There are political, social, and ethical trade-offs of climate transitions and there will always be some people who benefit more than others, and some people who bear greater cost than others. The justness of a 'just transition' will always be debated.
This activity is designed to draw out some of these issues at a high level, to highlight the complex nature of the issues and the fact that often there is no right or wrong, or black or white. To find solutions we need dialogue, empathy and compromise.
To meet climate targets, a gas-fired power station has to be replaced by an off-shore windfarm. In this activity, each participant represents a different person who will be affected by this transition.
The activity progresses through five short rounds which are described below. However, first each person is given a copy of the scenario and one of the roles to be represented.
Rivermouth Power Station is gas-fired and has been operating for 40 years. It employs 420 workers and supports the local economy. National climate law requires it to close within 5 years if carbon targets are to be met.
The only viable replacement is a large off-shore windfarm. If this is installed the region will be almost carbon-free within five years. Climate targets will be met; energy costs will be lower; and air pollution will be significantly reduced.
However, three-quarters of the existing power station workforce will permanently lose their jobs, and many of the new jobs require skills they do not currently have.
Each participant takes on a role and for the duration of the activity must be this person, even if they don't agree with that person's stance.
I am a power station worker with 20 years’ experience.
I want my children and grandchildren to grow up in a healthier place, without the pollution the existing station creates.
I'm being asked to give up a secure job for climate benefits that feel abstract and distant. I worry that at my age that I won’t find another job.
I am a seventeen year old apprentice with one year of experience working at the power plant
I know that offshore wind is the future, and I want skills that will still matter in 30 years.
There’s no guarantee that I’ll be one of the few who gets retrained or is given work.
I am a local councillor.
These changes keep us compliant with national climate law and if we carry them out, we will avoid penalties or forced closure.
I will be blamed if unemployment rises and the town centre declines. I’m worried that if this happens, I may lose my seat.
I am the director of the company commissioned to deliver the wind farm.
This project delivers clean power faster than almost any alternative.
Local opposition and delays could make the project financially risky. However, I live locally and my neighbour is worried that he will lose his job.
I am the pastor of one of the town churches.
As a Christian I can see that the clean energy plant will be much better for God’s creation than the current power plant.
I worry about the impact of high job losses on our small congregation.
I am a climate campaigner.
Closing a gas-fired power station is a clear and necessary step to limit climate damage.
Sacrificing jobs will probably create a backlash against future climate action. Plus, I am an avid birdwatcher and feel concerned about the impact of the wind farm on migratory birds that fly through the area each autumn.
Participants familiarise themselves with the scenario and with the details of the person that they are representing for the duration of the activity.
Participants introduce themselves, using the words on their crib sheets.
The group must make a decision about which of two goals to prioritise:
Get the wind farm on line as quickly as possible to deliver rapid climate action.
Protect existing jobs and the local economy.
In character each person must say which of these two goals are important to them and why. When everyone has spoken, questions can be asked, then the group must vote for the goal that will be adopted.
If the vote ends in a draw, a coin should be tossed to make the decision.
The group must identify the people and things that are harmed by their decision:
Who/what is worse off because of the decision? (There may be multiple people/things).
How will they be worse off?
Will the harm last for a short time or a long time?
This is an exercise in putting ourselves in the places of other people - there is no need for a fully comprehensive list. If some prompts would you useful you can find some here.
The group must answer the question: What could be done to help mitigate (lessen) the negative impacts?
The group must complete the sentence
We accept harm to …………….. because we believe …………… must come first.
Each group will read out their sentence at the end of the activity.