Making sense of the politics in the climate change loss & damage debate

The Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage (L&D) associated with Climate Change Impacts (WIM) was established in 2013 to advance i) knowledge generation; ii) coordination and iii) support to address losses and damages under the UNFCCC. So far, the work undertaken by the WIM Executive Committee (ExCom) has focused on enhancing understanding and awareness of the issue and promoting collaboration with relevant stakeholders. Delivering on the WIM’s third function on action and support has lagged behind, and ‘the political’ nature of L&D has often been blamed for this. Key terrains of contention among Parties have included the positioning of L&D governance vis-à-vis the adaptation space and struggles around state liability and compensation. As a way to facilitate discussion on implementation options, recent research has suggested de-politicising aspects of the L&D debate; yet we have very little insight into how the politics are understood within the realm of international L&D governance. This paper brings an analysis of ‘the political’ into the picture by identifying the complex and underlying issues that fuel contention within UNFCCC L&D negotiations. It gives centre stage to the way different framings of norms and material interests affect the debate, and challenges the tendency in current L&D literature to overlook the socio-historical and political underpinnings of this area of policy-making. We employ a qualitative multi-methods research design which draws on content analysis of 138 official Parties’ submissions and statements, 14 elite interviews with key current and former L&D negotiators and is built on a foundation of 3 years of participant observation at COPs and WIM meetings. We approach this data with a political ethnographic sensibility that seeks to explore how meanings are constructed within and across different sources of data. Our empirical results show that, rather than being a monolithic dispute, L&D catalyses different yet intertwined unresolved discussions. We identify five areas of contention, including continued disputes around compensation; conflicts on the legitimacy of L&D as a third pillar of climate action; tensions between the technical and political dimension of the debate; debates over accountability for losses and damages incurred; and the connection of L&D with other unresolved issues under the Convention

Loss and damage: a critical discourse analysis of Parties' positions in climate change negotiations

The years-long negotiations on loss and damage (L&D) associated with climate change impacts reached a milestone with the adoption of the Paris Agreement, sanctioning the permanence of the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) created in 2013. The WIM aims at advancing knowledge gathering, coordination and support to address L&D associated with extreme and slow onset events in vulnerable developing countries (Decision 2/CP.19). Despite being among the most controversial issues to be recently treated in climate change negotiation, L&D has attracted little attention in the field of international relations. This paper aims at addressing this gap by reconstructing the emergence and evolution of the negotiating positions on L&D of developing and developed countries. It employs a critical discourse analytical approach and builds on Fairclough’s three-dimensional framework for critical discourse analysis, taking decision 2/CP.19 as the core communicative event. Consistently, the decision is analysed at three different levels: as a text (micro-scale); as a discursive practice (meso-scale); and as a social practice (macro-scale). The analysis makes use of a wide range of materials including previous decisions, High Level Segment statements and Parties submissions. It reconstructs Parties’ conflicting views on the positioning of L&D vis-à-vis the adaptation space (L&D as a part of, or as beyond adaptation) and the scientific, ethical and legal arguments employed to support these standpoints. It highlights, in particular, the strategic importance which the ‘compensation argument’ had in determining developing countries’ capacity to influence the UNFCCC process up to the inclusion of a specific article on L&D in the Paris Agreement. While calls for compensation might have lost momentum as a result of the Warsaw and Paris talks, the paper argues that their potential is far from exhausted. They in fact imply a more general request for climate justice which the UNFCCC has not yet addressed

Investigation on low Ni duplex stainless steel grades

none5- ISSN:noneCALLIARI I.; J. DOBRANSZKY; E. RAMOUS; G. STRAFFELINI; G.REBUFFICalliari, Irene; J., Dobranszky; Ramous, Emilio; G., Straffelini; G., Rebuff

Science for Loss and Damage. Findings and Propositions.

The debate on “Loss and Damage” (L&D) has gained traction over the last few years. Supported by growing scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change amplifying frequency, intensity and duration of climate-related hazards as well as observed increases in climate-related impacts and risks in many regions, the “Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage” was established in 2013 and further supported through the Paris Agreement in 2015. Despite advances, the debate currently is broad, diffuse and somewhat confusing, while concepts, methods and tools, as well as directions for policy remain vague and often contested. This book, a joint effort of the Loss and Damage Network—a partnership effort by scientists and practitioners from around the globe—provides evidence-based insight into the L&D discourse by highlighting state-of-the-art research conducted across multiple disciplines, by showcasing applications in practice and by providing insight into policy contexts and salient policy options. This introductory chapter summarises key findings of the twenty-two book chapters in terms of five propositions. These propositions, each building on relevant findings linked to forward-looking suggestions for research, policy and practice, reflect the architecture of the book, whose sections proceed from setting the stage to critical issues, followed by a section on methods and tools, to chapters that provide geographic perspectives, and finally to a section that identifies potential policy options. The propositions comprise (1) Risk management can be an effective entry point for aligning perspectives and debates, if framed comprehensively, coupled with climate justice considerations and linked to established risk management and adaptation practice; (2) Attribution science is advancing rapidly and fundamental to informing actions to minimise, avert, and address losses and damages; (3) Climate change research, in addition to identifying physical/hard limits to adaptation, needs to more systematically examine soft limits to adaptation, for which we find some evidence across several geographies globally; (4) Climate risk insurance mechanisms can serve the prevention and cure aspects emphasised in the L&D debate but solidarity and accountability aspects need further attention, for which we find tentative indication in applications around the world; (5) Policy deliberations may need to overcome the perception that L&D constitutes a win-lose negotiation “game” by developing a more inclusive narrative that highlights collective ambition for tackling risks, mutual benefits and the role of transformation

'Will the Paris Agreement protect us from hydro-meteorological extremes?'

