1. 100 carbon contraction budgets with 2. 100 start-dates for convergence and 3. 100 end-dates for convergence 4. gving 1,000,000 choices for 'the rates of C&C' 5. all of which user-chooser options are calculated and drawn in CBAT D2.
Since then, whenever ECOFYS (or any other party) has cited C&C sourced to a GCI reference e.g., asserting that C&C is something or other, GCI's response has been to ask, "what rates of C&C are being referred to?" (The C&C model has a great range).
The question is usually met with incomprehension and the response has been to insist on the right to continue to misrepresent by misquoting the GCI C&C reference cited.
Since then, a growing range of academics amd institutions have resorted to the formula of stating that GCI asserted convergence by 2050 ('C&C 2050'), again citing and misquoting GCI literature.
GCI has never done or written any such thing and to assert this is academically incorrect and exteremely unprofessional. This is a copyright violation and illegal as it is also a C&C trademark violation
ECOFYS did this so often they became the poster boy for this movement which extended deep into the core of IPCC AR5 preparations.
So far no extent of requests to ECOFYS on the part of GCI to desist from this malpractice has been complied with. Hence this web-page.
Perhaps the kindest corrective one can point to in this matter, comes from Rowan Williams, the former Archbishop of Canterbury who said: -
"Anyone who thinks that C&C is 'Utopian' - i.e. 'perfect' - simply hasn't thought honestly about the alternatives."
Over many years, in report after report for government and non-government organisations covering more than half a decade, a systematic and sustained campaign of disinformation about C&C appears to have been led by Mr Niklas Hoehne Director of Ecofys who is: -
[a] advocating Ecofys' evolutionist and bureaucratically cumbersome C&C derivative proposals for 'Common But Differentiated Convergence' [CBDC] . . . .
GCI accepts that, in spite of what Rowan Williams has correctly stated, there's no reason on earth why Ecofys shouldn't pursue their 'imperfect' CBDC proposals, even if these are: -
[b] as good as random with regard to any quantifiable ppmv outcome
[c] completely arbitrary in defining some 'adjusted' global per capita emissions threshold [d] helplessly unresponsive to the increasingly urgent pressures of carbon-budgeting globally for UNFCCC-compliance
if that is what they want to do.
However, they also . . . .
[e] deliberately and persistently present and then misrepresent C&C
[f] whilst they also deliberately misquote the GCI C&C source material they cite,
[g] apparently to leverage in favour of the CBDC approach they advocate.
They have been doing this in report after report. It is repeat offending and their formulaic repetition and misrepresentation is the product of an economic tail persistently trying to wag the planetary dog.
Some instances of this are listed below.
The issue is not that the 'Utopian-perfection' of C&C is the enemy of the good. The issue is that the quasi-random 'imperfection' of CBDC is the enemy of UNFCCC-compliance. The - now 19 -annual COP's to the UNFCCC since 1995 have all been charged with the requirement of UNFCCC-compliance - safe and stable GHG concentration in the global atmosphere. But for 19 years ppmv have accelerated upwards and this is largely the result of parties arguing in this partial way, creating and continuing the incompleteness of the Kyoto Protocol.
This approach fails to resolve collectively that we have to unite to 'do-enough, soon-enough' to achieve the objective of the UNFCCC. Quite possibly worse than doing 'too-little, too-late', it is as at least as bad as useless. While C&C has demonstrated since 1996 how to organize to reverse this, since around 2006 Ecofys amongst others has demonstrated - like Kyoto - how not to.
The quasi-random complexity of CBDC may keeps Ecofys' foodchains intact, but does nothing to address the issue that we are causing this problem faster than we are responding to avoid it. In fact, by providing a smoke-screen for Governments that prefer to argue to-and-fro about 'blame' for climate change - as with Kyoto - Ecofys has helped to discourage Governments from working together within the increasingly urgent overall time-constraints of UNFCCC-compliance.
Consequently, GCI now regards Ecofys' constantly misquoting C&C references as part of a wider, deliberate and systematic attempt to: -
[h] mis-direct people about the urgency of climate change
[i]
bolster advocacy of increasingly hopeless CBDC-style strategy of bureacratic delay and
[j]
foster the impression that self-serving 'climate-professionals' are competent and can be trusted to take care of everyone's best interests, when they clearly cannot.
