy moved toward action, the coalition became weaker with labor wary of isolating industry (Mayer et al., 2010). Gould et al. also found that sustaining long-term labor–environmental coalitions was difficult because of different views of environmentalism, class divisions, and the marginalization of systematic critiques within both sides of the coalition (Gould et al., 2004).
Other scholars have argued that some Blue-Green efforts have not been ambitious enough and are unable to confront the issues needed for greater climate action (Stevis, 2018). Labor unions in coalitions may push aside climate concerns, such as in the case of the Blue-Green Alliance during debates over fossil fuel pipelines and the Green New Deal. In this example, ideological conflicts within the coalitions led to a failure to even adopt a position on some of the most important energy transition issues (Hultgren and Stevis, 2020). Coalitions may also be fluid, with individual stakeholders switching from opposing energy transitions to supporting them relatively quickly. However, coalitions formed through these types of disparate groups can shift away from core values of decarbonization (Betsill and Stevis, 2016). Research on just transition has also emphasized the conflicts within coalitions, especially centered around the role of organized labor (Johnson et al., 2021). Unions that represent workers in the fossil fuel industry and fossil fuel infrastructure construction have lobbied against climate policy and expressed hostility toward climate action (Johnson et al., 2021). At the same time, other unions have been in support of climate action particularly unions in the service, healthcare, and education sectors (Vachon, 2021).
The fight over the Dakota Access pipeline highlights the tension between environmentalists, Indigenous advocates, and unions over climate change concerns (Brecher, 2016). In opposition to the oil pipeline were environmentalists, Indigenous advocates, and several unions, including the Communication Workers of America, the Amalgamated Transit Union, the National Nurses Union, and the United Electrical Workers. In support of the pipeline were the North American Building Trades Union and the AFL-CIO, the national federation of unions. Those opposed to the pipeline cited concerns around climate change and tribal sovereignty. Those in favor cited the job creation possibilities of constructing the pipeline and other fossil fuel infrastructure. In this example, the Blue-Green coalition that arose in opposition to the pipeline was in direct conflict with other segments of the labor movement creating substantial tensions that continue to linger.
Labor-environmentalism and the importance of relational labor-environmentalism
Another strand of research on Blue-Green issues focuses on what scholars term, “labor-environmentalism,” which discusses how both the emergence of labor/environment interests and the development of environmental issues and priorities within unions can be integrated into collective bargaining and member education and mobilization (Nugent, 2011). This definition of labor-environmentalism captures a holistic view of how labor interacts with environmental issues, both through external coalitions and advocacy and through internal member organizing and integration within union activities. Another form of labor-environmentalism includes trainings with and for union members on climate and sustainability issues to raise awareness among workers (Byrd and Widenor, 2011). However, some scholars have critiqued the idea of “labor-environmentalism” as overly focused on organized workers and ignoring environmental justice concerns (Barca and Leonardi, 2018). Instead, they offer the framework of “working class environmentalism,” which incorporates the work of social reproduction and sexual divisions of labor and particularly how colonized and racialized peoples bear the brunt of environmental degradation and other inequities (Barca and Leonardi, 2018: 418). This broader framing emphasizes organizing through an inter-sectional approach that unites struggles over production and reproduction.
Recent literature from the special issue of the Journal of Industrial Relations in 2022 also found a more complicated and ambiguous relationship between climate change and labor unions. Looking at workplace relations, social scientists Camilla Houeland and David Jordhus-Lier find that while shop stewards see themselves as agents in the green transition through their work and think about how transitions impact the industry, they do not see environmentalism as an issue shop stewards should engage with in workplaces (Houeland and Jordhus-Lier, 2022). Rather, labor leadership, employers, consumers, or politicians are seen as the main climate actors. A number of scholars have also examined the relationship between employment, unions, and climate. Some scholars argue that fossil fuel unions and businesses have “captured” climate policy and stalled climate legislation through their double representation in politics and their economic power as labor and capital (Mildenberger, 2020). However this view ignores that labor in many circumstances has taken a different approach. Unions in places, such as Australia, aligned themselves with the rhetoric of green jobs, and labor in South Africa sees environmentalism as a means to confront business itself and an expression of working-class values, not aligning with fossil fuel business (Cock and Lambert, 2013).
