Abstract:Abstract:The short paper scrutinises the concept of legal causation in the context of 'detection and attribution' and discusses the approaches of law and climate science to causation. It looks at the issue both with respect to the climate regime's agenda item of 'loss and damage' and with respect to a specific tort-like or nuisance-based case.
“…For example, Wrathall et al (, p. 281) argued:While climate change stress may reveal itself in ‘crises,’ vulnerability is a latent social condition, and the historical nature of vulnerability is that some had already experienced loss and damage through the process of colonisation and development in the 20 th century.The desire to directly attribute discrete climate extremes to climate change remains prevalent with 24% of publications covering this theme. While progress has been made in the attribution/PEA field (Huggel et al, ; Huggel, Stone, Auffhammer, & Hansen, ; Otto et al, ), there remains differences in opinion regarding the social, political, legal, and scientific utility of it in relation to L&D (Boran & Heath, ; Huggel et al, ; Huggel et al, ; Hulme, ; Lusk, ; Otto et al, ; Parker et al, ; Thompson & Otto, ; Verheyen, ). Some authors believe that PEA is “conceptually and morally relevant to issues of residual L&D” (Thompson & Otto, , p. 450) and can provide useful scientific evidence for adaptation planning (Huggel et al, ; Otto et al, ) while others are less certain.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some authors believe that PEA is “conceptually and morally relevant to issues of residual L&D” (Thompson & Otto, , p. 450) and can provide useful scientific evidence for adaptation planning (Huggel et al, ; Otto et al, ) while others are less certain. Lusk (, p. 210), for example, while acknowledging the potential of PEA if framed by theories of justice, suggests that “PEA only examines meteorological risk and does not say anything about the intricate social factors that help determine a society's resiliency.” Verheyen () also questions the usefulness of attribution by exploring the nexus between climate change attribution and legal causation. Although the burden of proof would fall on the claimant to provide evidence of causation, which may or may not be possible but is desirable, there have been recorded precedents (Verheyen, ) where this requirement was significantly downscaled in legal cases that involved interstate environmental pollution leading to damages.…”
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.
“…For example, Wrathall et al (, p. 281) argued:While climate change stress may reveal itself in ‘crises,’ vulnerability is a latent social condition, and the historical nature of vulnerability is that some had already experienced loss and damage through the process of colonisation and development in the 20 th century.The desire to directly attribute discrete climate extremes to climate change remains prevalent with 24% of publications covering this theme. While progress has been made in the attribution/PEA field (Huggel et al, ; Huggel, Stone, Auffhammer, & Hansen, ; Otto et al, ), there remains differences in opinion regarding the social, political, legal, and scientific utility of it in relation to L&D (Boran & Heath, ; Huggel et al, ; Huggel et al, ; Hulme, ; Lusk, ; Otto et al, ; Parker et al, ; Thompson & Otto, ; Verheyen, ). Some authors believe that PEA is “conceptually and morally relevant to issues of residual L&D” (Thompson & Otto, , p. 450) and can provide useful scientific evidence for adaptation planning (Huggel et al, ; Otto et al, ) while others are less certain.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some authors believe that PEA is “conceptually and morally relevant to issues of residual L&D” (Thompson & Otto, , p. 450) and can provide useful scientific evidence for adaptation planning (Huggel et al, ; Otto et al, ) while others are less certain. Lusk (, p. 210), for example, while acknowledging the potential of PEA if framed by theories of justice, suggests that “PEA only examines meteorological risk and does not say anything about the intricate social factors that help determine a society's resiliency.” Verheyen () also questions the usefulness of attribution by exploring the nexus between climate change attribution and legal causation. Although the burden of proof would fall on the claimant to provide evidence of causation, which may or may not be possible but is desirable, there have been recorded precedents (Verheyen, ) where this requirement was significantly downscaled in legal cases that involved interstate environmental pollution leading to damages.…”
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.
“…For instance, a UNFCCC literature review defined L&D as “the actual and/or potential manifestation of impacts associated with climate change in developing countries that negatively affect human and natural systems” (UNFCCC, , cited in Boyd et al, ). While there may be no official definitions of loss and damage yet, it has been made clear from the outset that “loss and damage” is not the same as legal liability or state responsibility for damage (cited in Verheyen, , p. 159). Rather, it has been interpreted within the scientific community as something beyond adaptation, while nevertheless recognizing the difficulty of determining the limits of adaptation (Verheyen, ).…”
Section: Attributing Responsibility In Adaptation To Climate Changementioning
confidence: 99%
“…While there may be no official definitions of loss and damage yet, it has been made clear from the outset that “loss and damage” is not the same as legal liability or state responsibility for damage (cited in Verheyen, , p. 159). Rather, it has been interpreted within the scientific community as something beyond adaptation, while nevertheless recognizing the difficulty of determining the limits of adaptation (Verheyen, ). Nevertheless, in the coming years, the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage is likely to be the main instrument through which responsibility as liability is enacted (James et al, ).…”
Section: Attributing Responsibility In Adaptation To Climate Changementioning
As a policy process, climate change adaptation is rapidly advancing. Yet fundamental questions remain unanswered including, who is responsible for planned adaptation and when, who is liable for losses and damages resulting from climate change and how is responsibility distributed in a multilevel governance system? Responsibility can be evaluated in terms of the timing of particular events, the specific societal actors involved and the rules and norms used to attribute responsibility for dealing with those events. Four types of responsibility—care, liability, accountability, and responsiveness for adaptation—are identified, based on empirical studies and examples from the literature. This review demonstrates the need to further explore the normative implications of responsibility and how they should be considered in adaptation governance and policy.
This article is categorized under:
Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change > Values‐Based Approach to Vulnerability and Adaptation
“…Second, the attribution of loss and damage from specific climate-related disasters to climate change is not yet conclusive. So far, the rise in losses has been primarily attributed to socioeconomic trends and increased exposure of people and capital to risk; at the same time, however, the influence of climate change on trends in losses cannot be excluded 17 . Third, climate-related impacts -positive as well as negative -are likely to be distributed unequally across nations and generations, leading to salient questions regarding distributive and compensatory justice 18 .…”
Section: Challenges Associated With Operationalizing the Loss And Dammentioning
Abstract:With the impacts of climate change already being felt across the globe, it is imperative to manage and avoid further irreversible loss and intolerable damage. Adaptive learning, linked to climate risk management (CRM) and building on principled socio-economic analysis, can help overcome substantial scientific and political challenges, and provide operational support for debate around the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) for Loss and Damage (L&D).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
