Attribution of irreversible loss to anthropogenic climate change

The Paris Agreement (2015) under the UNFCCC has anchored loss and damage in a separate article which specifies that understanding and support should be enhanced in areas addressing loss and damage such as early warning, preparedness, insurance and resilience. Irreversible loss is a special category under loss and damage but there is still missing clarity over what irreversible loss actually includes. Many negative impacts of climate change may be handled or mitigated by existing risk management, reduction and absorption approaches. Irreversible loss, however, is thought to be insufficiently addressed by risk management. Therefore, countries potentially or actually affected by irreversible loss are calling for other measures such as compensation, which however is highly contested in international climate policy. In Paris (2015) a decision was adopted that loss and damage as defined in the respective article of the agreement does not involve compensation and liability. Nevertheless, it is likely that some sort of mechanism will eventually need to come into play for irreversible loss due to anthropogenic climate change, which might involve compensation, other forms of non-monetary reparation, or transformation. Furthermore, climate litigation has increasingly been attempted to address negative effects of climate change. In this context, attribution is important to understand the drivers of change, what counts as irreversible loss due to climate change, and, possibly, who or what is responsible. Here we approach this issue by applying a detection and attribution perspective on irreversible loss. We first analyze detected climate change impacts as assessed in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. We distinguish between irreversible loss in physical, biological and human systems, and accordingly identify the following candidates of irreversible loss in these systems: loss of glaciers and ice sheets, loss of subsurface ice (permafrost) and related loss of lake systems; loss of land area due to coastal and hillslope erosion and sea level change; loss of plant and animal species, loss of ecosystems and biodiversity; loss of human lives, homelands, and cultural identity. Attribution to anthropogenic climate change is analyzed based on recent progress following from the IPCC AR5. Generally, high confidence in attributing irreversible loss to anthropogenic climate change is found in physical systems and more specifically in cryosphere environments, both in mountain and polar regions. Detected loss in terrestrial ecosystems has typically low confidence in attribution whereas loss in some ocean ecosystems (corals) has high confidence. Impacts in human systems that may be classified as irreversible loss are of low confidence in terms of attribution except for the Arctic where higher confidence for a relation with anthropogenic emissions was found. Our analysis suggests that scientific progress in detection and attribution is now at a level that would likely allow policy, or courts, to define mechanisms, or take decisions, as related to irreversible loss in many cryosphere systems. On the other hand, policy may need to consider that at least in the near future it will be difficult to establish clear tracks between irreversible loss in most human systems and anthropogenic climate change, a domain, which however is at the forefront of discussions. We end our discussion with setting out ideas for further clarification of different categories of irreversible loss, including in human systems, and the role of attribution in any policy or legal mechanism in order to help in the development of just and sensible solutions

IIASA/EQU Justice Framework: A descriptive guideline for science and policy

The consideration of justice has become a critical area of focus for researchers, as awareness is increasing that (perceived) injustices are a main barrier for effectively tackling the interconnected global grand challenges, such as the climate and the biodiversity crises. Insufficient attention to perceptions of justice is a major issue slowing progress on climate change and other major policy issues. Justice, however, is difficult to grasp as it is a multi-dimensional and culturally diverse term and is in many instances of global socio-environmental issues not formally institutionalized. This working paper introduces the first version of the IIASA/EQU justice framework, which comprehensively outlines justice in its multiple aspects with the aim to facilitate justice assessment across diverse research and policy contexts. It is thus a descriptive framework with no normative objectives. The framework is grounded in philosophy and is applied and tested in a variety of applications, to be useful for research and decision-making. It is meant to be accessible across disciplines, powerful in terms of capacity to express a variety of justice ideas, and modular so researchers can select and deploy the aspects that are most appropriate or useful. The framework as presented here serves as a baseline for further refinement, expansion, applications, and evaluation across disciplines, subject areas, and cultural backgrounds

A typology of loss and damage perspectives

Loss and Damage (L&D) has been the subject of contentious debate in international climate policy for several decades. Recently, formal mechanisms on L&D have been established, but arguably through unclear language. This ambiguity is politically important, but researchers and practitioners require clearer understandings of L&D. Here we report on the first in-depth empirical study of actor perspectives, including interviews with 38 key stakeholders in research, practice, and policy. We find points of agreement and also important distinctions in terms of: the relationship between L&D and adaptation, the emphasis on avoiding versus addressing L&D, the relevance of anthropogenic climate change, and the role of justice. A typology of four perspectives is identified, with different implications for research priorities and actions to address L&D. This typology enables improved understanding of existing perspectives and so has potential to facilitate more transparent discussion of the options available to address L&D

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

Caution in Defining the Public for Legitimate Geoengineering Governance

Although I believe that Gardiner and Fragnière are right to claim that geoengineering governance demands participatory structures, I think more caution is needed. First, the public to be considered because it is affected must be differentiated depending on the geoengineering technique at issue and on the severity of its impact. Second, to avoid undermining democratic legitimacy, ethical conditions of legitimacy must be carefully assessed. Even though future generations and nature are very likely to be affected by geoengineering, their representation is not as unproblematic as it might seem at first sight

Reconciling justice and attribution research to advance climate policy

The 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 from detection and attribution research could inform policy approaches in accordance with justice considerations. We reveal a procedural injustice based on the imbalance of observations and knowledge of impacts between developed and developing countries. This type of injustice needs to be considered in policy negotiations and decisions, and efforts strengthened to reduce it

Climate change, negative emissions and solar radiation management: It is time for an open societal conversation

This white paper resulted from a risk dialogue project with climate scientists and experts on the subject of climate engineering – conducted by the neutral and independent Risk-Dialogue Foundation St. Gallen between April 2016 and March 2017. The aim was to identify the current state of research on the topic as well as related risk and to evaluate a potential need for wider public deliberation. The project was carried out on behalf of the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), Climate Division. In line with views expressed during the dialogue, the sole objective of this paper is to argue for an open and public deliberation process and not to favour or promote any technologies or deployment thereof. The views expressed in this report are solely those of its authors, and do not reflect any official position

Reconciling justice and attribution research to advance climate policy

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 from detection and attribution research could inform policy approaches in accordance with justice considerations. We reveal a procedural injustice based on the imbalance of observations and knowledge of impacts between developed and developing countries. This type of injustice needs to be considered in policy negotiations and decisions, and efforts strengthened to reduce it