4 results
Climate Crisis and Social Protection - From Worker Protection to Post-growth Transformation?
- Larissa Nenning, Paul Bridgen, Katharina Zimmermann, Milena Büchs, Merita Mesiäislehto
-
- Journal:
- Social Policy and Society / Volume 22 / Issue 4 / October 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 27 October 2023, pp. 695-714
- Print publication:
- October 2023
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
The article discusses five literature strands’ approaches towards social protection systems in the context of climate crisis: Adaptive Social Protection, Just Transition, Green New Deal, Post-growth, and Eco-feminism. As we argue, these five strands are located on a spectrum between a green growth orientation and a green anti-capitalist orientation. Furthermore, they differ in terms of their problematisation of the climate crisis and have different perspectives on relevant actors, on world regions, and – most relevant in the context of social welfare – their conceptualisation of social protection. While Adaptive Social Protection emphasizes cash transfers and insurances, Green New Deal and Just Transition approaches focus more on redistribution and labour market policies, and Post-growth and Eco-feminist approaches more on universalist policies and systems. We argue that these literatures each have their weaknesses, but also offer urgent questions, concepts, and insights for further social policy research.
14 - The climate crisis and taxation
- Edited by Andy Lymer, Aston University, Margaret May, University of Birmingham, Adrian Sinfield, University of Edinburgh
-
- Book:
- Taxation and Social Policy
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 20 January 2024
- Print publication:
- 31 May 2023, pp 238-266
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
In 2019, the UK government became the first major economy to implement a legally binding net zero target. By 2050, any greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions produced within the UK must be reduced as far as possible or offset (HM Government, 2021). Yet few believe the policy framework in place for meeting this ambitious target is sufficient. The Climate Change Committee, the UK government's formal independent advice panel, has called, for example, for stronger, faster action, highlighting a potentially increased role for taxation (CCC, 2019; see also NAO, 2021). The Johnson government's ‘Net Zero Strategy’ (HM Government, 2021) was non-committal.
There is a strong economic case for carbon or energy taxation as a means to reduce GHG emissions: environmental degradation is a negative externality justifying corrective fiscal actions by the state (Pigou, 1932), particularly if focused on the greatest polluters and/or those whose adaption costs are lowest (IFS, 2011). From a social policy perspective, however, because carbon taxes generally increase prices, they raise concerns about distributive implications whether levied on businesses or consumers. Most research suggests that where carbon taxation has been introduced, it is highly regressive (for example, Wier et al, 2005; Feng et al, 2010), and modelling generally reaches the same conclusion (for example, Timilsinas, 2018). This is generally because such taxes are flat rate and levied on goods/services with a low-or negativeincome elasticity of demand, such as household staples, like domestic energy. The consumption of these staples does not change substantially as income falls, so they make up a larger proportion of household expenditure for poorer compared to richer households.
The UK does not currently have a specific carbon tax but has introduced incrementally over a long period a range of fiscal instruments on individuals and businesses that affect the cost/price of GHG emissions. Most were not established specifically to address environmental objectives, but their impact on price signals mean they affect the market for carbon with behavioural and distributive implications.
Very little is known about these implications, individually or as a whole.
