Climate reparations
September 29, 2022 3:25 AM Subscribe
Pakistan's Biblical Floods and the Case for Climate Reparations. By author Mohammed Hanif, writing in the New Yorker. [Archive.org].
I'm normally one for "we should be able to walk and chew gum" when it comes to repairing multiple vast moral evils. But this is beyond what any nation has even begun to approach this intellectually much less practically; and the blithe "well nations have trillions of dollars" is a good soundbite - but nothing more.
How about we unfuck what we're CONTINUING to do to every millisecond to this planet, to turn catastrophe into a mere disaster. To do so properly would require somewhere between 5-50% of global GDP and manpower - 10-100 moonshots level events for every country for the next 20 years. 10 covid-level responses for every country for 20 years. We're probably trying one thousandth of that.
posted by lalochezia at 7:13 AM on September 29, 2022 [5 favorites]
How about we unfuck what we're CONTINUING to do to every millisecond to this planet, to turn catastrophe into a mere disaster. To do so properly would require somewhere between 5-50% of global GDP and manpower - 10-100 moonshots level events for every country for the next 20 years. 10 covid-level responses for every country for 20 years. We're probably trying one thousandth of that.
posted by lalochezia at 7:13 AM on September 29, 2022 [5 favorites]
This article really brought home the cost of "poverty porn" - the paragraph where he says that the richer parts of the globe are desensitized to pictures of brown people suffering. I really think that's true. Obviously there's a lot of other factors - racism, colonialism, internal politics - but I do think that the charity/pity narrative others the people who are suffering enough that even fairly tender-hearted people see the situation as more a matter of noblesse oblige than justice.
Among other things that worry me, I worry because inequality in the rich world is huge and growing and that means that an ever smaller number of very rich people set the agenda and the media discourse. The problem would not be solved by mere economic equality in the US and the rest of the rich world but it's difficult to see how it gets solved without economic equality.
The very rich are already in "fuck you Jack mode" where they live sequestered from the rest of us. They are not going to opt for the kind of social changes that would be needed to even begin to start to deal with the climate crisis. Because they more or less control most of the media discourse and most of the politicians, even if there is mass organizing for climate policy it is unlikely to get traction.
And then everyone down the scale knows they are basically on their own because of the failure of democracy and they are going to be more concerned with their own survival, both out of necessity and out of ideology, making it even harder to do the things that might create major change. We see every day all around us that the way to survive is to have the money for the concierge doctors, the generators, the sequestered housing in a climate-safe place, the education, the good food, the neighborhoods that have their own security patrols, etc. That life sounds like a hellish nightmare in a lot of ways, but it's what gets put in front of us as the desirable life.
What I think is going to happen is state withdrawal from the unsalvageable places - that's already happening on a smaller scale. Right now, capital makes a comeback in those places in the US - they are new frontiers, like New Orleans with the post-Katrina gentrification. But that won't last long.
People will still need to live in those places and they'll make lives of some sort - how good or how bad is going to be very, very local.
In the long, long game, maybe new forms arise in those new places, and maybe that's where climate reparations come from - maybe it's going to be the New Republic of the Abandoned Places that makes equal relationships with Pakistan and the global south. But that's a long way away. I feel like we're out of time.
posted by Frowner at 8:24 AM on September 29, 2022 [7 favorites]
Among other things that worry me, I worry because inequality in the rich world is huge and growing and that means that an ever smaller number of very rich people set the agenda and the media discourse. The problem would not be solved by mere economic equality in the US and the rest of the rich world but it's difficult to see how it gets solved without economic equality.
The very rich are already in "fuck you Jack mode" where they live sequestered from the rest of us. They are not going to opt for the kind of social changes that would be needed to even begin to start to deal with the climate crisis. Because they more or less control most of the media discourse and most of the politicians, even if there is mass organizing for climate policy it is unlikely to get traction.
And then everyone down the scale knows they are basically on their own because of the failure of democracy and they are going to be more concerned with their own survival, both out of necessity and out of ideology, making it even harder to do the things that might create major change. We see every day all around us that the way to survive is to have the money for the concierge doctors, the generators, the sequestered housing in a climate-safe place, the education, the good food, the neighborhoods that have their own security patrols, etc. That life sounds like a hellish nightmare in a lot of ways, but it's what gets put in front of us as the desirable life.
What I think is going to happen is state withdrawal from the unsalvageable places - that's already happening on a smaller scale. Right now, capital makes a comeback in those places in the US - they are new frontiers, like New Orleans with the post-Katrina gentrification. But that won't last long.
People will still need to live in those places and they'll make lives of some sort - how good or how bad is going to be very, very local.
In the long, long game, maybe new forms arise in those new places, and maybe that's where climate reparations come from - maybe it's going to be the New Republic of the Abandoned Places that makes equal relationships with Pakistan and the global south. But that's a long way away. I feel like we're out of time.
posted by Frowner at 8:24 AM on September 29, 2022 [7 favorites]
How about we unfuck what we're CONTINUING to do to every millisecond to this planet, to turn catastrophe into a mere disaster. To do so properly would require somewhere between 5-50% of global GDP and manpower - 10-100 moonshots level events for every country for the next 20 years. 10 covid-level responses for every country for 20 years. We're probably trying one thousandth of that.
