A critical review of disproportionality in loss and damage from climate change

Abstract

The notion of disproportionate impacts of climate change on certain groups and regions has long been a part of policy debates and scientific inquiry, and was instrumental to the emergence of the “Loss and Damage” (L&D) policy agenda in international negotiations on climate change. Yet, ‘disproportionality’ remains relatively undefined and implicit in science on loss and damage from climate change. A coherent theoretical basis of disproportionality is needed for advancing science and policy on loss and damage. It is necessary to ask: What is disproportionate, to whom, and in relation to what? We critically examine the uses of disproportionality in loss and damage scholarship by analyzing how disproportionality is treated in the literature conceptually, methodologically, and empirically. We review publications against a set of criteria derived from seminal work on disproportionality in other fields, mainly environmental justice and disaster studies that have analyzed environment–society interactions. We find disproportionality to be dynamic and multidimensional, spanning the themes of risks, impacts, and burdens. Our results show that while the concept is often used in loss and damage scholarship, its use relies on unarticulated notions of justice and often lacks conceptual, methodological and empirical grounding. Disproportionality also appears as a boundary concept, enabling critical and multiscalar explorations of historical processes that shape the uneven impacts of climate change, alongside social justice and normative claims for desired futures. This emerging area of science offers an opportunity to critically re‐evaluate the conceptualization of the relationship between climate‐change‐related impacts, development, and inequality. This article is categorized under: Climate, Nature, and Ethics > Climate Change and Global Justice Climate and Development > Social Justice and the Politics of Development

Understanding Climate Change Cascading Risks: Different Visions of the Future

“…This emphasis on vulnerability in CCCI research is consistent in the literature (Gitz & Meybeck, 2016;Hilly et al, 2018;Zuccaro et al, 2018). As the impacts of climate change have become more visible, issues of disproportionality of exposure to risk and vulnerability to impacts (Dorkenoo et al, 2021) continue to mobilise the attention of researchers (Duvat et al, 2021;Pelling et al, 2021;Yletyinen et al, 2022). Duvat et al (2021) for example propose a framework integrating historical, sociocultural, geopolitical, economic, environmental, and infrastructural dimensions to understand the linkages between long-term vulnerability drivers, path dependency and cascading impacts of disasters in the Caribbean.…”

Ten new insights in climate science 2022

“…are largely political rather than scientific questions. Critically, climate change-related L&D are exacerbated by ongoing crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic and military conflicts (O'Connor et al, 2021; Raju et al, 2022) as well as existing inequalities and vulnerabilities among people and social groups (Dorkenoo et al, 2022). With limited progress on L&D financing at COP26, it is now even more urgent that COP27 deliver and bring about a turning point for L&D.…”

Climate Justice and Losses and Damages – Linkages and Donor Policies

“…Hence, "disproportionality" is a central and contentious element of international climate change negotiations and was instrumental to the emergence of loss and damage as a concept and its place in the political climate change debate. However, the lack of a clear definition for "disproportionality" in the science on loss and damage (as it remains largely implicit and undefined) further complicates the lack of definition of loss and damage (see Dorkenoo, Scown & Boyd, 2022 for further discussion).…”