What is relevant here is that there's every reason why Ecofys are ill-advised to continue this as: -
[k] none of it covers the fractured futility of the bureacratic 'process' of CBDC argument,
[l] it is also academically incorrect, improper, irresponsible and also illegal to do this.
While over many years now, Ecofys repeatedly cites and misquotes this C&C source material [see below], the astonishing thing is that no amount of asking them to cite and quote the source material they cite accurately has yet had any curative effect over this period of asking them to do this.
So far and right up to the present [November 2013], Ecofys just continues with these GCI C&C citations, with their own erroneous mis-quotations of them asserted regardless [see below].
Hence this web-page now making a record of these violations.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At the same time as the publication of the GCI C&C source referenced by Ecofys below [2000], GCI also published its C&C submissions to the preparation of IPCC Third Assessment Report [TAR]
GCI Evidence to the IPCC Third Assessment [TAR 2000] on the issue of Guesswork versus Framework in UNFCCC negotiations. It contained this exposition of different rates of C&C: -
This was reflected in the TAR as follows: -
"A formulation that carries this the equal rights based insight to its logical conclusion is that of 'contraction and convergence' (GCI, 1999).
There have been numerous instances of material about the rates of C&C published by GCI since 2000. All have shown and many have also been animated to demonstrate the variable rates of C&C that GCI has considered are relevant to the UNFCCC climate-policy debate.
This animation was created for the UK Foreign Office in 2002. This booklet and animation was created and published at the request of DEFRA Minister Hilary Benn in 2007. This animation and booklet was created an published in 2006 for the RIBA AGM in Venice. This animation was created and published in 2008. This animation was created and published for COP-15 in 2009.
However, to clarify once-and-for-all a full range of examples that are possible to caclulate from the syntax, structure and substance of the C&C proposition, GCI has created this rational 'Carbon Budget Accounting Tool [CBAT] source material as the standard C&C 'Ur'-Reference.
However, Ecofys continue to cite and misquote GCI 2000 over and over again.
Arecent example is here from COP19 in Warsaw [2013] showing perhaps that Ecofys either hasn't thought honestly or competently about their CBDC 'alternative'.
In this new report from Mr Hoehne of ECOFYS at COP-19 a new form of misrepresenting C&C appears so, once again, I have written him this time as follows: -
Mr Hoehne
Further to my letter of yesterday I now discover a new example of your C&C referencing that fundamentally misrepresents C&C stating that C&C is driven by what you call 'equality'.
Consequently I have posted this corrective statement on your blog and on this page: -
C&C is not driven by 'equality'. This is misdirection. You must know this very well yet you choose to project C&C in this 'emotive' way. Is it because this is in a fashion that you believe suits this misdirection?
From the outset [1996] C&C has been and still is rationally driven by the following Four-Domains syntax: -
an emissions contraction:concentration calculation for UNFCC-compliance in Domain-1.
an inter-national/regional emissions-shares contraction:convergence calculation that is exactly equivalent to that [the same Domain-1 'path-integral' weight-rate-date] in Domain-2.
a future energy contraction:conversion calculation in Domain-3 that is preceded and governed by that Domain-1:Domain-2 equivalence and
a growth and damages calculation in Domain-4 that is informed by the integration of all that.
Once again, see here
To assume other than 'equal shares by an agreed date under that limit', invokes 'n' order assumptions that make any rational equivalence-calculation - let-alone implementation - of the above completely impossible.
Is that in fact what Ecofys intend?
Moreover, not proceeding rationally in this way also makes aspirational badinage between conflicted affinity groups infinite and inevitable, as the last 20 years of COP negotiations demonstrate, in turn making UNFCCC-compliance less and less likely, as your slides suggest.
Once again, is that in fact what Ecofys intend?
Please stop leveraging in favour of this by citing and the misquoting GCI references for C&C.
There are many more examples stretching back over the last 8 years.
