Don’t Mention the Climate Debt

This is a good piece, and we say this even though it’s very critical of our work.  That is, othe frankness with which we speak about – and even enumerate – the obligations of the wealthy.  McCully’s argument is worth reading in its entirety, but here’s a core section:

“The GDRs approach is not just a political non-starter in the US. It shouldn’t even be allowed to approach the starting blocks, probably not even enter the stadium. A public campaign for climate debt payments would not only fail to succeed in terms of generating the funds, but it would also help the climate wreckers discredit the more important job of cutting emissions.

Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and the rest of the American Taliban would surely wet themselves with delight if there was any serious noise from the left calling for billions of dollars in climate reparations for poor countries. (Tom stresses that GDRs is not about paying a debt, but “is based on a notion of climate obligations – in the sense of ‘duty’ – that explicitly includes considerations of capacity and thus of class.”  It’s an important distinction, though not one likely to keep Glenn and Sarah’s underwear dry.)”

The debate here is an absolutely critical one, and we have a lot more to say about it.  For the moment, though, I will reiterate the point I made to McCully when, before publishing this, he game be a call.  Which is that I, too, avoid talk of “reparations.”

Obviously, he did not think this a convincing reply.