Tuesday, 8 December 2009

Contraction and Convergence or bust.

This [see link] really is a disgrace and a disaster. It backs up everything that I have been saying recently about Copenhagen right now being a road to nowhere:
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Nothing other than plain racism and utterly short-sighted self-interest can support something like this.
 
 
Contraction and Convergence or bust.
 

4 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perfidious Albion . . . ? Aubrey Meyer

Dec 08, 2009 07:07 PST

It is reported that: -

"The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all future climate change negotiations.

The document also sets unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals.

The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as "the circle of commitment" – but understood to include the UK, US and Denmark – has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalised this week."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This text - if correct - makes a mockery of the UK Climate Act and the words of Climate Change Committee and its chairman Adair Turner [below]

and has probably blown COP-15 to bits for ever: -

1. The Copenhagen Summit in December on Climate Change appears unlikely to achieve a "Climate-Deal" with the global aim of keeping us within an overall maximum 2 degree Celsius temperature rise.

2. The Institute of Mechanical Engineers [IMECHE] this month published a Climate Change Report confirming that, "The [UK] Government's targets and budgets have been set using a top-down approach based on the principle of contraction and convergence" adding that "IMECHE supports the C&C Principle".

3. This month, the Archbishop of Canterbury resumed the advocacy of C&C and invited the TUC to support climate proposals for "Contraction and Convergence proposals [as] the best-known and most structurally simple of these, [saying] it would be a major step to hear some endorsement of them from a body such as this."

4. In the words of Lord Adair Turner, Chairman of the UK Climate Change Committee [CCC], "the core of the UK Climate-Act is C&C" and is "strong support for what Global Commons Institute [GCI] has been saying". [Evidence given by to the [EAC] in February this year]

5. For organising and sharing the full-term emissions-contraction-event needed to bring us to UNFCCC-compliance he stated that, "Converging to equal per capita entitlements globally is the only option that is doable and fair"

6. and agreed that "if, for reasons of urgency the rate of global contraction has to be accelerated, then for reasons of equity the rate of international convergence has to be accelerated relative to that". [Response given by Lord Adair Turner, Chairman of the UK Climate Change Committee [CCC] to the [ECCC] in March this year]

7. The UKMO Hadley Centre has now confirmed in writing to GCI that [as shown in the images here: - http://www.tangentfilms.com/C&Csum27nov.pdf ] that: -

[a] the CCC's odds are worse than 50:50 for keeping within the stated maximum of a 2 degrees overall temperature rise with their Contraction and Convergence [C&C] Scenario and that

[b] the odds are better than 50:50 for keeping within a maximum 2
degrees with GCI's accelerated Contraction and Convergence [C&C]
Scenario.

8. The above suggests that to keep within the 2 degrees overall
temperature rise, the rate of contraction needs to be accelerated to something like an 80% cut in emissions globally for reasons of urgency and that therefore the rate of convergence needs to be accelerated relative to that to something like 2020 or 2030 for reasons of equity?

http://www.tangentfilms.com/C&Csum27nov.pdf

Aubrey Meyer
GCI
57 Howard Road
LONDON E17 4SH
Ph 0208 520 4742

8 December 2009 at 20:24  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

G-77 and Albion - lost plot? Aubrey Meyer

Dec 08, 2009 08:49 PST

. . . further to previous posting, the draft document doesn't mention
the per capita figures cited in the Guardian article, those figures that are cited as the source of LDC wrath.

Having opbtained the draft it is stating minus 80% for DC's inside a -50% cut globally by 2050. This is a crude form of contraction and
convergence to equal per capita globally, as laid-out in the UK
Climate-Act. http://www.tangentfilms.com/C&Csum27nov.pdf

This according to the UK Climate Change Committee [CCC] itself and
corrobrated by the UK Met Office *is* 'C&C' but rates that are worse than 50:50 for avoiding two degrees: -
http://www.tangentfilms.com/C&Csum27nov.pdf

However, the question here is, what is the source of the 1.44 t/c and 2.67 t/c per capita by 2050 cited in the Guardian article?

It appears that these are in a 'G-77' document that was prepared and
circulated with the purpose of briefing against this 'draft treaty agreement' document 'leaked to the Guardian'.

If that is correct, [corroboration is being sought] then they [the G-77] are wrong and also seriously missing a trick. They are being offered the 'touchstone' of equal per capita globally and appear not to to have
noticed.