Maybe when everything is bad enough, we'll shift to some kind war-time economy where everything is focused on one goal, fixing the crisis and we'll stop worrying about money and think more about resource allocations and how to fix this.
Ideally this would truly be a global effort to best maximize the world's resources, but I look back at how COVID vaccine distribution was handled, and all the craziness with masks and PPE at the beginning of the pandemic and it's really hard to be be hopeful about that.
posted by WaterAndPixels at 8:57 AM on September 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
Maybe when everything is bad enough, we'll shift to some kind war-time economy where everything is focused on one goal, fixing the crisis and we'll stop worrying about money and think more about resource allocations and how to fix this.
Ideally this would truly be a global effort to best maximize the world's resources, but I look back at how COVID vaccine distribution was handled, and all the craziness with masks and PPE at the beginning of the pandemic and it's really hard to be be hopeful about that.
posted by WaterAndPixels at 8:57 AM on September 29, 2022 [3 favorites]
“Some [indicate] we should [plan to adapt] to a +4°C world .. one wonders what portion of the living population now could adapt to such a world, and my view is that it’s just a few thousand people [seeking refuge] in the Arctic or Antarctica.” ― Ira Leifer
I'm afraid "reparations" talk is simply more of our underlying economic mistake: We can print more money to encourage people to consume, pollute, etc. faster. Yet, we cannot print more energy, copper, trees, fresh water, bees, fungi that make soil work, etc. We definitely cannot unprint CO2, methane, plastics particulates, roundup, etc.
We absolutely must stop emitting CO2, methane, and other pollutants, but our GDP is inherently just our energy and resource consumption. Joe Tainter says human societies have never voluntarily given up energy sources, but conflicts between societies have reduced their energy use.
We need a global effort to curb emissions of course, but initial really effective measures might take the form of more vulnerable nations forcefully stopping some emissions sources in less vulnerable nations. If not, then I suppose equally vulnerable nations like the US and China might militarily stop one another's emissions sources, but only much later.
A coal plant, oil refinery, cattle farm, or logging a forest is inherently an act of war against the whole world.
We cannot literally stop emissions through wars of course, but afaik only violence between nations could create the necessarily social willingness to stop emissions.
“The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind.” ― H. P. Lovecraft
posted by jeffburdges at 11:30 AM on September 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
I'm afraid "reparations" talk is simply more of our underlying economic mistake: We can print more money to encourage people to consume, pollute, etc. faster. Yet, we cannot print more energy, copper, trees, fresh water, bees, fungi that make soil work, etc. We definitely cannot unprint CO2, methane, plastics particulates, roundup, etc.
We absolutely must stop emitting CO2, methane, and other pollutants, but our GDP is inherently just our energy and resource consumption. Joe Tainter says human societies have never voluntarily given up energy sources, but conflicts between societies have reduced their energy use.
We need a global effort to curb emissions of course, but initial really effective measures might take the form of more vulnerable nations forcefully stopping some emissions sources in less vulnerable nations. If not, then I suppose equally vulnerable nations like the US and China might militarily stop one another's emissions sources, but only much later.
A coal plant, oil refinery, cattle farm, or logging a forest is inherently an act of war against the whole world.
We cannot literally stop emissions through wars of course, but afaik only violence between nations could create the necessarily social willingness to stop emissions.
“The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind.” ― H. P. Lovecraft
posted by jeffburdges at 11:30 AM on September 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
I am totally in favor of huge transfers from rich people (generally in rich countries) to poor people (generally in poor countries). The logic seems undeniable: The benefit of an extra $1,000 for someone with an income of, say, $3,000 is orders of magnitude larger than for someone making $50,000 or $100,000. (Shoutout to GiveDirectly, which raises money from rich people to give to poor people.)
I'm also in favor of dramatic action to limit climate change. It will be costly, but not nearly as costly as not doing it. And the burden should fall on rich countries, because we have the resources and because we benefited from the economic growth that accompanied historical carbon emissions.
But I don't know where "reparations" fits in or what it even means. Is it cutting carbon emissions? Transferring funds? To a country? To individuals? With requirements that it be used for them to do something to combat climate change? What if they want to build houses and hospitals and buy cars, which would reduce suffering but could contribute to climate change?
The case for redistribution seems just as high if people were suffering for other reasons; in fact, global poverty and associated conditions (literacy, life expectancy, etc.) has improved dramatically in recent decades even as the consequences of climate changes are causing harm. Should richer countries suffering from climate change get less than poorer countries? Maybe there would be more support for aid if people in rich countries felt that it was our fault, but that seems optimistic, in a sense.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 1:07 PM on September 29, 2022
I'm also in favor of dramatic action to limit climate change. It will be costly, but not nearly as costly as not doing it. And the burden should fall on rich countries, because we have the resources and because we benefited from the economic growth that accompanied historical carbon emissions.
