EESC boss: 'Green revolution must include low earners' 

Mario Sepi is president of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC). 

He was speaking to Olof Gill.

To read a shortened version of this interview, please click here.

You indicated that you may instigate an EESC opinion on green tech and green jobs in the coming months. What would you advise the EU to do to realise this 'green jobs' revolution in the coming five-year period? 

The current crisis represents in many respects a clean break and requires new options, such as effective regulation of the financial markets, a radical readjustment in the direction of resource saving and low-CO2 production and consumption, and strong investment in innovative public services, in order to provide people with security and to win back trust in the EU. 

The potential of the environment sector as an engine for growth, employment and innovation should be exploited as part of a "new green deal": leadership in developing innovative green technologies should be sought and costs should be saved, without foregoing prosperity, quality of life and global competitiveness. 

The EESC has pointed out on a number of occasions that special emphasis should be placed on further developing European industrial policy, not least in the direction of "green technologies", nanotechnology and ICT. The Committee urges the Commission to make sustainable development a meta-strategy for all EU policies. Many policies adopted today will have repercussions for decades to come. Measures effective in the short term must not compromise the development opportunities of future generations. 

For these reasons, we believe that climate policy, which both cuts greenhouse gas emissions and permanently reduces dependency on fossil fuels and imports of energy, must be geared towards sustainability, i.e. economic, environmental and social goals must be given proper consideration. In particular, all possibilities for saving energy must be exhausted and local, renewable and regional structures must be utilised. 

Promoting green jobs and implementing a real green revolution have to be a key element of the post-2010 Lisbon Strategy. The mandatory 20% target for renewable energies by 2020 as part of the EU Climate and Energy Package will prove to be a very strong stimulus for growth in the renewable energy sector. 

The renewed Lisbon Strategy must include an action plan for a low-carbon economy. Having put in place a comprehensive legislative framework for energy and climate change, the EU should now concentrate on practical implementation. The EU will have to show a reinforced capacity to work at different levels: integrating effective policy measures into its integrated guidelines; establishing country-specific recommendations and national reform programmes; enhancing cooperation with civil society and local authorities in order to work with the individual sectors concerned and to establish specific targets and timeframes. 

The creation of green jobs would come as a result of this essential innovation process. Europe's position as market leader in environmental technologies is under pressure – the USA, China, India are investing heavily, and Japanese carmakers are far ahead when it comes to electric cars. We need to double our efforts in this field.

As a former trade union leader yourself, what is your opinion of claims by leading trade unions, for example Solidarność in Poland, that pushing too far towards eco-jobs will wipe out jobs across Eastern Europe (see EurActiv  for more)? 

I believe that the changes towards the green economy will be bigger within sectors than between them. For example, a transfer of jobs is expected from power generation to activities related to energy efficiency or from jobs related to road transport to rail and waterways. 

As a consequence, it will be very important to establish a European framework for reform programmes enabling an implementation in a coordinated and consistent way. In this framework, guarantees for work should be established according to a dynamic idea of the development, namely in order to avoid resistance and opposition from the workers. 

The other major concern should regard the fact that employees have to be kept on and trained rather than made redundant. Support for the unemployed should be linked with skills acquisition and retraining. We need to build up capacity and mechanisms for forecasting skills vis-à-vis the needs of the labour market at national and EU level. Increasing the adaptability of workers, improving current jobs, creating new productive jobs and developing the potential of the new "green" market are the real challenges for the achievement of the green revolution. 

Among the key priorities we should also bare in mind that bringing young people into the labour market is essential, as well as promoting effective cooperation between educational establishments and businesses. 

Increasing skills at all levels is the sine qua non not only for re-energising the economy in the short term and for long-term development, but also for increasing productivity, for competitiveness and employment, and for ensuring equal opportunities and social cohesion. 

Particular solutions must be devised for people with low incomes. Here, certain targeted direct benefits, such as temporary increases, e.g. climate vouchers for the purchase of solar-energy equipment, public transport season tickets and so on.

You mentioned at a recent debate that you believe the EU needs a 'new model of consumption' to accompany the push for a greener economy. How would this take place in practice? Can the EU promote policies in this respect, and if so, which? How do you believe European consumers can be persuaded to change their habits in order to lead more sustainable lifestyles, or is this unrealistic? Is an initiative on taxation needed, for example? 

