The Paris agreement recognizes “the importance of averting, minimizing and addressing loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change, including extreme weather events and slow onset events”. Hence, it raises the question of discriminating extreme events between those influenced and not influenced by climate change. Extreme event attribution (EEA) is the ensemble of scientific ways to interpret and answer the question “was this event influenced by climate change”. The relevance of EEA for climate negotiations was debated before the adoption of the Paris Agreement and is still discussed in post Paris Agreement literature. To inform this debate, we propose a phenomenological approach based on interviews. Parker et al. (2017) analyzed interviews from a mix of loss and damage stakeholders at COP 19, and highlighted a variety of opinions regarding the relevance of EEA for loss and damage. We propose to go further by focusing on two distinct groups of stakeholders: EEA scientists and loss and damage delegates (or their advisers). We find that delegates perceive EEA as a useful tool for awareness raising. We outline a number of hurdles raised by both groups, which may hinder EEA to be part of a practical loss and damage mechanism.

巴黎协定认识到“避免，最小化和解决与气候变化的不利影响有关的损失和损害的重要性，包括极端天气事件和缓慢发作的事件”。因此，这就提出了在极端事件之间进行区分的问题，这些极端事件是在那些受气候变化影响与不受气候变化影响的事件之间。极端事件归因（EEA）是解释和回答“此事件是否受气候变化影响”的科学方法的集合。在通过《巴黎协定》之前，就欧洲经济区与气候谈判的相关性进行了辩论，至今仍在《巴黎协定》后的文献中进行讨论。为了给这场辩论提供信息，我们提出了一种基于访谈的现象学方法。Parker等。（2017）在COP 19大会上分析了损失和利益相关者的访谈，并强调了有关EEA与损失和损害的相关性的各种观点。我们建议更进一步，着眼于两个不同的利益相关者群体：EEA科学家以及损失与损害代表（或其顾问）。我们发现与会代表认为EEA是提高意识的有用工具。我们概述了两个小组提出的许多障碍，这可能会阻碍EEA成为实际损失和损害机制的一部分。