“…Unlike L&D as an overall concept, definitions that attempt to distinguish between “loss” and “damage” are more disparate and often contradictory. Nonetheless, Lusk (, p. 207) provides a definition that represents a common conceptualization whereby, “loss can be thought of as irreparable harms to a society (e.g. loss of life or culture), while damage can be thought of as reparable (e.g.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, Wrathall et al (, p. 281) argued:While climate change stress may reveal itself in ‘crises,’ vulnerability is a latent social condition, and the historical nature of vulnerability is that some had already experienced loss and damage through the process of colonisation and development in the 20 th century.The desire to directly attribute discrete climate extremes to climate change remains prevalent with 24% of publications covering this theme. While progress has been made in the attribution/PEA field (Huggel et al, ; Huggel, Stone, Auffhammer, & Hansen, ; Otto et al, ), there remains differences in opinion regarding the social, political, legal, and scientific utility of it in relation to L&D (Boran & Heath, ; Huggel et al, ; Huggel et al, ; Hulme, ; Lusk, ; Otto et al, ; Parker et al, ; Thompson & Otto, ; Verheyen, ). Some authors believe that PEA is “conceptually and morally relevant to issues of residual L&D” (Thompson & Otto, , p. 450) and can provide useful scientific evidence for adaptation planning (Huggel et al, ; Otto et al, ) while others are less certain.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some authors believe that PEA is “conceptually and morally relevant to issues of residual L&D” (Thompson & Otto, , p. 450) and can provide useful scientific evidence for adaptation planning (Huggel et al, ; Otto et al, ) while others are less certain. Lusk (, p. 210), for example, while acknowledging the potential of PEA if framed by theories of justice, suggests that “PEA only examines meteorological risk and does not say anything about the intricate social factors that help determine a society's resiliency.” Verheyen () also questions the usefulness of attribution by exploring the nexus between climate change attribution and legal causation. Although the burden of proof would fall on the claimant to provide evidence of causation, which may or may not be possible but is desirable, there have been recorded precedents (Verheyen, ) where this requirement was significantly downscaled in legal cases that involved interstate environmental pollution leading to damages.…”
Climate change researchers argue that a residual domain exists beyond the limits of adaptation to prevent deleterious climate change impacts: this has been labeled as "loss and damage." Over the last 8 years, there has been significant growth in loss and damage scholarship thus making it imperative to take stock of what we know already and directions for future research. We undertook a quantitative review of academic publications (n = 122) in the loss and damage field to date and documented study characteristics, thematic areas, trends, gaps, and opportunities. The first publication appeared in 2010 before a significant increase in published research after 2013. Although increasingly diverse over time, loss and damage studies have primarily focused on technical, political, and normative questions. Our analysis suggests the following: that researchers predominately conceptualize loss and damage as "limits to adaptation"; that the literature is more practical (i.e., descriptive, does not challenge underlying presuppositions) than critical (i.e., challenges underlying presuppositions) in orientation; that loss and damage is conceived as both an occurring and future condition; and that economic dimensions of loss and damage are prioritized in studies. Recommended future research directions include empirical and theoretical explorations of the potential for transformational change; understanding what people value and how they can engage with loss and grief; ensuring the perspectives of the most vulnerable groups are included in decision-making; and greater policy-relevant research and critical analyses of loss and damage conceptualizations and the Warsaw International Mechanism.
“…Unlike L&D as an overall concept, definitions that attempt to distinguish between “loss” and “damage” are more disparate and often contradictory. Nonetheless, Lusk (, p. 207) provides a definition that represents a common conceptualization whereby, “loss can be thought of as irreparable harms to a society (e.g. loss of life or culture), while damage can be thought of as reparable (e.g.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, Wrathall et al (, p. 281) argued:While climate change stress may reveal itself in ‘crises,’ vulnerability is a latent social condition, and the historical nature of vulnerability is that some had already experienced loss and damage through the process of colonisation and development in the 20 th century.The desire to directly attribute discrete climate extremes to climate change remains prevalent with 24% of publications covering this theme. While progress has been made in the attribution/PEA field (Huggel et al, ; Huggel, Stone, Auffhammer, & Hansen, ; Otto et al, ), there remains differences in opinion regarding the social, political, legal, and scientific utility of it in relation to L&D (Boran & Heath, ; Huggel et al, ; Huggel et al, ; Hulme, ; Lusk, ; Otto et al, ; Parker et al, ; Thompson & Otto, ; Verheyen, ). Some authors believe that PEA is “conceptually and morally relevant to issues of residual L&D” (Thompson & Otto, , p. 450) and can provide useful scientific evidence for adaptation planning (Huggel et al, ; Otto et al, ) while others are less certain.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some authors believe that PEA is “conceptually and morally relevant to issues of residual L&D” (Thompson & Otto, , p. 450) and can provide useful scientific evidence for adaptation planning (Huggel et al, ; Otto et al, ) while others are less certain. Lusk (, p. 210), for example, while acknowledging the potential of PEA if framed by theories of justice, suggests that “PEA only examines meteorological risk and does not say anything about the intricate social factors that help determine a society's resiliency.” Verheyen () also questions the usefulness of attribution by exploring the nexus between climate change attribution and legal causation. Although the burden of proof would fall on the claimant to provide evidence of causation, which may or may not be possible but is desirable, there have been recorded precedents (Verheyen, ) where this requirement was significantly downscaled in legal cases that involved interstate environmental pollution leading to damages.…”
