Page - 123 - in Loss and Damage from Climate Change - Concepts, Methods and Policy Options

5 Attribution:HowIs ItRelevant forLoss… 123 management.13 The suggestion thatL&Dshould refer to all climate-related events was also related to an expression of caution about relying too heavily on complex scientific assessments.14 Intervieweeswere concerned that uncertainties in the sci- encecoulddelayprogress,15orinhibiteffortsinregionswithlimiteddataavailability and limited ability to provide evidence of the influence of climate change.16 They suggested that themore important ethical imperative shouldbe tohelppeoplewho are suffering.17 This is also in keepingwith comments expressed in the literature (e.g.Hulmeetal.2011).Several stakeholderssuggested that focusingonattributing hazardswouldbecounterproductive indivertingattentionaway fromhelping those inneed.18 5.2.4 AChallenge forScience-PolicyDialogue In policy (Sects. 5.2.1, 5.2.2) andpractice (Sect. 5.2.3), questions about attribution may thereforeemerge fromquestionsaboutwhich institutionsandcountries should take responsibility for dealingwith L&D; about who should pay for L&D.Many see that assigning responsibility is politically challenging, and addressing climate change impacts in isolation is impractical.Attribution,byassociation, is sometimes seenasunhelpfulor irrelevant.19 For scientists, questions about attributionhavedifferentmotivations, objectives, andimplications.Analysisofcausality isan importantwaytofurtherunderstanding of theEarthSystem.There aremany important reasons to askattributionquestions besides establishing responsibility.And, it isworth highlighting that the results of scientific attribution studies are not sufficient to indicate responsibility.Attribution studies canestimate theextent towhichcertaindrivers (suchasGHGs)contributed tocertainoutcomes(suchasflooding),but this“contribution” isverydifferent from 13For example: “disaster riskmanagement thinking and also climate change thinking has to be integratedwith thisbigdevelopmentperspective.” 14For example: “that places too great a weight upon scientific evidence in ethical and political negotiations,whichcannotbebornebyclimatic science.” 15Forexample:“Wecannotwait for them[climatologists] todetermine towhatextent this isabout climatechangeornot” (Parker et al. 2017a). 16For example: “Science can establishmaybe for some impacts earlier than others, there’s some differences”,and“there’sabigissuewiththat inthat thedatafordevelopingcountries,wehaveless certaintyonwhat is climateenhanceddisaster in the south, simplybecausewedon’thave thedata sets.Wedon’thave the information to saywithcertainty that thatwascausedbyclimatechange.” 17Forexample:“themoreurgentissueis…actually…respondingtooradaptingtoextremeweather events,whether it’s causedbypeopleornot”. 18In thewords of one interviewee: “trying to disentangle the climate change portion of that risk might be useful from a political point but it’s actually counterproductive in terms of having an impact on reducing risk”. Similar pointswere expressed by stakeholders interviewed specifically about attributionscience (Parker et al2017a). 19For example: “I know there’s this question around attribution, if you think it is key, then the science isvery important. Inmymind it isn’t and Idon’t think that is thewayforward.”