Petri Lahtinen
The two most pressing policy imperatives on a global scale are the widespread inequality and the network of intertwining ecological crises. The challenges of social injustice and environmental issues are also interconnected and simultaneous. As is demonstrated in various studies, data produced by numerous trials and earlier blog posts of our association, it is evident that a universal basic income (UBI) is an applicable social allowance renewal to address the social and economic challenges caused by e.g. the changes in the employment landscape due to cognitive capitalism[1] and automatization[2]. Yet, as the economic and ecological issues are inseparably linked in the present-day societies, it is relevant to ask how redistributive economic policies can be harnessed to serve the ecological sustainability as well.[3] Thus, the possibility of a green basic income is an alternative to be taken seriously into account in the design of just, equal, and sustainable societies.
Before discussing the details of a green basic income, it is important to distinguish two prominent approaches to it: environmental and ecological. Dobson classifies environmentalism as a “managerial approach to environmental problems, secure in the belief that they can be solved without fundamental changes in present values or patterns of production and consumption”. Ecologism, on the other hand, requires “radical changes in our relationship with the non-human natural world, and in our mode of social and political life”.[4] In the context of a green BI, an environmental approach is interested in achieving positive environmental impacts while supporting the current economic framework: the advocates of this model argue that the current consumption and production patterns can be maintained, and that permanent economic growth is not only possible but desirable. Even though an environmental approach might acknowledge these patterns as unsustainable, scientism and technological determinism characterize environmental approaches to such an extent that there is an optimism in new technological solutions that will correct and compensate for unsustainable impacts.[5]
Yet, even if technological solutions that compensate for the anthropogenic environmental impacts are discovered in the future, the question still remains at what price this goal will be attained: how much of biodiversity the humankind is ready to sacrifice and are we ready to take the risk that we might cross the planetary boundaries beyond the point of no return – that is, the critical point after which the consequences for the planet are unpredictable. Whereas the environmental approach is often over-optimistic about the development of technology as a solution for environmental issues, an ecological approach, while not technophobic, is still doubtful whether technology can answer the multiple ecological crises the planet is currently facing.
Instead of hoping to maintain the current patterns of consumption and production as well as economic growth, an ecological model focuses on supporting a transition to a so-called post-productivist society and defends a model of prosperity that does not depend on economic growth. An ecological basic income, then, would be part of a non-growth or even a degrowth policy. Such policy aims at a social-ecological transformation via a range of social, environmental, and economic policies and institutions, orchestrated to guarantee that while production and consumption decline, human welfare improves and is more equally distributed.[6] If this transformation is to be reached globally, wealthier nations responsible for the unsustainable exploitation of natural resources and over-consumption must end their addiction to open-ended and indiscriminate economic growth. Furthermore, redistribution of income and wealth from nations, groups, and individuals with more than they need, to those with insufficient means for an adequate standard of living is necessary.[7]
When considering a green basic income as a real viable option, at least three factors should be taken into account in its implementation so that it could be imagined amplifying positive environmental effects. These would be conditions, additions and complements. First, certain conditions could be attached to the receipt of basic income funds. For example, part of basic income payments could be made in the form of vouchers for locally produced sustainable food, or public transport.[8] The first problem here is the unconditionality and universality included in most of the basic income models: everyone should be entitled to the same amount of basic income regardless the circumstances. Further, the recipients should be allowed to exercise personal freedom including how they use their basic income. Secondly, the fulfilment of these conditions requires the availability of local products and good public transport infrastructure. Finally, it should be noted that it is often the wealthy and their consumption habits that are ecologically unsustainable. Therefore, from the point of social justice it is appropriate to question whether the more underprivileged – to whom basic income is usually aimed at – should be expected to pursue ecological choices even further in order to receive basic income. One alternative could be additions. This would mean that people already receiving the basic income would also receive additional funds when committing to environmental activities and choices.
