The snooty necessity of a "just transition"
Canada's green recovery needs defined pathways for new, sustainable jobs
The term “just transition” is an important moral concept that’s guiding the discussion about Canada’s green recovery. But I don’t blame anyone who hates the sound of it.
If it’s a phrase you’ve heard before, you might have also noticed that it’s not being used as much as it was in the recent past. “Just transition” has mostly given way to “no one left behind,” which has more of a heroic ring to it. Kinda soldier-y, no?
The rhetoric here is important because there are a lot of Canadians who have yet to buy into the idea of a greener, more sustainable future. (They are in the minority, though; “70% say an energy transition is necessary, including 58% in Alberta,” according to this Abacus Data poll.)
The argument, and even the language we use to make it, has to be both compelling and sensitive. A “just transition” doesn’t account for the mass psychological impact of letting go of one way of life and reaching out in hope of another.
And yet this is exactly what we’re asking of hundreds of thousands of people in this country. (“We” meaning anyone who supports (a) a liveable planet in the future and (b) the requisite action we need to make that happen.)
It’s no surprise that we’re fumbling through the messaging a bit, but I think it’s important to note the paternalistic sound of being “transitioned” out of your field of employment. Who’s transitioning you? Where are you transitioning to? Are you the one being rescued in a “no one left behind” scenario?
Learning to listen
The Alberta Narratives Project provides a good template in how to build climate-oriented conversations between people with differing perspectives on the issue.
Through two reports, the initiative focused on structured workshop discussions between small groups of people who fit into eight different categories: oilsands/energy workers, conservatives, environmentalists, rural Albertans, business people, youth, new Canadians and those who belong to faith groups. The results are worth reading for anyone who’s struggling to understand “the other side” in this existential debate.
I get that these efforts might sound crazy to anyone who’s read the science and sees where we’re headed unless we make massive, immediate changes. But if climate action on a global scale is going to be successful, we need to treat anthropogenic climate change for what it is: a human problem. The solutions, and even the language we use, must take into account the humans who disagree with us.
A better pitch from better pitchers
Instead of a statement of intent from the side setting the agenda, I think our transition efforts need more of a pitch to the side that feels it will be most affected by it. And it should come from voices that have more credibility with those who aren’t yet convinced.
Luckily for us, and the planet, that’s finally happening.
I’m no fan of green-washing or aspirational corporate messages that don’t actually add up to meaningful climate action. But I also think we need everyone on side, even those motivated solely by profit.
Why? Because climate action can’t afford to discriminate based on motivation. If there’s money to be made in a low-carbon economy, go and make it. Make lots of it. Make as much as you can and then brag about it to all of your friends. I don’t care if there’s a Gordon Gekko of solar photovoltaics. We don’t have the luxury of being grossed out by the profit motive at this point.
As environmentalists, we can both welcome the value of Jeff Bezos’ public relations efforts while criticizing the unbelievable wealth he accumulates from Amazon’s climate-intensive operations. We just really need to start showing some momentum towards saving the world.
Check out Iron & Earth, a “worker-led not-for-profit with a mission to empower fossil fuel industry and Indigenous workers to build and implement climate solutions.”
What does the transition look like?
If you’re someone who’s hanging onto the possibilities for a future in coal, you can at least benefit from generations of clarity on what that life looked like – even if it’s never coming back. There’s a hard-won tradition in coal, and we have every reason we need to move away from it as quickly as we can.
But what will generations of mass employment in green technology look like? What traditions and culture will it give rise to? The conundrum we have is a lack of myth. We don’t yet know the story we’re going to be telling in the future. If only we knew, we could offer more reassurance to anyone afraid of the coming changes.
The best we can do right now is to make the pitch clear, accurate and compelling. What are the wages? What are the benefits? What is the stability of this new path?
The rest, I hope, will follow.