Loss and Damage as Development

Why is ‘loss and damage’ a non-starter at COP27? In my view, it is because ‘loss and damage’ is what ‘development’ is, has been, and perhaps may always be. 

Climate change marks the apex of Western ‘development’. The pathway to climate catastrophe is strewn with an endless number of catastrophic events that derive from the Western model of sovereign, independent states led by elites in fierce competition with each other and in endless negotiation with their subjects later to become citizens. Let us count up some of the ‘loss and damage’:

Within states:

• exploitation of labour/indentured servitude
• domination of ‘out groups’, minorities, women (racism, sexism, etc.)
• land grabbing
• dramatic alteration of landscapes such as wetlands
• environmental degradation
• toxic waste production
• genocide
• violence against women and LGBTQ+

Beyond borders:

• slavery
• genocide
• complete alteration of social relations to satisfy European needs and wants
• complete alteration of natural environments to satisfy European needs and wants

These actions resulted in countless wars, revolutions, civil wars, the creation of fragile and failing states, the creation of built environments unsuited to the natural environment, rapid population growth, migration, forced migration, ecosystem degradation, solid waste pollution, anomic violence, and, of course, a fairly good life for a narrow band of the human population, and extreme wealth for the very few. 

The whole thing holds together through a revolving set of narratives designed to justify the mess created over perhaps 500 years: e.g. the ‘Enlightenment’, the white man’s burden, progress, the Wealth of Nations, creative destruction, and so on. 

Which brings me to my main point: the current world disorder that privileges a few and punishes the many is a consequence of historical processes set in train long ago. The resulting ‘loss and damages’ — including those accruing from a changed climate —  cannot be totalled up. It is human history. In addition, as shown at every global gathering of every type, those who benefit the most are also the most uninterested in anything beyond reforms which ensure their place at the apex of human society: geoengineering and electric vehicles at best, business as usual at worst. As global political economy has become more and more unequal over the last 40 years, the myth of collective effort in support of common good has been replaced by a combination of help yourself (your poverty/predicament is your own fault) and alms for the poor (the rise of ‘big philanthropy’ aka conscience money meant to assuage the guilt of the 1% and stave off social revolution). 

People ‘fit in’ to the facts of life as best they can. We develop and/or latch onto new narratives to explain the benefits and costs of our daily lives, our place in social (dis)order. As John Donne said, ‘No man is an island’: people build alliances and coalitions at a variety of scales, from the neighbourhood to the globe, and mobilize in support of their stories, in pursuit of desired outcomes. Technological creativity, the social application of which often emerges out of military innovation, dramatically alters the socio-economic, socio-political and socio-ecological landscapes, giving rise to new constellations of social forces within, across and among states. The resulting material, institutional and ideational forms of power privilege some and penalize others, reordering the geography of joy and misery along ever evolving value chains of production and consumption. Narratives, models and methods emerge in response to the desire for understanding, prediction and control. There appear to be moments of calm — the ‘long boom’ — as long as one does not widen the view, to take in the whole. 

Is it any wonder that directing the physical, mental and emotional energy of this raucous, riotous, cacophony of human endeavour towards a place like Sharm el-Sheikh results in anything other than weak promises, tepid commitments, agitated finger pointing, smug complacency and crass duplicity? For those at the margins, the question remains: what is to be done? Shape your narrative, find your allies, define your methods, assemble your resources and get stuck in. Others are doing the same. Appeals to ethics will fail, as will attempts to assign blame.

Beyond the 'Freedom Convoy': Time for a Serious Conversation

Social movements are strange beasts. They rise up seemingly spontaneously and often disappear as quickly as they emerged. Across Canada we are witness to just such a movement, the so-called ‘Freedom Convoy’, with the long term fuel for its fire being the pandemic and the short term spark setting the whole thing off being government’s waffling on vaccine mandates for cross-border truckers. Clearly, the world is tired of the pandemic. The direct costs in lives lost and irreparably harmed, of livelihoods shattered and people shaken physically, emotionally and financially to their knees, are undeniable. While the world’s one percent have adapted and often profited, and a broad swath of public and private middle to upper-middle class folks have held steady, hundreds of millions of poor, elderly and immune-compromised people — the vast majority of whom are people of colour, generally located in the Global South and in the poorer neighborhoods of the Global North — have no choice other than to venture out into a virus-infected world to try to eke out a living. While governments tell them to stay home, this is a luxury they do not have.    

