by Kate McFarland | May 6, 2017 | News
California State Senators have introduced a bill that would establish a carbon “cap-and-trade” system and distribute a large portion of the revenues as a dividend to all state residents, that is, as a type of basic income.
California State Senator Bob Wieckowski and Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de León (both members of the Democratic Party) have introduced the proposed legislation SB 775, which would establish a floor and ceiling on the price of carbon in the state. The policy would go into effect in 2020, with the price floor and ceiling increasing incrementally each year.
Among US states, California has been ambitious in its efforts to reduce carbon emissions, passing a law in 2006 that established a goal of reducing emissions to 1990-levels by 2020. This has been easier to keep track of in more recent times as many businesses are now required to report their carbon emissions, and many do so using carbon emissions software. So far, however, the state has primarily relied on regulation of emissions levels as a way to meet its targets. Legislators like Wieckowski and de León believe that pricing regulations will be more effective at reaching longer-term goals in limiting carbon emissions.
One specific feature of SB 775, however, is relevant to those with an interest in basic income: the establishment of the California Climate Dividend Program, which would distribute a portion of the program’s revenue in the form of quarterly cash payments, distributed in equal amount to all residents of California on an individual basis. The dividend is, then, a form of basic income, although the amount of the dividend is not yet known and presumably would remain far below a livable income.
If SB 775 becomes law, the California Climate Dividend Program is likely receive the majority of the new state revenue (around 90 percent according to MIT Technology Review, and between 50 to 90 percent according to Vox). Other revenue would be directed towards public infrastructure, disadvantaged communities, and research and development in clean energy. It is possible now to get cheaper energy suppliers for renewable energy solutions from companies like Pulse Power Texas. States are starting to fund these kinds of sustainable energy projects but if people are able to afford it, then they should try to get things like wind energy or solar panels onto their house.
The legislation would also establish a Climate Dividend Access Board, which would work with state tax officials to develop a mechanism for delivering the quarterly dividends to residents, and to “maximize the ease with which residents of the state may enroll in the program.”
Environmental advocates often endorse per capita dividends in conjunction with taxes or fees on carbon as a way to offset the cost to consumers of higher energy prices. In the words of SB 775, the dividend is introduced “for the public purpose of mitigating the costs of transitioning to a low-carbon economy.” Carbon dividends have gained cross-party support in the United States, with a group of prominent Republicans issuing a proposal for a carbon tax and dividend earlier in the year. Correspondingly, many American basic income supporters see a carbon dividend as a practically and politically feasible way to introduce a small basic income in the country.
To become law, SB 775 needs to pass both houses of California’s legislature with a two-thirds majority.
References
“SB-775 California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: market-based compliance mechanisms,” California Legislative Information, May 1, 2017.
James Temple, “California Proposes Ambitious New Cap-and-Trade Program,” MIT Technology Review, May 1, 2017.
David Roberts, “California is about to revolutionize climate policy … again,” Vox, May 3, 2017.
Reviewed by Russell Ingram
Photo: CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 Kim Seng
by Kate McFarland | Apr 28, 2017 | News
Alyssa Battistoni, PhD candidate in Yale University’s Department of Political Science, has written an article “The False Promise of Universal Basic Income” for the quarterly left-wing periodical Dissent.
Battistoni questions the idea that basic income transcends left and right, and warns American supporters on the left to “proceed with caution”. Despite this, she maintains that a left-wing UBI “might point us in the right direction” to remedy the defects of capitalism.
Battistoni critiques and compares the tone and rhetoric in two recent popular books on basic income: Raising the Floor by former Service Employees International Union (SEIU) head Andy Stern, and Utopia for Realists by Dutch journalist Rutger Bregman. While she considers Bregman’s optimistic vision of UBI “far more appealing”, she finds it lacking as a cohesive and practicable political program.
She goes on to argue that the left does need to “push for a different view of what work should be, how much of it we should do, and what role it should play in our lives” — which might (although not necessarily) involve the adoption of UBI as part of its agenda. This, Battistoni holds, would require a broad political coalition — “not the one that Stern describes between the ultra-rich and the masses of gig workers, or even of post-ideological rationalists described by Bregman” but one comprising such elements as “workers who need more leverage and the unemployed, those fighting for a sustainable environment and racial justice, [and] care workers both waged and unwaged”.
Read the article here
Alyssa Battistoni, “The False Promise of Universal Basic Income,” Dissent, Spring 2017.
Reviewed by Cameron McLeod
Photo CC BY-ND 2.0 Lutz Teutloff
by Kate McFarland | Apr 13, 2017 | News
Basic Income: A Radical Proposal for a Free Society and a Sane Economy, a comprehensive book by BIEN’s Philippe Van Parijs and Yannick Vanderborght, was published last month on Harvard University Press.
In honor of the launch of the book, Van Parijs has delivered several public lectures, beginning with events in Copenhagen, Denmark (March 28) and Stockholm, Sweden (March 30).
Copenhagen (Video Below)
The former was part of a workshop on basic income organized by the Department of Political Science at the University of Copenhagen in conjunction with two political parties, the Alternative and the Social Liberal Party, and held at the Danish Parliament, Christiansborg.
