5 April 2016, The Conversation, What to do when machines take our jobs? Give everyone free money for doing nothing. It was Groucho Marx who said, “While money can’t buy happiness, it certainly lets you choose your own form of misery.” Quite true, but what if there’s no money coming in from work because your job’s been taken over by a machine? Low wage earners appear to be most at risk from automation. In February 2016, the Council of Economic Advisers (an agency within the Executive Office of the US President) issued an alarming report predicting that an 80% or greater chance exists for people on basic incomes of US$20 per hour or less to be made redundant by smart machines in the foreseeable future. After them come the mid-range workers. Clearly, we need strategies to address any job losses arising though increases in automation. Theoretically, just about any job that can be described as a process could be done by a computer-controlled machine. In practice though, many employers will decide that keeping a human in a job is preferable to automating it. These are jobs that involve some degree of empathy. Imagine telling a robot doctor what ails you in response to “please state the nature of your medical emergency”. Free money for all – seriously? But what about those people whose jobs are lost to automation? What if new jobs aren’t created to replace them? What are they to do if they can’t earn a living anymore? This time it’s Karl Marx, not Groucho, who comes to mind with the idea of giving people a universal basic income (UBI). This is raised as a possible remedy to any misery caused by rising unemployment from job automation. Put simply, a UBI is a pump-priming minimum income that is unconditionally granted to all on an individual basis, without any means test or work requirement. It eliminates the poverty traps that the poor fall into when welfare payments have many conditions and are administered by large and inflexible bureaucracies. The suggestion of free money is sure to raise many peoples’ hackles. Yet, this seemingly outrageous idea is being taken seriously enough to be trialled by a growing number of governments around the world, including that of Finland, the Netherlands and Canada. Read More here
Category Archives: Building Resilience
1 April 2016, Climate News Network, New strategy devised to tackle wildfires. High-risk areas mapped and targeted in efforts by the US and Europe to reduce the risks of catastrophic economic and health damages caused by forest fires. Communities in both Europe and the US are preparing to fight fire not with fire, but with information. European researchers have just established a map of the regions most at riskfrom catastrophic wildfire. And in the US, where 2015 saw more fire damage than any other year on record, a new Wildland Fire Science Centre in Reno, Nevada, hopes to help federal, state and local agencies confront and better prepare for the hazards. The reasoning on both continents is the same. “In the regions we have identified as high risk, local authorities need to prioritise fire risk control and develop better forest fire risk management strategies,” says Heiko Balzter, director of the Centre for Landscape and Climate Research at the University of Leicester, UK. Read More here
24 March 2016, EurekAlert, Insurance for an uncertain climate. In December, negotiators at the Paris climate meeting adopted insurance as an instrument to aid climate adaptation. Earlier in the year, the leaders of the G7 pledged to bring climate insurance to 400 million uninsured individuals in poor countries by 2020. In a new article in the journal Nature Climate Change, experts from the London School of Economics and Political Science, Deltares and International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis welcome these developments, but also lay out the difficulties that policymakers will face in turning the ideas into action. They warn that ill-designed and poorly implemented insurance instruments could fail to reach the goals of negotiators, or worse, prove detrimental to the very people they are intended to protect. Swenja Surminski, Senior Research Fellow the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science led the article. She says, “Poor communities are much more impacted by extreme weather such as floods, droughts, and heatwaves. Rather than ad-hoc and unpredictable payments after these events, insurance approaches can be set up in advance of these impacts, and be more efficient and provide better support to these vulnerable people.” Bayer was one of the first to propose insurance as a mechanism to reimburse people for the impacts of climate change, and to examine the potential benefits and trade-offs of such policies. She says, “With the new momentum we have for these policies, we now have the opportunity to put the right insurance systems in place.” While insurance could provide funding to help people in need, the researchers point out several ways that such mechanisms could fail: Read More here
18 March 2016, ECOS, Building disaster resilience systematically. The cost of replacing essential infrastructure damaged by disasters in the next 35 years is estimated to reach $17bn according to the latest set of reports from the Australian Business Roundtable for Disaster Resilience and Safer Communities. The reports, Building Resilient Infrastructure and the Economic Costs of Social Impact of Disasters, outline the costs associated with replacing essential infrastructure damaged by disasters and provide an overview of the direct costs of physical damage with the total economic cost of disasters. In 2015, the total economic costs of disasters exceeded $9bn, a figure that is projected to double by 2030 and reach $33bn per year by 2050 – funds that could be apportioned elsewhere on other major national projects. And as Heinrich Eder, CEO of reinsurer Munich Re, noted, these projections are based only on economic and population growth; they do not even include the increasingly detectable effects of climate change. These are big, and socially traumatic, numbers. Long-term they have the same sort of potential to create holes in national and state budgets as our ageing population does—the subject of repeated Intergenerational Reports and eventual decisions about adjusting retirement age. It is clear to us, based on our work, that investing much more in disaster resilience as a nation will reduce physical damage, avoid social disruption and trauma, and lessen this capricious burden on state and national budgets. In fact, estimates suggest that well-targeted investments in resilience could result in significant savings for the government. Read More here