Ten new insights in climate science 2021: a horizon scan
- Maria A. Martin, Olga Alcaraz Sendra, Ana Bastos, Nico Bauer, Christoph Bertram, Thorsten Blenckner, Kathryn Bowen, Paulo M. Brando, Tanya Brodie Rudolph, Milena Büchs, Mercedes Bustamante, Deliang Chen, Helen Cleugh, Purnamita Dasgupta, Fatima Denton, Jonathan F. Donges, Felix Kwabena Donkor, Hongbo Duan, Carlos M. Duarte, Kristie L. Ebi, Clea M. Edwards, Anja Engel, Eleanor Fisher, Sabine Fuss, Juliana Gaertner, Andrew Gettelman, Cécile A.J. Girardin, Nicholas R. Golledge, Jessica F. Green, Michael R. Grose, Masahiro Hashizume, Sophie Hebden, Helmke Hepach, Marina Hirota, Huang-Hsiung Hsu, Satoshi Kojima, Sharachchandra Lele, Sylvia Lorek, Heike K. Lotze, H. Damon Matthews, Darren McCauley, Desta Mebratu, Nadine Mengis, Rachael H. Nolan, Erik Pihl, Stefan Rahmstorf, Aaron Redman, Colleen E. Reid, Johan Rockström, Joeri Rogelj, Marielle Saunois, Lizzie Sayer, Peter Schlosser, Giles B. Sioen, Joachim H. Spangenberg, Detlef Stammer, Thomas N.S. Sterner, Nicola Stevens, Kirsten Thonicke, Hanqin Tian, Ricarda Winkelmann, James Woodcock
-
- Journal:
- Global Sustainability / Volume 4 / 2021
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 18 October 2021, e25
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Non-technical summary
We summarize some of the past year's most important findings within climate change-related research. New research has improved our understanding about the remaining options to achieve the Paris Agreement goals, through overcoming political barriers to carbon pricing, taking into account non-CO2 factors, a well-designed implementation of demand-side and nature-based solutions, resilience building of ecosystems and the recognition that climate change mitigation costs can be justified by benefits to the health of humans and nature alone. We consider new insights about what to expect if we fail to include a new dimension of fire extremes and the prospect of cascading climate tipping elements.
Technical summaryA synthesis is made of 10 topics within climate research, where there have been significant advances since January 2020. The insights are based on input from an international open call with broad disciplinary scope. Findings include: (1) the options to still keep global warming below 1.5 °C; (2) the impact of non-CO2 factors in global warming; (3) a new dimension of fire extremes forced by climate change; (4) the increasing pressure on interconnected climate tipping elements; (5) the dimensions of climate justice; (6) political challenges impeding the effectiveness of carbon pricing; (7) demand-side solutions as vehicles of climate mitigation; (8) the potentials and caveats of nature-based solutions; (9) how building resilience of marine ecosystems is possible; and (10) that the costs of climate change mitigation policies can be more than justified by the benefits to the health of humans and nature.
Social media summaryHow do we limit global warming to 1.5 °C and why is it crucial? See highlights of latest climate science.
two - Germany: moving towards Europe but putting national autonomy first
- Edited by Jon Kvist, Syddansk Universitet, Juho Saari, Tampereen korkeakouluyhteisossa, Finland
-
- Book:
- The Europeanisation of Social Protection
- Published by:
- Bristol University Press
- Published online:
- 15 September 2022
- Print publication:
- 05 September 2007, pp 21-40
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
An analysis of the German government's response to European Union (EU) social policy initiatives may be a more difficult task than for several other Member States for three interrelated reasons. First, Germany is a federal state. It gives the single states (Länder), as well as the municipalities, certain jurisdictions in the area of social policy, and the Länder have constantly opposed EU interference in their competencies. Moreover, the Länder have power via the Bundesrat, the second chamber, and may take social policy positions that contrast with that of the federal government or the Bundestag, independent of proposed or legislated responses to EU initiatives. Second, federal elections in September 2005 produced a change of government. The Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU), the major opposition party from 1998-2005, now lead a coalition government with the former government's major party, the Social Democrats (SPD), which previously formed a coalition with the Green Party. Thus, the conflicting interests and cross-party positions of the two political parties now forming the federal government still persist. Third, the two parties of the ‘Grand Coalition’ have agreed to tackle a number of social policy reforms during this parliamentary term (2005-09). Therefore, social policy is in such a state of flux that this chapter is unable to foresee all imminent changes.
We first explore the relationship between the ‘European’ and the German model of social policy and analyse the direction of social policy reform in Germany since the early 1990s. We then examine official responses to various EU initiatives. Our study shows a considerable difference between the European ‘third way’ social model as promoted by scholars such as Giddens (1999) and Esping-Andersen (2002) and the German approach to a social market economy. However, Germany generally welcomes an EU role in social policy and has already moved to some degree to the EU's ‘third way’ model. Despite this, however, politicians in Germany are not prepared to carry out a complete shift and are reluctant to further extend EU competencies in social policy.
The European social model versus the German Model
Analysing the relationship between Germany's social model and what the EU envisages as a model for European social policy requires a discussion of two questions.