Seeking & finding support for the submission to the UNFCCC of the C&C Principle [below].
Please consider this & write to me with an endorsement of it
if you feel you are able to.
We'll create your own web-page if you do, to show the full extent of what you want to say.
Full submission here shortened version on UNFCCC website here
Dear Friend and Colleague
Please will you consider supporting GCI's C&C Proposal to the UNFCCC.
The UNFCCC are now debating the way ahead beyond 2012 and invited submissions from observer organisations.
C&C is already well-supported but details of the current proposal from GCI are below and also in extended form at this link
It is a very straightforward re-statement of how to use C&C as the collective basis of the negotiating framework needed for UNFCCC-compliance.
The many people who co-signed Colin Challen's pro-C&C letter to Chris Huhne when he became the Minister at DECC in 2010 have been approached.
That letter with signatories to it is at the foot of this page and here and there were over 500 signatories all told on that.
Your support would be welcome, useful and influential if your name were added in support of the present proposal to the UNFCCC.
So if you feel you are able to support the present proposal, please will you send me [minima] a one-line e-mail saying just that and I will add your name and affiliation to the list that is being collected and conveyed to the UNFCCC Executive.
With best wishes
After 23 years there is a diverse and growing volume of support for C&C: -
GCI Submission to UNFCCC 28 02 2012
Negotiating UNFCCC-compliance globally,
*Accelerating the rate of Convergence
relative to the rate of Contraction* provides *the Main International Equity Lever.*
Negotiating UNFCCC-compliance globally, *Accelerating the rate of Convergence relative to the rate of Contraction* provides *the Main International Equity Lever.*
‘C&C has the virtue of simplicity. Equal per capita emissions is a natural focal point. Contestable computations based on economic variables do not need to enter the allocation formula.
Review of Climate Change Economics to the Australian Government by Ross Garnaut - 2008
“Since the principle of ‘contraction and convergence’ was first proposed by the Global Commons Institute in 2000, it has been widely embraced by some industrialised countries. Under contraction and convergence, each country will start out with emission entitlements equal to its current real emissions levels, and then, over time, converge to equal its per capita entitlements, while the overall global budget contracts to accommodate the emissions reduction objective. The convergence principle should be applied immediately rather than later as the ‘converged point’ in the future. ‘Real emissions’ is a different concept to ‘emissions entitlements’. A country’s high/low per capita real emissions cannot justify its high/low emission entitlements. In the process of convergence, the rights and interests of country B are really infringed by country A. In the National Emissions Account-based solution, the concept of convergence can still be incorporated, but it now merely means ‘convergence of real emissions’ rather than ‘convergence of emission entitlements’. Each country’s gaps between its emission entitlements and real emissions need to be balanced by the traded emissions quotas.”
Development Research Council to the Chinese Government - 2009
“We believe that it is difficult to imagine a global deal which allows the developed countries to have emissions per capita which are significantly above a sustainable global average.”
UK Government’s ‘Committee to the Climate Change Act'
This is an extended version that includes animations and a movie.
Page 1 Convergence by 2010 or 2020 or 2030 or 2040 or 2045 or by 2050
Page 2 Contents & UNFCCC decisions [COP-17] for 'increased ambition'
Page 3 C&C memo to UNFCCC in response to these decisions
Page 4 Charts with distributive effect of different convergence rates
Page 5 Notes to memo and links to references Annexes & Movie below, are in the full document at: -
Page 6 - 7 Original C&C Briefing
Page 8 Graphic overview of UNFCCC-compliance
Page 9 - 11 Article in UNEP's 'Climate Action' on graphic overview
Page 11 Animations of different rates of C&C as laid out in IPCC C&C Movie from the C&C Foundation
Page 12 Movie shows a strategic approach to negotiating international agreement for achieving UNFCCC-compliance.
 The ‘convergence-rate’ is the ‘main equity lever’: the faster the rate of convergence, the greater the extent to which ‘historic responsibilities’ are compensated for.
