Some time ago, shipley was the biggest open cast mine in europe,

The conversation between the miner and Climate Camp is very interesting. What happens to the workers in dirty and unethical industries if we manage to shut them down is a question which needs to be addressed by ecological and anti-war activists. The threat that workers might lose their jobs is often used as an argument by workers, bosses, unions and politicians to keep those places open and to keep pumping in public money as subsidies. I know that this is an issue which the anti-war movement in the US is beginning to tackle.

Global Warming or Conversion of Military Industrial Complex? by Bruce Gagnon
and
Conversion for Survival by Mary Beth Sullivan

are two articles which look at the need to convert the military industrial complex in the US to peaceful, useful and green purposes.

Both articles can be found at  http://www.space4peace.org

i'm so happy that this conversation is happening. By bringing together the green and the red we can't be accused of forcing ordinary people into choosing between jobs or the environment, and other such divisive concepts . The tools of Just transition are a potent force to organise with.

The idea of the 'hydrocarbon commons' is another tool. We can't leave these resources in the hands of either States or Capital

see  http://www.counterpunch.org/caffentzis12152004.html
s

While I can see the arguments on both sides of this, I think we need to be clear about the situation. And that without a planet to live on your political arguments and class struggle dialogues are going to look like fiddling while rome burns. A western wage slave lifestyle is in my opinion not worth defending. The earth needs defending with your very lives at this present point in time. No ice at the north pole for godsake! There is really no argument. Think about the future. What price to save the planet?

I think the point, Rabid, is that the people employed in these nasty, dirty industries could easily be redeployed doing nice, clean work if there was the political will to make it happen (er, I mean if the politicians are given no choice but to make it happen). True, there are far better ways of organising work than the wage slave model, but my feeling is that the revolution will come a lot quicker if workers can see an alternative existence for themselves in green jobs and therefore become a force supporting these changes. Save the planet in the short term and then get on with dismantling wage slavery afterwards or summat.

That's the way I see it anyway, but I might be completely wrong and I'd be really interested in reading other people's views on the subject.

As can be seen from the above exchange of letters and comments there is much common ground between environmentalists and trade unionists. Unfortunately in the past the leaders/spokespersons on both sides have seen it in their interests not to engage in dialogue and form coalitions with each other in these areas, much to the delight of the right and neoliberal capitalism. Both sides also pay much lip service to supporting the majority of poor people in the world but if you look at the lifestyles of most of those with influence in both movements it is clear that they prefer to remain in their comfortable environmental/'workers struggle' ghettos rather than engage in the hard and time-consuming work of real movement building.
At the climate camp last year a woeful number came from the climate camp to support the workers on strike just down the road and the same was true during the Gate Gourmet strike 2 years ago, when most activist groups didn't bother to show any support.
The environmental movement and even the climate camp can't pretend it is totally grassroots and non-hierarchical, when it its clear that those with the time and resources have most infleunce in decision making. As last year's climate camp made clear, when decisions needed to be made regarding security issues and negotiations with the police it was a small clique that made these decisions.
It would be good to see a bit of self-criticism on the part of the environmental movement (this also goes for the trade union movement) and also see a response to the claim about the Drax action spokesperson saying that there is no place for coal in the UK economy. Given their resources and potential support the environmental and trade union movement could make much more of a difference in the quest to prevent global climate change and support global social justice.

from australia:

coal union pushing for mandatory renewable energy target rather than leaving it to market forces:
 http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23906385-5013871,00.html

Workers and environmentalists need a new alliance:
 http://www.greenleft.org.au/2008/754/38959

"While I can see the arguments on both sides of this, I think we need to be clear about the situation. And that without a planet to live on your political arguments and class struggle dialogues are going to look like fiddling while rome burns. A western wage slave lifestyle is in my opinion not worth defending. The earth needs defending with your very lives at this present point in time. No ice at the north pole for godsake! There is really no argument. Think about the future. What price to save the planet?"

Rabid environmentalist"

I really think you need to read the letter by Dave Douglass again, it has nothing to do with an argument that has two sides and you are completely wrong to polarise it in this way, what Dave Douglass has a beef with is the fact that no one from the climate camp, or "keep it in the ground" has attempted to open up dialect with any of the workers in the industry, and that particularly where the miners are concerned, having seen the attacks by the state on their communities, feel pissed of that climate protesters are attempting to end coal in the UK, without any thought or contact with the workers. Dave also aknowledges the need for immediate action on climate change, and puts forward the idea that coal could play a positive and important part in the transition to renewable energy.

Douglass has maybe got a point - every time we say 'no coal', we need to be saying 'no nuclear power' too. Too many people, including people who should know better, are suggesting that nuclear power might be a quick (ha!) fix (ha ha!) for climate change. As with any campaign, the problem comes from having to fit an entire philosophy into a slogan the size of a sheet. The point about converting industries rather than throwing workers on the scrapheap needs to be made again and again though. Without that, it's merely a protest. With it, it's a proposal for change.

'Coal workers' is one way to describe miners, train drivers, etc., but 'energy workers' would also be accurate, and as Paul says, we will still need energy long after we've stopped (or drastically reduced) burning coal - so there will still be work to be done, just not the same work.

If workers are poorly treated, that is to do with the capitalist organisation of the economy; it isn't strictly a green issue.

At last year's camp, there was a good turnout of campers to support striking workers at Nippon Express, a freight firm (pictured)*. The workers told us that they weren't in the least bit bothered if we succeeded in reducing air freight, as they dealt with sea freight as well, and a decrease in the former would lead to an increase in the latter. The same general principle is true in the energy sector: different work, not less work.

I am one of the crusty campers in the picture, and a socialist to boot!

*Full story here:

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/08/378759.html