25 March 2016, BIEN, Universal basic income: a search for alternative models. With the expressed commitment of the Prime minister Juha Sipilä’s centre-to-right Government to conduct an experiment to evaluate the effects of a basic income system, the idea of a universal basic income has come to the forefront of the Finnish political discourse. Discussions centring on the idea of a universally guaranteed basic income have a long and varied history in the Finnish political arena, and several initiatives and practical models have been made public since the 1980s. A recent working paper published by the Finnish Social Insurance Institution (Kela) charts the history of the basic income debate and outlines solutions put forward for a true basic income system or one that bears some features of a universal basic income. The working paper will be used as background to analysis preparing the ground for the planned basic income experiment. An idea with a long history The working paper begins by presenting the history of ideas behind the discussion on a universal basic income or citizen’s wage, the latter being a term which is often used alongside ’basic income’ in the Finnish debate. Read More here
Tag Archives: Legal Action
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
3 March 2016, Washington Post, Supreme Court backs EPA this time, refuses to block controls on toxic mercury. A month after it hobbled the Obama administration’s signature regulation on climate change, the Supreme Court declined Thursday to block a different air-pollution rule that seeks to cut toxic emissions from the nation’s power plants. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. rejected a request to stay the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards rule, adopted by the Environmental Protection Agency three years ago to tighten restrictions on a class of harmful pollutants that are byproducts of burning coal. Roberts’s unilateral ruling means the regulation remains in effect while a legal battle continues over whether the EPA properly weighed costs and benefits in drafting the controversial regulation. More than 20 states have joined a lawsuit opposing the MATS rule, arguing that the pollution controls mandated by the regulation are too expensive relative to the health benefits. [Supreme Court freezes Obama plan to limit carbon emissions] Obama administration officials praised the court’s decision, which gives the White House a much-needed legal victory following last month’s surprise setback to the EPA’s Clean Power Plan. The Supreme Court on Feb. 9 imposed a temporary freeze on that regulation, which also seeks to impose restrictions on coal-burning power plants with the goal of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases blamed for climate change. EPA spokeswoman Melissa Harrison said the agency was “very pleased” with Roberts’s decision to let the MATS restrictions remain in effect. “These practical and achievable standards cut harmful pollution from power plants, saving thousands of lives each year and preventing heart and asthma attacks,” she said. The EPA is expected to complete by late April a new cost accounting that seeks to address the high court’s concerns. The agency contends that the societal benefits from reducing mercury in the environment far outweigh the costs of pollution control equipment that electric utilities will be required to buy. The states that joined the lawsuit over the regulation had argued for a stay on the grounds that the EPA’s rule is “unlawful and beyond EPA’s statutory authority,” according to a motion filed last month. Read More here
1 March 2016, Jeremy Leggett, Big Oil faces courtroom showdown. ExxonMobil is being investigated by the Attorney’s General of New York and California with a view to criminal charges for securities fraud and racketeering over their stance on climate change. The ramifications are enormous for the course of the global energy transition. The oil and gas giant stands accused of lying to its shareholders for many years. On the one hand it professed that climate change was a green scaremongers’ invention, and paid many millions of dollars to organisations devoted to torpedoing the international climate negotiations that began in 1991. Meanwhile, on the other hand, it suppressed its own research proving the dangers of climate change, yet built assumptions of global-warming-driven sea-level rise into engineering of coastal and offshore infrastructure. In my book The Carbon War I documented much of what its lobbyists did and said in and around the climate negotiations through the 1980s and 1990s. I know the company is guilty of malfeasance. Now that ExxonMobil has finally been dragged into courtrooms, its problems are likely to escalate fast. Legal experts expect other States’ Attorneys General to launch suits. Presidential candidates Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have called for the federal Attorney General to investigate. Class actions by investors will surely not be far behind. Existing investigative journalism makes it almost certain that other oil majors will soon stand accused with Exxon. Ongoing investigations will surely add to their legal woes, since Exxon and Mobil alumni are beginning to blow whistles. On top of this will come the evidence that subpoened internal communications will bring into the open. Read More here