On February 7, 2019, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives called climate change “a direct threat to the national security of the United States,” and urged the nation to achieve “net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers.” House Resolution 109, known as “The Green New Deal,” outlines a plan for a 10-year mobilization to combat climate change, economic and social inequality, and dilapidated infrastructure through a massive program of federal spending. But, according to the Energy Information Administration, the proposed shift to net-zero emissions would require a sweeping transformation of the U.S. energy system. In 2019, fossil fuels (e.g., coal, oil, petroleum, and natural gas) supplied 80 percent of all energy used in the U.S., while renewable energy sources (e.g., wind, solar, biomass, hydroelectric, and geothermal) supplied only 11 percent. In addition, H.R. 109 stresses that marginalized and vulnerable communities and unionized labor must be included in decisions about the mobilization, and the government must strengthen and protect workplace regulations and working people’s right to unionize.
In March 2021, the Biden administration announced the American Jobs Plan, a $2 trillion plan for federal funding to (among other things) decarbonize and modernize the U.S. electric power grid, support workers displaced by the shift to low-carbon energy sources, and train laid-off workers and those who have not enjoyed equal opportunity for employment. The American Jobs Plan did not go as far or as fast as the proposals laid out in the Green New Deal, but, according to Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, the frameworks are similar. Both proposals address the need for federal-level energy policy and for an economic policy centered around job creation rather than international trade and investment.
Real Impacts for Energy Workers
Linking energy policy with job creation is a crucial aspect of the American Jobs Plan, as shifting toward clean energy is likely to cause the disappearance of many relatively high-paying jobs that currently exist in fossil fuels. This likely impact on jobs has been politically useful to those who seek to keep the energy status quo intact, so those advocating for clean energy must acknowledge and plan for this reality. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, 1.2 million jobs out of two million in electric power generation (or 60 percent) involved the use of fossil fuels. Another 535,000 people were employed in mining or extracting coal, oil, or natural gas. Almost 2.3 million U.S. auto workers made traditional gasoline- or diesel-fueled vehicles. This yields a total of 4,035,000 people at risk for the loss of employment, which is an underestimate as many others are employed in industries that supply and support carbon-intensive industries. While there are important mitigating factors—including the many older workers soon to retire from their fossil fuel jobs, the many new construction jobs that could be added to the 1.2 million currently working in energy-efficiency projects, and employment growth in solar and wind—job loss due to decarbonization remains a serious concern.
White males are currently overrepresented among energy workers. As of 2019, non-Hispanic whites were 88 percent of oil and gas drilling workers, 91 percent of coal miners, 78 percent of petroleum refinery workers, 88 percent of construction workers, and 85 percent of electrical power generation and transmission workers. Only 21.7 percent of oil and gas drilling workers were women—the largest proportion of female workers among any of these industries.
In addition to being predominantly white and male, this group of workers tends not to be college educated. Stereotypes characterize them as anti-environmentalist climate change deniers and die-hard Trump supporters who resist the introduction of renewable energy sources. In our research on a National Science Foundation-funded research project focused on unionized energy workers in the Northeast, we found these ideas to be largely false. We collected data from union websites and interviewed 101 union members and leaders in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania in 2019 and 2020. The work of almost half the workers we interviewed involved the extraction or transmission of fossil fuels, electric power generation, construction of energy infrastructure, or other energy-related activities.
Workers Wrestle with Conflicting Concerns
Nearly all the energy workers we spoke with were in favor of expanding the renewable energy sector and wanted work in building and running renewable energy installations. Many stated that their unions were already training workers for solar, wind, and hydropower work. But some workers were concerned that, for various reasons, the new jobs in renewables would not be as good as the old jobs in fossil fuels:
“Well, I think that the amount of people it takes to build a wind farm is, there’s a lot fewer employees on a wind farm or a solar panel project, say, than on a pipeline project or on a drill project. Directional drill puts a lot of people to work, where when they build wind farms, they seem to build one windmill with the same crew of 10 to 15 people and then move to the next windmill.” (53-year-old white male operating engineer, International Union of Operating Engineers, New York)
“I’ve never worked [a wind farm], so I don’t really know. I have a couple friends that went to that. They seem to be happy…as long as you’re not afraid of heights, you seem to do okay. They seem to be equally paid, and a lot of times they’re not all union at all, though, so they…feel like they have to do stuff even if the conditions aren’t really favorable. I’ve seen pictures of guys up in storms and stuff and it’s just like, ‘Why are you even up there?’ ‘Have to get this job done.’ So, I don’t like that part of it.” (33-year-old white male coal-fired power plant worker, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Pennsylvania)
Energy workers tend to have a working knowledge of the environmental impacts of energy technologies, and more than a few spoke at length about concern for the future due to the environmental impacts of energy use. Some energy workers, like the natural gas technician quoted below, felt a painful conflict between their fear for the future health of the planet and their need to make a living:
