by Michael Howard | Feb 11, 2017 | Opinion
The Climate Leadership Council just put forth a proposal for a carbon fee and dividend, as a key policy to combat climate change. The authors are conservatives, including Republican former Secretaries of State James Baker and George Schultz, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, and two Chairs from the Council of Economic Advisors in the Reagan and George W. Bush administrations. While there are some aspects of the proposal to question, progressives should get behind the main idea: a steadily rising carbon fee and dividend.
First, the proposal is a very welcome development for the effort to fight climate change, and for the introduction of a partial basic income. At a time when the President and many Republicans in Congress make light of or outright deny the problem of anthropogenic climate change, it is encouraging to see such concerted effort by people with impeccable conservative credentials proposing a policy that is also favored by many progressive Democrats and environmentalists like Bill McKibben. The dividend would be a significant benefit especially to poor and working class families, and, if revenue-neutral, would more than compensate for the regressive income distribution effects of a carbon tax.
How effective this particular carbon tax and dividend proposal will work depends on details not spelled out in the proposal. The proponents propose starting at $40 per ton of CO2, and a lot depends on how quickly the tax rises. They claim that a commission will decide after five years whether to raise the tax, and if it is flat for five years, that would not be adequate. One analysis of the proposal assumes that if the tax rose by $5/year, it would reduce US carbon emissions 40 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. While not as much as we need, it would be a big step beyond the status quo, and could be strengthened as the political will rises to do so.
The authors propose a tradeoff between the carbon tax and regulation. The authors claim, “To build and sustain a bipartisan consensus for a regulatory rollback of this magnitude, the initial carbon tax rate should be set to exceed the emissions reductions of current regulations.”
If this is indeed the effect, the tradeoff might be worth it with respect to the EPA’s Clean Power Plan. According to Charles Komanoff of the Carbon Tax Center, “well over 80 percent of the plan’s targeted reduction in electricity-sector emissions for 2030 had already been achieved by the end of 2016,” so an economy-wide carbon tax is the logical next step. But worrisome is the Climate Leadership Council’s apparently wider scope of reduction of regulatory power of the government, which serves many other purposes unrelated to climate change. And unless the carbon tax is set high enough and is assured of rising regularly, to give away the EPA’s authority to regulate carbon emissions might be a fool’s bargain. The challenge for progressives and environmentalists is making sure that any tradeoff gives us a robust climate fee and dividend.
A deeper question is whether a carbon fee and dividend will stimulate growth. The model suggested here does not give us enough detail, but a similar proposal by Citizens’ Climate Lobby is projected to create millions of new jobs in clean energy, and not inhibit growth. However, as we steadily use up our carbon budget, the level and pace of reduction in greenhouse gases necessary to avert catastrophic climate change may not be compatible with sustained economic growth.
This leads me to question whether the challenge of climate change — more than two decades after the international community became aware of the problem and initiated treaties to address it — can now be addressed through a carbon tax alone. We may also need direct investment in research and development of alternative technologies. We need to make good on our promise in the Paris Agreement to aid poor countries in the transition to a non-carbon future, so that they do not face an intolerable dilemma between economic development and environmental safety. And we may need to manage a scaling down of our consumption in a manner that does not cause widespread misery.
But there should be little doubt that a carbon tax is a key pillar in the battle against climate change, and using the revenue for dividends is an equitable and politically prudent policy. For basic income supporters, it is the closest analogue on the national scale to Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend that we can hope for in the near term.
Reviewed by Kate McFarland
Photo: CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 macwagen
by Kate McFarland | Feb 11, 2017 | News
A group of prominent Republicans has released a proposal for a carbon tax and dividend as an alternative to the Obama administration’s regulation-based approach to mitigating climate change.
The proposal would provide Americans with a small basic income, as it calls for revenue from the tax to be “returned to the American people on an equal and quarterly basis.”
A carbon tax (or fee) and dividend has often been noted as a possible means of financing a basic income in the United States, endorsed by groups such as the Citizens’ Climate Lobby and Chesapeake Climate Action Network and even recommended by the California State Senate in an August 2016 vote.