There is a great deal of sympathy across not only Canada, but the world, for the Freedom Convoy’s central demand of an end to vaccine mandates. It is no great insight to say that everyone is fed up with the current situation. As with other broad-based, generally-focused social movements like #OccupyWallStreet, so too does the Freedom Convoy suffer from setting forth demands that are too broad across categories that are too diffuse for rapid treatment in public policy. Where #Occupy was concerned, while many of us do not like the effects of neoliberal globalization, calling for an end to it is just not going to happen any time soon. Similarly, calling for not only an end to vaccine mandates but to a wide array of other things such as the overthrow of a democratically-elected government are in the first instance unreasonable and in the second instance a non-starter. It just ain’t gonna happen.

In the parlance of conflict resolution, the Freedom Convoy supporters have taken a position: end all restrictions related to collectively dealing with Covid-19. The confrontational and vituperative approach taken by the so-called ‘leadership’ has forced the government to take a diametrically opposed position, i.e. no we will not. Put differently, this is a mandate/no mandate, science/no science stand-off. What is to be done?

One thing that must not be done is for the government of Canada to present a disunited position in relation to the protests. They must show a united front. Unfortunately, what we have been witness to recently is anything but united, with the Conservative Party seeking to score political points rather than put forward any ‘progressive’ ideas in support of a resolution. A second thing that must not be done is to make this crisis only about the protesters, to demonize them, to label them as a ‘lunatic fringe’. Should the governments (Federal, Municipal, Provincial) successfully put an end to these protests, this does not mean that the issue has somehow been resolved. To the contrary, barring a miraculous end to the pandemic, people motivated to march will march again. 

What must be done is for the Liberal government to engage in a two directional conversation: in one direction, there must be serious consideration given to the implications of a movement temporarily dispersed but a broader issue — endless restrictions on personal freedoms — remaining unresolved. What is the way ahead? As I said earlier, this conversation must be intra-governmental aiming at consensus. In the other direction, the government must engage with the citizenry — all citizens — regarding options for moving forward in light of a shape-shifting virus. The government cannot hide behind ‘the science’ — the issue at hand is as much emotional as it is rational. 

How to do this? Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) counsels getting past the hard positions taken (i.e. no mandate vs mandate) to identify the interests driving people’s actions in support of a particular position. I don’t believe the government is wedded to its vaccine mandate position. What we have seen is a science-based step-wise approach to ‘reopening’. Changing circumstances will lead to changing policy positions. On the Freedom Convoy side, the interests behind the common position are diverse. For most, the interest grows out of people’s needs. The need to make a living and live a life perceived to be worth living. While a significant percentage may have latched on to the movement in pursuit of narrower — and possibly nefarious — interests, it is imperative that the government not paint the movement with this broad brush. People are hurting and want to be heard.

But how to find out what people’s specific interests are? Public engagement is the most obvious way. And by public engagement, I do not mean Justin Trudeau going out to run ‘town halls’. This must be a whole of government approach, a united front, where we meet in public spaces real and virtual to take stock of the personal and collective costs of both the pandemic and public policies taken in the honourable attempt to end the health crisis. Sometimes facilitators are brought in, agreed to by all sides as a stalwart individual or representative of an organization that is widely regarded as capable of having the greater public interest at heart. Bishop Desmond Tutu served this function in post-apartheid South Africa during its Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Is there a Canadian equivalent? 
It is unrealistic to think that this will be easily resolved. It is imperative that the government resist the urge to demonize protesters. Arrest them for public mischief, sure, no problem. They were warned. They should know that their actions have repercussions, that their ‘family friendly’ protest harmed the livelihoods of millions. While social movements often simply dissipate, those that survive do so because they find leaders, funds, and get organized. The right to organize is a hallmark of democracy. But it seems to me that we need to get out in front of this. After all, the KKK and the Proud Boys are civil society organizations. 

 Desperate times require desperate measures. In this case, the most desperate measure that is needed is that the leaders of the various parties sitting in the House of Commons, put away their knives and make peace among themselves. It’s the necessary first step to a very serious cross-Canada conversation.