17 March 2016, BIEN, On why basic income has not yet been deployed. The hypothesis: basic income has not been deployed in South Africa in part because the powers that be do not let go of their interest and ability to explore people. The following article attempts to demonstrate the validity of this hypothesis. Let’s begin with some background. Basic Income (BI) is not a new idea in South Africa. In fact a thorough economic analysis for BI implementation has existed since 2004. The analysis was drawn from the work of recognized economists, specialists in the field, and the findings were summarized in what became known as the Taylor Committee. The Basic Income Coalition (composed of Black Sash, COSATU and SAAC), used these results to prove that BI is feasible, or at least should be tested, in South Africa. More than 10 years have passed, and yet nothing resembling BI has been implemented or even tested in South Africa. Why not? It is not due to lack of need: 54%1 of South Africans – over 29 million people – live under the country’s poverty line, and over 40% of the labor force is unemployed2. Moreover, according to the BIG Financing Reference Group report, it is also not due to a lack of funds: “The Basic Income Grant is an affordable option for South Africa. Although the four economists [Economic Policy Research Institute (EPRI), Prof. Pieter le Roux, Prof. Charles Meth and Dr. Ingrid Woolard] posit slightly different net costs for the BIG, representing transfers to the poor of different amounts, there was consensus that the grant is affordable without necessitating increased deficit spending be government.” In spite of this, the same report also states that government officials believe that BI cannot combat poverty. They have refused to consider a BI, despite knowing that current social assistance plans fail to reach over 50% of those living under the poverty line, or nearly 15 million people. These officials have continued to say that BI would not be effective despite demonstration by the Taylor Committee that basic income is the best way to diminish or even eradicate poverty in the shortest amount of time. They also ignore fiscal collection and social security savings when speaking of BI, which more than doubles its actual net cost of about 24 million ZAR/year (1.35 billion €/year), according to the calculations of the Taylor Committee. In short, most government officials completely ignore these very consistent and thought-out analyses from the Taylor Committee. Why is that? Read More here
hmcadmin
17 March 2016, Science Daily, Biogas: The flexible way to greater energy yield. Biogas is an important energy source that plays a central role in the energy revolution. Unlike wind or solar energy, biogas can be produced around the clock. Could it soon perhaps even be produced to meet demand? A team of international scientists, including microbiologists from the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), scientists from Aarhus University and process engineers from the Deutsches Biomasseforschungszentrum (DBFZ), have been studying the feasibility of this kind of flexible biogas production. Among their findings, for example, is the discovery that biogas production can be controlled by altering the frequency at which the reactors are fed. If the intervals are longer, more biogas is produced, according to the researchers’ paper in the Applied and Environmental Microbiology journal. Biogas production has long been a valuable technology, as the constant feed of organic raw materials such as energy crops, manure, sewage sludge, catch crops and plant residues helps produce energy around the clock. The ability to produce energy at a constant rate is a clear advantage over other renewable energy sources such as wind or solar energy, which depend on the wind or sun for production. As a result of this ability, Germany currently has around 8,000 biogas plants installed, with a total electricity output of approximately 4,500 megawatts. Around seven percent of the electricity generated in Germany now comes from biomass. It is hoped that even more electricity will be produced from this source in the future. Scientists from the UFZ, the University of Aarhus (Denmark) and the DBFZ succeeded in increasing the production of methane, the most valuable component of biogas, by up to 14 percent… Read More here
17 March 2016, Renew Economy, What will shake Malcolm Turnbull from his climate coma? First, the good news. According to the International Energy Agency, energy-related carbon dioxide emissions stayed flat for the second year in a row in 2015 – a clear sign that the nexus between economic growth and increasing energy emissions has been broken.The IEA says that the two biggest economies and energy consumers, the US and China, both achieved significant cuts in the last year (by 2 per cent and 1.5 per cent respectively), as coal-fired generation was replaced by gas in the US, and by wind and solar and energy efficiency in both countries. And the world can do more, says the International Renewable Energy Agency. By doubling its capacity in renewable energy – principally wind and solar – by 2030, the world can keep on track to meet its Paris climate targets, save $4.2 trillion in fuel, boost its GDP by $1.3 trillion and generate some 9 million jobs. Too easy. But here’s the bad news. While the world’s two biggest emitters are managing to bring their energy emissions under control, those of Australia are continuing to soar – by around 4.5 per cent since the Coalition government dumped the carbon price nearly two years ago. Coal generation, declining in US and China, is rebounding in Australia. Large-scale renewable energy investment has come to a complete standstill under any policy over which the Coalition government has control. Indeed, it is nearly a year since a compromise deal was reached on the large-scale renewable energy target – cutting it from 42,000GWh to 33,000GWh, and more than six months since Malcolm Turnbull raised hopes of a turnaround when he became prime minister. Turnbull declares himself entirely satisfied with the status quo, possibly encouraged by the fact that while 47 per cent of people say that climate and clean energy policies might influence their vote, more than half say it won’t. “We have effective and responsible climate change policies that are working,” Turnbull told parliament on Wednesday. “We are on track to beat and meet our 2020 emission reduction target. Our 2030 target is responsible and in line with that of comparable countries.” Turnbull was speaking in response to a question from Greens MP Adam Bandt, who asked if Turnbull agreed with the assessment of chief scientist Alan Finkel, who on the same day that new data showed a stunning rise in average global temperatures, said that under current policies we are losing the battle against climate change? Read More here
16 March 2016, The Conversation ,Droughts and flooding rains: it takes three oceans to explain Australia’s wild 21st-century weather. Australia is a land of extremes, and famously of “droughts and flooding rains”. That’s been truer than ever in the 21st century; since 1999 the country has see-sawed from drought to deluge with surprising speed. There was the millennium drought, which lasted more than a decade and culminated in disasters such as Victoria’s Black Saturday bushfires in 2009. Then, in 2011, Cyclone Yasi struck Queensland and a large swathe of Australia exploded under a green carpet of grasses, shrubs and trees. Filming of the movie Mad Max: Fury Road was moved from outback Australia to Namibia after the big wet of 2010-11, because Australia’s luxurious growth of wildflowers and metre-high grasses didn’t quite match the post-apocalyptic landscape the movie’s producers had in mind. In Alice Springs, the Henley-on-Todd Regatta was almost cancelled in 2011 because there was water in the normally dry river. Globally, the big wet on land caused a 5 mm drop in sea levels as large amounts of rain were deposited on Australia, South America and Africa. This coincided with an unprecedented increase in carbon stored in vegetation, especially in arid and semi-arid regions of the southern hemisphere. The greening of Australia in particular had a globally significant impact. Meteorologists have struggled to explain these wild variations in Australia’s weather. Dry years with disappointing crops have been linked to the Pacific Ocean’s El Niño phase (part of a cycle called the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO)). But despite its huge influence, not even ENSO can fully account for Australia’s extreme rainfall patterns. Our research, published this week in Nature’s Scientific Reports, offers an explanation. We found that conditions in the three oceans that surround Australia – the Pacific, Indian and Southern Oceans – combine to amplify each other’s influences on Australian weather. Read More here