A green basic income on its own is an incomplete solution to the multidimensional problems that face our planet. A green basic income requires complements i.e. simultaneous improvements along social, economic, and environmental dimensions.[9] As mentioned earlier, there are views arguing that a more thorough and even radical social-ecological transformation in our societies is required. Mulvale has suggested a list of general public policy initiatives which are required in the pursuit of a fundamental transformation in our political economies towards the goal of ecological sustainability[10]:
- Adequate and affordable as well as environmentally responsible housing.
- Local food security for good quality and affordable nutritious food.
- Restructuring the labour market to support green jobs and production, and care work.
- No- or low-carbon public transportation that is additionally affordable and convenient public transit, including in rural areas.
- Zero (overall) population growth.
- Habitat protection and ecologically sensible and community-oriented land-use planning.
- Robust ecological education that conveys the necessity of environmental citizenship with the practical skills and ethical values that are prerequisites for environmental sustainability.
- Environmentally efficient health care including health promotion strategies that promote non-institutional and community integrated care.
Another list of useful social-ecological reforms arising out of the work of ecological economists has been identified by Blauwhof: 1) minimum and maximum income and wealth limits; 2) progressive income taxes; 3) public employment programmes such as a Job Guarantee; 4) basic income; 5) reducing the work week; 6) spreading ownership of wealth and businesses; 7) organising businesses as producer cooperatives. [11] Further, Mulvale continues his vision of a social-ecological transformation by listing three constituencies that would seem to have an indispensable role to play in bringing about this transformation. These are 1) critical and well-informed components of the broad social movement for social justice and ecological health; 2) theoreticians and researchers offering strategic guidance and pragmatic solutions required for the transformation; and 3) activists inside government and public sector institutions who can influence policy-makers in consultation with agents from environmental movements, academia, and citizens’ organizations.[12] While the exact number and character of these social-ecological reforms might be open to debate, the attainment of a radical transformation is obvious: there are a multitude of impending ecological crises due to rapid and profound changes in our natural ecosystems at local, bio-regional, and global levels.[13] Most of these are anthropogenic and this geological epoch is coined as the Anthropocene meaning that all of Earth’s geology and ecosystems are impacted by humans one way or another.
When designing a green basic income, one practical issue, of course, is its financing. This a complex topic in itself that deserves an article of its own, but a few proposals are appropriate to present here briefly. Green alternatives to financing a BI have been proposed by Anderson already in 2009: it is evident that a green BI should be financed in in an ecologically favorable way. This includes green taxes designed to restrict consumption among the wealthier citizens and a coupling with eco-tax relief for people with low income, thereby maximizing both eco-efficiency and distributive justice.[14] Similar to Anderson, Marston views that the financing of BI should differ between wealthier and poorer nations: In rich countries, “a basic income could be a key platform in addressing unsustainable economic growth, environmental pollution, and the problem of over-consumption and population”. For poor nations, BI “may increase local economic growth and be a part of the solution to poverty problems”.[15]
When a green BI is viewed as a part of the social-ecological transformation, a tax revenue is elemental in the process. A few of the mechanisms of pursuing the revenue would be progressive income tax, heavier reliance on taxes on carbon emissions and on luxury goods and services, and prompt taxation of revenue derived from the sale and purchase of real estate, stocks, foreign currencies, and other financial instruments based on speculative greed and quick profit-making.[16] Currently there are existent ‘environmental’ tax proposals such as Pigovian taxes that serve to internalize the cost of the environmental impacts, and cap-and-trade systems that also seek to reduce polluting activities.[17] While considering the distinction of environmental/ecological approaches, it is obvious that an environmental model could accept a green BI only for its consequences and having no concerns about its source of funding, whereas an ecological model would demand that the source of financing actively helps to reduce harmful ecological impacts.[18]
However, the balancing between taxation of environmentally harmful activities and the financing of a BI is extremely complex: the most apparent risk here is that a success in reducing environmentally damaging activities can result in the failure of economic sustainability of the BI. This could lead to a scenario where the maintenance of the financing of the BI would lead to the acceptance of the environmentally harmful activities. Thus, an ecological model and a social-ecological transformation demand a post-growth policy, a reduction in total consumption, and more sustainable ways of life. As a result, the level of subsistence could also be revised downward as the taxation of environmentally harmful activities could be reduced as well.[19] It is also important to note that the redistribution of wealth is essential for the reduction of carbon emissions.[20] In any case, a green BI would always have to be funded by various sources and in a way that is able to react to changes: what is currently viewed as ecologically sustainable may in time reveal unwanted side effects. Thus, the sources of financing a BI are to be regularly revised in response to the changing circumstances to ensure that the positive environmental impacts are actually realized in the future as well.[21]
When considering the effectiveness of a basic income to advance ecological goals de facto, the most pressing issue is the limitedness of data currently available concerning the connection between UBI and its environmental implications. The lack of this data results from the fact that the effects on environmental behaviour due to UBI have rarely been measured or even taken into consideration in the past basic income trials.[22] In the scholarly sphere, earlier cases for green basic income have been made by Tony Fitzpatrick (1999), Simon Birnbaum (2009), Pierre-Marie Boulanger (2009) and Jan Otto Andersson (2009). As the ecologically positive effects of a BI are as of yet mostly theoretical, it is most pressing that in the future the environmental aspect should be incorporated into the design of basic income pilots.