Moreover, unions are heterogenous and narratives, such as the “the good life,” which connect the climate crisis with a desire for good work associated with degrowth in the Global North, may allow counter challenges to the “treadmill system” that defines neoliberal economies (Keil and Kreinin, 2022). In the Canadian automobile industry, unions have promoted environmental transformation through education on the Green New Deal (Allan and Robinson, 2022). While a majority of autoworkers see job security as more important than climate issues, unions that recognize multiple collective identities, such as mobilizing young workers or focusing on public ownership, may be the key to pushing labor solidarity with climate action. Alliances between labor and environmentalists have the possibility for “social–ecological transformation” which reorient growth away from business objectives, and toward an improved quality of life (Soder et al., 2018: 530).
To provide more context and understanding of these conflicting viewpoints, Dimitris Stevis’ offers the idea of relational labor-environmentalism (Stevis, 2022). Rather than being normative, a relational approach takes the elements of cooperation and conflicts and places them in the broader context of the world political economy. Stevis’ approach of a relational labor-environmentalism looks to place interactions between unions, corporations, and environmentalists within the bounds of the larger history rather than an ahistorical philosophy or dogma within labor. Typically, approaches to labor-environmentalism have examined labor–environment struggles as more isolated battles between workers, businesses, and other social groups. Relational labor-environmentalism examines how structural changes in the global political economy, such as the rise of neo-liberalism in the post-war era, shape the development and outcomes of industrial relations. Environmentalists, unions, and capital are mutually constitutive, forming part of the same system of neoliberal hegemony, which can influence how actors struggle against each other or resolve on a daily basis. Over the past 50 years, governments and corporations have had the upper hand in the liberal capitalist system, where even militant unions have engaged ideologies of “jobs versus the environment” or “job blackmail” (Stevis, 2022). A fossil fuel hegemony has been constructed across government, industry, and labor, where those who challenge this status quo are treated as extremists or pushed to change their politics (Wright et al., 2022). The actions of labor, environmentalists, and corporations build the hegemony of the economic and political systems and are not merely opposing or succumbing to corporate power.
The emergence of intra-labor coalitions: a case study of the CJNRC
A recent development among US labor unions adds a new dimension to Blue-Green coalitions and labor-environmentalism literature. In direct contrast to claims that labor stalls climate legislation, the CJNRC is the first effort in the US where labor unions form coalitions of unions to advance climate legislation, what we identify as an intra-labor coalition. CJNRC evolved from Climate Jobs New York, where unions created a legislative program for labor to take the lead on climate issues (Sainato, 2021). Often described as a, “pro-active, pro-labor” vision for climate advocacy, Climate Jobs New York was the first state-based effort in this new model of intra-labor organizing (Greenhouse, 2019). Following this successful organizing effort in New York State, the labor leaders involved in this movement helped to found CJNRC, a non-profit organization that would take the intra-union model to other states. The focus on the state level was due to climate inaction from the federal government.
CJNRC works closely with the newly formed Climate Jobs Institute (CJI) at Cornell University. In a parallel to CJNRC, the CJI grew out of the Labor Leading on Climate initiative at Cornell University's Worker Institute (Catt, 2023). Labor Leading on Climate spearheaded the research and organizing behind the original Climate Jobs New York effort (Cha and Skinner, 2018). CJI is the academic partner to CJNRC and provides research and analysis on which climate policies would be most appropriate for the specific state and how to maximize job creation. The specific state climate jobs efforts coalesce around a set of policy proposals, which are then used to organize engaged unions to advocate for the policy proposals.
Although CJNRC may be classified as a Blue-Green effort, the majority of the state coalitions remain intra-labor rather than a multi-interest coalition. Even coalitions that have other interest group participation, such as community or environmental justice organizations, prioritize labor interests in the original development of policy recommendations. In contrast to a traditional coalition of environmental and labor interests that come together around a shared goal or a fundamental shift in how labor views and values climate action, CJNRC shows how labor responds to changing economic and political conditions. As the economic and political power of the renewable energy industry increases, some segments of the labor movement align with green capital over dirty capital as a means to protect workers’ interests. As detailed below, the CJNRC coalitions do not take more overtly hostile positions against fossil fuels, such as calling for ending fossil fuel use. Rather, the chosen policy advocacy seeks to ensure labor interests are represented in the ascendant renewable energy development.
Methods and data analysis
To understand how CJNRC represents a case of relational labor-environmentalism, we analyzed both the inner workings of the organization and its aligned state-based coalitions and their policy impact based on publicly available data. In studying coalitional composition, we identified labor-led coalitions in five US states—Connecticut, Rhode Island, Illinois, Maine, and New York—connected to the CJNRC. While there are more than five state-based climate jobs efforts, we focused on the ones that also had legislative successes at the time of writing. Using public information from the CJNRC, we examined the number of members, the total number of legally recognized trade unions or labor federations, and the percentage of trade unions or labor federations with workers in the energy, transportation, or construction industry. For an understanding of the policy impact of these efforts, we reviewed legislation that emerged in these states as a result of advocacy by these coalitions, or whose contents were shaped by these coalitions as part of the political process. One limitation to our analysis is that it is rooted in publicly available data. Future research that included other methods, such as semi-structured interviews, could give more insight into the inner dynamics of intra-labor coalitions.
