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
Category Archives: PLEA Network
15 March 2016, Renew Economy, Hunt caught out on “peak emissions”, but he may have a cheap solution. As new NASA data reveals global temperature records were smashed by a “stunning” margin in the month of February, new research from carbon market analysts RepuTex has found that Australia’s contribution to curbing global warming could be easier and cheaper than we thought. The study, published on Tuesday has found more than half of Australia’s 2030 emissions reduction target able to be met using “cheap and abundant” domestic abatement – debunking the well established policy myth that the lowest-cost path for Australia was to buy cheap international offsets. The conclusion was reached in a new approach to modelling based on what RepuTex has dubbed the “real world supply cost curve”. It found that more than 300 million credits could be created by local Australian companies over the next seven years at around $1-$4 per credit, while more than 500 million credits could be supplied at less than $20. As RepuTex executive director Hugh Grossman told RenewEconomy in a telephone interview on Tuesday, “that’s a lot” – particularly when you consider the government’s calculations that it needs 900 million tonnes of abatement to meet its emissions reduction 2030 target. And it’s significant, he notes, in that it changes the game for how Australian policy might be designed to achieve emissions cuts: using local emissions reductions, at low cost, without relying on international offsets, all while keeping the cost of compliance low for industry……. Indeed, far from encouraging business and industry to cut emissions, federal environment minister Greg Hunt is busy reassuring us all that Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions actually “peaked” 10 years ago. “I believe that we have reached what is sometimes known as peak emissions,” Hunt told ABC Radio’s AM program. “My best estimate is that we are unlikely as a nation ever to surpass [2005 levels] … In my best judgment, the advice, the information from the department, we reached peak emissions in 2005-06 … and the course of history to come for Australia is that we will continue to be below that figure.” The comments – described by Climate Institute CEO John Connor as “extraordinary”, particularly in light of “the enormous credibility gap in the government’s current policies” – were quickly dismissed by Grossman, who says his company’s analysis of the government’s own data shows Australia’s emissions will continue to grow, with “no peak in sight”. Read More here
14 March 2016, The Guardian, February breaks global temperature records by ‘shocking’ amount Warnings of climate emergency after surface temperatures 1.35C warmer than average temperature for the month. February smashed a century of global temperature records by “stunning” margin, according to data released by NASA. The unprecedented leap led scientists, usually wary of highlighting a single month’s temperature, to label the new record a “shocker” and warn of a “climate emergency”. The NASA data shows the average global surface temperature in February was 1.35C warmer than the average temperature for the month between 1951-1980, a far bigger margin than ever seen before. The previous record, set just one month earlier in January, was 1.15C above the long-term average for that month. “Nasa dropped a bombshell of a climate report,” said Jeff Masters and Bob Henson, who analysed the data on the Weather Underground website. “February dispensed with the one-month-old record by a full 0.21C – an extraordinary margin to beat a monthly world temperature record by.” “This result is a true shocker, and yet another reminder of the incessant long-term rise in global temperature resulting from human-produced greenhouse gases,” said Masters and Henson. “We are now hurtling at a frightening pace toward the globally agreed maximum of 2C warming over pre-industrial levels.” Read More here
11 March 2016, Science Daily, Science can now link climate change with some extreme weather events. Extreme weather events like floods, heat waves and droughts can devastate communities and populations worldwide. Recent scientific advances have enabled researchers to confidently say that the increased intensity and frequency of some, but not all, of these extreme weather events is influenced by human-induced climate change, according to an international National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine report released March 11. “In the past, many scientists have been cautious of attributing specific extreme weather events to climate change. People frequently ask questions such as, ‘Did climate change cause Hurricane Sandy?’ Science can’t answer that because there are so many relevant factors for hurricanes. What this report is saying is that we can attribute an increased magnitude or frequency of some extreme weather events to climate change,” said David Titley, professor of practice in Penn State’s Department of Meteorology and founding director of Penn State’s Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk, who chaired the committee that wrote the report. The committee found that scientists can now confidently attribute some heat waves and cold events, and to a lesser degree droughts and extreme rainfall, to human-caused climate change. Even a decade ago, many scientists argued that research could not confidently tie any specific weather events to climate change, which the committee reports today is no longer true today. Read More here