ABSTRACT
This chapter assesses which of the main attribution methods are more purposeful for a policy mechanism for loss and damage. The chapter introduces the adequacy-for-purpose view as presented in the literature on philosophy of climate science and shows why such a view could be applied to attribution methods. Second, it provides an adequacy-for-purpose argument for evaluating attribution methods for rectificatory climate justice purposes. Although this argument is nonconclusive, it provides some relevant reasons to prefer one approach, namely, the probabilistic approach, over the alternative storyline approach. Second, this chapter explains how a policy mechanism for loss and damage could function following the input provided by attribution studies and how it would circumvent some objections raised against rectificatory justice approaches. Finally, it addresses the problem of political feasibility of a historical responsibility account and develops a somewhat speculative argument to counter this objection.