 Regional grouping between countries - for example between India and China - the greater the bargaining power for achieving a result with ‘convergence accelerated relative to contraction’.
Inclusive global rationale for UNFCCC-compliance needed now.
The increased ambition called for at COP-17 by the UNFCCC Parties requires we now quantify and demonstrate an inclusive global rationale to achieve UNFCCC-compliance. This was recognized by India, China, the USA and the Africa Group at COP-3 in Kyoto in 1997. [See note 0].
Contraction & Convergence [C&C] 'Inevitably required' for UNFCCC-compliance.
The objective of the UNFCCC is safe and stable Greenhouse Gas concentration in the global atmosphere. As the cost of failure is incalculable, in a measured and time-dependent way, we must ‘do-enough, soon-enough’ to quantify, arrange and then achieve compliance’ with that objective. C&C is a rational calculating model, but also a ‘negotiating mechanism’ to do just that. However, before it is a ‘flow-process’, C&C is a ‘stock-concept’. It is non-random and logical. As such it has been called ‘An Incontestable Truth’ by an All-Party Group of UK MPs [See note 8]. The UNFCCC Executive took the position at COP-9 in 2004 saying C&C is ‘inevitably required’ for UNFCCC-compliance [See note 1].
C&C integrates two primary issues needed for this; it now has much support.
C&C was first proposed to COP-2 UNFCCC in 1996 by GCI. The purpose is to help UNFCCC negotiators integrate, quantify and reconcile the two primary issues they are still faced with, to achieve 'climate-justice without vengeance'. It is offered again now, along with some of the support that it has generated since then. The depth and diversity of this support is now very considerable [See note 8].
 Contraction: The 1st issue is to quantify the full-term global greenhouse emissions contraction-event that is inevitably required for UNFCCC-compliance. For reasons of ‘urgency’, the question is what ‘path-integral [full-term, rate, carbon-weight, date] of the global emissions contraction-event do we jointly need to estimate and agree is needed for UNFCCC-compliance? Another way of asking this, is how much carbon consumption is still ‘safe globally’, if dangerous rates of climate change are to be avoided? We must be guided by the need to solve this problem faster than we are creating it. Empirically, estimating the global emissions contraction-event is primarily a science-based judgement. So here the UNFCCC is largely dependent on the IPCC’s estimates of ‘climate-sensitivity’ and global monitoring of source, sinks and stocks of Greenhouse Gases [GHG] that are active in the Earth’s climate system. As all we can control are GHG from human sources, C&C pays particular attention to those.
 Convergence: The 2nd issue is to resolve the question arising as to how we integrate and internationally share that contraction-event in a rational and transparent manner. An international convergence of shares under a global contraction-event is inevitable. So the key question here is how will this sharing arrangement of permissible future ‘emissions-rights’ come about? Will it result from [a] random guesswork [b] a better-intentioned network [c] a continuing aspirational patchwork [d] or now finally adopting the 'constitution of C&C’s rational and inclusive framework? Politically, this is a primarily an equal-rights-based judgement and therefore a constitutional issue. C&C assumes that, as any defence of unequal rights will lack support internationally, equal rights is the only logically defensible position, politically.
International Shares must sum to no more than total of Contraction-Event
However, the shares or emissions-rights arising are rational fractions of the contraction-event needed for UNFCCC-compliance. Shares must sum to no more than the total weight of emission-rights available under that contraction-event. This is a logical - and not an ideological - requirement. So, possibly with a population base-year being chosen for the accounts, all shares for all Countries [or Regions of Countries] result from an accounting procedure that calculates how shares result from an international convergence on the global per capita average of consumption arising under the contraction-event chosen for UNFCCC-compliance. As a first order argument, this is the incontestable truth of C&C. There are no contestable ideological assumptions or economic computations in the model whatsoever.