Misrepresenting C&C in the Report above, ECOFYS states this . .
Contraction and convergence by 2050
"Under Contraction and convergence (C&C) (GCI 2005; Meyer 2000), all countries participate in the regime with quantified emission targets. As a first step, all countries agree on a path of future global emissions that leads to an agreed long-term stabilisation level for greenhouse gas concentrations (‘contraction’). As a second step, the targets for individual countries are set in such a way that per capita emission allowances converge from the countries’ current levels to a level equal for all countries within a given period (‘convergence’). The convergence level is calculated at a level that resulting global emissions follow the agreed global emission path. It might be more difficult for some countries to reduce emissions compared to others, e.g. due to climatic conditions or resource availability. Therefore, emission trading could be allowed to level off differences between allowances and actual emissions. However, C&C does not explicitly provide for emission trading.
As current per-capita emissions differ greatly between countries some developing countries with very low per capita emissions, (e.g. India, Indonesia or the Philippines) could be allocated more emission allowances than necessary to cover their emissions (‘hot air’). This would generate a flow of resources from developed to developing countries if these emission allowances are traded."
Misrepresenting C&C in the Report above, ECOFYS states this . .
Contraction and convergence by 2050
Under Contraction and convergence (C&C) (Meyer 2000; GCI 2005), all countries participate in the
regime with quantified emission targets. As a first step, all countries agree on a path of future global emissions that leads to an agreed long-term stabilisation level for greenhouse gas concentrations (‘Contraction’). As a second step, the targets for individual countries are set in such a way that per capita emission allowances converge from the countries’ current levels to a level equal for all countries within a given period (‘Convergence’). The convergence level is calculated such that resulting global emissions follow the agreed global emission path. The resulting convergence levels for this report are given in Table 3. It might be more difficult for some countries to reduce emissions compared to others, e.g. due to climatic conditions or resource availability. Therefore, emission trading could be allowed to level off differences between allowances and actual emissions. However, C&C does not explicitly provide for emission trading.
As current per capita emissions differ greatly between countries some developing countries with very low per capita emissions, (e.g. India, Indonesia or the Philippines) could be allocated more emission allowances than necessary to cover their emissions (“hot air”). This would generate a flow of resources from developed to developing countries if these emission allowances are traded.
For a stabilisation at about 650 ppmv CO2eq a convergence at about 4 to 5 tCO2eq per capita in 2050 is necessary (see Table 3).
Misrepresenting C&C in the Report above, ECOFYS states this . .
Contraction and convergence (C&C)
Under Contraction and convergence (C&C) (GCI 2005; Meyer 2000), all countries participate in the regime with quantified emission targets. As a first step, all countries agree on a path of future global emissions that leads to an agreed long-term stabilisation level for greenhouse gas concentrations (‘contraction’).
As a second step, the targets for individual countries are set in such a way that per capita emission allowances converge from the countries’ current levels to a level equal for all countries within a given period (‘convergence’). The convergence level is calculated at a level that resulting global emissions follow the agreed global emission path.
It might be more difficult for some countries to reduce emissions compared to others, e.g. due to climatic conditions or resource availability. Therefore, emission trading could be allowed to level off differences between allowances and actual emissions. However, C&C does not explicitly provide for emission trading.
Quantifying emission reduction contributions by emerging economies As current per-capita emissions differ greatly between countries some developing countries with very low per capita emissions, (e.g. India, Indonesia or the Philippines) could be allocated more emission allowances than necessary to cover their emissions (‘hot air’). This would generate a flow of resources from developed to developing countries if these emission allowances are traded.
To meet the global emission path of +10% (2020) a convergence at about 1 tCO2eq per capita in 2050 is necessary (see Table 26).
Misrepresenting C&C in the Report above, ECOFYS states this . .
Contraction and convergence (C&C) by 2050
Under contraction and convergence (C&C) (GCI 2005; Meyer 2000), all countries participate in the regime with quantified emission targets. As a first step, all countries agree on a path of future global emissions that leads to an agreed long-term stabilisation level for greenhouse gas concentrations (‘contraction’).
