Climate (in)justice and the residual category of non-economic loss and damage

The issue of loss and damage is hotly contested within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). However, negotiations on how to address loss and damage are hindered by the concept’s persistent ambiguity. This paper critically analyses a core distinction within the concept between economic and non-economic loss and damage. We argue that dominant frameworks treat non-economic loss and damage as a residual category, whose assumed opacity legitimises inaction, biases institutional memory and hinders climate justice. Building on Charles Mills’ work on white ignorance, we demonstrate that the distinction between economic and non-economic loss and damage is rooted in what we label an ontology of ignorance – an irreducibly flawed catalogue of the basic substances, processes and relationships of climate change that downplays, overlooks and omits many forms of injustice. By treating non-economic loss and damage unquantifiable, ungraspable and ultimately unresolvable, this definition systematically forgets both vast past losses and major emitters’ ongoing responsibilities, dictating whether and how climate justice can be imagined, institutionalised and pursued.