Reparations – we’re all familiar with the concept. A payment for harm or damage that has been done to another nation or a group of people by those responsible. Common examples include the 132 billion gold marks Germany had to pay to the Allies after World War I, or the $200,000 given to Japanese-American internment survivors. What is newer in the evolution of reparations is the notion of climate reparations. As the movement grows in strength, it is important to understand the intersection between climate change, development, and white supremacy, and how climate reparations aim to address all three. 

As climate change advances, it leaves behind an ever-growing trail of climate-related damages and disasters. Increased floods, wildfires, and hurricanes, plus gradually rising sea-levels leaving irreparable harm, have impacted the world as a whole. However, this impact is not evenly distributed; select regions of the world – notably Africa, South Asia, Central and South America, small island states, and the Arctic – suffer disproportionate effects of climate change. At the same time, countries in these regions are the least responsible for global carbon emissions. In other words, underdeveloped countries are paying a steep price for a problem largely created by the developed world. Not just because of the disproportionate per capita carbon emissions, but also due to centuries of colonization, which led to loss and theft of natural resources in many underdeveloped nations. Underdeveloped countries are also more likely to need a loan in order to rebuild after climate-related disasters occur, meaning that debt payments become prioritized over caring for the welfare of citizens. Essentially, almost half of the world’s population (3.6 billion) continues to suffer excessively at the hands of the developed world. 

Climate reparations have consequently been proposed as a way to resolve this global injustice. They require that developed countries – those contributing the most to carbon emission levels – pay reparations to those suffering disproportionately as a form of compensation. In UN terminology, this is referred to as “loss and damages,” which as an umbrella term refers to the economic cost of climate-induced disasters. Importantly, climate reparations are distinct from other modes of climate action, such as mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation refers to efforts to reduce and eliminate greenhouse gas production as a way of slowing down the warming of the planet, while climate adaptation involves changing our behavior, systems, and ways of life to our current environment. Climate reparations speak to the fact that neither are adequate in combating climate change and the imbalance in cause and effect of climate change related disasters. For years, nations with high carbon emission, such as the US, have rejected climate reparation proposals, claiming that it would target developed countries as opposed to all major emitters, and that it would lead to a never-ending demand for reparations. The reality is that these nations refuse to acknowledge the modern day climate repercussions as a result of their actions as colonizers and relentless centers of capitalist production. In 2021, at COP26, Scotland became the first country to pledge a sum of $1.4 million USD towards loss and damages suffered by underdeveloped countries due to climate change. While they hoped that other nations would follow their example, they stood alone, and discussions on climate reparations were once again pushed back. 

For this reason, climate reparations were a big ticket item at COP27, held in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt in November, 2022. With last year’s flooding in Pakistan and drought in the Horn of Africa, climate crises have become more visible and harder to ignore. For the first time, countries came together to agree upon a new Loss and Damage Fund, as well as other new funding arrangements. While this is a historic win, it leaves more questions than it does answers. There were no parameters written to indicate which countries should contribute, let alone how much. It also does not separate between reparations for historical actions and funds for future economic rebuilding. The COP27 nations recognized the need to finance short-term restorative projects and combat long-term issues such as rising sea-levels, but did not elaborate on how funds would be distributed. Rather than address such important details in that moment, the deliberations have been put off yet another year until COP28 in Dubai. For now, the Loss and Damage Fund remains a symbol of performative action on the part of developed nations and a further prolonging of any accountability and climate justice being delivered. 

It is not just in the global sphere that climate reparations are applicable; the effects of disproportionate climate change can be seen between communities within countries themselves. In the United States, this is exemplified by systemic racism, built on centuries of slavery, exploitation, and white supremacy. The intersection of racism and the environment manifests itself as environmental racism, which accounts for both historical power imbalances and modern-day struggles for sustainability. Under a slave economy, Black people were contributing to capitalist production that they themselves could not benefit from. The wealth that the United States gained from importing the products of slave labor further fueled industrialization, which enabled the United States to become the powerhouse we know it to be today. Thus, the US’s significant contribution to climate change can be traced back to slave labor and its accompanying “greed and…rapid rise in industrialization that exploited people of color while kicking global warming into overdrive.” Even with the abolition of slavery, people of color continue to suffer from environmental racism in the form of land dispossession and the appropriation of black wealth. Forced off of their land, these communities had no choice but to relocate to unsafe and neglected lands, exposed to environmental challenges such as toxins, dirty water, and excessive pollution. Today, Black Americans are 75% more likely to live in close proximity to high-emission or toxic industrial processes.  In this context, climate reparations are proposed as a way for the United States to recognize the intersectional damage it has caused to both its people of color and the environment. As Lisa Betty explains, “reparations are world-making, society-transforming interventions,” that include “land stewardship, ecological repair, and safety for Black people.” In combating climate change, it is essential to recognize the historical consequences power and exploitation have had on the disparate impact of such environmental changes. Climate reparations must be recognized for the power to work at both domestic and international levels, and be taken seriously as an important step towards climate justice.