Climate change researchers argue that a residual domain exists beyond the limits of adaptation to prevent deleterious climate change impacts: this has been labeled as "loss and damage." Over the last 8 years, there has been significant growth in loss and damage scholarship thus making it imperative to take stock of what we know already and directions for future research. We undertook a quantitative review of academic publications (n = 122) in the loss and damage field to date and documented study characteristics, thematic areas, trends, gaps, and opportunities. The first publication appeared in 2010 before a significant increase in published research after 2013. Although increasingly diverse over time, loss and damage studies have primarily focused on technical, political, and normative questions. Our analysis suggests the following: that researchers predominately conceptualize loss and damage as "limits to adaptation"; that the literature is more practical (i.e., descriptive, does not challenge underlying presuppositions) than critical (i.e., challenges underlying presuppositions) in orientation; that loss and damage is conceived as both an occurring and future condition; and that economic dimensions of loss and damage are prioritized in studies. Recommended future research directions include empirical and theoretical explorations of the potential for transformational change; understanding what people value and how they can engage with loss and grief; ensuring the perspectives of the most vulnerable groups are included in decision-making; and greater policy-relevant research and critical analyses of loss and damage conceptualizations and the Warsaw International Mechanism.
“…The consideration of emergent changes to monthly mean temperature examines only one specific component of the many varying impacts that will result from a warming climate. The focus here remains strictly regarding the capability of different populations around the world to cope with increasingly 'unfamiliar' temperature regimes through time (Frame et al 2017): examples of the implications associated with this framework include the health impacts of added heat stress , Huber et al 2017, Fischer et al 2013, Im et al 2017; economic losses through labour productivity decreases in certain regions of the world (Dunne et al 2013, Hansen and Sato 2016, Pal and Eltahir 2016, and the consideration of future adaptation to new and novel climates (Diffenbaugh and Scherer 2011, Stott and Walton 2013, Sippel et al 2015a, Diffenbaugh and Charland 2016, Lusk 2017. However, it is also important to emphasise that the framework presented in this study is limited to the explicit purpose outlined in the introductory paragraphs, and should not be interpreted as showing the absence of significant climate change impacts over extra-tropical locations during transitional months.…”
A common proxy for the adaptive capacity of a community to the impacts of future climate change is the range of climate variability which they have experienced in the recent past. This study presents an interpretation of such a framework for monthly temperatures. Our results demonstrate that emergence into genuinely 'unfamiliar' climates will occur across nearly all months of the year for low-income nations by the second half of the 21st century under an RCP8.5 warming scenario. However, high income countries commonly experience a large seasonal cycle, owing to their position in the middle latitudes: as a consequence, temperature emergence for transitional months translates only to more-frequent occurrences of heat historically associated with the summertime. Projections beyond 2050 also show low-income countries will experience 2-10 months per year warmer than the hottest month experienced in recent memory, while high-income countries will witness between 1-4 months per year hotter than any month previously experienced. While both results represent significant departures that may bring substantive societal impacts if greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated, they also demonstrate that spatial patterns of emergence will compound existing differences between high and low income populations, in terms of their capacity to adapt to unprecedented future temperatures.
“…Recently, two articles have discussed the use of EEA for litigation (Marjanac and Patton 2018;Lusk 2017) in common law jurisdictions. They come to opposite conclusions.…”
Section: A Improved Causal Statements For Litigation and Loss And Damentioning
Extreme event attribution (EEA) proposes scientific diagnostics on whether and how a specific weather event is (or is not) different in the actual world from what it could have been in a world without climate change. This branch of climate science has developed to the point where European institutions are preparing the ground for an operational attribution service. In this context, the goal of this article is to explore a panorama of scientist perspectives on their motivations to undertake EEA studies. To do so, we rely on qualitative semi-structured interviews of climate scientists involved in EEA, on peer-reviewed social and climate literature discussing the usefulness of EEA, and on reports from the EUCLEIA project (European Climate and Weather Events: Interpretation and Attribution), which investigated the possibility of building an EEA service. We propose a classification of EEA’s potential uses and users and discuss each of them. We find that, first, there is a plurality of motivations and that individual scientists disagree on which one is most useful. Second, there is a lack of solid, empirical evidence to back up any of these motivations.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
