4 November 2016, The Conversation Company directors can be held legally liable for ignoring the risks from climate change. Company directors who don’t properly consider climate related risks could be liable for breaching their duty of due care and diligence, a new legal opinion has found. Although the alarm for business leaders has been sounding for some time, the release of the opinion by senior barristers and leading solicitors confirms the potential liability for Australian company directors. Australian companies are particularly exposed to the physical, transition and liability risks posed by climate change. The Paris Climate Agreement, which comes into force today, brings the transition risks (and opportunities) forward, given the policy and business changes necessitated by the agreement’s commitment to a sustainable economy. Directors’ liability hinges on the foreseeability of risks or opportunities material to the best interests of the company. Courts have long experience of finding fault for inadequate responses to foreseeable risks, even where there is supposed uncertainty. Examples of this are when health risks associated with HIV and asbestos were improperly understood or managed. A defendant can be liable even though they are ignorant, if a reasonable person would have known about them. Some corporate leaders might want to hit the snooze button again, but today’s challenges to business as usual are acute. The long foreseen economic and environmental impacts of a changing climate are intensifying. Legally, any excuse that prior uncertainty about the science or impacts of climate change may have previously afforded directors has expired. Corporate leadership ignoring interdependent economic, social and environmental risks and drivers of value has never been a sustainable long term strategy. Here are four reasons why there is only upside for business leaders to change course: Read More here
Tag Archives: Economy
4 November 2016, BIEN, ONTARIO, CANADA: New Report, Request for Input on Basic Income Guarantee Pilot. The latest step to Ontario’s basic income pilot occurred on Thursday, November 3, 2016, when the Ministry of Community and Social Services released a call for public input on the design and objectives of the study and published a new comprehensive report from Project Adviser Hugh Segal. Segal has now released a detailed and comprehensive discussion paper in which he lays out his recommendations for the design and administration of the pilot. The government is soliciting input from the public before it makes its final decision.In February 2016, the provincial government of Ontario, Canada announced a budgetary commitment to finance a pilot study of a basic income guarantee. In June, the government appointed former senator Hugh Segal — who has been promoting basic income in Canada for more than a decade — as the project’s Special Adviser. (For some of Segal’s past writings on basic income, see here.) This release of this proposal for Ontario’s basic income study closely follows the publication of details about the upcoming pilots in Finland and the Netherlands, as well as the charity GiveDirectly’s study in Kenya. A Negative Income Tax Model If the provincial government of Ontario decides to adopt Segal’s newly announced proposal, it will test a basic income guarantee (BIG) — wherein cash payments are disbursed automatically and unconditionally to individuals whose income falls below a certain threshold — as a replacement to its Ontario Works program and Ontario Disability Support Program. Segal recommends that participants in the pilot be guaranteed a monthly income of at least $1320, or 75 percent of the province’s Low Income Measure, with an additional $500 supplement to those with disabilities. In Segal’s proposal, the BIG is to be structured as a negative income tax (NIT), in which the amount of the subsidy is tapered off for higher earners, in contrast to a “demogrant” model wherein all participants would receive a fixed monthly payment regardless of other earnings. That is, the government would “top up” the earnings of pilot participants whose incomes fall beneath $1320 (or other level chosen for the basic income guarantee). Those who earn more than $1320 per month would receive smaller benefits or, depending on earnings, none at all. Read More here
22 October 2016, The Economist, Let the haggling begin – With the announcement of a national carbon price, Justin Trudeau opens a new phase of his government. “THIS is betrayal,” thundered Saskatchewan’s long-serving premier, Brad Wall. His grievance: the decision this month by Canada’s prime minister, Justin Trudeau, to set a minimum price for carbon emissions that all provinces would have to adhere to. Since taking office nearly a year ago, Mr Trudeau and his ministers have spent much of their time consulting the provinces (and ordinary Canadians) on such issues as judicial reform and defence. His carbon-price announcement marks a transition from talking to acting, and a new contentious phase in relations between the federal government and the ten provinces. Canada’s grand political bazaar, in which the prime minister and the premiers strike the bargains that determine how the country will be governed, is again open for business. Despite Mr Wall’s profession of shock, the carbon-price policy is no surprise. Mr Trudeau has made it plain that, unlike his Conservative predecessor, Stephen Harper, he takes the threat of climate change seriously. One of his first acts in office was to agree last December to sign the Paris climate accord, under which Canada is to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases by 30% below the levels of 2005 (see chart). The deadline is 2030. Although Canada emits just 2% of the world’s greenhouse gases, it is one of the world’s biggest emitters per person. Without carbon pricing, it will not keep its climate promises. Read More here
18 October 2016, Renew Economy, Abbott all over again? Coalition ramps up attack on renewables. The Coalition attacks against renewable energy in the last few weeks have reached their highest peak since the early days of the Abbott government, when the former prime minister hired a climate denying corporate leader to “review” the renewable energy target and try to have it scrapped. It managed “only” to reduce the target by around a third, but the uncertainty it created still succeeded in bringing the industry to a halt: so much so that since Abbott’s election in September 2013, only one large-scale project has escaped the snare – the 175MW White Rock wind farm that is being built by the deep-pocketed Chinese turbine manufacturer Goldwind. All other projects that have been, or are being built, with finance or grants from institutions that the Coalition has spent much of the past three years trying to dismantle, such as the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, or thanks to state-and territory-based targets (such as the ACT’s) that the federal government is now trying to destroy. The new campaign against state-based renewable energy targets – and the deployment of its most potent weapon, policy uncertainty – has reached a new intensity since the blackout in South Australia and the release of an independent report into Queensland’s 50 per cent renewable energy target for 2030. The Murdoch media have dutifully switched into relentless attack mode. The Courier-Mail ran three opinion pieces demonising the renewable target over the weekend, and The Advertiser in Adelaide and other Murdoch media have been full of anti-renewable commentary. The Australian mothership has followed suit, quoting the usual assortment of vested interests and Coalition politicians about what a disaster high levels of renewables would be. Read More here