As a second step, the targets for individual countries are set in such a way that per capita emission allowances converge from the countries’ current levels to a level equal for all countries within a given period (‘convergence’). The convergence level is calculated at a level that resulting global emissions follow the agreed global emission path. It might be more difficult for some countries to reduce emissions compared to others, e.g. due to 15 climatic conditions or resource availability. Therefore, emission trading could be allowed to level off differences between allowances and actual emissions. However, C&C does not explicitly provide for emission trading.
As current per capita emissions differ greatly between countries some developing countries with very low per capita emissions, (e.g. India, Indonesia or the Philippines) could be allocated more emission allowances than necessary to cover their emissions (some call this “tropical hot air”). This would generate a flow of resources from developed to developing countries if these emission allowances are traded.
Misrepresenting C&C in the Report above, ECOFYS states this . . .
"Contraction and convergence by 2050
Under Contraction and convergence (C&C) (GCI 2005, Meyer 2000), all countries participate in the regime with quantified emissions targets. As a first step, all countries agree on a path of future global emissions that leads to an agreed long-term stabilisation level for greenhouse gas concentrations (‘contraction’).
As a second step, the targets for individual countries are set in such a way that per capita emissions allowances converge from the countries’ current levels to a level equal for all countries within a given period (‘convergence’). The convergence level is calculated at a level that resulting global emissions follow the agreed global emissions path. It might be more difficult for some countries to reduce emissions compared to others, for example, due to climatic conditions or resource availability. Therefore, emissions trading could be allowed to level off differences between allowances and actual emissions. However, C&C does not explicitly provide for emissions trading.
As current per-capita emissions differ greatly between countries some developing countries with very low per capita emissions, (e.g. India, Indonesia or the Philippines) could be allocated more emissions allowances than necessary to cover their emissions (‘hot air’). This would generate a flow of resources from developed to developing countries if these emissions allowances are traded."
Again misrepresenting C&C in the Report of June 2013, ECOFYS states this . . .
"Contraction and convergence by 2050
Under Contraction and convergence (C&C) (GCI 2005, Meyer 2000), all countries participate in the regime with quantified emissions targets. As a first step, all countries agree on a path of future global emissions that leads to an agreed long-term stabilisation level for greenhouse gas concentrations (‘contraction’).
As a second step, the targets for individual countries are set in such a way that per capita emissions allowances converge from the countries’ current levels to a level equal for all countries within a given period (‘convergence’). The convergence level is calculated at a level that resulting global emissions follow the agreed global emissions path. It might be more difficult for some countries to reduce emissions compared to others, for example, due to climatic conditions or resource availability. Therefore, emissions trading could be allowed to level off differences between allowances and actual emissions. However, C&C does not explicitly provide for emissions trading.
As current per-capita emissions differ greatly between countries some developing countries with very low per capita emissions, (e.g. India, Indonesia or the Philippines) could be allocated more emissions allowances than necessary to cover their emissions (‘hot air’). This would generate a flow of resources from developed to developing countries if these emissions allowances are traded."
Here's another report from Mr Hoehne of ECOFYS misrepresenting C&C.
It says: -
Contraction and convergence by 2050
"Under Contraction and convergence (C&C) (GCI 2005; Meyer 2000), all countries participate in the regime with quantified emission targets.
As a first step, all countries agree on a path of future global emissions that leads to an agreed long-term stabilisation level for greenhouse gas concentrations (‘contraction’).
As a second step, the targets for individual countries are set in such a way that per capita emission allowances converge from the countries’ current levels to a level equal for all countries within a given period (‘convergence’).
The convergence level is calculated at a level that resulting global emissions follow the agreed global emission path.
It might be more difficult for some countries to reduce emissions compared to others, for example, due to climatic conditions or resource availability. Therefore, emission trading could be allowed to level off differences between allowances and actual emissions.
However, C&C does not explicitly provide for emission trading.
As current per-capita emissions differ greatly between countries some developing countries with very low per capita emissions, (e.g. India, Indonesia or the Philippines) could be allocated more emission allowances than necessary to cover their emissions (‘hot air’).
This would generate a flow of resources from developed to developing countries if these emission allowances are traded."
