CP - Participation Income - Michigan 7 2023 CFMP

Participation Income CP
Notes:
The counterplan works by conditioning receiving the basic income the plan gives on participating in society. The idea of “participation” is pretty vague, but most of the cards in the file say that it includes both economic activity and forms of community service, like care work, civic engagement, or volunteering.
There is two net benefits for the pic in the file right now. The first is an internal net benefit premised on the idea that the participation income could incentivize people to do things that make the environment more sustainable. I didn’t include a lot of growth bad and environment cards cause there are a ton in the degrowth files that are already out. The second is the politics disad and is premised on the idea that it would link less since it requires people to work in order to receive benefits.
Neg
1NC – Climate
Plan text but with participation income instead of basic income.
It solves the aff. While increasing civic participation and opening space for eco-social values that solve warming.
McGann and Murphy 21 [Dr. Michael McGann, PhD, is a Marie Sklodowska-Curie Research Fellow in the Department of Sociology and Social Sciences Institute at Maynooth University. *Dr. Mary P. Murphy, PhD, is a Senior Lecturer in Irish Politics and Society in the Department of Sociology at Maynooth University; “Income Support in an Eco-Social State: The Case for Participation Income”; 9/21/21; Social Policy and Society,Vol 22, Issue 1; https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-policy-and-society/article/income-support-in-an-ecosocial-state-the-case-for-participation-income/4A4055260E75185439D2CE16B7B97005]//dollinger
In contrast to the current (work-related) activity-testing of payments, a PI would substantially widen the range and variety of options that are recognised as valued contributions. Pérez-Muñoz, for example, envisages conditioning PI on the performance of ‘civic service programmes’ ranging from neighbourhood clean-ups, environmental protection and gardening projects, educational programmes, and ‘volunteering in homeless shelters’ (Reference Pérez-Muñoz2016: 175). Swaton (Reference Swaton2018) similarly proposes conditioning income support on the performance of community projects such as renovating cultural heritage sites, promoting traditional crafts, setting-up walking trails, raising environmental awareness in schools and providing sustainability advice to businesses. We would argue, however, that the range of activities would need to be considerably widened beyond ecological reproductive work to accommodate other forms of reproductive labour including giving care and forms of voluntary work and political participation that contribute to social reproduction. This aligns PI with the inherent value pluralism of a capabilities-informed theory of wellbeing that Hiilamo and Komp (Reference Hiilamo and Komp2018) argue is already evident in some European social assistance programmes, such as the Dutch social assistance program.
The Netherlands 2015 Participation Act was amended in 2017 when a new Article 83 of the Participation Act came into force allowing six municipalities to locally exempt work obligations in lieu of fulfilling social participation ‘Quid Pro Quo’ requirements. Informed by insights from behavioural economics, Sen’s CA, and psychological motivation theories, the policy logic was that investing in personal autonomy, trust and intrinsic motivation may enhance people’s performance, health and subjective well-being. Obligations can be fulfilled through paid work but also volunteering, further education, caregiving and other health, wellbeing and social integration measures (see Groot et al., Reference Groot, Muffels and Verlaat2019: 284). However, under these municipalities’ ‘trust experiments’ (Muffels et al., Reference Muffels, Gielens, Vos, Muffels and Gielens2019), these participation requirements are neither strictly monitored nor enforced through sanctions. Instead, citizens are trusted to reciprocate by municipalities, and welfare agencies rely on intrinsically motivating participation through offering demand-oriented opportunities that citizens pursue, not out of compulsion, but because they consider them meaningful and worthwhile. Muffels et al. (Reference Muffels, Gielens, Vos, Muffels and Gielens2019) argue the innovative policy which shifts from focusing on people’s (in)ability to work to investment in people’s skills and abilities, opportunities and free choices may mark an irreversible shift in welfare state policy making away from highly conditional social assistance programmes towards less conditional participation or basic income.
