Humans are capable of doing incredible things. From building train tunnels underneath the sea to enormous offshore wind farms, it is inspiring what we could achieve with the right skills and money. Keep that in mind, because we need to do many more incredible things in a very short period of time if we want a shot at addressing climate change and crafting a better future for our planet.
When we talk about the great green economic transformation, we often miss a piece of the puzzle: human capacity. Yes, financing renewables is vital, but without training, who would be able to make it all work? The transition away from fossil fuels, as agreed at the most recent UN COP climate summit, creates opportunities for economic development and job creation. However, we must not forget that people need to gain the right skills — from elementary math to specialist technical knowledge — before taking on green roles.
The situation on this front is dire. About 69 percent of people aged 16 to 24 globally lack secondary education-level skills. Without those basic literacy and numeracy skills, these people would find it difficult — if not impossible — to play a role in the transition. Basic education is also one of the best ways to create resilience.
Illustration: Kevin Sheu
This is especially acute in low and middle-income countries, where young people and women are more likely to be unskilled, unemployed or in unstable work. However, it is an issue everywhere: LinkedIn’s Global Green Skills report found that while green job postings are up by 15 percent year-on-year, the supply of suitably equipped workers just is not there.
This is a justice issue. As skills change, there is a risk that more people get left behind and without economic opportunities. Yet it would also affect the transition itself.
Liesbet Steer, president and CEO of the global nonprofit Education Development Center (EDC), said that scarce labor drives up costs. Without a plentiful supply of well-trained workers, the transition would not only be slower, but far more expensive.
The backlash against climate policies would likely also be reduced if people understood what it meant for jobs and were able to access those opportunities.
Take Dutch farmers, who have been protesting for months against agricultural reforms that might require them to shut down or reduce the size of their farms. They formed a political party in 2019 to push back against such policies, which are aimed at reducing nitrogen and ammonia pollution. Without retraining — to give them skills to reduce the environmental impact of their farms or to help them change careers — it is only natural that they would feel resentful. What happened in the Netherlands might become a pattern if education and training are not tackled as key elements of the transition.
It would help if people received fundamental climate change information, but that also seems to be lagging behind. A UNESCO analysis of education curricula from 100 countries shows that only 53 percent make any reference to climate change and, when the subject is mentioned, it is almost always given low priority.
Anna Bagwell, a student leader on the Youth Climate Advocacy Committee run by Phipps Conservatory in Pittsburgh, said that most students who come through the program report getting their climate knowledge from online sources. It was only in July that the state of Connecticut mandated climate-change studies across its public schools as part of its science curriculum — and it is one of a handful of US states to do so.
Steer says that education and training are still seen by the climate sector as someone else’s responsibility rather than an integral part of the solution. While two-thirds of climate action plans laid out by 2015 Paris Agreement signatories recognize the importance of skills development, only 40 percent have an implementation plan. Even fewer mention climate-change education.
The global stocktake, the landmark deal delivered at COP28, does reflect an increased focus on capacity building. However, as Steer says, “the devil is in the details.” Skills development is only mentioned briefly, with no reference to training or education. Action for Climate Empowerment — the tract of negotiations that covers education and training — failed to reach an agreement during the summit, so talks are to resume in Bonn, Germany, next summer.
Meanwhile, the Alliance of CEO Climate Leaders published an open letter ahead of COP28. Signed by 108 business leaders from companies including Deutsche Bank AG and Sony Group Corp, it calls for regulatory change and new investment, but says nothing about skills or education. That feels odd considering labor shortages are already being cited as one of the main challenges firms are facing in sectors such as construction, manufacturing and technology.
As we move into a new year, there much greater weight needs to be placed on reskilling and upskilling entire labor forces. Political and business leaders ought to work together on providing retraining opportunities for adults in jobs that are being or would be disrupted, and they must make sure that information about new opportunities is properly shared throughout communities.
For example, research by the EDC identified more than 270 different occupations in the fastest-growing green and blue sectors in developing countries: renewable energy, green construction, waste management, tourism and hospitality, and sustainable agriculture and forestry. However, in speaking to training providers, local governments and jobseekers, researchers found few were even aware of these opportunities.
We also should not forget the youngest and most marginalized members of society. The Global Education Monitoring Report estimates that there would be an average annual financing gap of US$97 billion between this year and 2030 in low and low-middle-income countries for achieving universal pre-primary, primary and secondary education by the dawn of the next decade. This needs to be addressed.
After all, when humans built the pyramids, the Empire State Building or any of the other monuments to human capacity, they probably started with the foundations.
Lara Williams is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering climate change. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS