Contraction and Convergence News

Will it be "Ming Kong"? C&C Thursday . . .
Aubrey Meyer

Apr 25, 2006 09:36 PDT
Open Goal C&C Opportunity This Week for Liberal Democrats
The solution to climate change - “Contraction and Convergence” (C&C)

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

This Thursday Ming Campbell will give a speech at the Tyndall Centre on climate change and what to do about it. His party, if you believe the manifesto, is committed to C&C along with the Welsh Nationalists, the Scottish Nationalists, the Greens and sundry others [see below].

Chris Huhne [Norman Baker’s LD Env Speaker replacement has just confirmed to Colin Challen MP chair of the all-party climate group in parliament] that the LDs are solidly behind C&C.

So will it be “Ming Kong”, Lib Dems for C&C this Thursday, or just more rhetoric?
On Thursday 26th of April 2006, Ming wrote this in the Independent: -
"My Rivals offer nothing more than Hot Air"

"Planning for a low-carbon economy at home is an essential part of winning the international argument on contraction and convergence of emissions. This is the only equitable way to deal with climate change. There is a finite amount of emissions that the world can take. We have to share out pollution judiciously, and ultimately, equally. Relative targets linked to GDP or how much a country feels it can reduce are not only unworkable, but our grandchildren may well view such political weakness as criminal.

The climate does not need more hot air - but that is what the Conservatives and the Labour Party are offering. They have no serious proposals - they have not even committed to contraction and convergence as the basis for global targets after the Kyoto ones expire in 2012."

What is correct and urgently necessary is to put the political process on notice about the key point of “Contraction and Convergence” (C&C) - namely that it is the past/future integral of emissions that stabilises the rising concentration of GHG in the global atmosphere - assuming this is still possible.

C&C proceeds from there. This alone raises the issue ‘above politics [as the political parties claim they now intend to do].

This – C&C - is the headline issue, stabilising greenhouse gas concentration level in the atmosphere at a safe level is the objective of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – the UNFCCC say C&C is, “inevitably required to achieve it.”

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

If it is Mong-Kong and he clearly sets out the case for C&C, it helps provide a corrective to the recent climate failings in the Cameron-Brown “I am the greenest of them all” contest. These two politicians claim to raise climate change above party politics but are sinking ever more deeply into it, slagging each other off while totally avoiding the headline issue.

As Ron Oxburgh [ex-Shell CEO] said last week at supper, "I don't trust politicians!" BP came back on that saying, "that's exactly why we need the framework!" “C&C helps greatly, as it is inclusive and makes clear what needs to be achieved. Without such a shared model - there will not be the necessary relationships that create the new and exciting possibilities, and the trust for shared action.”

Last weekend but one the Observer leader wrote helpfully advising Mr Cameron to get behind the all-party consensus for “Contraction and Convergence” (C&C).

Last week-end Andrew Rawnsley came back on Messrs Brown and Cameron taking them to task asking that they try and understand that we can’t have our planet and eat it. Brilliant piece . . . [So now green is the new blue - and also the new red - Gordon Brown and David Cameron are both pretending we can save the planet at no cost to our carbon-crunching lifestyles]

This shift in emphasis is very important. It is useful because Mr Cameron’s error is to focus merely on ‘a response proportionate to current emissions’, when a response proportionate the past/future integral of emissions that stabilises the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gas at a safe value is what is required. Mr Brown also errs as he avoids this issue. They both grandstand, but frankly Cameron wins the photo-op even if he has gone to the dogs to do it.

C&C enjoys much support now and is the only conceivable basis on how to raise climate change above party politics [many references below]. I don’t see how the LDs can avoid it. [Colin Challen’s Bill awaits them all . . .!].

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

BP “C&C helps greatly, as it is inclusive and makes clear what needs to be achieved. Without such a shared model - there will not be the necessary relationships that create the new and exciting possibilities, and the trust for shared action.”

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

There is already a C&C bill in parliament with cross party support [1] [2] [3]

Also: -

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

For the record, in what follows I decided to have my own swipe at Mr Cameron for being so feckless . . .

Vote Blue - Get Sick

David Cameron has made his big climate speech [from the London borough of Norway]. He is a personable performer. Trouble is he trips over all the shabby advice from his green lobbyists. He may be young. That’s not a sin but neither is it a guarantee against folly. He is quite a smart guy. Why is he listening to them?

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

His big principle is for “International partnership”.

CAMERON

“Climate change is a global phenomenon. We need global co-operation to tackle it.”

GCI

Go on. This truism has been unavoidable for the last twenty years.

