. . .this paper proposes framing climate harm as a “climate atrocity” and argues that the mass atrocity framework sheds light on the social mechanisms underlying this harm. . . .
Recognizing climate harm mechanisms within a broader atrocity narrative could enable individuals to gain clarity about their role in perpetuating this violence. Such recognition may prompt a deeper self-awareness concerning behaviors that contribute to climate violence, providing opportunities for more responsible and informed action.
At the collective level, identifying the systemic mechanisms driving climate harm within the mass atrocity framework may offer avenues for counteracting these destructive tendencies. As a diagnostic tool, the atrocity paradigm illuminates structural barriers to meaningful climate action rather than prescribing specific policies. A clearer understanding of how social, political, cultural and economic factors enable climate violence can inform policies and collective movements aimed at addressing unsustainable greenhouse gas emissions.
(https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-025-04883-z; my bolding)
Even if the above were true as far as it goes, how is this anywhere good-enough for policy and management purposes?
WHEN COMPLEX IS AS SIMPLE AS IT GETS 
Thanks for sharing Emery, I see your point regarding practicalities derived from such an analysis for policy and management, but this kind of study can also provide ideas for legal scholars and activists, who might translate them overtime into specific legal action
Amicalement,
Jc
Envoyé à partir de Outlook pour Androidhttps://aka.ms/AAb9ysg
LikeLike
Thanks Jean-Christophe for the opportunity to continue this discussion.
A couple of years ago I dropped the term, “climate change,” in favor the climate emergency. I continue to do so not only because of the urgent empirics, but because naming it an emergency allows me to draw lessons and practices learned from the growing international and domestic literature on emergency management.
Now let’s say “climate atrocity” is accepted as a legal concept. Then the parallel primary literature to draw from for lessons and practices is humanitarian aid. Humanitarian aid and emergency management do overlap (e.g., “mass care and evacuations”) but they are two different fields and literatures when it comes to “crisis management.” Now what are the policy and management implications drawn from the humanitarian aid literature for now sanctioned climate atrocities? Or is the better question, which literatures give us more robust interventions, case by case?
LikeLike