Interesting interpretation. All delegations of developed countries in Paris were united and firmly against loss and damage policy developments. Inside, there was strategizing about formulating “creative language” that will give lip service to loss and damage, while ensuring the issue does not advance (beyond the existing Warsaw Mechanism). Apparently, they succeeded in creating a more benign impression.
There may not be any paradox, Timmons. I would be interested in hearing takes by other people who were there. Radoslav Dimitrov Associate Professor Department of Political Science University of Western Ontario London, ON Canada N6A 5C2 Tel. +1 (519) 661-2111 ext. 85023 On Jan 6, 2017, at 12:39 PM, Roberts, J. Timmons <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Dear kind GEP-Ed folks, I'm working with Tory Hoffmeister, an excellent student in my lab group who is emerging as an expert on Loss and Damage, having worked with Saleem Huq of ICCCAD, with the LDC Group, and attended three COPs and two Bonn SB negotiations (as an undergrad--someone recruit her for a PhD ;-)). Tory is now writing a thesis attempting to characterize the distance between developed and developing countries on the liability and compensation aspects of the Loss and Damage parts of the texts agreed in Warsaw, Lima, Paris and Marrakesh. The paradox Tory seeks to explain is that many in developing countries consider the Paris language as a positive step in spite of the specific exclusion of liability and compensation (and indications this was a red line by the US and others). [Of course prospects may be much dimmer with the election, unless maybe the US withdraws from the UNFCCC.] She wants to characterize the distance between the positions of the North and South--are they getting closer? Is the current area of action with Northern governments providing voluntary contributions to subsidize insurance schemes any kind of victory? Is there likely to be convergence around a more substantive focal point? While she'd welcome your candid thoughts on these substantive questions (she's cc:ed), she's especially looking for a conceptual framework for the study. I of course directed her to some neo-Gramscian approaches, such as those of Okereke, Newell, and our own Ciplet/Roberts/Khan book Power in a Warming World. I figured she could contrast that approach with perhaps more Realist or Institutionalist approaches in explaining the outcomes on L&D to the present (or even constructivist ones.). But I thought I'd ask you all directly for ideas--are there excellent pieces in those two traditions or others you'd suggest? If you'd like to respond to her offline, she could report back to the group after she gets several sources, if there is interest. Thanks sincerely for any help. Best to all for 2017. Fell deeds awake, Timmons On Twitter @timmonsroberts The Climate and Development Lab www.climatedevlab.brown.edu<http://www.climatedevlab.brown.edu/> Collaboration|Impact|Mentorship|Sustainability|Justice J. Timmons Roberts Ittleson Professor of Environmental Studies and Sociology Brown University https://vivo.brown.edu/display/jr17 Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution, 2012-14 http://www.brookings.edu/experts/robertst -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "gep-ed" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "gep-ed" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
