Climatic Change

, Volume 133, Issue 3, pp 469–480 | Cite as

Justice for climate loss and damage

Article

Abstract

This paper suggests a way to elaborate the ethical implications of the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) as decided at COP 19 from the perspective of justice. It advocates three proposals. First, in order to fully understand the responsibilities and liabilities implied in the WIM, adaptation needs to be distinguished from loss and damage (L&D) on the basis of the different goals which should be attributed to adaptation and to L&D approaches. Second, the primary concern of the WIM should be compensatory justice. In case of climate L&D, three aspects of compensatory justice should be kept separate: corrective liability, remedial responsibility, and with regard to the resources available, fair remedy. Third, it is crucial to distinguish between recoverable damage and irrecoverable or at least not fully recoverable loss. This distinction is crucial because it informs the principles of fair remedy and because damage and loss may differ in their relevance for the stability and functioning of a human system.

Abbreviations

L&D

Loss and Damage

WIM

Warsaw International Mechanism

References

  1. Bell DR (2004) Environmental refugees: what rights? Which duties? Res Publica 10:135–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blum G, Lockwood NJ (2012) Earthquakes and Wars: The Logic of International Reparations. Public Law & Legal Theory Working Paper Series(12–30)Google Scholar
  3. Bronen R (2013) Climate-Induced Displacement of Alaska Native CommunitiesGoogle Scholar
  4. Byravan S, Rajan SC (2010) The ethical implications of sea-level rise due to climate change. Ethics & International Affairs 24(3):239–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caney S (2010) Climate change and the duties of the advantaged. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 13(1):203–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caney S (2012) Just emissions. Philosophy & Public Affairs 40(4):255–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. de Shalit A (2011) Climate change refugees, compensation and rectification. Monist 94(3) 301–328Google Scholar
  8. Dow K, Berkhout F, Preston BL, Klein RJ, Midgley G, Shaw MR (2013) Limits to adaption. Nat Clim Chang 3(April):305–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gardiner SM, Caney S, Jamieson D, Shue H (eds) (2010) Climate ethics: essential readings. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Goodin RE (1989) Theories of compensation. Oxf J Leg Stud 9(1):56–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heyward C (2014) Climate Change as Cultural Injustice. In: Brooks T (ed) New Waves in Global Justice, pp 149–169Google Scholar
  12. Huggel C, Stone D, Auffhammer M, Hansen G (2013) Loss and damage attribution. Nat Clim Chang 5(August):694–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Huggel C, Stone D, Eicken H, Hansen G (2015) Potential and limitations of the attribution of climate change impacts for informing loss and damage discussions and policies. Climatic Change:this issueGoogle Scholar
  14. IPCC (2014) Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability: WG II AR5: Technical SummaryGoogle Scholar
  15. Meyer LH, Roser D (2010) Climate justice and historical emissions. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 13(1):229–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Miller D (2007) National responsibility and global justice. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nishat A, Mukherjee N, Roberts E, Hasemann A (2013) A range of approaches to address loss and damage from climate change impacts in Bangladesh. http://www.loss-and-damage.net/4825. Accessed 03 September 2014
  18. Page E (2008) Distributing the burdens of climate change. Environmental Politics 17(4):556–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Shue H (1999) Global environment and international inequality. Int Aff 75(3):531–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Stone D, Auffhammer M, Carey M, Hansen G, Huggel C, Cramer W, Lobell D, Molau U, Solow A, Tibig L, Yohe G (2013) The challenge to detect and attribute effects of climate change on human and natural systems. Clim Chang 121(2):381–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. UNFCCC (2012) A literature review on the topics in the context of thematic area 2 of the work programme on loss and damage: a range of approaches to address loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change, DohaGoogle Scholar
  22. UNFCCC (2013) Non-Economic Losses: Technical PaperGoogle Scholar
  23. UNFCCC (2014) Report of the Conference of the Parties on its nineteenth session, held in Warsaw from 11 to 23 November 2013: Part two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its nineteenth sessionGoogle Scholar
  24. Vanderheiden S (2009) Atmospheric justice: A political theory of climate change, 1st edn. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford [u.a.]Google Scholar
  25. Visser H, Petersen AC, Ligtvoet W (2014) On the relation between weather-related disaster impacts, vulnerability and climate change. Clim Chang 125(3–4):461–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Warner K, van der Geest K (2013) Loss and damage from climate change: local-level evidence from nine vulnerable countries. International Journal of Global Warming 5(4):367–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wrathall D, Oliver-Smith A, Sakdapolrak P, Gencer E, Fekete A, Lepana Reyes M (2013) Conceptual and Operational Problems for Loss and Damage: Working Paper. http://www.populationenvironmentresearch.org/documents/Loss_and_Damage_2013.pdf. Accessed 03 September 2014
  28. Zellentin A (2010) Climate migration: cultural aspects of climate change. Analyse & Kritik 1:63–86Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Priority Program for EthicsUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations