I was on a Mali badge and involved in most of the negotiation meetings. Happy to have an offline conversation. My take is a bit similar to that of Radoslav. As one might imagine its a bit more complicated than has been heretofore conveyed.
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017, 13:38 Radoslav Dimitrov <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> 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 > 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]. > 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. > -- 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.
