This post was originally published by Lawfare.
Climate-driven geophysical shifts are driving geopolitical shifts that are putting increasing pressure on international law and global governance. The recent landmark decision to establish an international “loss and damage” fund offers a glimpse into the challenges and opportunities presented by these ongoing disruptions.
Although there is no specific definition of “loss and damage” in international law, scholars and advocates generally define “loss” as that which is irreparable—“the complete disappearance of something,” such as lives, culture, and heritage. “Damage” refers to harms that can be repaired, such as bridges and buildings. Both result from failures to adequately mitigate and adapt to climate threats.
The loss and damage fund was created at the 27th Conference of the Parties (COP 27) hosted by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which met in November. The parties deferred decisions on the details of the “operationalization” of the fund, however, until next year’s COP 28. As a result, the fund’s creation is just the beginning of a long overdue reckoning with critical questions about who is responsible for paying for climate harms. This year’s devastating heat waves, droughts, and floods in Pakistan, India, and multiple countries throughout Africa demonstrate yet again that these harms are borne disproportionately by nations of the Global South, which have contributed the least to the climate problem. Had an effective loss and damage fund been in place and operational, these countries would have received critical resources necessary to save lives.
An overview of international climate law and the larger geopolitical dynamics surrounding collective climate action helps put the creation of this fund in context and conveys just how significant its creation is. That, in turn, provides insight into the ways in which this opportunity could be used to move climate justice efforts forward, through the use of climate science to support greater public scrutiny of the foreign policies of wealthy high-emitting nations and the application of laws outside of the UNFCCC regime.
Showing 2,821 results
Karen Sokol | December 14, 2022
Climate-driven geophysical shifts are driving geopolitical shifts that are putting increasing pressure on international law and global governance. The recent landmark decision to establish an international “loss and damage” fund offers a glimpse into the challenges and opportunities presented by these ongoing disruptions.
Catalina Gonzalez | December 13, 2022
After a year and a half of work, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is poised to vote on an updated statewide climate plan. The final draft of the plan incorporates ambitious targets for achieving carbon neutrality by 2045, which were updated in September to reflect new legislation and Governor Gavin Newsom’s push for stronger action.
Allison Stevens | December 9, 2022
Gentle giant. These two words appear over and over again in tributes to the late Rep. Donald McEachin, who died on November 28 from complications from cancer. He was 61. The Virginia Democrat indeed stood tall in the halls of Congress, where he served constituents in and south of Richmond. But he was a giant in the figurative sense of the word, too, particularly when it came to racial equity and environmental justice — issues he championed over two decades in political office.
James Goodwin | December 8, 2022
Last month, the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) announced that it was conducting a public listening session to obtain ideas about how the Biden administration could strengthen the public’s ability to engage in the regulatory system. This is an issue we at the Center have been working hard on in recent years. So, we were happy to answer OIRA’s call.
Alice Kaswan, Allison Stevens, Emily Hammond, Karen Sokol | November 22, 2022
We asked our Member Scholars how the election outcomes will affect policy going forward in our three priority policy areas. Today’s post covers the implications for climate justice.
Allison Stevens, David Driesen, James Goodwin, Sidney A. Shapiro, Thomas McGarity | November 21, 2022
We asked several of our Member Scholars how the midterm election outcomes will affect policy going forward in our three priority policy areas. Today’s post covers the implications for regulations.
Allison Stevens, Dave Owen, Michael C. Duff, Noah Sachs | November 18, 2022
We asked several of our Member Scholars how the election outcomes will affect policy going forward in our three priority policy areas. Today’s post covers the implications for public protections such as environmental health, clean air and water, and workers’ rights.
Katlyn Schmitt | November 17, 2022
For a half century, the Clean Water Act has been the nation's leading water pollution control law. When it passed the modern Clean Water Act in 1972, Congress intended federal and state agencies like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to work together to minimize, and ultimately eliminate, water pollution by 1985. While the country has fallen significantly short in meeting this goal, the Clean Water Act has prevented significant water pollution – and we and our waterways are much healthier for it.
Dave Owen | November 10, 2022
In one of Tuesday’s least surprising outcomes, California voters reelected Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom. It wasn’t close. This might seem interesting only if you’re predicting the 2024 presidential primaries. But Newsom’s reelection has broad significance for climate policy and law, both in California and beyond. Think for a moment about traditional arguments against responding to […]