The abolition of slavery can inform global action on climate change, Faculty researcher argues
Could the story of how slavery was abolished hold clues for tackling the climate crisis today?
A new journal article by Dr Rob Lawlor, Lecturer in Applied Ethics at IDEA: the Ethics Centre, suggests that lessons from the abolitionist movement could illuminate how the world might realistically and ethically transition away from fossil fuels.
Published in the journal Ethics, Policy and Environment, ‘Climate Change and Lessons from the Abolition of Slavery’ – co-authored with Dr Nathan Wood, University College Cork – explores the parallels between and the ethics of the two global challenges of abolishing slavery and tackling global climate change.
In 1834, for instance, British slave owners were compensated with around £20 million – about 40% of the government’s annual expenditure – to secure their acceptance of abolition. Dr Lawlor argues that a similar compromise could, albeit controversially, play a role in the eventual phase-out of fossil fuels.
Meanwhile, the article highlights the importance of legal action and civic pressure, suggesting that international agreements such as the Paris Agreement might gain force through the courts, much as early abolitionists used the United States Declaration of Independence to challenge the moral and legal contradictions of slavery.
“Slavery was an institution that was accepted for thousands of years,” Dr Lawlor says. “It was a significant source of wealth for many, and the rich and powerful opposed abolition. Yet, slavery was abolished. That history gives us reason to believe that, despite the scale of today’s challenge, transformative change is possible. Of course, it can be slow, messy and morally complex, but it can succeed.”
Dr Lawlor also notes that any solutions to global climate change are unlikely to be the ideal solution, and that effective action will involve “unpalatable compromises and/or unpalatable confrontation, or both”.
“This does not mean that we should dismiss literature which focuses on more idealised discussions of what morality demands,” Dr Lawlor explains. “The evidence suggests that these arguments remain a powerful catalyst for change, contributing to a shift in moral perception. However, it does mean that there will need to be more focus on the feasibility – and the moral permissibility – of less ideal strategies.”
Read Dr Lawlor’s full paper online in Ethics, Policy and Environment.
