Page - 90 - in Loss and Damage from Climate Change - Concepts, Methods and Policy Options

90 T.Schinkoet al. 4.2.2 ClimateAttributionofUnavoidableLosses andDamages:EstablishingaRole forClimateJustice Ethical considerations in the formof questions regarding justice and fairness have played akey role in thepolicy and academicdiscourse on climate change (see e.g. Brownet al. 2006;Gardiner2004a,b, 2006; Jamieson1992,2001,2005;Ott2004; Posner andWeisbach 2010; Shue 1992, 1993, 1999; Singer 2002, 2006; Vander- heiden 2008; chapter byWallimann-Helmer 2018) ever since the beginning of the UNFCCCprocess, prominently exemplifiedby theprincipleof commonbutdiffer- entiated responsibilities in theRioDeclaration (UnitedNations1992,Article3.1). For climate changemitigation and adaptation the discourse has largely circled arounddistributive justice (Grasso2007;PosnerandWeisbach2010). In themitiga- tion domain different principles of distributive justice, applicable to the sharing of mitigationburdenshavebeendiscussed(KlinskyandDowlatabadi2009;Vanderhei- den2008).Duetoinertiaintheclimaticsystem,nomatterhoweffectiveglobalGHG mitigation efforts turn out to be, humanitywill be facedwith risks due to climate change that have direct and indirect (e.g. through ecosystem services) impacts on humanwelfare andwhichwill require substantial adaptation efforts (IPCC 2012, 2014).The justicedebate in theadaptationdomainhas thuscentredon thequestion of how the costs (and benefits) of adaption should be distributed across countries (Adgeret al. 2006;Dellinket al. 2009;PaavolaandAdger2006). With theL&Ddebate,anothernotionofclimate justicehasnowformallyentered the international climatepolicyscene:compensatory justice.Basically twokindsof justice are especially applicable in the context ofL&D(see chapter byWallimann- Helmer et al. 2018). Forward-looking contexts are concernedwith distributive jus- tice, especially when distributing the risks of damages that cannot be adapted to. Backward-looking contexts are concernedwith compensatory justice, especially in legalorprocedural attributionsof responsibilityand liability.Compensatory justice suggests that it is those agents who primarily caused climate changewho should compensate the agentswhich are experiencing losses and damages due to climate changewithouthavingsubstantially contributed to theproblemthemselves.This in turn implies that the agentswhoare not responsible for climate change are given a right forcompensationbytheagentswhoarefoundresponsibleandhence liable for particular risks that climate change increases the likelihood for (i.e. the outcome). Distributive justice (based on the ability to pay principle) suggests that it is those agentswhoare able or have the capacity topay formanaging residual risks should bear the lion’s share of the costs, and those agents in greatest need for financial assistance should be allocated the bulk of the benefits, i.e. the resources globally available.