The major areas of life where a basic income could be imagined having a positive environmental effect are the use of time and consumption, and food consumption and production. As already has been noted, the residents of wealthy countries are responsible for consuming far more environmental resources than those in poor countries. Thus, any policy that reduces migration from the poorest countries to the wealthiest countries, should have a positive environmental impact. An efficient basic income would reduce the need to migrate in an attempt to escape poverty on the one hand, and status-based conspicuous consumption as the stigma attached to poverty would decrease on the other hand. Furthermore, a BI could increase the ability of the poor to purchase higher quality, durable, and “ethical” goods.[23]
The food system is one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, desertification, eutrophication, and biodiversity loss. Solutions to these issues include the support of local production, fair-trade goods, sustainable farming practices, and reduced meat consumption.[24] Basic income would increase the capabilities to opt for these alternatives since studies have cited cost as a major barrier to sustainable food consumption. Goods such as local, sustainably-grown fruits and vegetables, and vegan products tend to be more expensive than high-calorie, pre-packaged, and processed junk foods.[25] Furthermore, sustainable eating often requires more time spent on food preparation and self-education on environmental impacts of food choices. Changes in food habits similarly require time commitment and information or knowledge acquisition efforts.[26] Basic income could be imagined providing both the time and money that allow for increasing sustainable food consumption practices.[27]
It is noteworthy, that there are also predictions arguing that a basic income could also have negative ecological effects. There are studies showing that the increase in income also increases consumption to the extent that it tends to statistically overpower any pro-environment behaviour even for those who have previously self-identified as eco-conscious.[28] Similarly, an argument can be made that when one of the causes of the current ecological crises is the productivist model of the economy (based on the ever-increasing exploitation of natural resources, over-consumption, and the idea of continuous economic growth) that extra income will contribute even further to the promotion of such a system.[29] Interestingly, The Northern Shore Tribal Council in Canada has also expressed its concern about the concept of basic income paid to individuals. The Council views it as one form of colonialism as it favours the further individualization of our present culture instead of reinforcing communities. In certain situations, the focus on individual freedom may undermine the collective elements of cultures and communities, threatening their ability to solve environmental and other problems.[30]
For a green basic income to have actual, positive ecological impact, there are two key factors in the implementation of a green basic income that should be taken into consideration: first, at what level the basic income should be set and second, how the green basic income could be coupled with a social-economical transformation. Some scholars claim that a basic income would have positive environmental impacts when it is set only at a subsistence level, due to concerns with overconsumption.[31] Others, on the other hand, argue that only a sufficiently high BI can be the basis for a cultural shift to a post-productivist society where individuals opt for a lifestyle less dependent on material consumption.[32] In the present-day world it seems inevitable that social-ecological transformation must also cover human values and lifestyles. Taking the cue from the ecological economist and some indigenous groups, we humans as a species, individually and collectively, should focus on the quality of our relationships, mutual support in local communities, and build social institutions and processes to achieve a higher degree of social solidarity.[33] In the pursuit of a better world that is just and equal to all, it is evident that environmental issues are inseparably connected with social, political and economic issues. Therefore, the ecological questions should not be overlooked any longer in the design of a basic income.
