Page - 124 - in Loss and Damage from Climate Change - Concepts, Methods and Policy Options

124 R.A. Jameset al. “responsibility”,whichisamoralorethical issue(Gardiner2004;Mulleretal.2009; Skeieetal.2017).Evenwhereascientificstudymightdemonstrate thatacountry’s, or company’s, emissionscontributed toaparticular loss, thatwouldnotnecessarily equatetoresponsibilitytoactorcompensate,forexample,iftheemitterwereunaware of the influenceof their emissions.Ethicalquestionsabout responsibilityextend far beyond thedomainofclimate science (ethical issuesandperspectivesare treated in thechapterbyWallimann-Helmeret al. 2018of thisbook). Yet many of the stakeholders interviewed appear to see a direct association betweenattribution andblame, liability, or compensation.20 Several also suggested that themotivation for attribution research is blameor compensation.21 Thismight explainwhymentioningattributionsciencecan receiveahostile, orwary, reception inmanyL&Ddiscussions.22 As one interviewee said: “theminute you talk about anthropogenicclimatechange, thepurpose in talkingabout that is tofigureoutwho is toblameandwho topay for theeffectsof it.” Theassumptionofpoliticalmotivesbehindscientific inquiryordiscussionposes a dilemma for science-policy dialogue: it is difficult to talk about attribution and climatechangesignals inconnectionwithL&D,but it seems important thatpolicy- makers are aware ofwhat the science can offer, andwhat it cannot.And, if policy is toaddress lossesanddamages fromclimatechange, it is important tounderstand changingrisks.Acentralaimofattributionresearch, toinvestigatehowrisingGHGs are influencingclimateandtheoccurrenceofextremeweatherevents,wouldappear to be quite fundamental in order to prepare for climate change and address losses anddamages. Initial evidence suggests that the current understanding of attribution science amongst stakeholders involved in theL&Ddiscussions isquite limited(Parkeretal. 2017a). There are several opinions about the science which were found amongst the intervieweeswhichmight be problematic. First, several implied that scientific evidencewould laterbecomestrongerwhichwouldprovidemoreevidence forpol- icy, particularly for compensation.23Whilst the science is advancing rapidly, some 20Inmanyof the interviews,attributionwasmentioned in thesamesentenceor fragmentasblame, compensation,and liability, forexample:“attributionandculpabilityofclimatedamage,”“attribu- tionofblameand takingcompensation,” “attribution, and therefore compensation,” “the compen- sationor liability issues,aswellasattribution,”“howdoyouattributeandgetcompensation.”This was oftenwith the implication that themain purpose of attribution is to establish responsibility, or that the only reasonwhy attributionwould be needed is to establish responsibility e.g. “Is this aboutmaking an argument that there is an ethical responsibility on polluters to compensate for damagecausedbypollution. Inwhichcase, attributionofweather events toparticular cases in the atmospherebecomes important”. 21Forexample:“Therewillat somepointbeagrowingneedforapoliticallymotivatedanswer that looksatattribution,butthereasonforthatisnotpracticalitispolitical”,and:“climateattributionsare tryingtounderstandwhat’sclimatechangedoingtoextremesandslowonseteventsandsuggesting that this cancreateacall for compensation” 22Basedonresearchteam’sexperienceofattending>20meetingswithafocusonL&D(Boydetal. 2017). 23For example: “the science… that’s kind of the one thing that’s lagging” and “that issue of attributionaroundwhichpoliticalconsensuswillnotoccurinthenext5yearsor10.”Oneinterviewee