Is It Possible for Social Justice to Promote Social Inequality?

The United Nations today released its annual Human Development Report, warning that climate change will affect poorer countries far more adversely than it will affect affluent countries. The report also pushes those latter countries to aid the former countries in their eco-friendly development, citing the fact that it is primarily the affluent countries who are responsible for the enhanced global warming enigma.

The HDR devotes significant space to the issue of social justice. Featured in the report's summary is Desmond Tutu, Archbishop Emeritus of Cape Town, who argues that climate change is just as much a moral issue as it is a scientific one. He warns of "adaptation apartheid", a loaded term designed to goad people into an emotional response, presumably against those countries who, by virtue of their massive greenhouse emissions, are responsible for this de facto segregation of prosperity.

Having witnessed Tutu speak in person, I can vouch for his words' power, and his prominent positioning in the HDR proves his international recognition and appeal. But by aligning itself with Tutu in this way, the UN is (intentionally or not) endorsing his views as congruent with its own. This takes the UN out of its non-partisan box and thrusts it into the more ambiguous realm of social politics. This is not to say that the UN shouldn't tackle social issues. Clearly, that's part of its mission. But Tutu's ambitions are a bit presumptive and potentially dangerous.

To bastardize the HDR's and Tutu's assertions for the sake of space and argument, it boils down to this: rich, developed countries have, by virtue of their enormous growth, contributed the vast majority of greenhouse emissions to our atmosphere, and thus must take the equal amount of responsibility to deal with those emissions' consequences. Is it fair to ask a poor Egyptian to learn to tread water while letting a wealthy Dutchman build a floating house instead? Both are means of coping with a flood, but the inequity is painfully clear.

There are two conclusions that the HDR spins off from this situation. The first is to maintain that the responsible countries must decrease their emissions not just for their own sake, but for the poor Egyptian's as well. After all, they have the wealth to do so. I agree. Large change of any kind, especially climate change, can only occur if it has the support of large institutions. Yes, an avalanche can be started by tiny pellets of snow, but to have a full-on mountain-slide you need some big blocks to break off and come along for the ride as well. What I'm wont to dispute, however, is the second conclusion: that it's those same countries' responsibility to pay for not only the Egyptian's swimming lessons, but to pay for his lifestyle change as well; that is, to help so that he can possibly afford his own floating house. Tutu would call this social justice.

Let me be clear, I am no scrooge. Some type of redistribution of wealth is vital in any society and situation. Without charity, the world would be a sad, sad place. But charity and moral obligation are two different philosophical and pragmatical ideas. If I pass a homeless man on the street, must I give him change? If I can afford it, sure, I would. But there is no law, no civic dictum that says I must. To put this more in perspective, say I passed a group of twenty homeless men with but a spare dollar bill in my pocket. Should I give it to one of the men, possibly securing his next meal? What then of the other nineteen? They have as much need as the man I helped. And also, what situation and danger in which I am placing this man? Now he has food, and the others don't. Desperation leads to violence - could I have potentially caused this man harm?

The above situation is much too simple to apply to our world problems of monetary inequity, but it still holds some good questions that we should be asking. And it also brings up an important but depressing truism of our world: for some to survive, some must perish. Put another way, our world depends on having a spread of wealth, and that means that some will draw the short lot. No climate scientist or social scholar would argue that every man and woman should be as wealthy as an American, certainly not at current world population levels above 6 billion. Lord knows we have plenty of those running around as it is. More would just completely destroy our planet through intense resource usage. But what some scientists and scholars argue is that we should all perhaps learn to live as 3/4 of an American -- not on a racial level, but an economic one. This would free up some extra money for those who need it most, reducing the chasm between rich and poor but still maintaining the vital division of labor and resources.

This is a view I respect, and at least in theory, support. After all, as someone in my twenties, I'm the one who's going to have to deal with the climate problems of the future. But I must play Devil's Advocate with Tutu again. I believe that I, having worked hard for my wealth, I own a certain right to use it as I choose. I have always planned on giving a portion of my excess wealth to charitable causes. But be in not for anyone else to dictate this to me. Yes, the poor Egyptian didn't ask to be born to a poor family in a floodplain, but I didn't ask him to be born there either.

My goal would be to give him enough to sustain a comfort level relative to his own, not to mine. It would do him no good to buy him a floating house when the rest of his village lives in squalor. But to teach his village to irrigate more efficiently, thus increasing his farm's output and increasing the village's wealth, this would have a greater moral affect.

Developed nations are no doubt responsible for the current climate conundrum. But we must first fix our own house, and that is a challenge in and of itself. Are not the survival of some better than the survival of none? It's a reality that we don't often like to confront, because it isn't often socially and politically acceptable. One can very easily spin moral yarns about social justice, but they'll never amount to anything without an underlying thread of pragmatism.

If we can all live with a little less, we can all have a little more. If only the HDR's advocation were so subtle.