As stated above with reference to the ECOFYS Australia Report, the C&C reference cited by ECOFYS, does not say or compute 'Point Three' as, "The convergence level is calculated at a level that resulting global emissions follow the agreed global emission path."
The C&C model works the other way around. With options to extend or freeze population growth in the C&C accounts in any base-year chosen, the 'convergence-level' is the global per capita average arising under the the global contraction curve calculated for UNFCCC-compliance. This is the 'convergence-level' on which all countries or regions 'converge' at a rate agreed by negotiators. This is clearly stated in all C&C references since 2000.
In most of the literautre above, ECOFYS support their 'comparative' point with this obviously uncalculated and hand-drawn image, and they have been doing again and again since around 2005 saying . . .
"The CDC approach, similarly to C&C, aims at equal per capita allowances in the long run (see Figure 1). In contrast to C&C it considers more the historical responsibility of countries. Annex I countries would have to reduce emissions similarly to C&C, but many non-Annex I countries are likely to have more time to develop until they need to reduce emissions. Non- Annex I country participation is conditional to Annex I action through the gradually declining world average threshold. No excess emission allowances (“hot air”) would be granted to least developed countries."
I acknowledge receipt of your email of the 5th instant.
Despite what you say, I see that Ecofys continues to publish disinformation of C&C - see this latest dcoument from June
You make three points below: -
"I know that the original C&C approach does not fix a year."
"It is up for negotiation."
"But for the calculations we need to pick one or many for illustrative purposes."
However, your remarks don't address the points I have made to you.
Here they are again with my responses: -
"I know that the original C&C approach does not fix a year." The reference you cite is myself [Meyer 2000]. You then impose your own convergence-rate [2050] implying that I said that. I didn't. Perhaps you can explain why you do this, as it is improper of you to imply that I did say this when I quite obviously didn't.
"It is up for negotiation." The reference you cite [Meyer 2000] makes that point and then provides calculated examples, none of which are 2050. Perhaps you can explain why you ignore these example, preferring to impose your own example with the clear implication that it is mine? The negotiation is between negotiators and not between 'academics' [which is why the C&C model was constructed as 'options' the way it was in 1995].
You say you, 'pick one of many calculations for illustrative purpose'.
To imply that this [obviously hand-drawn with a ruler - it is certainly not calculated] image that ECOFYS does provide represents a 'calculation' [let alone one of many] is quite obviously false. Perhaps you can explain why you persistently mislead people in this way.
If fact, ECOFYS has been projecting all this since 2005. So I think that everyone will agree now that it is time to stop this misquoting me and misrepresentation of C&C. C&C is legally protected by IPR, ETS and the normal procedures of academic correctness. I still prefer to assume that you will observe these conventions. Please confirm.
If you are going to continue citing C&C, please use this reference below for C&C - CBAT from now on.
Niklas . . . . until you takes steps to correct this, a link remains embedded in this CBAT page.
It will be up-dated to catalogue every iteration of your continued deliberate misrepresentations of C&C.
If Nicholas Stern et al can now - after all these years - write to me to say -
"the urgency of emissions reductions subject to growth and population projections swamps the distribution of ethical drivers
it is important that we get the C&C numbers right
CBAT is extremely helpful in this
we have written to inform DECC of this
You can too - it is indefensible and moreover illegal that you still prefer to deliberately spread the disinformation that you do. Please stop doing this and also correct the record you have created.
Your current statement, as usual misses and misrepresents the point - it is simplistically misleading to say: - "Contraction and Convergence - Reduction based on emissions per capita" citing Meyer, A. (2000). Contraction & convergence. The global solution to climate change. Bristol, UK.
International convergence at whatever rate, is a function of the global contraction-event whatever it is, calculated so international fractions of the global total commute.
