The Ethical Challenges in the Context of Climate Loss and Damage

Abstract

This chapter lays out what we take to be the main types of justice and ethical challenges concerning those adverse effects of climate change leading to climate-related Loss and Damage (L&D). We argue that it is essential to clearly differentiate between the challenges concerning mitigation and adaptation and those ethical issues exclusively relevant for L&D in order to address the ethical aspects pertaining to L&D in international climate policy. First, we show that depending on how mitigation and adaptation are distinguished from L&D, the primary focus of policy measures and their ethical implications will vary. Second, we distinguish between a distributive justice framework and a compensatory justice scheme for delivering L&D measures. Third, in order to understand the differentiated remedial responsibilities concerning L&D, we categorise the measures and policy approaches available. Fourth, depending on the kind of L&D and which remedies are possible, we explain the difference between remedial and outcome responsibilities of different actors.

Undemocratic Climate Protests

“…Indeed, the conclusion that in this case the right to democracy is undercut is supported by the fact that climate change would very likely cause irreversible harm, sometimes called 'climate losses'. 52 Death by hunger, thirst, extreme climate events, or violent conflicts are irreversible. And the climate we have had for all of agricultural history cannot be recovered once lost (at least within a time frame anything shorter than a thousand years).…”

Socio-Economic Policy Imperatives for Sustainable Food System in Pakistan

“…Forward-looking (distributive justice; distribution of risk damages cannot be adapted) and backward-looking (compensatory justice; compensation to those who are suffering from climate change from those who caused or right of compensation by agents) policies are highly focused for food sustainability. The distributive justice (ability to bear the principal payment) states that the agents who have the ability or capacity to manage residuary risks should bear a large portion of costs and should deliver this bulk of benefits to the agents who have the greatest financial need, i.e., available global resources (Wallimann-Helmer et al, 2019). Interdisciplinary and intersectoral approaches like structural changes are to be followed with trade regimes to mitigate climate change and reduce malnutrition along with reasons for change identification and how these changes are accomplished by actors of public interest (Friel et al, 2020).…”

Designing a fair and feasible loss and damage finance mechanism

“…Sources:Linnerooth-Bayer and Hochrainer-Stigler (2015),Gewirtzman et al (2018),Roberts and Pelling (2018), Wallimann-Helmer et al (2019), and Pandit Chhetri et al (2021.…”