Lost and Damage Climate Compensation

DISCLAIMER: It's not a legal argument, at all. In one of the International Environmental Law class, my Professor raised a question about the CC's lost and damage climate compensation -- somewhat in a way discrediting developing countries' position in demanding that. For a quick reference about loss and damage climate compensation, see Saleemul Huq's writing in UNEP's CC website. So when I worked on my paper I couldn't stop thinking about that, and before I realized I already start writing this in the class' forum, wasting my precious 1 hr to write this non-legal response. Here it is, copied verbatim:

So I was curious about the lost and damage and I researched more about this since I couldn't believe something as non-sense as our discussion in the class could go as far as reaching an agreement to be considered. It makes more sense to me after reading more sources.

I think there's a big difference between (a) "any kind of damage that adaptation won't be able to answer" with (b) "unavoidable damage that already occurred and no matter what we do, adaptation is too late".

Lost and damage sounds more like (b) for me, if I understand it correctly. It might be easier for developed countries to be technology optimistic, but for the poorest parts of the world where electricity & fridge not even accessible for some of its citizen? Not so -- it should be predictable that adaptation tends to come too late for them, leave them with no option but to losing more and sacrificing their chances to improve their already-screwed life (see: Guardian, Climate Change, the Poor Will Suffer Most). At least from my limited knowledge, it doesn't sound like unimaginable scenes to lost too much before adaptation finally arrive. Sounds fair, especially for those country whose historical emissions are among the lowest, but forced to live with disaster for years before some foreign aid come and safe them with adaptation project. Does it sound fair for 39 millions of Bangladeshi citizen who live below $2/day to face constant flood that made their food security worse and cause more water-borne diseases, in addition to their already-low living standards? If you were Bangladeshi citizen, will you be patient enough to wait some 2 years being homeless or live in the disaster camp until your new adaptation house built without being compensated a single penny? If you're the government, how will you manage your low budget to ensure these people get just compensation? Or maybe it's their cross to suffer a bit, no compensation is needed since everyone's suffering in natural disaster, no? Sounds like natural disaster, but with some historical proof on who should bear the most responsibility.

My biggest concern, however, is that the state being the subject demanding the compensation, while that the people impacted with these kind of situation are usually the ones whose voice are the least heard by the state, especially in the developing world. These are the kind of people who don't trust government because they have been forgotten by government too many times. And suddenly developing countries' governments stand up for these people in the name of climate justice? Sounds fishy. Maybe, developing countries governments are predicting a big wave of angry citizen who will blame governments for their failure in promptly implementing the adaptation plan -- that's why this loss and damage compensation being advocated.

In addition to the (b) situation, as absurd it might sound, I also can imagine permanent loss situations in point (a). Culture and way of living is one of them -- when an indigenous tribe is separated from their subsistence way of living because of climate vulnerability, what is the right adaptation plan? When Pacific Islanders tribes have to be evacuated from their indigenous lands to the city, is it as easy as city people moving from one apartment to another? It might be really, really difficult for city people to understand, but indigenous people's connection with their lands can be as stubborn as 'better to stay and die in my land than living somewhere else'. As they flee somewhere else, an irreplaceable value that money can't ever cover have lost (I'm not romanticizing, these stubborn people have caused me some troubles in real life evacuation). It make sense that Pacific Island nations take a pretty strong position on this, since some of the proponents are small nations with strong cultural identity. If culture sounds too absurd, non-use value, as we have seen a lot in ESA litigation, might be more imaginable for us, although this will be more universal and not unique to developing countries. However, these non-use value loss can be really tricky in its threshold and limits, as I raised yesterday.

PS: Viv raised the issue that adaptation will be needed eventually. Loss and damage compensation does not come as substitute of adaptation, but in addition to that. This is what makes it so controversial, because anyway, every nations are impacted.