Tag Archives: Legal Action

PLEA Network

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

PLEA Network

31 October 2016, The Conversation, Turnbull wants to change Australia’s environment act – here’s what we stand to lose. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is seeking changes to Australia’s national environment act to stop conservation groups from challenging ministerial decisions on major resource developments and other matters of environmental importance. Turnbull is reviving a bid made by former Prime Minister Tony Abbott to abolish Section 487 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act) – a bid rejected in the Senate in 2015. If it goes ahead, the change will significantly diminish the functionality of the act. The EPBC Act, introduced by the Howard government in 1999, has an established record of success. Judicial oversight of ministerial discretion, enabled by expanded standing under Section 487, has been crucial to its success. Section 487 allows individuals and groups to challenge ministerial decisions on resources, developments and other issues under the EPBC Act. An organisation can establish standing by showing they have engaged in activities for the “protection or conservation of, or research into, the environment” within the previous two years. They must also show that their purpose is environmental protection. Repealing this provision would remove the standing of these groups to seek judicial review of decisions. Standing would then revert to the common law position. That means parties would need to prove they are a “person aggrieved” by showing that their interests have been impacted directly. Read More here

PLEA Network

20 October 2016, Climate Home, Netherlands accounting fudge reduces 2020 carbon cuts. The Dutch government could avoid setting tough new climate policies thanks to carbon accounting changes. Ordered by a court to cut greenhouse gas emissions 25% from 1990 levels by 2020, the authorities were under pressure to close new coal power  plants. In a convenient twist for reluctant ministers, the latest national energy outlook shows that target is much closer than previously thought. The official emissions forecast for 2020 is now a 23% cut, up from 17% a year ago. Economics minister Henk Kamp claimed in a statement this showed the success of a 2013 energy agreement, which predates the landmark court ruling. An official response to the Urgenda case is due out in late November. Green groups maintain that stronger action is needed to meet the spirit of the court judgment – and ambition of the UN climate deal struck in Paris. The new numbers owe more to methodological tweaks than carbon-cutting initiatives, lead analyst Michael Hekkenberg explained on the Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands website. Under the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change guidelines on methane’s global warming potential, the 1990 baseline emissions have been revised up. “This revision is obviously not good news for the climate,” Hekkenberg stressed. Meanwhile, the forecast 2020 emissions have been revised down, but largely due to shifting assumptions about renewable power imports and declining energy demand. Read more here

PLEA Network

19 September 2016, The Guardian, Adani Carmichael coalmine faces new legal challenge from conservation foundation. Foundation appeals against ruling that endorsed mine’s approval by the commonwealth. The Australian Conservation Foundation has renewed its legal challenge to Adani’s Carmichael mine, appealing against a federal court ruling that endorsed its approval by the commonwealth. The ACF on Monday lodged an appeal against last month’s decision, which found the then federal environment minister, Greg Hunt, was entitled to find the impact on global warming and the Great Barrier Reef from the Queensland mine’s 4.6bn tonnes of carbon emissions “speculative”. The president of the ACF, Geoff Cousins, said Australia’s national environment protection laws were “broken” if the minister could approve “a mega-polluting coalmine – the biggest in Australia’s history – and claim it will have no impact on the global warming and the reef”. “If our environment laws are too weak to actually protect Australia’s unique species and places, they effectively give companies like Adani a licence to kill,” Cousins said. “Be in no doubt, Adani’s Carmichael proposal is massive and will lock in decades of damaging climate pollution if it goes ahead, further wrecking the reef. “The science is clear that we can have coal or the reef – but we can’t have both.” Read More here