“I’m kind of talking out of both sides of my face, because on one hand, the industry provides for my family, and on the other hand, the waste of the fossil fuel industry is incredibly dirty…And some of the practices and procedures that they use to get the fossil fuels out of the ground, whether it’s oil, coal, natural gas, leave pretty lasting effects. I’ve been out West. I’ve seen strip mines, I’ve seen giant holes in the ground, and they’re terrible.” (48-year-old white male natural gas technician, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Pennsylvania)
Another energy worker recently laid off from a refinery had this to say:
“[My hometown is] one of the poorest towns in Pennsylvania, so [my job in the refinery] just changed my life…You really start to sustain a family working there…So, it’s bittersweet. I thought the place should close, but I know what it did for me…Yeah, it’s really conflicted.” (39-year-old Black male former refinery worker, United Steelworkers, Pennsylvania)
Although very few used the phrase “just transition,” energy workers had a lot to say about how an energy transition might affect employment in energy jobs:
“[N]ow, it’s kind of like still good jobs, still pay as well, not sure where I’m gonna be five years from now or 10 years from now….Most likely my plant might not be there…so that part’s a little worrisome, but I still got a pension. I look around at other jobs…[y]ou don’t find pensions. You don’t find, you know, over $30 an hour. You don’t find any of that local, near here…definitely the best working environment…I’ve ever had.” (33-year-old white male coal-fired power plant worker, Pennsylvania)
Working on Well-Balanced Change
The American Jobs Plan includes $40 billion for a new Dislocated Worker program, which would provide income supports and other services, such as training in high demand sectors including clean energy, manufacturing, and caregiving, for workers displaced from jobs in fossil fuels. More generous funding for services to help displaced workers would be a real change from the “unjust transitions” of the past, in which those laid off due to automation, offshoring, and deindustrialization were left to try to find new jobs on their own, move to a new area, or participate in training that prepared them for low-paying or nonexistent work. But these services weren’t dreamed up by policymakers. The idea actually originated from Tony Mazzocchi of the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Union. In the 1990s, Mazzocchi proposed “A Superfund for Workers” to address the needs of workers whose jobs were being phased out along with the most hazardous and environmentally damaging industries. Instead of retraining displaced workers for low-paying jobs, they would receive an income, college tuition, and health insurance.
Union involvement in the transition to clean energy is an essential part of the Green New Deal framework. As J. Mijin Cha, Vivian Price, Dimitris Stevis, Todd E. Vachon, Maria Brescia-Weiler, and Jeremy Brecher discovered through their Just Transition Listening Project, unions are taking the initiative to help their members stay employed in good, unionized low-carbon jobs. One example is the United Steelworkers’ partnership with the strategic policy center Jobs to Move America, which uses public procurement agreements to incentivize private industry to work with unions. The partnership provides apprenticeships and training to workers displaced from fossil fuel jobs and to people in marginalized groups in the local community. Similar programs could be greatly expanded and funded by the federal government, and having transition and training programs run by unions would ensure that workers receive high-quality training. If funding were contingent on reaching and training workers in traditionally underrepresented groups, a more diverse energy workforce could be developed.
The Green New Deal framework views the reduction of racial/ethnic and gender inequality as just as crucial as the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. It recognizes the need to expand the number of jobs with middle-class wages that are available to people without college degrees. When economic sectors expand, job opportunities for immigrants, people of color, and white women tend to expand, enhancing the social mobility of marginalized groups through structural mobility.
But as energy workers have pointed out, jobs in renewable energy aren’t necessarily adequate substitutes for jobs in fossil fuels. In addition to concerns about the duration of employment, pay scale, benefits, and unionization of jobs in renewables, there are also issues of job location, safety, and the practice of contracting. Wind and solar installations must be built in certain areas, which may be far from locations where workers are currently employed in fossil fuel industries. While the old fossil fuel jobs are notoriously dangerous, the work on new wind and solar infrastructures can also involve safety hazards, particularly if the work is done by nonunion workers lacking union protections who might be pressured to work in unsafe conditions.
Finally, when contractors hire workers for specific projects, the work can be less secure, more precarious, and there are more opportunities for exploitation and anti-union efforts. If the shift to renewable energy produces many new low-wage, nonunion jobs that are precarious, it is likely that these jobs will be filled by the same groups that have traditionally suffered exploitation by employers: recent immigrants, people of color, and women. The American Jobs Plan seeks to prevent this by calling on Congress to pass the Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2021, which includes stiffer penalties for employers that violate labor laws.
The Green New Deal framework recognizes that a “just transition” will not simply happen through the magic of technology or economic markets. The American Jobs Plan passed in the House of Representatives on March 9, 2021, but it is still questionable whether it will pass in the Senate—and if passed, it may not work as intended. But its strength lies in its recognition that the issues of energy, employment, and social inequality are linked, and that the process of transforming our energy system presents an opportunity to simultaneously reduce both unemployment and social inequality. If we cannot address all three, we may not be able to generate the political will to make progress on climate change before it is too late.
Any opinions expressed in the articles in this publication are those of the authors and not the American Sociological Association.
