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
Tag Archives: consumption
10 March 2016, The Guardian, Dangerous global warming will happen sooner than thought – study. Australian researchers say a global tracker monitoring energy use per person points to 2C warming by 2030. The world is on track to reach dangerous levels of global warming much sooner than expected, according to new Australian research that highlights the alarming implications of rising energy demand. University of Queensland and Griffith University researchers have developed a “global energy tracker” which predicts average world temperatures could climb 1.5C above pre-industrial levels by 2020. That forecast, based on new modelling using long-term average projections on economic growth, population growth and energy use per person, points to a 2C rise by 2030. The UN conference on climate change in Paris last year agreed to a 1.5C rise as the preferred limit to protect vulnerable island states, and a 2C rise as the absolute limit. The new modelling is the brainchild of Ben Hankamer from UQ’s institute for molecular bioscience and Liam Wagner from Griffith University’s department of accounting, finance and economics, whose work was published in the journal Plos One on Thursday. It is the first model to include energy use per person – which has more than doubled since 1950 – alongside economic and population growth as a way of predicting carbon emissions and corresponding temperature increases. The researchers said the earlier than expected advance of global warming revealed by their modelling added a new found urgency to the switch from fossil fuels to renewables. Read More here
10 March 2016, The Conversation, Global food production threatens to overwhelm efforts to combat climate change. Each year our terrestrial biosphere absorbs about a quarter of all the carbon dioxide emissions that humans produce. This a very good thing; it helps to moderate the warming produced by human activities such as burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests. But in a paper published in Nature today, we show that emissions from other human activities, particularly food production, are overwhelming this cooling effect. This is a worrying trend, at a time when CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels are slowing down, and is clearly not consistent with efforts to stabilise global warming well below 2℃ as agreed at the Paris climate conference. To explain why, we need to look at two other greenhouse gases: methane and nitrous oxide. The other greenhouse gases Each year, people produce about 40 billion tones of CO₂ emissions, largely from burning fossil fuels and deforestation. This has produced about 82% of the growth in warming due to greenhouses gases over the past decade. The planet, through plant growth, removes about a quarter of this each year (another quarter goes into the oceans and the rest stays in the atmosphere and heats the planet). If it didn’t, the world would warm much faster. If we had to remove this CO₂ ourselves, it would cost hundreds of billions of dollars each year, so we should be very grateful that the Earth does it for free. Apart from CO₂, there are two other main greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming, methane (CH₄) and nitrous oxide (N₂O). In fact, they are both more potent greenhouse gases than CO₂. The global warming potential of methane and nitrous oxide is 28 and 265 times greater than that of CO₂, respectively. The human emissions of these gases are largely associated with food production. Methane is produced by ruminants (livestock), rice cultivation, landfills and manure, among others. Read More here
8 March 2016, Energy Post, New data debunks clean energy claims Apple, Amazon, Google. Recent claims by owners of large data centers that a large part of their operations are powered by renewable energy have skeptics coming out of from under their solar panels. Now, there is hard data proving that skepticism is valid, writes energy consultant and author Jim Pierobon. He applauds the efforts of companies like Amazon, Apple and Google to strive for clean energy, but calls for more transparency on their actual practices. A recent report by Lux Research casts a large shadow on some data centers’ clean-energy claims. Scientists at Lux Research found the data centers frequently draw on far more coal-fired power with its much higher emissions than renewables. Companies such as Google, Amazon and Apple should be careful about the claims they make, lest they come across partly as PR stunts. Amazon’s claims are off-base in 23 of its data centers in Virginia. It is less than transparent about how it calculates its emissions “They aren’t doing as much as they claim about sourcing their electricity,” said Ory Zik, Lux Vice President of Analytics. Full-time Data centers need a lot of power to run 24/7. They cannot rely on the intermittent supplies that come from solar and wind energy systems. As a result, they must draw electricity from the regional power grid. Solar and wind systems they have deployed or are developing can help supply renewable power to their centers and to power grids. But they supply nowhere near enough electricity on their own to run operate data centers reliably full-time. Read More here