Michael Howard. Picture credit to: University of Maine
Michael Howard, a professor of Philosophy and Political economy at the University of Maine, who also specializes in environmental issues, has published an article on how a carbon fee and dividend might help to solve an impending climate disaster.
In this article, Howard speaks of a recent bill (November 2018), introduced to the House of Representatives of the United States, supported by Democrats and Republicans, “that would reduce CO2 emissions [from the US] by 40% in 12 years, and 90% by 2050”. Called the “Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act”, it aims to impose a 10 US$/metric tonne fee on carbon fuels produced or imported, rising to 15 US$/metric tonne, if the referred CO2 emissions goals are not fulfilled.
The generated revenue would be saved at a Carbon Dividend Trust Fund, and be unconditionally redistributed annually to all US citizens. Estimated point to a US$ 3456/year for a family of four (as an example). Of course, fuel prices would go up, but according to the Regional Economic Models Inc (REMI), “most households would receive more in cash dividends than they would pay in higher fuel costs”. That and an estimated amount of 2.1 million extra jobs over 10 years, and reduced mortality in 20 years (due to declining air pollution).
If the bill is passed, present-day authority of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over carbon emissions will be suspended, but only to be re-installed if CO2 reduction goals are not met. Nevertheless, the expectation is that this Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act will reduce carbon emissions from the US “far more than the Obama administration’s Clear Power Plan”. On social grounds, according to Howard, the bill is progressive, as far as taxation is concerned, and the dividend is fair and acceptable by the public at large.
The Call for Papers for the 19th Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN) Congress, in Hyderabad, India, has been released. From the 22nd through the 25th of August 2019, scholars, community organizers and artists are invited to make presentations pertaining to any of the following thematic areas. The abstracts (maximum 500 words) must reach the Local Organizing Committee by February 25th 2019. Please mail your abstracts (in MS Word document between 300 and 500 words) to: 19biencongress.india@gmail.com.
Thematic areas:
1. Ideological Perspectives on Basic Income
2. Basic Income, Unpaid Work and Women in the Informal Economy
3. Basic Income in Development Aid Debate: Is there a Paradigm-shift?
4. Religious Perspectives on Basic Income
5. Basic Income as a Foundation of a Caring Economy and Society?
6. What forms of Freedom and What kind of Community Life does Basic Income promote?
7. Basic Income and Blockchain Technology: Are there Synergies?
8. Basic Income, Poverty and Rural Livelihoods
9. Basic Income, the Commons, and Sovereign Wealth Funds: Is Public Inheritance an emerging issue?
10. Basic Income Pilots: Opportunities and Limits
11. Basic Income and Political Action: What does it take to transform an Idea into Policy?
12. Basic Income and Corporate Philanthropy: Is Basic Income a better paradigm and way forward?
13. Basic Income and Children
14. Basic Income and Mental Health
15. Basic Income and Intentional Communities: What does this Experience Teach us?
Congress Theme: Basic Income as Freedom and
Development
The theme of the Congress is ‘Basic Income as Freedom and Development’. Basic Income is an idea that is evoking curiosity and attention of people from a wide variety of national and cultural contexts, from leaders of different socio-political domains. Irrespective of the generic meaning that we attempt to give it, the groundswell that we witness today is producing its own local meanings. Each of these meanings seems to emerge from its own unique contextual starting point. The year 2019 is virtually being declared as the ‘Year of the Basic Income’, because the idea is reverberating across the world.
In this chaotic multiple renderings and interpretations, we observe that Basic Income is being seen both as Freedom and Development. These two notions are not mutually exclusive or distinctively apart, as often they are made out to be. Development ideally ought to lead to Freedom, and equally so the other way round. In certain contexts, the immediate appeal of the idea of Basic Income seems to be ‘Development’ in terms of addressing hunger and other forms of deprivation, access to education and healthcare. In other contexts, the immediacy may be felt as Freedom from alienating jobs that most of us are forced to do for a living. In either case, what emerges is that an unconditional Basic Income is seen as having tremendous potential to liberate us from the new forms of slavery that the current phase of capitalist economy subjects us to.
BIEN Civic Forum
The Congress will be held for four days. The first day, on the 22nd August, will be India Day which is being organised under the new BIEN initiative Civic Forum. The deliberations of this day will focus on the Basic Income debate and policy initiatives and the ground level experience in India. All the delegates are encouraged to attend the India Day. The main Congress will be inaugurated on 23rd morning and will conclude at 2:45 pm on 25th August 2019. The General assembly of BIEN will be convened at 3 pm on the 25th August 2019.