Coalition formations
Table 1 presents the membership of the climate jobs coalitions. As seen in the table, all coalitions had significant union membership, with the coalitions in Illinois, New York, and Maine consisting entirely of labor unions and federations. The Connecticut Roundtable on Climate and Jobs held the most even membership between labor union and environmental and social justice organizations but still retained a majority of organizational members from unions. Only Rhode Island held a smaller percentage of unions in its total membership than other groups, but unions still guided much of the coalition's agenda with CJNRC support and its leadership called their strategy “a pro-worker climate agenda” (De La Cruz and Crowley, 2022). All coalitions contained membership from transportation, energy, or construction unions or federations that had transportation, energy, or construction workers as part of their membership. In New York, Illinois, and Maine, construction, energy, and transportation unions encompassed the vast majority of the membership of the coalition. In all coalitions, these unions had a prominent role in setting policy objectives especially in the energy and buildings sectors.
State coalitions and union membership.
Union membership data from: Hirsch BT, Macpherson DA, and Even WE. Union membership and coverage database from the CPS. Unionstats.com. Accessed August 2023. See further: Macpherson David A and Hirsch BT. Five decades of CPS wages, methods, and union-nonunion wage gaps at Unionstats.com. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society (2023).
State-based legislation advances
Table 2 shows the legislative policies enacted at the state level supported by the state-based climate jobs campaigns.
Climate legislation and labor provisions.
Analyzing the successful legislative campaigns, a common theme that emerges is the centrality of strong wage and labor protections in expansion of renewable energy projects. Wage and labor protections can be advanced by attaching standards to renewable energy projects because these energy projects often receive subsidies from the government, and are therefore considered “public work,” or are part of a state's competitive energy solicitations. Beyond this commonality, the types of bills each coalition advocated for were varied. In Illinois, a wide-ranging bill looked to remake the economy while legislation in Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Maine was more focused on a specific industry or the plight of workers themselves. New York's labor standards were woven into the state budget and a bill about public ownership of energy rather than an explicit renewable energy bill. States, such as Connecticut and Illinois, required either the wage standard of paying the prevailing wage on renewable energy projects or a project labor agreement that would require union representation. Maine required offshore wind projects to sign an agreement with a labor organization to set work standards and mandated companies to employ a hiring hall from that labor organization. The New York budget ensured that public projects had prevailing wage agreements. Rhode Island also guaranteed prevailing wages for workers on renewable energy projects. Legislation in New York and Rhode Island also included labor peace agreements on related operations, service, or security work, which ensures employers will not contest unionization attempts. In all states, coalitions prioritized either union representation or the higher wages and benefits similar to union representation on newly constructed energy projects.
In addition, legislation in Illinois and New York required transition planning for displaced energy workers. Illinois included an Energy Transition Assistance Fund in its legislation, which provided money for displaced workers and adoption of transition programs that included job training and career advancement. Illinois also passed a Displaced Worker Bill of Rights, which included aid to fossil fuel workers in finding new work and direct assistance in tuition payments for their children. The New York legislation, which focuses on building publicly owned projects, requires job transition plans for workers and offers new opportunities to displaced workers.
Legislation also included provisions to maintain apprenticeship and workforce development programs that would ensure a pipeline of unionized workers onto renewable energy projects. Rhode Island, New York, and Connecticut all required the implementation of apprenticeship programs as part of their legislation for new renewable projects. In addition, Connecticut required a community benefit and workforce development agreement on all renewable energy projects while New York included provisions that the project would follow guidelines to buy iron and steel fabricated in the US. Across the states, legislation focused on ensuring new renewable energy projects, i.e. ascending green capital, would be as beneficial to workers and unions, as possible.
Discussion
There are several unique aspects to CJNRC and its advocacy that distinguish intra-labor coalitions from other Blue-Green efforts. First, what separates the work of the CJNRC and its state-affiliates is the composition of the coalitions. CJNRC's model of organizing is different from traditional Blue-Green coalitions because it organizes within labor, which could allow more space for internal disagreement and conflict resolution. As noted earlier, a shared identity is important to overcoming conflicts. In the case of intra-labor dispute, the shared identity of being union workers could help in overcoming the conflict between unions that will see job gains and unions in fossil fuel sectors that could see job losses. We posit that this tension could be easier to overcome in a shared space rather than a multi-interest coalitional space where a shared identity may not have been created. This aligns with research that suggests intra-union coalitions can demonstrate the flexibility to meet both short- and long-term threats (Behrens and Pekarek, 2021).
