1. University of Ontario Institute of Technology
BASIC INCOME,
SUSTAINABLE FOOD PRACTICES, AND POST-CONSUMERISM
Food: Locally Embedded: Globally engaged
Sustainable food systems
Dr. Timothy MacNeill
Amber Vibert
University of Ontario Institute of Technology
FLEdGE

2. Purpose !
To explore the current environmental and food consumption considerations made with regards to pre-existing and current BIG pilot projects and research.
Why?
We must assess and include considerations on the environmental impact of everything that we do
BIG is an opportunity to implement policies that create a more sustainable society

3. This study is exploratory and seeks to gather feedback on the following questions of consumption and sustainability with regards to BIG.

4. INTRODUCTION
There is a gap in BIG research. This includes environmental considerations for BIG.
This gap needs to be addressed as current and new pilot studies expand
Basic income studies have a focus on past and current BIG pilots as well as related programs implemented internationally
The current study seeks to measure this gap, and collaboratively work towards suggestions for how environment can be implemented in BIG pilots and studies

5. OUR GOAL 1 2 3 4 5
Quantify previous environmental sustainability considerations in literature
Quantify considerations at NABIG
Qualitatively assess the work presented at NABIG
Pose questions and generate discussion at NABIG
Measure the gap and collaboratively pose solutions to addressing this issue/gap
Reference : The basics you can find anywhere 5 Steps To Successful Storytelling Published on April 5, 2014 Featured in: Marketing & Advertising

6. Basic income guarantee
PAST STUDIES
Current state of environmental sustainability discussion in current literature
Search criteria through UOIT e-library (books & journal articles):
Basic income guarantee
2% of top 100
Food insecurity (Tarasuk, )
General “green” consequences of BIG (Teoretyczna, 2017)
Proquest UOIT
By searching more in-depth through reverse searches via reference/citation listings, more relevant studies were found, in particular 2010 issue of Basic Income Studies, but drops off from there
UBI search – very general
Proponents: Andersson (2010), Van Parijs (1992, 2010, 2013), Birnbaum (2010), Boulanger (2010), Lewis and Karl Widerquist (2009) here today, Calder (2010), Emery, Fleischb, McIntyre (2013)
More support in literature for productive and less consuming time use

7. Questions being asked
A number of questions will be posed throughout the conference including:
Why haven’t we/ or how much have we been thinking more about the environmental impacts of all policies?
If questions are being asked among other researchers – are they being considered practically, such as in pilots?
What studies or pilots are you aware of that address the environmental impact of BIG?
What is your knowledge on current environmental impact assessments in pilots?
Who is looking into this?
What are your thoughts on addressing this better?

8. POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Food purchasing and consumption
Slow food movement
Grow and purchase food locally
Less environmentally damaging foods (less beef)
Incentives?
BIG is an opportunity to build in policies that support a more sustainable society.
This incoming change should not be disregarded from an environmental standpoint.
Positive leisure time
Producing rather than consuming
Care work and maker culture
Can you incentivize leisure time?
Women paid for care they’re already not being paid for, children and older generations
Do we really want people to work more to contribute to capitalism, or is this actually is better for the environment
Should we be incentivizing different types of consumption?

9. THANK YOU