In his talk, Van Parijs describes the origins of his own support for basic income and his discovery of previous supporters of the idea. He goes on to discuss the current popularity of the idea, examining three events that have popularized basic income within the past year: the Swiss basic income referendum, the decision of the Finnish government to conduct a basic income pilot study, and the election of president candidate Benoît Hamon in France’s Socialist primary.
Van Parijs’s lecture was followed by two additional presentations on the topic — a critical perspective from Otto Brøns-Petersen of the think tank CEPOS, and a sympathetic one from Torsten Gejl of the Alternative, who relates that the party is beginning to investigate a model for a feasible basic income for Denmark.
Stockholm (Video Below)
The second launch event was a seminar at Stockholm University, moderated by Institute for Future Studies Director Gustaf Arrhenius.
In this lecture, Van Parijs considers basic income from the standpoint of philosophical ethics and social justice, addressing the common objection that it is unjust to provide money to individuals without requiring some type of work or contribution. In countering the “freeloader” objection, Van Parijs begins with what he calls “ad hominem” replies — accusing the objectors of applying inconsistent principles. He proceeds to provide a positive account to justify the provision of a basic income without requiring anything in return, viewing it instead as a social inheritance. According to Van Parijs, most of the wealth in society cannot be ascribed to the contributions of any particular individuals, and is best conceived as rightfully belonging to all of us collectively. At the same time, he stresses that we still need an “ethos of contribution”, which is compatible with the provision of an unconditional basic income.
Ingrid A.M. Robeyns (Chair Ethics of Institutions at Utrecht University) and Andreas Bergh (Associate Professor in Economics at Lund University) provided comments on Van Parijs’s talk.
Robeyns praises Basic Income, especially for its balanced and sympathetic treatment of critical views. Her comments provide a general critique of the discourse surrounding basic income, arguing that one cannot be “for” or “against” a basic income outright without specifying amount, funding source, and what other programs would be replaced.
Bergh also praises the book, calling it “convincing”, although he too has complaints with the current state of basic income discourse–beginning with the book’s subtitle. According to Bergh, basic income is not a “radical” proposal and, moreover, calling it such is unhelpful with respect to its political popularity. Bergh urges basic income advocates to “get their hands dirty with national politics”.
United States
After the European book launch events, Van Parijs traveled to the United States for additional public lectures. These included a talk at Bowling Green State University in Ohio on April 7, where he was one of three keynote speakers (along with Evelyn Forget and Matt Zwolinski) at the university’s annual Political Theory Workshop–which, for 2017, focused on basic income and the future of work. On April 12, Van Parijs spoke at Stanford University, as the second major event hosted by the university’s newly founded Basic Income Lab.
Reviewed by Cameron McLeod
Cover photo credit: Enno Schmidt
by Donald Brown | Apr 10, 2017 | News
Matt Orfalea, a social activist and an advocate for basic income, has released a trailer for his upcoming documentary series.
Titled “The BIG Idea,” the series intends to raise awareness of the concept of basic income by describing its history, as well as entertaining possibilities of its implementation. The series will explore such aspects as dealing with poverty, getting ahead of the potential problem of technological unemployment and helping to alleviate the precarious living that is already affecting nations like the United States.
Orfalea has done other videos on the topic over the last three years, with his most popular being his edit of Elon Musk’s remarks from the World Government Summit this past February.
The first part of the series is intended to be released sometime in April.
Watch the trailer of “The BIG Idea” below
Reviewed by Kate McFarland
by Kate McFarland | Apr 8, 2017 | Research
Matthew Dimick, Associate Professor of Law at University at Buffalo, has written a new article for the Indiana Law Review in which he compares the promises of basic income to those of working-time regulation, presenting a case to prefer the latter.
According to Dimick, the potential benefits of working-time regulation outweigh those of basic income, in large part because they would be shared more equitably throughout the population. For example, on Dimick’s assessment, a basic income would not allow the majority of people to increase their leisure time (a benefit he sees as largely confined those who “earn subsistence-level incomes or lower” and thus “would have either the option not to work or the bargaining power to secure a more favorable work-leisure trade-off with employers”); working-time regulation, in contrast, would increase leisure time for middle- and even upper-class workers as well. Additionally, Dimick argues that working-time regulation could allow not only leisure but also jobs to be more widely available and equitably distributed — whereas a basic income would deepen the divide between the working and non-working populations.
And working-time regulation might have other positive effects. For instance, due to the across-the-board increase in leisure time, Dimick contends that the policy would likely result in decreased consumption, while a basic income might spur additional consumption — leading to a preference for the former from an ecological viewpoint.
Further, because working-time regulation is a less radical departure from current policies — and, in particular, does not aim to sever benefits from work — it is much better positioned to gain popular and political support.
Dimick notes that basic income might do more than working-time regulation alone to “transform the workplace” (e.g. by giving more bargaining power to employees themselves) but that, with respect to this goal, working-time regulation should be conceived as part of a larger set of legislative reforms.
Matthew Dimick’s current areas of research include labor and employment law, tax and welfare policies, and income inequality. He holds a PhD in Sociology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where he studied organized labor under Erik Olin Wright and Ivan Ermakoff, and a JD from Cornell Law School.
Matthew Dimick, 2017, “Better Than Basic Income? Liberty, Equality, and the Regulation of Working Time,” Indiana Law Review.
Post reviewed by Genevieve Shanahan
Photo CC BY-ND 2.0 Laurence Edmondson
