Too calm in the storm? Revisiting the Relationship Between Vulnerability and Climate Action

Most countries are expected to become more vulnerable to climate change over the coming decades. Existing literature suggests that increasing vulnerability might incentivize mitigation, as climate-induced disasters often act as ``focusing events'' that spur action. This viewpoint is somewhat optimistic, implying more action due to increases in damages. However, there is limited empirical support for this. Conversely, wealthy countries (which are generally less vulnerable) are expected to take greater action under the principle of \emph{Common But Differentiated Responsibilities} due to their high incomes and historic responsibility for climate change. These two observations raise the research question of whether the negative relationship between vulnerability and climate action holds, even when controlling for countries' income per capita. Using relevant vulnerability data and controlling for output per capita, we find a strong negative association between vulnerability and three proxies of climate action (pledges, mitigation laws, and growth rate of emissions). Our findings challenge the ``focusing events'' argument, highlighting the importance of not relying on damages and vulnerability increases to foster action.