There’s little point in our having 1200 page reports about something if everyone’s then going to ignore the central lessons of that report.
Note that we don’t say findings. The Stern Review, for example, makes a number of “should” statements. Should is always arguable. But there are also simple statements of fact in there. At which point, trying to agree with those “shoulds” while also attempting to dismiss those facts, that becomes a significant problem. As is being done here:
“You can’t think that you solve the climate crisis and then attend to racial justice or racial discrimination,” Achiume said. “What you have to realise is that every action that is taken in relation to ecological crisis – environmental, climate and otherwise – has racial justice implications, and so every action becomes a site of undoing racial subordination.”
We’d dispute the entire concept of racial subjugation. But let us follow the logic being employed here a little more:
After Achiume’s final report was filed to the UN general assembly in October, delegates at the Cop27 climate change summit in Egypt agreed to a loss and damage fund to help underdeveloped countries adapt to climate-related disasters. These provisions were a positive step, and even “a way of forcing some engagement with reparations”, Achiume said.
“I see it as a wedge, you know, a way in the door, and a way to create space, for accountability for the historic injustice that brings us to this moment of the climate crisis.”
The demand is that both climate change and also historic racial injustice be cured at the same time. This is wrong, incorrect.
Even if we assume that both exist, both must be cured, it’s still incorrect.
For one of those central points made in the Stern Review is that we must be efficient in our manner of dealing with climate change. On the very simple grounds of the most basic of economic insights. Humans do less of more expensive things, more of those that are cheaper. That’s just how the species rolls.
Dealing with that historic injustice might be that moral imperative but it’s clearly an expensive one. The request - nay demand - is for a very large sum of money after all. So, by demanding this be wrapped into dealing with climate change we are adding expense to dealing with climate change - we’ll do less dealing with climate change therefore.
By insisting that we deal with climate change in a more expensive manner we’ll do less dealing with climate change. That’s not the way to do it, no, really, Stern himself told us so.