Registration of Delegates Those who wish to attend the Congress, please register by filling out the online form. The Delegate Fee structure is as follows:
Type of Fee
In Euro
In US Dollars
Solidarity Fee
200 and above
229
Regular Fee
125
143
Delegates from low-income countries
50
57
Delegates from low-income countries are encouraged to attend the Congress, and this fee is at a highly subsidized rate. Those who can afford to pay, please consider opting for Solidarity Fee of 200 Euros and above. Those who have institutional support, please opt for Regular Fee even if from low-income countries.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Picture credit to: The Daily Beast.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a young Democrat MP who has recently included basic income in a Resolution about climate change (coined the “Green New Deal”), has also mentioned it at a Netroots Nation event in August 2018. The mention is very brief and grouped with “universal college, education, trade school [and a] Federal Jobs Guarantee”, which had been in and out of the Democrats agenda since the 1940’s.
The Democrats political platform does not mention basic income, despite recent efforts by Ocasio Cortez (with the above-mentioned Resolution), although it goes through a lot of policies for low-income workers and families. However, it hints at an expansion of current social security programs, enhancing their range towards universality, as in the following passage:
“The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) program should be expanded for low-wage workers not raising children, including extending the credit to young workers starting at age 21. The Child Tax Credit (CTC) should be expanded, for example, by making more of it refundable, or indexed to inflation to stem the erosion of the credit.”
Floyd Marinescu, a Canadian entrepreneur who describes himself as “an angel investor, author, humanitarian, and homosapien”, is featured in this interview, on CBC Radio, which has been condensed into a Whiteboard animation. Floyd has been a long-time defender of basic income, from a business perspective. According to him, the rise in aggregate demand which basic income will generate, is just what business needs to flourish. Paying for a basic income would also be fairly straightforward, Floyd reasons, especially when you realize that it’s net cost that matters, not gross cost. Financing would then come from closing redundant welfare programs, resolving tax loop holes, moderate rises in income tax and a series of other tax revenues (e.g.: carbon emissions, financial transactions, natural resources extraction, intellectual property).
Marinescu talks about “compassionate capitalism”, which builds on innovation and entrepreneurship, but also redistributes corporate gains to the whole of the population, so that “the working poor don’t need to be destitute”. For him, basic income also means freedom, personally and professionally, given the high number of people clearly mismatched with their current jobs, since it would allow them to make the necessary changes in their lives. Basic income would also allow more risk-taking, which is essential for entrepreneurship. Overall, according to Marinescu, basic income would be a great economic stimulus for Canada, putting more money into circulation, benefitting most people and also the government, which would collect more taxes to spend on public goods and services.
After the cancellation of the Ontario basic income experiment, country-wide discussions about the issue continues in Canada as the Federal Government approaches the policy, although a direct intervention in Ontario is unlikely. Prime Minister Trudeau and his Social Development Minister Jean-Yves Duclos have already stated that the Federal Government does not intrude into regional policy programs. However, Duclos has said, this month, that existing benefits will eventually cover more people than those already eligible for state (not universal) guaranteed minimum income. In his words: “At some point, there will be a universal guaranteed minimum income in Canada for all Canadians”.
So, despite all the opposition, rallies and advices against the Ontario axed basic income experiment, apparently it is indeed buried. However, it seems, interest in the concept is higher than ever, which is not surprising since the causing needs are still there (poverty, bureaucratic conditional welfare, precariousness, unemployment). Pundits on television agree over the concept, while looking at it as a tool to reduce the government influence radius (a more conservative approach to basic income), but certain that other basic income pilots will effectively be tried out in Canada (if not by other reasons, for beefing up the liberal agenda). Trudeau, on his end, has expressed sympathy for basic income, as a way to support workers, giving people some stability. That and a myriad of other considered policies, according to him: “I don’t think I’d be speaking out of turn to say that [basic income] it’s still something that is in the universe of all sorts of tools that we’re looking at on how to best help Canadians”.
Even though the Federal parliamentary budget office has calculated that supplying a guaranteed financial floor to all Canadians (up to an average of CAN$ 9421/year) would implicate an expenditure rise on social benefits of around 30%, basic income captures interest even on the Conservative side of the political spectrum. Karen Vecchio, MP for the Conservatives, has favoured the concept, although rising cost implications and questioning eventual long-term benefits for Canadians. That’s exactly why Hugh Segal, one of the Ontario basic income experiment designers (and former Conservative senator), affirms that such pilots are necessary: “to figure out whether the idea works”. Segal, as well as Jagmeet Singh, leader of Canada’s New Democratic Party, argue that the Federal Government should pick up the cancelled Ontario basic income experiment, or at least help in financing further regional pilots.