Is it that you just don't understand or comprehend this? This has always been clear and it was clear in the reference you routinely misquote: -
"The model can be very easily adjusted to show any rates of Contraction and Convergence in any combinations with printouts accordingly. But its organising procedures are sequenced in irreducibly simplicity. A global total of carbon is permitted under a global contraction profile and international shares in this arise as a result of convergence from ‘now’ where emissions are as given (lock-step makes them broadly proportional to income), to an agreed convergence point in the future time-line after which the shares remain proportional to international populations or a base year thereof. There is not a single dollar in this basic analysis. It is just carbon and the people consuming it organised in a way that a child can understand. If the organising principles had been made more complicated, such as introducing the all-too-loaded dollars, conflicting assumptions about these results in the randomness that immediately overwhelms the basic and simple rationale. Nobody understands this, especially not adults, because it can’t be done. Like music for example the ten thousand things in this must have organising principles based on its acoustic ingredients, not on audience applause. What is being done in the C&C framework procedure is to logically assign international rights (these have limits and are thus less abstract than money which doesn’t have limits) to use the global atmosphere on the basis of a precautionary global limit to atmospheric carbon concentration and the basis of arranging the internationally equitable shares of the global carbon consumption that is available subject to that limit. This is a rational framework. The small but significant point is this: not only is there no other way to draw the picture on the wall, there is no other way to organise an effective global deal. If its not done this way, proceeding are not precautionary and not globally rational, they are guesswork."
What is correct to say and for you now to quote as a reference is as below.
DOMAIN TWO (D2) - Contraction & Convergence (C&C2) - Sharing a shrinking global carbon budget NB The solid Vertical Purples Lines in the charts in Domains Two are the 'draggable' Horizontal Sliders, to which year-to-year transient values in the charts & table are responsive.
Domain Two is the now iconic C&C proposal. It shows 'carbon-contraction-budgets' with a range of convergence rates where the total of the international parts chosen always commutes with the global total chosen. It quantifies & shows visually with animated graphics, numerical sliders and dynamically responding tables so: -
The different sizes of global 'Carbon Contraction Budgets' calculated in Domain One
(100 Budgets from 197 Gt C to 595 Gt C covering years from 2010 to 2110)
Are calculated with all possible rates of international/regional Convergence
onto the global per capita average of consumption arising
Where future world fossil fuel consumption is laid out, differentiated
only as 'optionally tradable shares' of consumption . . .
So CBAT-users can pre-distribute with Horizontal Sliders these shares
by varying the start-date and the end-date of the convergence 'window'
With separation into 8 regions for shares of future fossil fuel emissions
and one global category of emissions from Land-Use-Change
It shows both gross and per capita emissions
With a table showing the carbon-weights of shares arising for the lengths of
three periods chosen of [1] before [2] during and [3] after convergence
With a population base-year of 2010 having been set and considering it
a matter for negotiators at the UNFCCC, as CBAT clearly shows: -
C&C offers no prescription as to what the rates of convergence should be
Other than a calculating syntax where contraction governs convergence i.e. . . .
Whatever rates of convergence are user-chosen, they are subdivisions of -
& therefore commute with - the contraction total chosen by users in Domain One
the assumption being that if the syntax is reversed with no pre-agreed budget,
convergence is chaotic and negotiations are likely to continue doing too little too late.
The key throughout the 4 Domains of CBAT, is that each carbon budget user-chosen in D1 commutes with its sub-divisions in D2, D3 & D4.
e.g the UK Climate Act budget 395 Gt C in D1 has sub-divisions under
Contraction and Convergence (D2) and
Contraction and Conversion (D3) & either of these under
Growth and Damages (D4),
that (unless the user changes this) remain the same budget total throughout
With the UK Climate Act for example,
the budget-integral (395 Gt C)
has convergence completing by 2050 as the horizontal slider in Domain Two can show,
where equality of 'entitlements, is achieved only after 35 years
by when 81% of the '395 Gt C' global carbon budget has been consumed.
In a nutshell, D2 calculates any rate of convergence, of any rate of contraction in D1 (100 budgets * 100 start-dates * 100 end-dates) all in all providing 1,000,000 user options of 'Contraction and Convergence, contrary to erroneous and simplistic assertions of various third parties.