But I don't know where "reparations" fits in or what it even means. Is it cutting carbon emissions? Transferring funds? To a country? To individuals? With requirements that it be used for them to do something to combat climate change? What if they want to build houses and hospitals and buy cars, which would reduce suffering but could contribute to climate change?
The case for redistribution seems just as high if people were suffering for other reasons; in fact, global poverty and associated conditions (literacy, life expectancy, etc.) has improved dramatically in recent decades even as the consequences of climate changes are causing harm. Should richer countries suffering from climate change get less than poorer countries? Maybe there would be more support for aid if people in rich countries felt that it was our fault, but that seems optimistic, in a sense.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 1:07 PM on September 29, 2022
To be a part of the global 1%, you need to be making $34,000 annually.
You know how bunkers don't make any sense? Rich countries are the bunkers. Us folks in these rich countries have a responsibility to realize that, and act on it.
posted by aniola at 1:30 PM on September 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
You know how bunkers don't make any sense? Rich countries are the bunkers. Us folks in these rich countries have a responsibility to realize that, and act on it.
posted by aniola at 1:30 PM on September 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
Calling it 'triage' might avoid some of the pitfalls of 'reparations' (doesn't imply the crisis is past, doesn't imply a final accounting, emphasizes avoiding even worse harm, carries a sort of ethical imperative).
posted by snuffleupagus at 1:39 PM on September 29, 2022
posted by snuffleupagus at 1:39 PM on September 29, 2022
To be a part of the global 1%, you need to be making $34,000 annually.
This number is widely quoted but probably wrong. According to the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report 2022 (PDF), you need a net wealth of $1,146,685 to belong to the global 1%.
posted by Gerald Bostock at 2:38 PM on September 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
This number is widely quoted but probably wrong. According to the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report 2022 (PDF), you need a net wealth of $1,146,685 to belong to the global 1%.
posted by Gerald Bostock at 2:38 PM on September 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
Wealth and income are different. What's the net income?
posted by aniola at 3:00 PM on September 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by aniola at 3:00 PM on September 29, 2022 [1 favorite]
And no matter what the % is, I think my point stands.
posted by aniola at 3:01 PM on September 29, 2022
posted by aniola at 3:01 PM on September 29, 2022
But the article said it better. It was a good article.
posted by aniola at 3:17 PM on September 29, 2022
posted by aniola at 3:17 PM on September 29, 2022
We've problems with Canada, Russia, Alaska, probably Britain, etc. all believing they'll benefit form climate change, but economists like William Nordhaus, Richard Tol, Bjon Lomborg, etc. remain the worst offenders here. In fact, economists explicitly tell not-quite-so northern countries they'll benefit! See Steve Keen: 15 min, 37 min.
We absolutely do not want reparations that result in more cars of course, but really even if more meat eating makes them counter productive! India could maybe limit meat consumption, but anyone else sounds dubious.
Ideally, I'd hope reparations were paid by oil, goal, and gas staying permanently in the ground, meaning Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka, etc suddenly "own" many billions worth of higher EROI oil, gas, and coal reserves in countries like the U.S., China, etc, but which they cannot extract or sell for any purpose what so ever.
Is even this possible though? We've zero indication the U.S., China, etc would ever stop consuming those energy reserves themselves. We'll partially decouple electricity from CO2 using renewables, but we cannot ever decouple GDP from energy use, so those EROIs remain too seductive, even if renewables cost less.
We no historical evidence for humans voluntarily cutting energy use aka GDP. All of us could however learn to fear things besides recessions, so then some not-so-voluntarily detente cuts energy use aka GDP.
posted by jeffburdges at 5:49 PM on September 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
We absolutely do not want reparations that result in more cars of course, but really even if more meat eating makes them counter productive! India could maybe limit meat consumption, but anyone else sounds dubious.
Ideally, I'd hope reparations were paid by oil, goal, and gas staying permanently in the ground, meaning Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka, etc suddenly "own" many billions worth of higher EROI oil, gas, and coal reserves in countries like the U.S., China, etc, but which they cannot extract or sell for any purpose what so ever.
Is even this possible though? We've zero indication the U.S., China, etc would ever stop consuming those energy reserves themselves. We'll partially decouple electricity from CO2 using renewables, but we cannot ever decouple GDP from energy use, so those EROIs remain too seductive, even if renewables cost less.
We no historical evidence for humans voluntarily cutting energy use aka GDP. All of us could however learn to fear things besides recessions, so then some not-so-voluntarily detente cuts energy use aka GDP.
posted by jeffburdges at 5:49 PM on September 29, 2022 [2 favorites]
« Older Coolio (Artis Leon Ivey Jr.), dead at 59 | conspiracy-minded researchers simply attempting to... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
This is pretty much the official Canadian position. I remember a minister from a previous government saying that global warming would be good for Canada and while he got some flack for saying it, it did reflect a widely held notion that we'd escape the worst of climate change. After a town in BC burned down last summer that narrative has started to change but it'll probably take a few more Lyttons for us to actually take climate change seriously. Even then our efforts will be focused on cleaning up our own acts and then we'll look down on countries like Pakistan for not doing the same when the next disaster strikes.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 7:06 AM on September 29, 2022 [3 favorites]