Holding Polluting Countries to Account for Climate Change: Is “Loss and Damage” Up to the Task?

Abstract

Formally established by the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in 2013, the Loss and Damage Mechanism represents what is for many an important effort on the part of developing countries (including China and the G77) to hold polluting countries to account for past and potential harms incurred as a result of climate change. This paper explores the viability of using the Mechanism as a means of holding polluting countries to account for the provisions outlined in the Framework Convention. In reviewing the history and recent policy within the UNFCCC, the paper makes the case that demands for greater accountability through the Loss and Damage Mechanism have been frustrated by a lack of consensus about the rights of poor countries to pursue carbon-intensive development pathways, the obligations of current and future generations to the actions and decisions of their forebears, and the obligations of national governments to their own citizens and the UNFCCC. Instead of assigning responsibility for past and future losses and damages, the Mechanism has gravitated toward a more technocratic/bureaucratic exercise aimed at collecting data, enhancing knowledge, and making policy recommendations.

Rethinking the Porter Hypothesis: The Underappreciated Importance of Value Appropriation and Pollution Intensity

“…The natural system, as widely recognized, can be remarkably vulnerable to human activity, and some damages may be substantial and irreversible. Moreover, problems such as global warming, acid rain, smog alerts, the loss of biodiversity, and holes in the ozone layer are among the growing evidence that these risks can occur quickly, making this a pressing issue for future generations (Abel, Salazar, & Robert, ; Ambec & Lanoie, ; Eckerd, Kim, & Campbell, ; Glasgow & Zhao, ; Gulbrandsen & Christensen, ; Johnson, ; Koski & Siulagi, ; Madsen & Ulhøi, ; Pablo‐Romero, Sánchez‐Braza, & Manuel González‐Limón, ).…”

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

“…Where there was critical analysis it tended to be on points such as ensuring NELs were being considered (Tschakert et al, ; Wrathall et al, ), whether L&D was an accepted concept in different research communities (Fekete & Sakdapolrak, ), and arguments over liability and compensation (Allan & Hadden, ; Vanhala & Hestbaek, ). While there are many gaps in the literature in relation to critical analyses of L&D, one omission that deserves further research is captured by Johnson (, pp. 51–52):

Instead of assigning responsibility for past and future losses and damages, the Mechanism has gravitated toward a more technocratic/bureaucratic exercise aimed at collecting data, enhancing knowledge, and making policy recommendations.

…”

“…There were also studies that critically explored concepts such as values, harm and damage (Kugler & Moraga Sariego, 2016;McShane, 2017;Shockley & Hourdequin, 2017;Tschakert et al, 2017) and the social utility of PEA for justice based (e.g., liability) L&D (Lusk, 2017). Other important studies that emerged involved a critical discourse analyses of country positions in the COPs (Calliari, 2018), a discussion on whether L&D can actually hold polluting countries to account (Johnson, 2017), and an important critical summary of conceptual and operational problems associated with L&D (Wrathall et al, 2015).…”

Accountability Challenges in the Transnational Regime Complex for Climate Change

“…Before COP15 in Copenhagen 2009, the UNFCCC was characterized by a “top‐down” structure, where targets and timetables for reducing GHG emissions were determined for a portion of the UNFCCC parties (Annex 1 countries) and implemented through a global market for carbon emission permits (Rayner, , p. 615). Over time, the top‐down system underpinning the climate regime since the signing of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 increasingly came under criticism for being ineffective and riddled with political and design problems (see Johnson, ). Points frequently made in this respect include: the United States not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, weak compliance mechanisms, and the inability to integrate emerging economies into the UNFCCC (Falkner, Stephan, & Vogler, ; Rayner, ; Victor, ).…”