If so, the blame for this 'misunderstanding' lies at least partly with
UK HMG.

For nearly twenty years now, GCI has via every route feasible tried to get them [DECC/DEFRA/No-10 etc] to clearly advocate the *C&C principle* to the UNFCCC process as a whole and invite all sides to put up their chosen version[s] of the rates at which C&C should be brought to bear, so that a 'shared-but-rational-compromise' could be transparently agreed and brought to bear politically.

No names mentioned yet, but there is a long list now of high-self-worth-opionated persons on the inside of the system here and beyond who have just been too arrogant to actually pause and think through the benefits of doing it this way.

Perhaps this 'misunderstanding' can be sorted out. I hope so because if not, kiss the process goodbye.


Aubrey Meyer
GCI
57 Howard Road
LONDON E17 4SH
Ph 0208 520 4742

8 December 2009 at 20:26  
Blogger Rupert said...

Thanks Aubrey.
Agreed.

9 December 2009 at 22:54  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

GCI says we can still get beyond the Copenhagen deadlock, as we have all now agreed the "two degree" upper limit on global temperature rise. But the lack of clarity that dogged the talks emerged as early as day two when the "leaked Danish draft proposal" appeared. Although it didn't specify by name that the principle it was presenting was for the global "Contraction and Convergence " (C&C) of greenhouse gas [ghg] emissions, the figures it advanced obviously were: - to avoid an overall temperature rise of more than two degrees, global GHG emissions must contract by 50 per cent by 2050 within which time-frame the share from developed countries must contract by 80 per cent. These targets are an example of C&C and would effectively result in equal per capita emissions globally by 2050.

Full article here: -
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/comment/2255920/copenhagen-blame-game-sparked

Though Ed Miliband has now claimed that he knew nothing about this draft proposal, these numbers are in fact precisely the global/UK emissions control figures in the UK Climate Act from a Department of which he is the Minister, so his claim of "ignorance" is baffling.
Lord Adair Turner the Chairman of the Government's Climate Change Committee [CCC] had confirmed in evidence to Parliament in February last year that the Climate Act was C&C, as "convergence to equal per capita emissions entitlements globally was the only proposition that was doable and fair".
In a nutshell, whatever the agreed rate of convergence, we are all - rich and poor - dealing with same emissions contraction event where the 100 per cent of emissions entitlements is not more or less than that available under the contraction rate required to achieve the objective of the UNFCCC. The executive of this stated publicly in 2004 that contraction and convergence is inevitably required to achieve the Convention's objective.
When Miliband’s Climate Act became law the UK House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee started an enquiry into "Targets in the UK Act: - Where did they come from - Were the models, on which they were based, valid?" The answer was they came from C&C as advocated from 2000 by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution [RCEP]: -
http://www.tangentfilms.com/GCIEAC10nov09.pdf
The Report published 11 01 10: -
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmenvaud.htm
concluded the, "approach to setting emission reduction targets based on equalising per capita emissions globally is sensible and equitable".
Though questions on the validity of the climate models used were debated all year by the CCC, DECC, the Hadley Centre, GCI and others, already in March 2009 Turner had agreed the key insight into handling C&C in the international negotiations: - “if for reasons of climate-urgency the rate of international contraction had to be accelerated, then for reasons of international equity the rate of convergence would need to be accelerated relative to that.”
GCI's advice to Government was this: when you introduce C&C at COP 15 in December, as you will inevitably have to do, [a] openly propose the principle and the reasoning behind it [b] perhaps provide examples of different rates of C&C to show its negotiability [c] if you must, prefer the specific example of C&C rates you want but [d] above all stress that you invite examples of other rates of C&C from other countries particularly China, India and Africa, so we all get via the same principle to a discussion that's on the same page. It is not rocket science.

12 January 2010 at 19:23  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

1. 2. 3. Rupert's Read: Contraction and Convergence or bust. 4. 12. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 23. 24.

25. 26. Contraction and Convergence or bust. 27. 28.

29.
This [see link] really is a disgrace and a disaster. It backs up everything that I have been saying recently about Copenhagen right now being a road to nowhere:
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Nothing other than plain racism and utterly short-sighted self-interest can support something like this.
 
 
Contraction and Convergence or bust.
 
30. 31. 32.