In my reply I specify that the source reference for C&C [IPR ETS and subject to normal procedures of 'academic correctness'] cited and misquoted is this book [described as GCI 2000]: -
This GCI C&C source book says nothing at all about convergence being by 2050 or even being gradual transition over decades. Ecofys asserting 2050 is a complete invention by these authors.
What this book actually says on this matter of the rates of convergence is: -
"As the graphs show, any date of convergence on equal per capita emissions can be portrayed in the C&C model. I was therefore able to adjust it to show the US reaching convergence by 2100 in one scenario and the Chinese by 2010 in another. I showed both countries this and told them that negotiating the date (and hence the rate) of convergence was their problem not mine. A faster rate of convergence simply means that high population, low-per-capita emissions countries like China get a larger share of emissions permits sooner and vice versa the US."
The book also provided two graphic examples of output from the C&C model re convergence - by 2010 & by 2030: -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To better establish an 'Ur-Reference' for C&C [and to counter this perennial disinformation campaign from authors such as Hoehne/Ecofys] the Contraction and Convergence model is now embedded in this Carbon Budget Analysis Tool [CBAT] animation in 4 Domains.
When Domain Two is fully operational, it will have a 'Table' floating on-screen reading off: -
values arising in Gt C for the globe divided into 6 regions as follows: -
USA [grey]
OECD minus the USA [green]
Former Soviet Union [FSU in white]
China [yellow]
India [orange]
Rest of World [ROW in dark blue]
for periods: -
before convergence starts [2010 to start-date - here 2015]
while convergence lasts [from start-date to end-date - here 2030]
after convergence ends [from end-date to 2110]
from any user-choices made from Slider-use, that will look like this: -
. . . where the user-choices for any: -
'Carbon-Budget' using 'Budget Buttons' & the Vertical Slider for Domain One &
'Convergence-Window' using the Horzontal Slider 'pair' [<>] in Domain Two
. . . result in the Table of values shown in the image above for all values arising adjusting the values to read [in Gt C] any Domain One/Domain Two combination chosen by the CBAT-user.
CONTRACTION & CONVERGENCE COMMUTE
That means that for any relevant rate of Contraction with any rate of Convergence-Window arising, CBAT will instantly calculate and display charts and table-values in Gt C from any of the: -
Three Carbon Budgets, [three buttons, LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH, top right] multiplied by
80 positions each [from +40 to -40, on the VERTICAL SLIDER] multiplied by
Any convergence start-date [2010-2110 - on the HORIZONTAL SLIDER] multiplied by
Any convergence end-date [2010-2110 or 100 years - on the HORIZONTAL SLIDER]
. . . to give in all a 'suite' of 2.4 million 'C&C' Carbon-Budget user-options, where 'Contraction and Convergence' TOTALS in the Vertical Slider Clock on the right and in the on-screen Table bottom right [column 5 row 8] are the same value - in other words they 'commute'.
However the budget size and the regional shares in it may vary, the 'Budget-Total-Clock' on the Vertical Slider and the 'Budget-Total' in the Table will always show the same quantity of Gigatonnes of Carbon [Gt C] in the same path-integrals [shape and weight of budgets] in Gt C, no matter which user-positions the sliders are pushed to.
The essence of this is to establish that the relevant non-random 'numeraire' [unit of measurement] for UNFCCC-compliance is the '100% of: -
tonnes-of-carbon per-limit ['precaution'] *before* it embraces the derivatives of
tonnes-of-carbon-per-person ['equity'] and then, and only then, when the ratio of
dollars-per-tonne-of-carbon ['efficiency' & marginal 'carbon-spot-pricing' & 'damage-trend-costing'] in Domains 3 & 4 have been subordinated to UNFCCC-compliance, do they become relevant [where,"the economy is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the environment"].
Moreover, subject to its 4-Domain organising structure, the CBAT model is easily reprogrammed to calculate and graphically demonstrate virtually an infinity of such options.
In the face of that, Ecofys' description of C&C is obviously false.
Perhaps this will have the effect of moving them to correct theior persistent academic misdemeanours. But why these academics and economists should assume that these decisions are theirs to make, begs the questions as to what they think their role in international negotiations actually is, let-alone what value they believe their supposed 'discipline' has to offer.
