Simon Caney starts off this article by distinguishing the reason for why he wrote this paper. He aims to claim "the moral implications of historic environmental injustices and, in particular the moral implications of global climate change" (Caney, page 464).
He goes in depth on the issue of paying reparations to those who suffered from environmental injustice. He also brings up the issue that compensation needs to be given out, but who should pay it and who should it go to?
Who Should Pay It?
This article reminded me of a previous article we wrote about and it had to do with the question "who has the onus of paying for climate change impacts?" This question is somewhat answered throughout Caney's piece. He argues that developed countries should be the ones paying reparations since these types of countries produce and use the most resources, contributing the highest to anthropogenic climate change.
Who Should Receive It?
Well, if the highly developed countries are the highest contributors, he offers that the compensation should be offered to developing countries who faced effects of the climate change that they did not cause. Caney also brings up the ways in which anthropogenic climate change has been enhanced over the years. Stating, for example, that during the Industrial Revolution, the British contributed immensely to climate change, but should those who are currently living in the United Kingdom bear responsibility for compensating those who suffered as a result of the industrialization? Caney offers two reasons that disproves this hypothesis.
Reparations for Slavery?
Caney does not really offer much about the ties between human induced climate change and slavery reparations.
There is a section that talks about personal onus and its relation to past events. I will expand this claim.
Caney argues that the benefits that people gained from the industrial revolution are no longer applicable since the people who received such benefits are no longer alive. So, should current individuals pay for the benefits that those people gained, which contributed to anthropogenic climate change?
This issue can relate to slavery as well. Should people who are relatives with a former slave owner be responsible for providing compensation to current people who have experienced a form of slavery in their family origin?
Caney offers two accounts for providing justification for assigning duties to people, the Causal and Beneficiary Account. The Causal Account refers to the people who were faced with the unfortunate problems and the Beneficiary Account deals with the people who benefited from certain actions, and dealing with the duty-bearers.
Caney does not deny that slavery reparations are needed, but he struggles to find the way in which they should be paid and by who.
His best offer is that people with higher standards of living, highly developed countries, should offer compensation for those with lower standards of living or less developed countries. The moral significance of social injustice practices such as slavery, induce a form of responsibility associated with providing some form of compensation towards people who have had an effect from slavery in the past.
To answer the main theme of this blog, "are reparations needed?" : YES! We need to find a better way of dealing out compensation and a more approachable method in delineating those responsible, if any.
No comments:
Post a Comment