While campaigners typically focus on the taxation of carbon as a strategy to mitigate climate change, basic income supporters call attention to the “dividend” component: in most proposals, revenue from the carbon tax would be distributed to all individuals in uniform cash grants paid out on a regular basis (e.g. monthly or quarterly). The amounts of dividends vary across specific proposals, but are small, relative to a full-fledge liveable basic income. For example, the California Senate resolution was estimated to lead to payments averaging $288 per month to family of four. And economist James K. Boyce and With Liberty and Dividends for All author Peter Barnes argue for a $200 monthly dividend to individuals, funded by taxes on pollution and other rents from “universal assets”. However, dividends funded by a carbon tax meet the main criteria for a basic income: they are paid in cash, with no strings or conditions, to all members of a community on a regular basis.
A group of prominent US Republicans has now issued a call for a carbon tax and dividend, which they present as a “free market” solution to climate change.
The Climate Leadership Council (CLC) includes, among others, two former Secretaries of State (James Baker III and George Shultz), a former Secretary of the Treasury (Henry Paulson Jr), and two former Chairmen of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers (Martin Feldstein and Greg Mankiw).
The CLC’s proposal, laid out and defended in “The Conservative Case for Carbon Dividends” (February 2017), describes its dividend proposal as follows:
All the proceeds from this carbon tax would be returned to the American people on an equal and quarterly basis via dividend checks, direct deposits or contributions to their individual retirement accounts. In the example above [a carbon tax beginning at $40 per ton and increasing over time], a family of four would receive approximately $2,000 in carbon dividend payments in the first year. This amount would grow over time as the carbon tax rate increases, creating a positive feedback loop: the more the climate is protected, the greater the individual dividend payments to all Americans. The Social Security Administration should administer this program, with eligibility for dividends based on a valid social security number.
In justifying the dividend, the CLC states, “We the People deserve to be compensated when others impose climate risks and emit heat-trapping gases into our shared atmosphere” — a claim reminiscent of much discourse surrounding basic income.
The CLC also notes that the dividend would be especially beneficial to poor Americans: “The Department of Treasury estimates that the bottom 70% of Americans would come out ahead under such a program. Carbon dividends would increase the disposable income of the majority of Americans while disproportionately helping those struggling to make ends meet.”
The CLC’s proposal has gained the support of other advocates for a carbon tax and dividend.
In remarks to CNN, the Citizens’ Climate Lobby spokesperson Steve Valk called the proposal “an aggressive, properly designed carbon tax that employs the power of the free market to do the work is more effective and efficient than regulations.” Peter Barnes, whose 2014 book With Liberty and Dividends for All helped to popularize the idea of pollution taxes and dividends, also welcomes the conservatives’ proposal. Barnes states:
“This is a real step forward for conservatives. They are proposing to pay dividends to all Americans with money generated by pricing a previously unpriced common asset, the air we all breathe. These eminent Republicans effectively agree that the air belongs to everyone, one person one share. In this sense they are heirs to the late Republican governor of Alaska, Jay Hammond, who created the Alaska Permanent Fund on the same premise, with oil rather than air as the co-owned asset.”
Michael Howard, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Maine and Chair of the US Basic Income Guarantee Network, has written a Basic Income News feature in response to “The Conservative Case for Carbon Dividends.” Howard calls the publication a “very welcome development” in both the fight against climate change and the movement for basic income. A carbon tax and dividend, he claims, is “closest analogue on the national scale to Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend that we can hope for in the near term.”
Other responses, however, have been less enthusiastic.
In particular, some environmental advocates denounce the proposal’s demand that existing regulations on pollution be repealed. The National Resources Defense Council, for example, released the following statement in response to the CLC:
What’s important is that we cut carbon pollution fast enough to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Putting a price on carbon could be an important part of a comprehensive program. It can’t do the job alone, though, and is not a replacement for carbon limits under our current laws.
Likewise, Howard agrees that “unless the carbon tax is set high enough and is assured of rising regularly, to give away the EPA’s authority to regulate carbon emissions might be a fool’s bargain,” and doubts that carbon tax alone is sufficient to combat climate change. As he notes in his Basic Income News feature, reduced consumption, development of alternative technologies, and assistance to poor countries in their transition to non-carbon energy sources might be necessary components of the solution.
Members of the CLC met with White House officials on Wednesday, February 8 to present the proposal.
However, the White House has yet to comment on any planned action, and most commentators agree that it is unlikely the Trump administration will pursue any climate legislation (even if that legislation is proposed and defended by prominent Republican statesmen) in the foreseeable future.
More information:
Climate Leadership Council, “The Conservative Case for Carbon Dividends,” February 2017.
Martin S Feldstein, Ted Halstead, and N Gregory Mankiw, “A Conservative Case for Climate Action,” The New York Times (op-ed), February 7, 2017.
