Potential and limitations of the attribution of climate change impacts for informing loss and damage discussions and policies
Potential and limitations of the attribution of climate change impacts for informing loss and damage discussions and policies
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s10584-015-1441-z
复制
发表时间：
2015-06
期刊：
影响因子：
4.8
通讯作者：
C. Huggel;D. Stone;H. Eicken;G. Hansen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
C. Huggel;D. Stone;H. Eicken;G. Hansen
近年来，与气候相关的损失和损害（L&D）问题再次出现，并在国际气候政策中获得了重大关注。然而，许多方面仍不清楚，包括《联合国气候变化框架公约》、人权和环境法将如何处理与L&D有关的责任和赔偿问题。此外，需要澄清将气候变化影响与每一种L&D机制联系起来所需的科学证据类型。在这里，我们分析了不同类型的科学证据在多大程度上可以为L&D讨论和政策提供信息。我们区分(i) L&D观察，（ii）理解因果关系，以及（iii）通过归因研究将L&D与人为排放联系起来。我们利用来自澳大利亚、哥伦比亚和阿拉斯加的三个案例研究来展示不同类型证据的相关性。然后，我们讨论了这些类型的科学证据的潜力和局限性，特别是归因，为当前的L&D讨论和政策提供信息。归因（iii）设定了最高标准，但也提供了最完整的一套信息，以支持适应、降低风险和L&D政策。然而，我们并不是说归因是学习与发展政策的必要条件，而是想强调它的潜力，以促进更有主题的结构，从而希望更有建设性的政策和正义讨论。
The issue of climate related loss and damage (L&D) has re-emerged and gained significant traction in international climate policy in recent years. However, many aspects remain unclear, including how aspects of liability and compensation in relation with L&D will be treated under the UNFCCC, human rights and environmental law. Furthermore, the type of scientific evidence required to link climate change impacts for each of these L&D mechanisms needs to be clarified. Here we analyze to which degree different types of scientific evidence can inform L&D discussions and policies. We distinguish between (i) L&D observation, (ii) understanding causation, and (iii) linking L&D to anthropogenic emissions through attribution studies. We draw on three case studies from Australia, Colombia and Alaska to demonstrate the relevance of the different types of evidence. We then discuss the potential and limitations of these types of scientific evidence, in particular attribution, for informing current L&D discussions and policies. Attribution (iii) sets the highest bar, but also provides the most complete set of information to support adaptation, risk reduction and L&D policies. However, rather than suggesting that attribution is a necessary requirement for L&D policies we want to highlight its potential for facilitating a more thematically structured, and thus hopefully a more constructive, policy and justice discussion.