There are certainly places that need and deserve urgent help, particularly small islands and low-lying countries threatened by rising sea levels. Some of them have historical links with Britain, which like other countries provides a large amount of aid. But the money pledged so far is small compared to the trillions of dollars now being negotiated—or perhaps more accurately, demanded. If the world is to mitigate climate change, rational analysis and effective action are essential. But it is in short supply. Greta Thunberg is heralding the destruction of capitalism, and lobbyists in developing countries are demanding payment for “losses and damages,” which some immediately call “reparations.” This injects a toxic element of belligerence, encouraged by useful idiots in Britain. If the debate can be reduced to accusations of historical guilt, questions of efficiency, accountability and necessity will be killed. Those who claim victim status – the trump card of modern politics – no longer need to justify themselves, even if they have neglected flood defenses in favor of space programs and nuclear weapons and are building vast numbers of coal-fired power plants. . Those asked to hand over an open checkbook are asked to hang their heads in shame, sign on the dotted line and not ask awkward questions about corruption and competence. Britain, needless to say, is one of the first countries to be dragged into the dock, accused of historical responsibility for industrialization. These far-flung pioneers, once heroes, who invented Puffing Billy and the Spinning Jenny, become villains in the melodrama of climate change. So absurd is this way of thinking – can it really be sincere or is it just a ploy to extract money? – that he cannot stand a moment’s reflection. On the one hand, Britain’s Industrial Revolution alone created an immeasurably small amount of pollution globally. If China, the US, India and Russia today choose to burn millions of tons of coal and oil each year, James Watt’s steam engine cannot be blamed. Today’s levels of air pollution began essentially 150 years after the Industrial Revolution. But if, in defiance of logic, we insist on dragging the beginnings of 18th-century economic change into the argument, then we must recognize the Industrial Revolution as the root cause of almost all advances in human society since the 1750s. If James Watt is responsible for global warming, then he must also be credited with the vast benefits of modernity, including the fact that most of us today live. Demands for reparations are a transparent attempt by today’s big and growing polluters, including China and India, to pass the buck. If slavery can be dragged into the conversation, so much the better for the passers. It once again becomes ideologically useful to claim that Britain’s involvement in the 18th century slave trade provided the capital that financed the Industrial Revolution and therefore explains Britain’s modern wealth. By this account, we started the “climate emergency” in the 1750s, and we did it because we profited from the evils of slavery. So all our welfare is illegitimate and “reparations” are the least we can do. It’s a neat rhetorical trick, but it only works if the profits from the slave trade actually caused industrialization. No serious economic history supports this idea. The slave trade made a few people rich, but did not provide enough capital to transform the economy. Britain was already a wealthy country in the 18th century and industrialization arose from a generally buoyant economy and the accessibility of large coal reserves. We did, for a time, import slave cotton even after Britain abolished the slave trade, and that was indeed an impetus to industrialization everywhere. Similarly, today we all use products made in China using non-free labor and creating huge CO2 emissions. This undermines the responsibility of our early 19th century ancestors who did everything they could to wean themselves off slave-produced products. But today, even our wind turbines seem to be largely made in China using fossil fuels. Yes, we must limit climate damage. Rich countries will pay more. Big polluters must cut back. But it’s too important an issue to leave to Green utopians, virtue signalers and corrupt despots. Absurd demands for historic “restorations” are a distraction from the real issues and a smokescreen (for once the cliché seems appropriate) for today’s big polluters. Can we be optimistic that sense will prevail? I’m not afraid. Robert Tombs is emeritus professor of history at the University of Cambridge