Chris Mooney and Juliet Eilperin, “Senior Republican statesmen propose replacing Obama’s climate policies with a carbon tax,” The Washington Post, February 8, 2017.
John Schwartz, “‘A Conservative Climate Solution’: Republican Group Calls for Carbon Tax,” The New York Times, February 7, 2017.
Reviewed by Dawn Howard
Pollution photo CC BY-NC 2.0 Christina Carter
by Genevieve Shanahan | Feb 3, 2017 | News
Renowned French economist Thomas Piketty, best known for his 2013 book Capital in the Twenty-First Century, has been making headlines for his positive comments regarding basic income in a number of blog posts. However, the approach he proposes is not basic income as it is commonly understood.
In a blog post published on 13 December, Basic income or fair wage?, Piketty states that while he’s pleased to see such consensus across the political spectrum on the idea of a minimum income within France, discussions of a basic income and its specific level are not radical enough – that such conversation “leaves the real issues unexplored and in reality expresses a concept of social justice on the cheap.” He points instead towards progressive taxation, fairer approaches to education and fair pay and control within corporations as topics deserving focus.
Returning to the question of basic income, Piketty raises what is essentially an important administrative concern. He notes that, at present, employees earning the minimum wage rate in France have their taxes and social contributions deducted from their wages at source, putting their net wage below the threshold for social assistance. However, the worker must herself apply and wait several months to receive the social assistance necessary to bring her income back up to the minimum level. Piketty seems to be concerned that such inefficiencies and poverty traps would proliferate under a basic income scheme.
Then, on 25 January, a collection of prominent researchers, including Piketty and famous sociologist Dominique Méda, published in ‘Le Monde’ a call in support of Benoît Hamon’s basic income proposal – Pour un revenu universel crédible et audacieux [For a credible and audacious universal income]. Some news organisations quickly followed with headlines claiming Piketty had endorsed basic income, yet the scheme it describes is not what we would ordinarily understand as basic income (and certainly strays from BIEN’s definition on a number of points).
To begin, the researchers defend an interpretation of Hamon’s basic income scheme that may not be entirely accurate, stating:
“Benoît Hamon never said that he would pay 500 euro a month to 50 million adults. On the contrary, he has explicitly noted the fact that the new system could be subject to resource conditions and concern only wages of less than 2000 euro, with amounts that would clearly not be the same for all.”
However, as we have covered here and here, Hamon does indeed hope to ultimately offer a full basic income, and while his steps towards such full implementation have been modified somewhat over the course of his campaign, the first step he proposes is for a basic income to be paid to those between the ages of 18 and 25, unconditional on resources or low wages.
A two-speed social security scheme?
Piketty’s administrative concern again arises here, with the authors claiming that “it would hardly make sense to pay 600 euro a month to those earning 2000 or 5000 euro a month, to then immediately take back the same amount by increasing their taxes.” This leads the piece to end with an argument for “basic income” to be provided essentially as tax credits on the payslips of the stably employed.
In response to requests for clarification following this post, Piketty published another blog post on 30 January – Notre revenu universel est-il vraiment universel? [Is our universal income really universal?]. In this article, Piketty clarifies his recommendation, suggesting that it would be most efficient to establish different methods of payment of the basic income dependent on different employment circumstances:
“We believe that it is high time to move away from the comfortable abstractions that often characterise this debate, and finally to say precisely how it is possible to proceed. In this case, the solution we propose is to pay the universal income in a mixed form. For all those without jobs, or who only have a very part-time job, or indeed whose job is divided between multiple small employers or contractors, then there is no other solution than to pay the universal income in the form of an allocation managed by public agencies.”
Piketty claims, however, that direct payment of an income top-up on stable employees’ payslips is to be preferred, where feasible, because it links the idea of basic income with that of a fair wage and because, in practical terms, he does not believe the basic income payment would be as simple and automatic as the top-up.
Nicole Teke, public relations coordinator for the French Movement for Basic Income (MFRB), has the following to say:
“Even though he clearly shares the spirit of UBI in terms of establishing an income floor for everyone, his proposal would create further polarisation of the labour market by having a two-speed system for stable workers vs. unstable workers and the unemployed. This contradicts the principle of universality of basic income.”
MFRB have laid out a number of responses to Piketty’s comments here. This includes a useful side-by-side comparison of one of MFRB’s basic income proposal and Piketty’s suggested scheme, and an analysis of the potential perverse effects of the latter.
