Environmental Degradation, Reparations, and the Moral Significance of History

To what extent do Caney's arguments about reparations regarding anthropogenic climate change apply to the issue of reparations for slavery?

At face value, the two ideas of climate change and slavery appear very different. Looking at the larger picture and relationships between these seemingly dissimilar ideas, however, proves otherwise. Both climate change propelled by humans (anthropogenic climate change) and slavery are ideas that were human-motivated, and as such, humans are responsible for making amends, or reparations, for each. Aside from the pressing issue of who is responsible for these reparations, most people agree that people are responsible. 

Simon Caney's article "Environmental Degradation, Reparations, and the Moral Significance of History" compares the "causal account" and "beneficiary account," and argues against both standing by itself. This makes sense, where he raises critical objections to choosing one and ignoring the other. If you were to only choose the "causal account," which is his idea that "those who have caused an environmental injustice are obligated to pay for reparations to those harmed," (2006, 467) then his main objection is that the issue that many people who cannot pay (ie. they are dead) caused the issue. It would be unfair to make Rockefeller's lineage pay if they recently have been practicing a personal "net-zero" carbon emissions approach just because Rockefeller and other wealthy Robber Barons caused much of the industrial pollution that caused rapid climate change. If the individual or group of people that caused the issue is dead, is there a "correct" way to make other people pay for their mistakes?

This leads into his next coined term, the "beneficiary account." The idea is somewhat self-explanatory, where, "members of wealthy industrialized states, as the beneficiaries of an injustice, owe a duty of reparations to the victims of climate change." (2006, 471) For this, this would imply that the people who benefitted from climate change would pay, even if they did not cause it. This raises a moral objection because there are certainly cases where someone who caused it may not have entirely benefitted from it and does that mean they are exempt from paying at all? It feels wrong to have people that unknowingly were affected in a positive way to pay, but this would be the case if we were to only choose the "beneficiary account." On its own, Caney argues against each because it does not do its justice to fairly and morally solving the issue through appropriate reparations.

His solution is a mixture of both, more specifically on the "negative view, where "the significance of historic injustices is that they refute this kind of anti-redistributive reason, for they show that the current holdings did not come about in a fair way." (2006, 477) People whose wealth could be traced back to intentionally benefitting from anthropogenic climate change should pay, and people who intentionally caused it should also pay provided that they still have the ability to. If other people want to (ie. feel that they have a moral obligation to even though they do not fall in the criteria, such as someone wanting to "make right" their country's mistakes) then they should also be allowed to. This means that the issue would be tackled on more of a case by case basis.

Relating back to the main question, there are striking similarities to the idea of reparations for slavery and climate change within the context of Caney's solution. For slavery, sure, the slaveowners may have caused many of the issues that still linger today (ie. racial injustice), but they are all for the most part dead, and forcing their lineage to pay would be difficult. Forcing the people that benefitted from it, such as people who got their clothes and food for cheaper to pay is also difficult because they unknowingly did so. Under his solution, the people that would pay would be the people who supported, slavery simply because they selfishly benefitted from it, and the people that still feel they have an obligation to make right. For climate change, the solution would include people that are still causing pollution at significant levels and for people whose wealth was attributed to the direct effects of climate change, and they knew it. Therefore, Caney's arguments apply directly to both slavery and climate change.