Ethics of Probabilistic Extreme Event Attribution in Climate Change Science: A Critique

Abstract

The question whether a single extreme climate event, such as a hurricane or heatwave, can be attributed to human induced climate change has become a vibrant field of research and discussion in recent years. Proponents of the most common approach (probabilistic event attribution) argue for using single event attribution for advancing climate policy, not least in the context of loss and damages, while critics are raising concerns about inductive risks which may result in misguided policies. Here, we present six ethical predicaments, rooted in epistemic choices of single event attribution for policy making, with a focus on problems related to loss and damage. Our results show that probabilistic event attribution is particularly sensitive to these predicaments, rendering the choice of method value laden and hence political. Our review shows how the putatively apolitical approach becomes political and deeply problematic from a climate justice perspective. We also suggest that extreme event attribution (EEA) is becoming more and more irrelevant for projecting loss and damages as socio‐ecological systems are increasingly destabilized by climate change. We conclude by suggesting a more causality driven approach for understanding loss and damage, that is, less prone to the ethical predicaments of EEA.

Heat Waves: Physical Understanding and Scientific Challenges

“…While this represents an excellent opportunity for interdisciplinary research and novel applications (e.g., attribution of high‐impact compound events and associated damages to country‐level responsibility), the complex nature of non‐climatic uncertainties may require novel approaches. Recent studies advocate for causality rather than statistics‐driven approaches (Olsson et al., 2022). They include the consideration of past events as benchmarks to dissect the contributing factors and construct narratives (storylines) of potential risks based on present or future feasible outcomes of these factors and their combinations (e.g., Sillmann et al., 2021, and references therein).…”

An emerging governmentality of climate change loss and damage

“…Notoriously difficult to model and observe, climate scientists now demonstrated we can, with some confidence, disentangle climate change signatures in extreme events such as heatwaves, floods, and droughts (Van Oldenborgh et al 2021). This, however, is a more contentious area of L&D and the literature has only begun to explore the ethical and political implications of EEA (Jézéquel, Yiou and Vanderlinden 2019; Lusk 2017; Olsson et al 2022). There are significant risks with linking L&D to EEA, such as requiring attribution evidence as a prerequisite for finance or compensation for climate change-related losses.…”

Loss and Damage, Climate Victims, and International Climate Law: Looking Back, Looking Forward

“…52 Jackson and co-authors further highlight the danger of linking EEA to loss and damage, which could lead to attribution evidence becoming a 'prerequisite for finance or compensation' for such losses. 53 Even as the first loss and damage-related cases succeed (see Section 3.5 for a discussion of the Torres Strait Islanders petition), the role and limits of attribution science in such cases remain subject to ongoing research.…”