Looking at basic income from a narrow perspective
A common thread through these three articles seems to be Piketty’s belief that basic income, when implemented, would amount to a mere increase of the amount of money eligible citizens could apply for, with no change to its bureaucratic system of administration. He then repeatedly contrasts a system whereby the full “basic income” is listed on stable employees’ payslips, along with the relevant taxes that partially or fully outweigh this amount, with his preferred system of simply listing the balance, if any, owed to the worker.
This preconception of how basic income would be implemented seems to be partially motivated by his own preference regarding the message a basic income would communicate: that work is valuable, and basic income is a way of offering a just salary and equitable remuneration for work. He also espouses a belief that working life won’t change in response to automation and “Uberisation” as much as others suggest, so we should prefer top-up payments on payslips to a separate, standardised basic income system for all, paid directly by the government.
In this way, while Piketty begins by chastising basic income proponents for lacking radical vision, he ultimately endorses just a minor part of the basic income proposal – that of automatic payment. And while, in the joint letter, we are entreated to offer a concrete basic income proposal, the system put forth caters only to a subsection of the population, with hand-waving regarding how this would connect to basic income for the rest.
As Nicole Teke of MFRB concludes:
“By focusing on the financial distribution effect of UBI, Piketty misses the bigger point of UBI: to emancipate citizens. Despite his good intentions in fostering the debate, Piketty has created somewhat more confusion on the definition of universal basic income, which MFRB has tried to establish as a standard in the debate in France.”
Read more:
Thomas Piketty, “Basic income or fair wage?”, Le Monde, 13 December, 2016.
Thomas Piketty et al., “Pour un revenu universel crédible et audacieux” [For a credible and audacious universal income], Le Monde, 25 January, 2017.
Thomas Piketty, “Notre revenu universel est-il vraiment universel?” [Is our universal income really universal?], Le Monde, 30 January, 2017.
Jean-Éric Hyafil, “Commentaires sur le ‘revenu universel’ de Thomas Piketty” [Comments on Thomas Piketty’s universal income’], Le Mouvement Francais pour le Revenu de Base, 2 February, 2017.
Adrien Sénécat, “Revenu universel : Valls et Hamon se disputent la référence à Piketty” [Universal income: Valls and Hamon disagree over Piketty’s reference], Le Monde, 26 January, 2017.
Stanislas Jourdan, “FRANCE: Pro basic income candidate set to win socialist primary election”, Basic Income News, 25 September, 2016.
Genevieve Shanahan, “FRANCE: Hamon becomes Socialist Party presidential candidate following basic income-focused campaign”, Basic Income News, 30 January, 2017.
Photo: Thomas Piketty, CC 2.0 Universitat Pompeu Fabra
by Andre Coelho | Feb 3, 2017 | News
Photo: Nick Pearce. Credit to: Bristol Festival of Ideas.
In this audio recording of a conversation, in front of a live audience at the Bristol Festival of Ideas on the 17th of November, 2016, Louise Haagh, Anthony Painter, Nick Pearce and Torsten Bell discuss the pros and cons of the basic income idea, chaired by Jonathan Derbyshire.
In this talk, Anthony Painter, the Director of the Action Research Center at the RSA (Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce), starts by describing what he calls the “gig economy” (one economy driven by tasks, not by jobs). He also refers to the great changes in the distribution of work which are occurring right now, and in the relationships with intelligent machines. According to him, people are feeling increasingly uncertain and powerless, which generates stress. That is his first argument for basic income: it is an agent for freedom. He says politics for basic income must be based in solidarity, empathy and compassion, and that basic income should not be pursued as an end in itself, but as a test and a measure for the betterment of society.
Nick Pierce, professor of Public Policy at the University of Bath (and former Director of the Institute for Public Policy Research), goes on to say that he considers himself to be a “friendly skeptic” of basic income. He recognizes qualities in the basic income movement, led by many activists, who defend tackling problems with current welfare states and pursue a vision/trend for the betterment of society; not simply reacting to problems. On the other hand, he does not agree that basic income can liberate individuals (from entanglement with the State and with the market), nor that it can liberate individuals from work. According to Pierce, work is a way to gain personal fulfillment and, as such, looks at basic income proponents as “anti-work” in a sense. He also fears basic income might lead people to disengage from one another, hence he considers it a dangerous form of dependency, particularly towards the State (seen as a provider). Pierce also points out that basic income, as a policy, will be a result of the social forces that have forged the different welfare states, hence may differ considerably from region to region. He advises basic income advocates to consider all of these regional differences, in order to propose meaningful basic income strategies.
