Page - 92 - in Loss and Damage from Climate Change - Concepts, Methods and Policy Options

92 T.Schinkoet al. To this effect, again, IPCC is the scientific authority with its methodological framework fordetectionandattribution.This systematic approachfirst focusseson detectinganytrendinchangesofkeyvariables,thenseekstoattributethosetoclimate change (e.g. change in local temperature andother systemvariables) (Crameret al. 2014).Asoneexample,Fig. 4.3 showsa summaryapplicationof the framework in terms of specifying the degree of confidence in the detection of observed impacts of climate change versus the degree of confidence in attribution to climate change drivers for tropical small islands. While, for example, it finds for “greater rates of sea level rise relative to globalmeans” (a coastal system impact) bothveryhigh confidencelevelsofdetectionandattribution,itdetectstrendsatveryhighconfidence levels for tightly associated impacts in human systems (environmental degradation and casualties), albeit only at low levels of confidence, as risks in human systems are importantly shapedbysocio-economicvulnerability andexposure. 4.2.3 RiskEvaluation:ConsideringRiskPreferenceandRisk Tolerance for IdentifyingSoftandHardAdaptation Limits Establishingriskastheoverarchingconceptandmetricnaturally leadstoaddressing thequestionofriskcopingorriskpreference.Whileriskidentificationassessesrisks inmonetary and/or non-monetary terms, risk evaluation, involving socioeconomic analysis, leads to the notion of risk preference and risk tolerance. The process of risk evaluation examines agents’ (households, private andpublic sectors) ability to respondtorisk,also termedrisk tolerance.Economicshasdistinguishedriskprefer- ence around risk aversion, neutrality and risk loving (Eeckhoudt et al. 2005).Risk analysis, e.g. Dow et al. (2013), building on Klinke and Renn (2002), conceptu- ally break risk tolerance down into acceptable—no formal risk reduction interven- tionsnecessary; tolerable—risk reductionmeasuresarenecessaryand implemented dependingon resources available; and intolerable risks-riskcannotbe takenon, i.e. action is required irrespective of costs but often no further action is possible, thus essentiallydefining risks that exceed the limitsof adaptation (seeFig.4.4). Followingsuchframing,onecouldarguethat,backedupbyconsiderableevidence (UNFCCC2015b) aswell as heuristics, the intolerable risk space (globally) with regard to ‘dangerous interferencewith the climate system,’ as put down inArticle 2of theUNFCCC,has beendeterminedby theParis agreement as startingbeyond 1.5°Cofaverageglobalwarming.The1.5°Clineisapoliticalcompromisebasedon intensenegotiations andnormativediscourse,whichwas informedby science. It is nota ‘hard’ systemboundaryandalready today,withgood levelsofconfidence, the IPCChasidentifiedmanycommunitiesandcountriesasfacingsubstantialstressfrom climate change-exacerbated impactsonagriculture inAfrica (highconfidence), sea surge in small islands states (high confidence) and riverineflooding inBangladesh (mediumconfidence) (IPCC2014).