2016
DOI: 10.1038/nclimate3104
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reconciling justice and attribution research to advance climate policy

Abstract: International audienceThe Paris Climate Agreement is an important step for international climate policy, but the compensation for negative effects of climate change based on clear assignment of responsibilities remains highly debated. From both a policy and a science perspective, it is unclear how responsibilities should be defined and on what evidence base. We explore different normative principles of justice relevant to climate change impacts, and ask how different forms of causal evidence of impacts drawn f… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
49
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 72 publications
(50 citation statements)
references
References 78 publications
0
49
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Similarly, the United Nations mechanisms for climate change compensation, adaptation, and preparation create a practical need to quantify the contribution of historical emissions to individual extreme events (e.g., ref. 17). Finally, connections between historical warming and individual events have become an explicit motivation for decision makers and the public (e.g., ref.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similarly, the United Nations mechanisms for climate change compensation, adaptation, and preparation create a practical need to quantify the contribution of historical emissions to individual extreme events (e.g., ref. 17). Finally, connections between historical warming and individual events have become an explicit motivation for decision makers and the public (e.g., ref.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While hazards and risks, geomorphology and hydrology have traditionally dominated in GLOF research, recently other aspects such as climate justice have come to the forefront (e.g. Huggel et al, 2016;see Sect. 4.3).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This selection bias has societal impacts. Huggel et al [2016] argue that the countries which would most benefit from EEA, especially in the context of loss and damage, are also those where there are no EEA case studies. The number of studies of extreme events happening in underrepresented countries, which are also the most vulnerable, nonetheless keeps increasing with each BAMS issue [Stott et al, 2016].…”
Section: Choice Of the Eventmentioning
confidence: 99%