Skip to main content

#Durban : The most positive part of the outcome

The beginning of the end for the Kyoto 'Annex 1' vs 'non_Annex 1' distinction is crucial. This opens the way for the starting-in-2020 climate agreement (or maybe 2017?) promised in Durban to be something modelled on Contraction and Convergence (or on GDRs, etc). This gives a crucial opening to achieve for the first time an agreement which encompasses everyone, is just, and is effective. So, although the long delay may well prove fatal, especially to AOSIS countries and LDC countries, we do now at least have a _chance_, for the first time, of achieving what we as a species need through the COP process.
So: one cheer for Durban.
----------------------------------------
  
For all things Rupert, goto
www.rupertread.net

Comments

Aubrey Meyer said…
Rupert - the delay, essayed at COP-17, as a proportionate excess of what is needed, strains us all to breaking point now: - http://www.gci.org.uk/COP-17.html
Aubrey Meyer said…
Rupert, you respond favourably to Mark Lynas' take on COP-17 - "a major step forward". Beware; C&C at the wrong rates [achieving too little too late] is as bad as no C&C.

Lynas is an advisor to the Maldives/AOSIS. However, AOSIS doesn't think that COP17 was a major step. They think the opposite with Chair Karl Hood asking 'must we now die so that you can develop?'

Here is what they asked for compared with what they got. The former [what they asked for] would have been a major step in the right direction. The latter [what they got] was a major step in the wrong direction: - http://www.gci.org.uk/COP-17.html

BTW Mark Lynas took to denouncing C&C two years ago and persuading the Maldives to take that line.
Rupert said…
Thanks Aubrey. I take your points. Please note that I only gave one cheer: that's a long way short of three!
;-)

Popular posts from this blog

Post-Growth: A new vision for a fairer and more sustainable Britain

More on why 20's plenty -- without need for any further 'trials'...

There are a number of reasons for setting a default speed of 20mph throughout the 'unclassified' road network in residential parts of a city such as Norwich. Most important perhaps is that of driver recognition as to what the speed limit is. If you have 20 mph as the default then you not only establish this limit clearly, but you also adjust the driver's recognition as to what is the "normal" speed in such residential areas. The most important aspect is that drivers set 20 mph as the norm with those 30 mph areas or roads being seen as 50% faster, rather than seeing 30 mph as the norm with 20 mph as 33% slower. The psychological adjustment of normal speeds in residential areas is key to the success of reducing speeds and therefore danger to pedestrians and cyclists. Therefore any trial, pilot or whatever, that only implements 20 mph in a tiny proportion of the city is not modelling 20's Plenty in any realistic manner.   When considering the val...