In a Working Paper titled Carbon Markets After Paris: Trading in Trouble , Sean Sweeney, Coordinator of Trade Unions for Energy Democracy (TUED), argues that it is time for unions to reevaluate their stance on emissions trading. He asserts a “Paris Contradiction” – that the INDC’s targets from COP21 in Paris in December 2015 are not sufficient to reduce GhG emissions, and are part of a “neo liberal fantasy”. Focusing on Europe and the problems of the European carbon market ( the EU ETS), Sweeney criticizes the European Trade Union Confederation for its “defensive approach (prevention of carbon leakage and the protection of existing jobs)”, and its continued participation in the Social Partnership framework. In his accompanying blog , he states: “ Facing up to the the failure of carbon markets will allow unions and their allies to better concentrate on developing and organizing around the kind of programmatic commitments that can seriously tackle climate change and the systemic roots of the crisis…. by extending social ownership of key sectors like energy, a genuine ‘just transition’ is possible and that unions can play an important role in making it happen.” Even outside the neo-liberal fold, Sweeney’s call to reject carbon markets is controversial. The European Trade Union Confederation, subject of Sweeney’s criticism, most recently issued its “Position on the structural reform of the EU Emissions Trading System” in December 2015, reflecting a concern for “carbon leakage” but demanding a Just Transition Fund to protect workers. The ETUC claims to have consulted widely amongst European labour unions to reach its position. The Canadian Labour Congress, in the lead-up to COP21 stated (Nov. 2015) “The Canadian labour movement supports a national cap and trade carbon-pricing system”, and the Canadian Union of Public Employees, in its response to the 2016 Federal Budget states, “CUPE supports putting a price on carbon, but it must be done in a progressive way that penalizes corporate polluters rather than low-income and working Canadians. Revenues raised from carbon pricing should be used to invest in complementary green investments, job retraining, create green jobs, and to mitigate negative impacts of climate change and carbon pricing measures on vulnerable Canadians.” See also Marc Lee, “Don’t believe the Hype on B.C.’s Carbon Tax” (March 4), and in the U.S., the Center for American Progress called for an integrated North American carbon market on March 17.