Ethics of Probabilistic Extreme Event Attribution in Climate Change Science: A Critique

The question whether a single extreme climate event, such as a hurricane or heatwave, can be attributed to human induced climate change has become a vibrant field of research and discussion in recent years. Proponents of the most common approach (probabilistic event attribution) argue for using single event attribution for advancing climate policy, not least in the context of loss and damages, while critics are raising concerns about inductive risks which may result in misguided policies. Here, we present six ethical predicaments, rooted in epistemic choices of single event attribution for policy making, with a focus on problems related to loss and damage. Our results show that probabilistic event attribution is particularly sensitive to these predicaments, rendering the choice of method value laden and hence political. Our review shows how the putatively apolitical approach becomes political and deeply problematic from a climate justice perspective. We also suggest that extreme event attribution (EEA) is becoming more and more irrelevant for projecting loss and damages as socio-ecological systems are increasingly destabilized by climate change. We conclude by suggesting a more causality driven approach for understanding loss and damage, that is, less prone to the ethical predicaments of EEA.

Automated summary

The question of whether a single extreme climate event can be attributed to human induced climate change has sparked research and discussions. The probabilistic event attribution approach is advocated for advancing climate policies, while critics raise concerns about potential misguided policies. This study presents ethical predicaments rooted in epistemic choices of single event attribution, highlighting the sensitivity of probabilistic event attribution to these predicaments and the need for a causality-driven approach.