Page - 40 - in Loss and Damage from Climate Change - Concepts, Methods and Policy Options

40 I.Wallimann-Helmeret al. 2.1 Introduction Debate in ethics concerning climate change has mainly investigated questions of howtodealwithmitigationandadaptation.Muchof thedebatehasbeenonclimate justice asking how to distribute the benefits and burdens ofmitigation and adapta- tion fairly; dealingwith the rightsof those facing the impactsof climatechange;or discussingtheindividualmoraldutytochangelifestyles inorder tocontribute tocli- mateprotection.An importantdetail of thisdebate is thatmitigationandadaptation areoftendiscussedunder one and the sameheading. Potential differences between duties related to climate changemitigation and those of adaptation are rarely anal- ysed. Research dealingwith this distinction, however, shows that there are crucial differences between the ethical challenges of mitigation and those of adaptation (Jagers andDuus-Otterström 2008;Wallimann-Helmer 2015, 2016).We build on this distinction to discuss a further distinctive area of climate change research and policy: the adverse effects of climate change leading to climate related Loss and Damage (for short: L&D). As we argue and demonstrate throughout, in order to address the ethical aspects pertaining to L&D in international climate policy it is essential to clearly differentiate between the challenges concerningmitigation and adaptationand thoseethical issuesexclusively relevant forL&D. This chapter laysoutwhatwe take tobe themainethical challenges concerning climateL&D.Buildingonthisdiagnosis,wedevelopcriteria tocategorisemeasures asbeingappropriatefordealingwithL&Dandanalysehowtheresponsibilitiescom- ingwiththesemeasuresmustbedistributedtobejust.First,weshowthatdepending on howmitigation and adaptation are distinguished fromL&D, the primary focus ofpolicymeasuresand their ethical implicationswill vary (2.2).Second,wedistin- guishbetweenadistributive justice frameworkanda compensatory justice scheme fordeliveringL&Dmeasures.Wediscusssometheoreticaladvantagesofdistributive justiceframeworks,butdonotdecide the issue.Onekeyadvantageforadistributive justiceapproach is that it coversallL&Drather thanonly thefraction that isanthro- pogenically induced (2.3). Third, in order to understand the types ofmeasures that these justiceapproachescouldapply to,weanalyse theappropriatenessofdifferent measures and policy approaches available (2.4). Fourth, depending on the kind of L&Dandwhich remediesarepossible, responsibilitiesofdifferent actorsare found tovary (2.5). Inparticular,wediscuss thedistinctionbetween remedial responsibil- ity and outcome responsibility. Overall, while our primary aimhere is tomap out themost important arguments and principles in climate ethics dealingwith L&D, wealsoargue that thecapacity tomostefficientlyandeffectivelycontribute toeven out undeserved harm fromL&D is crucial. One of our suggestions is that it is the differentiated capacities of those able to support theones inneedof assistance that shouldmatter themostwhendifferentiatingremedialresponsibilities totackleL&D.