Tuesday, 26 March 2019

Climate change (denial) and corruption

I think it is fair to say that there is now good evidence that human-induced climate change (which I will refer to as "climate change") is real, and impacting us now [1] . Acting to reduce the impact of climate change would seem to be, therefore, clearly necessary. Apart from:
  • reducing the direct costs - including in terms of loss of life - of disasters occurring with increasing severity and frequency as a result of climate change,
  • reducing the costs of required changes to agriculture (an aspect I ruefully consider every time I hear a politician claiming renewables make power costs higher - do they really have no clue that increased agricultural costs could put those costs into the pale [in my opinion]), and 
  • reducing the costs of relocating populations and providing them with resilient services,
there are moral aspects between the developed and developing world.

On that last matter, consider this: many advanced economies now became advanced by exploiting colonial empires - for instance, the United Kingdom in India (which suffered a marked economic decline as a result of British occupation [2] ), Spain in Central and South America (ironically, silver stolen by Spain from South America was in turn stolen by Britain, which helped the latter begin its expansion), the massive damage caused to China by Britain (and others) imposing opium addiction through the Opium Wars [3] , and many European nations (and the USA, when slavery is considered) in Africa.

Apart from the human rights aspects, such behaviour could be considered to be theft - and victims of theft, as with victims of human rights abuses, are entitled to redress, including financial compensation.

This principle was well illustrated by the Australian High Court's decision on 13th March, 2019, in the case of Northern Territory of Australia v Griffiths [2019] HCA/7 [4] , "that, in this case: the economic value of the non-exclusive native title rights was 50 percent of the freehold value of the land; that simple interest is payable for the period from the extinguishing effect of the acquisition and the date of award; and that the amount of compensation payable for cultural loss - a loss of the fundamental spiritual attachment of the people to the land - is $1.3 million".

So there would seem to be a reasonable legal case, in addition to the moral argument, that the developed world owes a debt to the developing world.

In any such legal case, one aspect which would probably be considered in determining the amount of any compensation would be: where those occupied lands would be now, if they had not been so occupied. Another would be the damage that is now being caused by climate change - initiated and driven by the West's history of industrialisation - in other words, the damage could be both (a) the direct (theft) and indirect damage (lost economic opportunity) caused during colonial occupation, and (b) the damage caused through climate change.

Thus, failing to act to mitigate climate change could be compounding the problems which could potentially be faced by developed nations by increasing the economic damages which we could be subjected to down the track (reparations to the descendants of former slaves is regularly consider in the USA, and now Mexico has asked for an apology from those who occupied it [4] ).

There are, of course, a range of other aspects I haven't mentioned here - existential threats, particularly to island nations which may become uninhabitable through a combination of sea rise and more extreme storms, which will cause refugee problems. Ultimately, climate change is a potential threat to human existence.

The climate change deniers holding sway in too many (in my opinion) governments around the world are, therefore, a problem.

Apart from the questions their cognitive  dissonance  issues raise about their fitness for office, there are questions about the governance aspects of climate change denial. From the preceding, the possible impacts of failing to address climate change include:
  • increased financial and human losses; 
  • increased liability on developed nations; and 
  • existential threat.
Consider now the issue of corruption [6] .

Corruption is typically considered to be the abuse of public power to obtain private gain. Typically, the private gain is financial, but there is probably a fair argument that maintaining political power is also a "private gain".

Viewed from an ethical perspective:
. . .the main ethical transgressions [of corruption] refer to:
(i)    the abuse of the monopoly of force enjoyed by the State;
(ii)    the abuse of a fiduciary position to obtain private gain; and
(iii)    poor or negligent management.

The main values that are affected or threatened by corruption are:
(i)    The integrity of the public treasure. Corrupt practices directly affect the amount of public funds available for public expenses and social policies.
(ii)    The regulation, protection and promotion of the so called “economic public order”, that is, a set of institutions and legal rules governing the economic life of a given society. Corruption distorts “the rules of the game”.
(iii)    Democratic institutions and values, such as transparency and accountability.
Failing to act on climate change:
  • involves "poor or negligent management", as outlined above; and 
  • robs us of the "integrity of our public treasure", if we acknowledge that our existence is absolutely dependent on the environment.
Could a case be brought against climate change deniers for corruption?

Possibly - it would need legal experts to consider the issues involved, but it would also be arguable whether it would be more or less effective than putting that time, effort and resources (especially the money it would consume) into educating voters.

Just a thought to consider.

Notes 
[1] See:
[2] See:
[3] See:
[4] See:

[5] See:
[6] See:

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)