The second observation is that CJNRC has achieved meaningful success in just a few years. The results of this study demonstrate an emphasis on union advocacy for standards in the renewable energy industry, at times attached to larger climate bills and policies. Labor, supported by the CJNRC, advocated for a wide variety of legislation that included bolstering project labor agreements and prevailing wage laws, protecting displaced workers, and ensuring new apprenticeship programs. The CJNRC coalitions even advanced legislation in states with challenging political environments for labor, such as Maine, where the percentage of unionized workers is above the national average but still relatively low. We note that, to date, more traditional Blue-Green efforts were not able to advance legislation that ensured labor gains, such as integrating labor protections into renewable energy. Certainly there are many factors that dictate whether legislation will pass, but it is important to note that years of traditional Blue-Green advocacy made relatively little headway legislatively while a few years after the founding of the Climate Jobs National Resources Center, several states have passed labor climate legislation.
Analyzing the types of legislation that passed, it is important to highlight that it is explicitly tied to renewable energy work, and not the fossil fuel industry. Instead of articulating support for more carbon-based work or trying to block climate legislation, the unions in the CJNRC coalitions advocated for protections for renewable energy work, including coalitions whose members work in fossil fossils industries. The legislation they supported was rooted in expansion of the renewable energy sector and the inclusion of language around apprenticeships. This advocacy indicates that unions see significant present and future work in this sector.
Rather than seeing their attachment to new climate policies as an embrace of radical environmentalism or a militant rebellion within the capitalist system, relational labor-environmentalism positions them as part of ongoing transformations of economy and politics where renewable energy will play a fundamental role in capitalist development. The labor alignment follows the shift from dirty to green capital. As evidence of this shift, even large fossil fuel companies have begun to invest in renewable energy projects such as offshore wind, especially within those companies with the lowest oil reserves (Pickl, 2019). As capital shifts from fossil fuels to renewable energy, there is a future for union members in this type of work. Green capitalism has emerged as a significant response to the climate crisis, where businesses develop technology and new markets as the solution to climate change (Cock and Lambert, 2013). The signing of the Paris Climate Agreement of 2015 has been viewed as a pinnacle moment of green capitalism (Chichilnisky, 2019). The growth of renewable energy as an economic sector is seen by many governments, corporations, environmentalists, and now unions as the future of the capitalist world economy (Perkins, 2023). International bodies such as the United Nations have embraced the green ethos associated with “sustainable development” as their central purpose and encourage multi-national corporations to participate in these new markets (Montiel et al., 2021). The growth of the renewable market has especially occurred at the level of US states whose governments have taken the lead on pushing renewable energy projects against federal inaction (Bromley-Trujillo et al., 2016; Karapin, 2016).
Relational labor-environmentalism helps explain why CJNRC coalitions are advocating proactively for climate legislation but do not call for fossil fuel drawdown or advocate for legislation that would mandate the reduction of fossil fuels. While green capital is ascendant, fossil capital remains strong. Indeed, both global renewable energy production and oil and gas production have reached record levels (Kiddie et al., 2024; US Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2024). The record levels of fossil fuel production can be seen as evidence that an energy transition, where renewable energy displaces fossil fuel energy, is yet to occur. But, record renewable energy production does indicate a rise in green capital.
We argue that unions are aligning themselves in preparation for an energy and capital transition to protect their members. As it is likely the energy mix in the next decades will likely look very different from the one today, the preservation of members jobs requires aligning with the future of energy, transportation, and construction employment in renewable and low-carbon sectors. Therefore, it is in labor's interest to be a key partner of this system to advocate for and preserve union security, fair wages for members, and an active pipeline to recruit new workers or transition old ones. At the same time, because of the continued role that fossil capital plays, legislative proposals do not directly challenge the fossil hegemony nor have they challenged capital, in general, besides increasing wages for workers in the renewable sector.
Relational labor-environmentalism in this way also helps to explain the movement from Blue-Green alliance toward intra-union coalitions. While Blue-Green alliances may function as a means of finding common issues related to the workplace and environmental safety, the growth of renewable energy has limited possibilities for exploring such common ground between environmental organizations and unions. In Blue-Green alliances, both unions and environmental organizations see the reduction of harm toward the environment as a clear goal often around health and safety issues. Yet with shifts toward a clean energy economy, unions can now see industry as their ally in creating jobs and their ally in reducing environmental degradation, as renewable companies now fulfill both roles. While certainly scholars who have pointed out some of the difficulties in forming Blue-Green alliances have demonstrated significant issues within these coalitions, the framework of relational labor-environmentalism demonstrates how the shift from Blue-Green to intra-labor coalition has also occurred as part of broader changes in the social and political economy.