In determining forms of socially legitimate forms of participation we can be guided to some degree by the innovative approach in the Netherlands that focused on self-development (care, education, etc.). However the Dutch approach is still embedded in a wider productivist frame and is less motivated by concerns for ecological reproduction, gender equity, care or democracy. In developing a wider normative approach to determine the boundaries of what might be acceptable participation we are guided by Fitzpatrick ’s (Reference Fitzpatrick2003) counterpoints to a productivist approach revolving around norms of paid employment that generate economic value. Fitzpatrick, in defining a post-productivist world, acknowledges that a post-productivist world will include paid employment but insists this must contribute to social reproduction. Post-productivist work will include work whose social value is ‘moral, aesthetic, emotional and natural’ (Fitzpatrick, Reference Fitzpatrick2003: 96) and which contributes to emotional and ecological reproduction. It should also, following Anderson, enable time for democratic work that allows a more careful eco system to be negotiated, nurtured and maintained. Fitzpatrick intimates that such post-productivist work will often be local in nature, be associated with the commons and will replicate the type of work and outcomes generated in the third sector, social economy, co-operatives and through voluntary work. In essence, a PI redistributes time to enable sustainable reproduction while embedding incentives for ‘breadwinners’ to redistribute their time away from economic production towards socially reproductive labour in a way that a UBI cannot. This is essential for a redistribution of care work and a prerequisite for gender equality. In this vein, Lombardozzi argues for targeted policy to deal with gendered redistribution of unpaid labour around the activities of social reproduction and care provision. In this respect she draws on Sage’s argument for targeted responses as a more effective way to achieve a more creative reform of what many still regard as male breadwinner models; for example, targeted guaranteed income schemes to enable men and women to fulfil caring obligations and responsibilities without significant economic penalties. We argue PI has potential to open what Lombardozzi terms ‘more heterogenous and fluid mechanisms of social protection and public goods’ (Reference Lombardozzi2020: 321). As Craig (Reference Craig2008) argues, much of this reproductive work, particularly care responsibilities, already happens in an unpaid context and the question is not so much how to make care work ‘paid work’ – rather, how to find time to do it in one’s personal life but also how to ensure such work is equitably shared not only between parents but across society.
Civic engagement solves ecological disasters, overfishing, nuclear war, warming, disease, and asteroid collisions.
Jasper 2022 [Dan Jasper is the founder and primary author of Street Civics. He has a masters in public policy; “Why Civic Engagement Will Determine the Fate of the World”; 2/25/22; street civics; https://streetcivics.com/why-civic-engagement-will-determine-the-fate-of-the-world/]//dollinger
Humanity currently faces several challenges that will require the cooperation of governments and people around the world. Unfortunately, today’s institutions have largely been unresponsive to many of the threats faced by humanity. In cases were institutions have responded, actions have usually been insufficient to address the issue.
While the impact of civic engagement cannot be divorced from current entrenched power structures such as special interest groups and powerful industries, this article only examines the scale of issues that humans must tackle and why civic engagement is so important for the survival of humanity.
Civic engagement, of course, is not only meant to tackle existential threats to the world – though, it’s a good motivating factor. The importance of engaging at the local level on local issues cannot be overstated, as these small engagements build toward better overall governing and priority-setting by policymakers. Many issues that do not necessarily threaten the survival of humanity will need to be addressed to establish inclusive, well-informed decision-making processes in our communities.
Nonetheless, I find it’s useful to put the term “civic engagement” in the context of humanity’s greatest challenges to capture just how important active involvement in community decision making is for ordinary people.
Below, we’ll first look at what top scientists have identified as some of the greatest threats to human existence and what could be done to prevent or protect against these events. Then, we’ll look at why civic engagement is so important either – directly or indirectly – for these issues.
Major Challenges That Humanity Faces
There are many threats to the survival of humanity, but scientists largely coalesce around a dozen or so vital issues that must be addressed in the near to medium-term.
