A new look at climate equity in the UNFCCC

Morgan, Jennifer; Waskow, David

doi:10.1080/14693062.2014.848096

Cited by 32 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Conceptual contributions include, among others: Rose et al (1998), Aldy et al (2003), Ringius et al (2002), Ikeme (2003), Heyward (2007), Lange et al (2007Lange et al ( , 2010, Klinsky & Dowlatabadi. (2009), Okereke et al (2009), Okereke (2010, Gupta (2012), Morgan & Waskow (2014), Winkler & Rajamani (2014), or Garibaldi 4 Article 3.3 of UNFCCC (1992) demands "full consideration of specific needs and special circumstances of developing country Parties".…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Citizens' perceptions of justice in international climate policy: an empirical analysis

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractRelying on a recent survey of more than 3300 participants from China, Germany and the US, this paper empirically analyzes citizens' perceptions of climate change and climate policy, focusing on key guiding principles for sharing mitigation costs across countries. The ranking of the main principles for burden-sharing is identical in China, Germany and the US: accountability followed by capability, egalitarianism, and sovereignty. Thus, on a general level, citizens across these countries seem to have a common understanding of fairness. We therefore find no evidence that citizens' (stated) fairness preferences are detrimental to future burden-sharing agreements. While there is heterogeneity in citizens' perceptions of climate change and climate policy within and across countries, a substantial portion of citizens in all countries perceive a lack of transparency, fairness, and trust in international climate agreements.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…See for example, Morgan & Waskow (2014), Winkler & Rajamani (2014), Gupta, J. (2012), Okereke (2010), Klinsky & Dowlatabadi.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Citizens' perceptions of justice in international climate policy: an empirical analysis

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…PEA studies (Parker et al, ) and a paper on how perspective influences the calculation of historical contributions to global warming (Skeie et al, ) were, for example, unconcerned with distinguishing between the economic and noneconomic categories. Furthermore, there were several COP update reports which did not go into minute detail (Morgan & Waskow, ; Suarez et al, ), among others.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Loss and damage: A review of the literature and directions for future research

McNamara

Jackson

2018

WIREs Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change researchers argue that a residual domain exists beyond the limits of adaptation to prevent deleterious climate change impacts: this has been labeled as "loss and damage." Over the last 8 years, there has been significant growth in loss and damage scholarship thus making it imperative to take stock of what we know already and directions for future research. We undertook a quantitative review of academic publications (n = 122) in the loss and damage field to date and documented study characteristics, thematic areas, trends, gaps, and opportunities. The first publication appeared in 2010 before a significant increase in published research after 2013. Although increasingly diverse over time, loss and damage studies have primarily focused on technical, political, and normative questions. Our analysis suggests the following: that researchers predominately conceptualize loss and damage as "limits to adaptation"; that the literature is more practical (i.e., descriptive, does not challenge underlying presuppositions) than critical (i.e., challenges underlying presuppositions) in orientation; that loss and damage is conceived as both an occurring and future condition; and that economic dimensions of loss and damage are prioritized in studies. Recommended future research directions include empirical and theoretical explorations of the potential for transformational change; understanding what people value and how they can engage with loss and grief; ensuring the perspectives of the most vulnerable groups are included in decision-making; and greater policy-relevant research and critical analyses of loss and damage conceptualizations and the Warsaw International Mechanism.

show abstract

“…how to operationalize historical responsibility. Additionally, the Durban Platform stated that a new agreement would be "applicable to all Parties", which several analysts interpret as implying that major developing economies should take on mitigation commitments of the same or similar nature as the developed economies (Winkler & Rajamani, 2014;Morgan & Waskow, 2014). …”

Section: Implications For Contemporary Negotiationsmentioning

confidence: 99%