Transformations within the makeup of coalitions are not just a question of tactics, strategy, and membership, but also the wider reshaping of the global economy and international political institutions. If unions can align with the renewable energy industry to confront climate issues, and push through legislation that increases jobs and keeps workers unionized, then they have alternate partnerships outside of environmental organizations. Certainly in some states, such as Rhode Island and Connecticut, inclusion of environmental groups and politicians in coalitions remained important, and unions will continue to make such alliances. But, as coalitions in other states demonstrated, a clear labor agenda aligned with the rollout of the clean energy economy under the paradigm of green capitalism remains a sufficient approach to achieving labor's goals of job creation without strong environmental advocacy from external actors as a centerpiece of union campaigns.
Explanations of this evolution of Blue-Green efforts exist outside the confines of relational labor-environmentalism. Labor scholars have often discussed social unionism or social movement unionism where labor engages in struggles outside of work and the collective bargaining process, often as part of a larger community (Nowak, 2017; Ross, 2007). The type of advocacy being organized by the CJNRC at first appears to be outside the realms of traditional labor disputes given the focus the climate crisis, an issues beyond workplace concerns. Yet, on closer examination, at the core of the demands that labor has made through these coalitions are concerns about protecting membership and workers’ rights. Their engagement with politics remains in the traditional realm of finding new work for existing and future members. The social aspects of climate jobs coalitions remain subordinated to union organizing to improve the lives of workers and responds directly to the shift in the energy industry and global economy. We can also point to the lack of support for an end to fossil fuel use, which would more directly threaten their members employment security and put unions in more aggressive opposition to existing employers, as evidence that a broader social unionism is not driving legislative campaigns. Certainly, the CJNRC state coalitions have not fully embraced the inter-sectional approach or focus on reproduction consistent with Barca and Leonardi's “working-class environmentalism” (Barca and Leonardi, 2018). Working within the system of green capitalism has the potential to limit the ambitiousness of climate action. As some scholars argue, unions which focus solely on production or embrace growth strategies tie themselves and their membership to the institutions and ideologies of such systems, curbing their ability to push for more transformational change or build solidarity with more radical actors (Barca, 2019; Brand et al., 2021).
It would not be fair to say, however, that unions do not care about the climate crisis or reducing social inequality, writ large, but the push for labor standards in climate policy ultimately protects future work opportunities of its members. A relational labor-environmentalism view helps contextualize that it is in labor's interest to engage in climate policy and push for the integration of labor standards into climate policy as capital shifts from fossil fuels to renewables and low-carbon sectors. The question raised, then, is does it matter that labor unions advocate for climate policy only to protect its members or is the push for climate policy, in and of itself, seen as a significant advancement of labor-environmentalism? Rather than an ideological merging of Blue-Green, we argue that the more there is a push for an energy transition away from fossil fuels, the more labor will see its future interest aligned with climate policy, and as such, become a stronger advocate for ambitious climate action even if more radical action is needed for a truly just transition.
Conclusion
As labor-environmentalism continues to evolve, we raise questions around the formations of Blue-Green coalitions and efficacy of movements. Specifically, what are the implications of labor advancing climate policy on its own and not in a traditional Blue-Green coalition? Relational labor-environmentalism provides a framework for understanding this evolution of Blue-Green activity and positions climate jobs campaigns within a particular political and social moment. Rather than a fundamental shift in political orientation, we argue that most climate jobs campaigns are consistent with aligning in the direction of capital and job creation. As an energy transition advances, labor aligns with “green” capital, which can pit their interests at times in opposition to traditional employers. This new evolution of Blue-Green advocacy advances important worker protections in climate policy and is a contrast to traditional ideas of the importance of multi-issue coalitions. While there is still a need for more ambitious climate advocacy, there is also a defined role for climate jobs campaigns as a social movement addition, one that has been more successful than traditional Blue-Green efforts. Further research could elaborate on the reasons for this success to continue to expand the labor-environmentalism discourse. Further research could also explore ways that unions could become allies in fossil fuel drawdown to accelerate climate action.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
Thank you to the two anonymous reviewers who provided invaluable feedback and comments. Thank you also to Dimitris Stevis for very helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper and Lara Skinner for her insights.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