Multi-hazard assessment is needed to understand compound risk. Yet, modelling of multiple climate hazards has been limitedly applied at the global scale to date. Here we provide a first comprehensive assessment of global population exposure to hydro-meteorological extremes—floods, drought and heatwaves—under different temperature increase targets. This study shows how limiting temperature increase to 1.5 and 2 °C, as for the goals of the Paris Agreement, could substantially decrease the share of global population exposed compared to a 3 °C scenario. In a 2 °C world, population exposure would drop by more than 50%, in Africa, Asia and the Americas, and by about 40% in Europe and Oceania. A 1.5 °C stabilization would further reduce exposure of about an additional 10% to 30% across the globe. As the Parties of the Paris Agreement are expected to communicate new or updated nationally determined contributions by 2020, our results powerfully indicate the benefits of ratcheting up both mitigation and adaptation ambition

Understanding the Politics and Governance of Climate Change Loss and Damage

This introduction to the 2023 special issue of Global Environment Politics brings questions related to politics and political processes to the forefront in the study of climate change loss and damage. The aim of avoiding the detrimental impacts of climate change has been at the heart of the international response to global climate change for more than thirty years. Yet the development of global governance responses to climate change loss and damage—those impacts that we cannot, do not or choose not to prevent or adapt to—has only over the last decade become a central theme within the discussions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Loss and damage has also become a research topic of growing importance within an array of disciplines, from international law to the interdisciplinary environmental social sciences. However, the engagement of scholars working in the fields of political science and international relations has been more limited so far. This is surprising because questions about how to best respond to loss and damage are fundamentally political, as they derive from deliberative processes, invoke value judgments, imply contestation, demand the development of policies, and result in distributional outcomes. In this introduction we describe the context and contributions of the research articles in the special issue. By drawing on a wide range of perspectives from across the social sciences, the articles render visible the multifaceted politics of climate change loss and damage and help to account for the trajectory of governance processes

The Politics of (and Behind) the UNFCCC’s Loss and Damage Mechanism

Despite being one of the most controversial issues to be recently treated within climate negotiations, Loss and Damage (L&D) has attracted little attention among scholars of International Relations (IR). In this chapter we take the “structuralist paradox” in L&D negotiations as our starting point, considering how IR theories can help to explain the somewhat surprising capacity of weak parties to achieve results while negotiating with stronger parties. We adopt a multi-faceted notion of power, drawing from the neorealist, liberal and constructivist schools of thought, in order to explain how L&D milestones were reached. Our analysis shows that the IR discipline can greatly contribute to the debate, not only by enhancing understanding of the negotiation process and related outcomes but also by offering insights on how the issue could be fruitfully moved forward. In particular, we note the key importance that discursive power had in the attainment of L&D milestones: Framing L&D in ethical and legal terms appealed to standards relevant beyond the UNFCCC context, including basic moral norms linked to island states’ narratives of survival and the reference to international customary law. These broader standards are in principle recognised by both contending parties and this broader framing of L&D has helped to prove the need for action on L&D. However, we find that a change of narrative may be needed to avoid turning the issue into a win-lose negotiation game. Instead, a stronger emphasis on mutual gains through adaptation and action on L&D for both developed and developing countries is needed as well as clarity on the limits of these strategies. Examples of such mutual gains are more resilient global supply chains, reduction of climate-induced migration and enhanced security. As a result, acting on L&D would not feel as a unilateral concession developed countries make to vulnerable ones: it would rather be about elaborating patterns of collective action on an issue of common concern

INVESTIGATION OF SECONDARY PHASES EFFECT ON 2205 DSS FRACTURE TOUGHNESS

It is well known that the fracture toughness of DSS is strongly reduced by the precipitation of various intermetallic phases occurring in the temperature range 600-1000°C. A large decrease in impact fracture toughness occurs even at room temperature for volume fractions of intermetallic phases lower than 1%, when only small and rare particles are present. In the present investigation, the influence of the intermetallic phases on the impact fracture behaviour of a 2205 grade DSS has been investigated. Samples containing different amounts of the intermetallic phases have been obtained by isothermal aging treatments in the range 800-950°C. The results of the impact tests confirm that the dangerous phase content determine both the toughness and the fracture behaviour of the DSS examined. At content lower than 1%, when precipitates are rare and small, their effect is a reduction of the absorbed energy for the ductile fracture. But the 1% appears as the critical content, when some particles became large enough to operate the nucleation of the brittle fracture. Indeed, at higher content, a number of large particles are present, well sufficient to induce a general brittle fracture. The obtained results allow correlating the absorbed energy values with the intermetallic phases content and dimensions

LA COLTRE BIANCA NEGLI STRATI NITRURATI IN ACCIAI A VARIO CONTENUTO DI CARBONIO

Sono state esaminate la microstruttura e le caratteristiche della coltre bianca prodotta dal trattamento di nitrurazione dura su acciai a vario contenuto di carbonio, da 0,03 a 0,8%, mediante microscopia ottica e SEM e misure di durezza. I risultati mettono in evidenza che a basso carbonio la coltre bianca è costituita principalmente da azoturo å, al quale può essere associata una notevole porosità, mentre con carbonio più elevato la coltre bianca è formata generalmente da uno successione di strati di carboazoturo å con inserito uno strato di azoturo ã’, con minore porosità