Louise Haagh
Louise Haagh, as Reader at the Department of Politics in the University of York and co-Chair of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), replies that basic income is a “natural outgrowth of social democracy”. This comes despite Haagh’s agreement that, in fact, the basic income movement has failed to detail the implementation realities of basic income around the world. However, she feels it has succeeded in getting basic income out of academia and into mainstream discourse. She also points out that other welfare features, such as public education and health, do not contain as many conditions as income support (e.g. behavioral conditions), but agrees that basic income should not be seen as a replacement for organized fulltime employment. Rather, they should be seen as a complementary feature to guarantee full citizenship. She also sees basic income as a small but crucial strategic element that enables societies to think about their development with a more long-term approach.
On the critical side against basic income, Torsten Bell, Director of the Resolution Foundation, says that basic income interest has appeared due to two anxieties: robot anxiety (human jobs are being “eaten” by machines) and Left Existential anxiety (real wages stagnate or dropped, plus support for the traditional Left is fading). However, he perceives this interest as waning progressively. Bell is convinced basic income is not going to happen in the UK, reasoning that robots are systematically underperforming compared to their human counterparts, and that there have never been more jobs in the UK. Moreover, he says, statistics show that part-time jobs are not rising, or have not been, since records have existed. Bell detaches the United States case from the European reality, stating that what is happening in the former is not likely to happen in the latter, and equates basic income to higher taxes and higher poverty. He further reasons that it makes no sense to give a basic income to rich people, and that generally the public does not like the idea that “you should be paid not to work”. Finally, he disagrees with a political organization system where an elite at the top own the robots and make all the money, which is then redistributed to everyone else (assumed idle).
Replying to criticisms, Anthony Painter underlines that the world of work is getting more precarious, less paid and more insecure; hence something – like basic income – must be done about it. Contrary to Torsten’s assertion, he highlights that basic income advocates usually justify basic income as a way to validate work, giving people the opportunity to contribute to society in a meaningful way. He also points out that any basic income implementation cannot possibly surpass the already tremendously bureaucratic welfare state in the UK, so it is only bound to reduce it. On the other hand, Nick Pierce disagrees that basic income is waning, but agrees that politicians are constantly searching for “big ideas” to hold on to. Finally, Louise Haagh agrees that fortunately the basic income idea is not defended on a pure philosophical ground anymore, but instead has progressed to a more hands-on, practical approach. As Nick, she also disagrees that the notion of a basic income is waning, judging from the daily activity at BIEN.
Listen to the full conversation:
Bristol Festival of Ideas, “Basic Income – An idea whose time has come?”, in association with the Institute for Policy Research and the University of Bath, November 17th 2016
by Genevieve Shanahan | Feb 1, 2017 | News
The World Economic Forum has published an article on unconditional basic income (UBI) by prominent advocate Scott Santens as part of its 2017 Annual Meeting, commonly referred to by its location, Davos.
Santens’ article explains the concept of UBI for newcomers and tackles common reservations and misconceptions. Responding, for instance, to those who argue that it is wasteful to provide a UBI to those who don’t need it, only to recoup this amount in taxes (as prominent economist Thomas Piketty does in a recent blog post), Santens draws an analogy with seat belts. He claims that, while it could be said to be similarly wasteful to install seat belts in the cars of drivers who never crash, “we recognize the absurd costs of determining who would and wouldn’t need seat belts, and the immeasurable costs of being wrong. We also recognize that accidents don’t only happen to ‘bad’ drivers. They can happen to anyone, at any time, purely due to random chance. As a result, seat belts for everyone.”
Beyond defending UBI against such practical critiques, Santens encourages imaginative thinking about its far-reaching implications, outlining some aspects of its transformative potential: “UBI has the potential to better match workers to jobs, dramatically increase engagement, and even transform jobs themselves through the power UBI provides to refuse them.“
The World Economic Forum is a nonprofit foundation, “committed to improving the state of the world” through public-private cooperation. Its flagship annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, recently included a panel on basic income, featuring Guy Standing, cofounder of BIEN.
Read the full article here:
Scott Santens, “Why we should all have a basic income“, World Economic Forum, January 15, 2017.
Reviewed by Dave Clegg
Photo: Davos, Switzerland, CC BY 2.0 TravelingOtter