Major challenges to humanity fall within three major categories:
Human-produced threats (e.g. nuclear war or ecological disasters).
Threats originating on or from the earth (e.g. infectious diseases or volcanoes).
Threats from space (e.g. asteroids or coronal mass ejections).
Looking at just a few examples of each category and potential ways to address these issues, we can see why civic participation is paramount to solving these issues.
Human-Produced Threats
Humans have created several challenges to their own long term survival. In fact, some of the most urgent problems the world faces are entirely human-made. Below is a closer look at two major examples.
Nuclear War
Nuclear war is, perhaps, one of the greatest threats to life on earth. Yet, despite the elevating risk in recent years, it has largely disappeared from public discourse since the end of the Cold War.
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), at the beginning of 2019, just nine countries “possessed approxi­mately 13865 nuclear weapons, of which 3750 were deployed with operational forces. Nearly 2000 of these are kept in a state of high operational alert.” Ninety percent of these weapons are owned by the U.S. and Russia alone.
The sheer number of nuclear weapons is cause for concern in and of itself as the current global arsenal could destroy the earth many times over. Some argue that it is only a matter of time before a war or human error sets these weapons off in a cataclysmic event.
The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, for instance, has famously kept a Doomsday Clock, which depicts how close humanity is to disaster through “unchecked scientific advances.” Midnight on the clock represents global disaster and the clock has been steadily ticking towards midnight since it’s an invention in 1974.
In January of 2020, the clock was at 100 seconds to midnight. The authors explained,
Humanity continues to face two simultaneous existential dangers—nuclear war and climate change—that are compounded by a threat multiplier, cyber-enabled information warfare, that undercuts society’s ability to respond. The international security situation is dire, not just because these threats exist, but because world leaders have allowed the international political infrastructure for managing them to erode.
Many advocates in the nuclear disarmament space bemoan the lack of public engagement on the issue. Governments will not likely change their behavior without sufficient grassroots pressure. While there is heated debate over whether or not nuclear weapons have kept the world safer, the current runaway stockpiling of these weapons far exceeds any strategic justification.
Ecological Diaster
Ecological disasters could happen in many ways. Perhaps, the most well-known possibility is the runaway greenhouse effect in which the earth’s climate becomes highly unpredictable due to increased amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2).
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA),
The annual rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 60 years is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases, such as those that occurred at the end of the last ice age 11,000-17,000 years ago.
In 2018, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was higher than at any point in the past 800,000 years. The last time the planet has had the same amount of CO2 in the air was 3 million years ago when the sea level was 15–25 meters (50–80 feet) above today’s levels. Below shows the increase in CO2 over the last 800,000 years.
NOAA also identifies the cause of the rising CO2 levels as a result of fossil fuel use. The official government website states,
Carbon dioxide concentrations are rising mostly because of the fossil fuels that people are burning for energy. Fossil fuels like coal and oil contain carbon that plants pulled out of the atmosphere through photosynthesis over the span of many millions of years; we are returning that carbon to the atmosphere in just a few hundred years.
Ecological disasters could come in other ways as well. Other commercial practices dependent on raw natural resources could lead to the collapse of key ecosystems. Many industries are now pressing the boundaries of sustainable resource use and may reach a point of no return.
Overfishing, for example, is when a species is removed from their habitat faster than they can reproduce. It has happened several times throughout the last centuries and some systems have already collapsed. Researchers from Rutgers University examined over 150 cases of ecological collapse and found that drastic population decreases over the last 50 years were largely driven by overfishing.
Other commercial practices like overlogging could cause key ecosystems to collapse. Stephen Petranek, an established science writer and a well-known commentator on humanity’s greatest challenges (see TED Talk above), has noted that within the Amazon rainforest there is a “marginal tree” that represents the tipping point for the whole ecosystem.
