On October 4, the Center of Environmental Studies 1960’s Scholars Program welcomed Michael Howard, Emeritus professor of Philosophy from the University of Maine. At the center of Howard’s talk is the question of what is a just allocation of the burdens of climate change, and how might universal basic income help to realize it? The way Howard sees it, we have to find a way to keep the global temperature from rising above 1.5-2°C (above pre-industrial levels) without increasing extreme poverty, and a universal basic income can help us achieve that.
To overcome this challenge, Howard recommended a few guiding principles; firstly, he addressed the concept of enforcing an equal per capita share of a global carbon budget for every country. This budget is essentially the amount of emissions we as a global community can afford to produce before we overheat. As Howard pointed out, one of the issues with divvying up the remaining budget on a per capita basis is that it doesn’t take into account a country’s past emissions history. For example, North America and Europe are responsible for 50% of historic greenhouse gas emissions, but with an equal share framework, those countries would be paying the same as countries who are less responsible. This flaw leads Howard to his second guiding principle, which is to assign budget responsibility based on previous emissions. His third guiding principle is to take into account a country’s ability to pay, which would also place a higher burden on wealthier countries who can afford to cut back on carbon emissions, rather than forcing developing countries to pay an equal share, thereby limiting their mobility out of poverty. Under these guidelines, the US would have to decrease carbon emissions by 184%, meaning that the country would have to cut all emissions and pay for reductions elsewhere.
To make up for this massive carbon debt, Howard suggests an increased tax on the wealthiest citizens of the wealthiest countries; even a 1-3.5% progressive wealth tax on millionaires would allow for a large portion of what is needed to mitigate climate change. According to Howard, this money would fund cash transfers that could pay for carbon reductions in other countries, as well as contribute to a universal basic income. Because wealth is shown to have a positive correlative relationship with carbon emissions, a higher tax on wealthy individuals would also lead to a reduction in carbon emissions. A universal basic income would also change the landscape of work in wealthier countries. Under a UBI, more people to be employed, meaning workers could take more time off without decreasing overall productivity, because someone else is always there to do the work. This would also enable unpaid volunteer work and house labor to be more acceptable and achievable for low-income families. UBI would also increase automated jobs and decrease commuting, both of which would lead to a further reduction in carbon emissions.
As Howard said, although the establishment of a UBI–funded by a more progressive wealth tax and global carbon budget–might not be politically or culturally feasible at this time, it’s essential that we strive for greater visions of our collective future. Any climate change mitigation has to involve “a strong egalitarian agenda,” and by promoting these principles of fairness as we transition into a more renewable energy economy, Howard demonstrates that we have the opportunity to start our path forward. By taking responsibility for carbon emissions and redistributing global wealth, we could invest in a more just future, for our own country as well as others.