No abstract

Equity is usually interpreted in terms of the concept of justice, such that an equitable share of the atmospheric space is understood in terms of past emissions. This emphasizes the collective nature of sharing the burden of mitigation and the duty to act for those who have emitted the most. An alternative is considered: the aggregate costs and benefits to all Parties that could result from both increasing the level of collective ambition and implementing a climate regime that supports bold actions across all Parties. The regional impacts and carbon flow costs across differentiated scenarios are assessed and it is argued that the majority of developing-country Parties would be better off if a high ambition outcome to which all contributed, but some more than others. Moreover, those with middle or low emissions would have proportionally more to gain (or lose) relative to the level of ambition compared to those that have had higher emissions. The climate regime should be built on the principle of common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities (CBDR&RC), in which all act early even if some do much more; one that accounts for justice but does not forget hope. Policy relevanceDiffering interpretations of equity and the principles of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are discussed, with a focus on how these can enhance or hinder collective action. Whilst the climate change negotiations are usually taken as games in which one party gains and another loses, and interactions are dogged by continuous conflict, it is explored instead how negotiation responses can be framed in terms of cooperation. This would emphasize the gains that could be achieved by common but differentiated collective action, which could result in a collective avoidance of impacts. The possibilities that this shift of perspective could bring are explored by comparing costs under global cooperation (or lack of it). It is found that cooperation reduces the total costs for these regions. Thus, thinking in terms of cooperation focuses the options for negotiation on the means and interpretations of the UNFCCC principles that spur action and avoid climate impacts through collective action.

This paper has benefitted significantly from the contributions to a separate paper The role of Sector No Lose Targets in scaling up finance for climate change mitigation activities in developing countries. That paper, prepared for the UK DEFRA, was written during a similar period (primarily in the first half of 2008) by some of the same author team as this paper, and also by Charlotte Streck and Robert O'Sullivan of Climate Focus and Harald Winkler. This paper has also been improved by very helpful review comments on earlier drafts from the World Bank Carbon Finance Unit, in particular by Monali Ranade and Johannes Heister. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the position or views of the World Bank Carbon Finance Unit. Any factual errors are the sole responsibility of the authors.

BackgroundEvery encounter in lactation care should aim to set the ground for an emerging human connection between the lactation consultant (LC) and the breastfeeding mother. Cultivating connection is as important as adequate clinical competencies and effective communication skills.MethodsThe article proposes a hermeneutics of care that articulates elements that enhance the understanding between the LC and the circumstances and realities of the breastfeeding dyad in the context of diagnosis, management, and healing. These elements can be best described by Martin Buber's (2013) I–Thou approach, which we use to enter into a relationship.ResultsWhen the LC has the courage and humility to convey her full presence for that mother and her circumstances, connection has been primed. The quality and depth of the LC– breastfeeding mother relationship, in turn, enhances diagnosis and healing options, particularly in chronic cases.ConclusionsThe “alchemy of connection” opens the ground for a relation of mutual trust between the LC and the mother and her world, which supports better breastfeeding care.

No abstract