May 27, 2024

Union campaigns for the energy industry are difficult to structure. A national campaign that supports our members jobs in a time when there is (supposed to be) a huge shift in energy systems means it is not just about protecting jobs, it is about protecting the workers currently in the industry, making sure that they do not pay the price for capital's fickle investment regime.

For the gas industry, this means focusing on leak mitigation, calling out the lack of investment in maintaining infrastructure, and pushing back on the contracting-out (and automation) that comes with declining rates of profit.

Such a campaign has two goals:

1. aligning our members interests with the realities facing the industry and those around the dominant narratives of climate change.
2. decoupling investment in jobs in natural gas from investment in expansion of the use of natural gas.

The reason for the decoupling of investment in expansion and jobs is that natural gas is has been viewed as a bridge fuel from coal to renewable energy generation. As such, natural gas will eventually go the way of coal and oil according to all predictions and policy programs promoted under the IPCC, OECD, and with our most of Canada's partners in the USA and Europe.

Quick expansion of gas infrastructure to replace dirtier generation has meant the expansion in the profits of these companies, but it also means that there will now be a fairly fast pace decline resulting from the wind-down of gas production.

The actual timelines followed for transition to carbon neutrality in energy generation continues to be up for debate, but it will have to be between 2035 and 2050. The natural gas industry is pushing for carbon neutral energy generation well after 2050 (if ever). But, a post 2050 date is a ridiculous notion given investment the renewable energy sector and to plan for that would mean that the world would have missed its climate targets by a substantial and unacceptable margin.

Carbon neutrality in the energy system is not the end of the use of natural gas, but it will result in the shift of focus on the use of natural gas from energy to production. If done correctly, this will not mean a reduction in the work available. But, it will mean a shift in the focus of where that work happens. However, a redirection in the focus of work and investment is very problematic for current revenue programs of industry leading companies in Canada.

Recent consolidation continues with the help of private capital finance and the levels of consolidation will have significantly negative impact on the ability to enforce the necessary transition in the industry.

There are many companies still in the mix, but Trisummit and Enbridge are two massive financialized conglomerates gobbling-up gas companies across Canada and the USA. Their program is one of debt funded expansion and financial games to make them look like they are earning more than spending, when they are not. Indeed, they operates more like a hedge funds than a gas company.

The growing political influence of these companies is driven through the Canadian Gas Association, which organizes the Canadian industry's yearly conference. Such employer associations allow "ESG" to be put in the company's headers on their web pages and investor notes while their umbrella organization lobbies hard against any of use having a future on this planet.

This year's gas conference is no different from previous year's conference in that it brings together some of the world's worst people.

The conference has invited renowned climate change skeptic Bjørn Lomborg to be their keynote speaker. The other speakers are all right wing and free market cheerleaders who think private capital is the solution to everything and even light regulation is on par with communism.

The main campaign is to combat the legislation expanding regulation of methane leaks and what they think is "limiting" the expansion of Canadian gas for export, including having to deal with indigenous communities—aka, special interest groups.

While it is not surprising to anyone that these are not progressive minded people, it does raise the question what the left should do in response. Can we learn from the intense lobby built around oil companies, protecting their profits and the lack of impact that the climate justice movement has had no them? Can energy unions build support for the alternative program that both protects workers while calling for the correct policy frameworks around climate and investment?

The key will be to follow a focused program of criticism of the industry especially in its orientation to contracting-out and the real threat of a growing age of its infrastructure. As discussed before, leaking methane is clear and present danger to the climate, even more than burning gas to heat water and homes in the North.

The "green" fuels that are products from gas are confusing people. Employers are spending huge sums of money on promoting the idea hydrogen production from gas and pretending that CCUS is a solution to make gas carbon neutral. While few oppose the (private capital) investment in these technologies, we are not seeing a lot of benefit from these "investments", especially on the jobs and climate front.

I think that the focus for unions should be on getting as much public regulation and political direction on the companies as possible. It is a campaign ensuring that natural gas, for the time it is used, is as low emitting as possible, as safe as possible, and used as efficiently as possible (that means very low amounts) in sectors that we have no current alternative.

Such a focus would allow unions to promote both worker and climate orientated goals, which in-turn allows us to say some truthful (if not controversial) things about natural gas.

We have talked about this before, but heat pumps must be twinned with natural gas in the realities of Canada's weather until we have a heat source not dependent on the central grid fro homes.

It is also important to ensure that methane leak mitigation investment is seen as more important and easier to limit compared with focusing solely on efficiency/reduction in burning natural gas and is not overshadowed by the simple call to shut it off.

The shift to alternatives fuels is also important. Natural gas is used in chemical, pharmaceutical, plastics, and other production. The focus on "keeping it in the ground" ignores that we must find and invest in alternatives to the burning of unmitigated fossil fuels making the compounds that are part of every day living.

These alternative production processes are also the transitional jobs for gas workers.

The last large threat to the planet is the expansion of fracking for gas in Canada. It is predicted that almost all of the natural gas going from now until 2050 will be from fracked sources in Western Canada. The current demand curve for natural gas means that these investments are happening now, not in some future scenario.

The current demand curve overshoots existing supply, but that supply is significantly less than the amount produced by expanded fracking. That's why the industry is focused on exports. If gas is over-produced the market price will decline, making it that much more difficult to find alternatives, so the goal is to expand the export market.

The market price cannot be used to make this transition away from gas. The USA controls the price through controlling production. Canada would be well positioned to ensure that this knowledge drives investments in alternatives, if it could stop focusing on carbon pricing mechanisms and instead invested directly into this transition.