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

CAMERON

“The EU accounts for 14% of the world's carbon emissions; the US accounts for around a quarter and China and India for around 18%.”

GCI

Confusion straight away: the problem is cumulative emissions not current emissions. His are not cumulative figures, they are just current annual figures. Apart from alienating the Chinese et al, this is a fundamental error and makes the next remark wholly vacuous . . .

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

CAMERON

“I believe it's clear and fair that all those who contribute to the problem should contribute proportionately to the solution.”

GCI

Proportionate to what? Proportionate without clarifying the issue of current versus cumulative emissions is worse than meaningless. It causes further confusion. This really betrays a dependence on the incompetent and evasive ‘advice’ with which the environmental lobbyists, [“let’s smash the fossil fuel industry] led by Greenpeace, have misdirected the UNFCCC negotiations for the last two decades.

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

CAMERON

“But since there is such strong evidence that the problem is getting worse, it is equally clear, and fair to say that the actions taken to date have been inadequate.”

GCI

The ‘inadequate action’ is more a function of the confused and evasive advice than a failure to appreciate the evidence. It was obvious from the word go that a ‘global strategy’ was required.

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

CAMERON

“That is not a reason for giving up; it's a reason for trying harder.”

GCI

True, but again does ‘trying harder’ mean getting rid of the confused advice? There is no point in trying at all if this step is not taken. Confused advisors give confused advice with the result that there is confusion.

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

CAMERON

“While the need for international action underlines the difficulty of achieving progress, it also points to the opportunity.”

GCI

Yes. Get rid of the confused advisors.

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

CAMERON

“It's become fashionable in certain circles to dismiss the Kyoto agreement. That's a mistake. Kyoto provides a model for international partnership on climate change, and we should build on it. Its achievements may be modest so far, but it is extraordinary that it exists at all.”

GCI

What; - More amazing than topless weather girls on Moscow TV?

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

CAMERON

“We now need to intensify the search for an effective, equitable international agreement to succeed the current Kyoto targets from 2012.”

GCI

Mr Cameron claims [below] to have consensus with the Liberal Democrats the Scottish and Welsh Nationalists. These parties found “an effective, equitable international agreement to succeed the current Kyoto targets from 2012” in the form of C&C long ago. It is in all their manifestos. How can Mr Cameron claim a consensus with them if he is still looking for this “effective, equitable international agreement to succeed the current Kyoto targets from 2012”?

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

CAMERON

“This should include setting binding targets for the developed world, whilst encouraging China, India, (both of them parties to Kyoto) and other rapidly developing nations to adopt lower carbon pathways to growth.”

GCI

Ah – here’s the rub. We want India and China ‘in’ the agreement but without binding targets. So Mr Cameron then goes straight on to say . .

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

CAMERON

“Binding targets are crucial. They are the essential foundation for emissions trading systems, providing the certainty and stability for markets to drive the implementation of low-carbon technologies in an economically efficient way.”

GCI

Cuckoo . . . that’s China ‘in’ or ur ‘out’ . . . ?

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

CAMERON

“So I think it's time we challenged our Prime Minister to spell out clearly his intentions in this area.”

GCI

This takes the biscuit . . .

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

CAMERON

“Tony Blair speaks as if Kyoto expires in 2012. It doesn't: 2012 is simply the end of the first round of Kyoto targets.”

GCI

Blair has his faults. Failure to realize this is not of them.

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

CAMERON

“And we need to know from Tony Blair – and perhaps more importantly, Gordon Brown - what his strategy is for the future.”

GCI

Sins of youth: – failing to realize how stupid your contradictions make you sound. Gordon Brown may not have strategy and even in Cameron’s eyes be stupid with it. But the measure of his youthful folly is failing to realize how trivial and impertinent this sounds, coming as-it-does from someone who demonstrably fails to have a strategy yet behaves as if he does, from which pulpit he requires surrender from Gordon Brown because he doesn’t have a strategy either.

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

CAMERON

“Are they committed to a clear and transparent international framework for carbon emissions?“

GCI

You couldn’t make it up.

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

CAMERON

“Are they committed to binding targets?”

GCI

Seriously . . .

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

CAMERON

“And are they committed to a level playing field internationally, with absolute caps on emissions?”

GCI

Folie de grandeur meets Donald de foie Duck . . .

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

CAMERON

“Without these commitments, the British Government's credibility on climate change will always be in doubt.”

GCI

Quack quack. How did this virgin manage to have so many miscarriages in just 400 words?

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

Vote Blue get sick - Ming - you' better do better than this.