Sources:
Andersson, J. O. (2009): Basic Income from an ecological perspective. Basic Income Studies, 4, 2: 1-8.
Birnbaum, S. (2009): Introduction: Basic Income, sustainability and post-productivism. Basic Income Studies, 4, 2: 1-7.
Blauwhof, F. B. (2012): Overcoming accumulation: is a capitalist steady-state economy possible?. Ecological Economics, 84: 254–261.
Boulanger, P-M. (2009): Basic Income and sustainable consumption strategies. Basic Income Studies, 4, 2: 1-11.
Dobson, A. (2007): Green political thought. London and New York: Routledge.
European Commission. (2012). Europeans’ attitudes towards food security, food quality and the countryside, Special Eurobarometer, 1–37.
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_389_en.pdf
Fitzpatrick, T. (1999): Freedom and Security: An introduction to the basic income debate. St. Martin’s Press, New York.
Freibauer, A., Mathijs, E., Brunori, G., Damianova, Z., Faroult, E., Girona, J., O’Brian, L. & Treyer, S. (2011): Report: European Commission Standing Committee on Agricultural Research (SCAR) Sustainable food consumption and production in a resource-constrained world.
Goggins, G., & Rau, H. (2016): Beyond calorie counting: Assessing the sustainability of food provided for public consumption. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 257–266.
Howard, M. (2017): A carbon dividend as a step toward a basic income in the United States: Prospects and problems.
Marston, G. (2016): Greening the Australian Welfare State: Can Basic Income Play a Role?, in J. Mays, G. Marston, and J. Tomlinson (eds): Basic Income in Australia and New Zealand: Perspectives from the Neoliberal Frontier. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
MacNeill, A. & Vibert, A. (2019): Universal Basic Income and the Natural Environment: Theory and Policy. Basic Income Studies 2019.
Moulier-Boutang, Y. (2012): Cognitive Capitalism. Cambridge, Polity.
Mulvale, J. P. (2017): Reclaiming and reconstituting our understanding of “environment” in social work theory. Canadian Social Work Review, 34(2), 169–186.
Mulvale, J. P. (2018, May): Making the green case for basic income: UBI, the environment and social justice. Presentation at the North American Basic Income Guarantee Congress, Hamilton, Ontario.
Mulvale, J. P. (2019): Social-Ecological Transformation and the Necessity of Universal Basic Income. Social Alternatives Vol. 38 No. 2, 2019.
Perkiö, J. (2015). Universal basic income – A cornerstone of the new economic order. In K. Borgnäs, T. Eskelinen, J. Perkiö, & R. Warlenius (Eds.), The politics of ecosocialism: Transforming welfare (pp. 137–147). New York: Routledge.
Pinto, J. (2020): Environmentalism, Ecologism, and Basic Income. Basic Income Studies 2020.
Widerquist, K. & Lewis, M. A. (2017): The ethics and economics of the basic income guarantee. New York, Routledge.
[1] Moulier-Boutang 2012.
[2] Winderquist & Lewis 2017.
[3] MacNeill & Vibert 2019.
[4] Dobson 2007, 2–3.
[5] Pinto 2020.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Mulvale 2019.
[8] MacNeill & Vibert 2019.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Mulvale 2019.
[11] Blauwhof 2012
[12] Mulvale 2019.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Anderson 2009.
[15] Marston 2016.
[16] Mulvale 2019.
[17] Howard 2017.
[18] Pinto 2020.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Marston 2016.
[21] Pinto 2020.
[22] MacNeill & Vibert 2019.
[23] MacNeill & Vibert 2019.
[24] Goggins & Rau 2016
[25] Freibauer et al 2011
[26] European Commission 2012
[27] MacNeill & Vibert 2019.
[28] Ivanova & al. 2018.
[29] Pinto 2020.
[30] MacNeill & Vibert 2019.
[31] MacNeill & Vibert 2019.
[32] Perkiö 2015, 137-147; Pinto 2020.
[33] Mulvale 2019.
