气候政策中极端事件归因的前瞻与回顾

IF 1.5 Q4 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Ethics Policy & Environment Pub Date : 2021-01-17 DOI:10.1080/21550085.2020.1848195
Greg Lusk
{"title":"气候政策中极端事件归因的前瞻与回顾","authors":"Greg Lusk","doi":"10.1080/21550085.2020.1848195","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT How the science of probabilistic extreme event attribution might inform climate change adaptation is hotly debated. Central to these debates is an understanding that event attribution’s backward-looking orientation aligns poorly with the forward-facing goals of adaptation policy. Here, I analyze two new philosophical arguments that challenge this understanding and claim that probabilistic event attribution is not only forward-looking, but has a potentially significant role in risk-pooling adaptive strategies. I argue the purported forward-looking capabilities of event attribution are based on a mischaracterization of the scientific methodology, and one consequence of this mischaracterization is a limited role in adaptive risk-pooling schemes.","PeriodicalId":45955,"journal":{"name":"Ethics Policy & Environment","volume":"4000 4 1","pages":"37 - 51"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Looking Forward and Backward at Extreme Event Attribution in Climate Policy\",\"authors\":\"Greg Lusk\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/21550085.2020.1848195\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT How the science of probabilistic extreme event attribution might inform climate change adaptation is hotly debated. Central to these debates is an understanding that event attribution’s backward-looking orientation aligns poorly with the forward-facing goals of adaptation policy. Here, I analyze two new philosophical arguments that challenge this understanding and claim that probabilistic event attribution is not only forward-looking, but has a potentially significant role in risk-pooling adaptive strategies. I argue the purported forward-looking capabilities of event attribution are based on a mischaracterization of the scientific methodology, and one consequence of this mischaracterization is a limited role in adaptive risk-pooling schemes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45955,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethics Policy & Environment\",\"volume\":\"4000 4 1\",\"pages\":\"37 - 51\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethics Policy & Environment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2020.1848195\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics Policy & Environment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2020.1848195","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

概率极端事件归因科学如何为气候变化适应提供信息是一个激烈的争论。这些争论的核心是理解事件归因的向后看倾向与适应政策的前瞻性目标不一致。在这里,我分析了两个新的哲学论点,它们挑战了这种理解,并声称概率事件归因不仅具有前瞻性,而且在风险分担适应策略中具有潜在的重要作用。我认为,所谓的事件归因的前瞻性能力是基于对科学方法的错误描述,这种错误描述的一个后果是在适应性风险分担计划中的作用有限。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Looking Forward and Backward at Extreme Event Attribution in Climate Policy
ABSTRACT How the science of probabilistic extreme event attribution might inform climate change adaptation is hotly debated. Central to these debates is an understanding that event attribution’s backward-looking orientation aligns poorly with the forward-facing goals of adaptation policy. Here, I analyze two new philosophical arguments that challenge this understanding and claim that probabilistic event attribution is not only forward-looking, but has a potentially significant role in risk-pooling adaptive strategies. I argue the purported forward-looking capabilities of event attribution are based on a mischaracterization of the scientific methodology, and one consequence of this mischaracterization is a limited role in adaptive risk-pooling schemes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ethics Policy & Environment
Ethics Policy & Environment ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
10.00%
发文量
32
期刊最新文献
Revising the Keystone Species Concept for Conservation: Value Neutrality and Non-Nativeness Why Conceptions of Scale Matter to Artificity Arguments in SRM Ethics Animal Dignity: Philosophical Reflections on Non-Human Existence Justice and Sustainability Tensions in Agriculture: Wicked Problems in the Case of Dutch Manure Policy Covert Moral Enhancement: Are Dirty Hands Needed to Save the Planet?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1