Attribution science requires cross-jurisdictional learning with lawyers and scientists working together.
I am one of the co-chairs for a climate research forum, which is a platform that supports disciplinary or cross-jurisdictional learning and exchanges. So lawyers and scientists sitting together to say, “What exactly is this field about? What is climate litigation? What do we need to know? What kind of evidence do we need?”
It’s about climate scientists learning from lawyers to understand what kind of a case would you require from scientists and scientists saying, “This is the best and the latest science that is available, and this is how it can support cases.”
Being part of these conversations is important because we know that we are not on track, our planet is rapidly warming, we are seeing escalation of impacts, but unfortunately, still see some actors in this field not willing to change their business models, and they continue to profit at the expense of lives and livelihoods of vulnerable people. I think we should look for ways to compensate or help those vulnerable communities.
The legal system is not ready for such cases. It’s never been ready for such cases. It wasn’t built for such cases.
Legal practice and science are very two different fields, and they look at things very differently. Having legal concepts merge into scientific concepts is not a straightforward line. There’s a lot of in-betweens, and that is the gaps that you’re trying to bridge. So basically me explaining my attribution findings to a lawyer is not straightforward. The lawyer can just stand before a court and explain that in a way that it’s very convincing and in a way that it can prove that it’s epistemologically correct or methodologically sound. We still need to do some work in terms of these two fields coming together.
Back to full article on LinkedIn
OR