Not only our economy but also our model of consumption is in a desperate need of renewal. It is the overall development model of our societies that we should put under question. To do so, we need first of all to stimulate a renewed sense of shared prosperity. 

I believe that a major effort can be done at the local level, where civil society organisations are able to promote a new environmental model where participation and shared behaviours towards the environment should contribute to a process of awareness raising in favour of the principles of sustainability. My recent experiences of taking part in a few meetings with consumers associations and environmental organisations have been very positive in this respect. Not to forget that, next to the increase of environmental damage there is also the gap between the rich countries and the poor ones which is dramatically growing. 

A commitment to fairness and a renewed concept of governance itself should be seen as the highest priority. At the same time, the current economic crisis presents us with a unique opportunity to invest in change. 

Technology will not be enough to solve the problem of climate change. We believe that the area of taxation requires some serious scrutiny to make change possible. This is an area that is not only relevant with a view to the greening of the economy, it also related to the EU budget and the financial policies at national level. 

In line with the EU Treaties, greater efforts should be made to achieve EU-wide coordination of member states' tax policy (including harmonised tax bases and minimum rates), primarily in those areas in which the tax basis is internationally mobile and the risk of tax evasion and tax competition between member states is greatest. 

The EESC proposes that the possibility of introducing EU-wide finance mechanisms (including in the field of tax) should also be examined. For example, the introduction of a tax on financial transactions could contain speculation. The possibility of introducing a carbon tax should also be examined. 

In conclusion, instruments should be found to make the targets of the Lisbon strategy for growth and jobs more binding than in the past, and better incentives need to be created for member states to pursue the target commitments to which they have agreed more consistently. 

What about the risk of national protectionism in the green sector? Will struggling EU countries, particularly the ones who have stronger eco-sectors, be prepared to share their expertise with their EU partners? 

What risk of protectionism are we talking about? Of course the EU countries are willing, as far as the green sector is concerned, to share their technologies and expertise with the other countries. The problem could be, instead, the opposite: countries with less strong eco-sectors not being able or willing to invest and commit themselves enough in the green economy. That is why the EU should also act in view of increasing and stimulating the exchange of good practises among countries in the green sector. 

Protectionism as such is not allowed in the EU as the Commission or specific companies could file suits before the Court of Justice. The EU is based on an internal market. If the development of technologies is left to the market and financed by companies we cannot be surprised at companies competing at EU (and global) level. It is only the enforcement of EU legislation. 

If however we think that some sort of public support is necessary then we should think differently and ask the following question: how can this public support benefit as many EU companies and citizens as possible? In this respect competition might not be the answer. 

An evaluation of national reforms at European level and their impact on economic development, the distribution of wealth and income and social cohesion is urgently needed. This requires a correct application and, wherever necessary and appropriate, an improvement of the internal market social acquis, better regulation, as well as a successful macro-economic environment and adequate scope for private investment. 

Precautions also need to be taken to make sure that competition between member states in the common market is geared towards innovation and is neither counter-productive nor detrimental to social cohesion and environmental sustainability. 

Moreover, creating green jobs is not all about technology; it is very much about political decisions. It is not rocket science to insulate a house or to install a solar panel on a roof. These are jobs that can be done by local craftsmen without any technological transfer from one country to another. 

Concretely, what is the EESC's added value in these debates? 

The EESC has consistently pointed out that not only must the European institutions assume full responsibility in implementing reforms, but also full account must be taken of all society interests and there must be closer cooperation at local, regional, national and European level between the government and social partners as well as civil society. 

More debate and transparency means more public awareness. It may also foster creativity and openness to unconventional proposals and solutions. In various countries, beneficial measures and practices and/or negotiations between the social partners at sectoral or company level often result in interesting micro-economic developments. The EESC will be a partner at European level to make proposals and function as a platform for taking the discussions forward. 

The EESC is also the best placed institution to engage with the citizens and, in terms of public acceptance, this is a vital aspect in the fight against climate change since new behaviours cannot only be imposed from the top. They will also have to be promoted from the bottom. 

It is not a case that we have adopted, at our plenary session this week, a resolution on climate change that we will address, as the message of civil society, to the Copenhagen summit in December: the title of this Resolution speaks loudly and clearly: 'No turning back.'