As logging and fires continue to sweep the Amazon, there is a steady march toward killing the “marginal tree” and setting off a chain reaction that threatens one of the most biodiverse systems on the planet.
Other practices such as monoculture, genetically-modified organisms, and lab-produced organisms may represent unique threats to ecosystems and biodiversity as well. Scientific research, however, is often better regulated than resource extraction. Commercial practices are often supported by powerful companies that seek to lower regulations and have immense sway over policymakers.
Once again, institutions will not likely modify regulations and curtail these practices without public pressure. If left unchecked, these industries could precipitate a global extinction event causing famine and serious doubts over humanity’s future. With sufficient levels of civic engagement from people around the world, these issues could be addressed and, in most cases, the current damage could be reversed.
Threats Originating On Or From The Earth
There are many inherent threats to humanity’s survival on earth beyond our control. However, in most cases, humans could develop systems to help mitigate fall out from natural disasters. Here’s a brief look at two threats and what civic engagement could do to help protect humanity from these events.
Pandemic
Infectious diseases are always a looming threat to humanity and every so often a new disease appears – sometimes with global consequences.
The Spanish Flu of 1918, for instance, was one of the most deadly pandemics of modern history. The disease infected about 500 million people, which was one-third of the world’s population at that time. Over 50 million people died over the course of about a year.
Scientists have long warned that the likelihood of pandemics is rising. In a prophetic report published just months before the discovery of the coronavirus that causes the COVID-19 disease, the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board stated,
While disease has always been part of the human experience, a combination of global trends, including insecurity and extreme weather, has heightened the risk. Disease thrives in disorder and has taken advantage–outbreaks have been on the rise for the past several decades and the spectre of a global health emergency looms large. If it is true to say “what’s past is prologue”, then there is a very real threat of a rapidly moving, highly lethal pandemic of a respiratory pathogen killing 50 to 80 million people and wiping out nearly 5% of the world’s economy. A global pandemic on that scale would be catastrophic, creating widespread havoc, instability and insecurity. The world is not prepared.
The report goes on to note that the global health infrastructure is insufficient to handle pandemics. Funding shortfalls have meant less research into preventions and cures.
Despite respiratory illnesses as being one of the leading causes of death worldwide, relatively few government resources are put into fighting infectious diseases as opposed to other threats such as terrorism, which cause far fewer deaths. These priorities are unlikely to change without mass interventions from ordinary citizens.
Volcano
While volcanoes are erupting all the time, some do pose a serious threat to life on earth. Supervolcanoes, which have the potential to kill upwards of 95% of life on earth and have likely been responsible for more extinctions than asteroids. An explosion from one of these supervolcanoes would make nuclear war or a runaway greenhouse effect look minor in comparison.
These events could make the entire planet uninhabitable and some have suggested that, eventually, humanity will need to find other planets to live on like Mars. Evacuating earth is likely hundreds (hopefully, thousands or more) years into the future, but planning for these types of global events is not something that should be prolonged. Given that other major geological events present a similar risk and so little is known about when such an event could occur, some scientists suggest it’s not too early to begin planning.
Threats From Space
Space can be a pretty unforgiving place and it’s sometimes easy to forget that we’re whizzing through it at 67,000 miles an hour on a relatively tiny planet. Scientists have warned, though, that it’s only a matter of time before the earth is faced with a threat originating from space.
Below are just two brief examples of real threats from space that policymakers need to address. How civic engagement fits into the priority setting picture for these threats is addressed in the final section below.
Asteroid
The earth has been pummeled by asteroids throughout its 4.5 billion-year life – primarily in the earlier stages of the solar system’s development when space debris was more prevalent. Today, the earth is still being hit by asteroids frequently, but most burn up in the atmosphere – appearing as shooting stars.
Major asteroids that threaten mass extinction events are thought to appear only once every few million years. Smaller asteroids, though, also pose a threat to critical infrastructure and population centers. In fact, your odds of dyin

Preview shortened. Download the file for the full document.