Logic precedes contestable economic computations & ideological assumptions
Attempting to calculate global UNFCCC-compliance any other way, is to remain stuck in the contestable ideological assumptions and economic computations that have bedevilled the negotiations for the last twenty years. This ideological dead-lock has made consensus impossible and these computations and assumptions have made UNFCCC-compliance, unquantifiable, un-negotiable and unachievable.
C&C, Historic Responsibilities & the 'Main Equity Lever'.
Inequity attends the 'historic responsibility' for causing climate change with emission accumulated in the atmosphere since 1800. To redress this & offset the future opportunity cost to fossil-fuel-based development in developing countries, the 'main equity-lever' is negotiating a rate of convergence that is significantly accelerated relative to the rate of contraction [Prof Ross Garnaut].
Accelerated Convergence - 'Emissions Entitlements' are not 'Emissions per se'.
As the Chinese Government has stressed, since global carbon-trading requires that the 'emissions entitlements' are tradable these are necessarily different from emissions per se. The faster the convergence rate is relative to the contraction-rate, the more the 'equity-share' is transferred from the accounts of those consuming carbon above the global per capita average to the accounts of those consuming carbon below that average. So under-consumers have a mechanism with which to leverage their position 'at the expense of over-consumers', while - crucially - all remain subject to the contraction rate, weight & date agreed for UNFCCC-compliance. The question is what rate of convergence [fast/slow] relative to the contraction rate agreed, can the international negotiations bear?
Turn Kyoto's 'market-based framework' into C&C's 'framework-based-market'.
Integrated this way, C&C turns Kyotos' aspirational 'Market-Based-Framework' into a rational 'Framework-Based-Market'. Agreeing the rates of C&C is the primary task and this is primarily the task for UNFCCC negotiators. This approach does not preclude additional side-agreements of any kind.
Making Regional Groupings makes negotiating headline rates of C&C easier.
GCI does not presume to prescribe what the rates of C&C must be. GCI’s role has simply been to demonstrate [quantify & visualize] linking the range of contraction-rates examined in the global ‘science-debate’ to the convergence-rates involved in the international ‘policy-debate’ [see note 3]. However, GCI feels it would certainly facilitate policy negotiations if India and China [& others] grouped together as regions in the way for example the EU acts as a region, as this would remove intra-regional negotiations from the COPs to the UNFCCC and negotiations would be more ‘strategic’.
C&C & a negotiating example, based on what happened at COP-15.
At COP-15 in December 2009, the UK was part of a group of Governments that prescribed the rates of C&C that are in the UK Climate Act [see 4]. They prescribed that convergence to globally equal per capita shares should complete by the year 2050, but by when 80% of the available carbon budget was used up.
Right principle prescribing wrong rates at COP-15: negotiate rates at COP-18.
This was the right principle but prescribing the rates was a mistake. Moreover, it was prescribed at rates that were unacceptable to the majority [see note 5] & it was rejected by the non-annex One countries. Understanding this reason for that failure and correcting it is key to any future success. Already in July 2009 the Chinese Government wrote that those rates of C&C were acceptable for per capita emissions per se, but for equal per capita emissions-rights or ‘emissions-entitlements’, they were looking for a ‘global climate deal’ with immediate convergence, rather than the gradual convergence over a 40 year period to 2050, by when 80% by weight of the global emissions-budget would have been used up [see note 6]. Negotiators now need to close the ‘convergence-gap’ between now and 2050. It is crucial to note that technically with ‘emissions-trading’ these two positions are quite compatible. Politically, the ‘gap’ between them can better be resolved through more clearly quantified negotiations, than with more opaque ‘prescriptions’ by sets of Governments, complicated by ‘lobbying’ from sector interests loaded with contestable economic computations and ideological assumptions.
Negotiating Convergence Rate: 2010, 2020, 2030, 2040, [COP-15 prescribed 2050].
The intervening positions on the rate of convergence, with weight and value [$100/tonne] are: -
Weight of Carbon Rights transferred
to LDCs in Billions Tonnes Carbon [Gt C]
Value of Carbon Rights transferred to LDCs over 40 years @ $ per tonne carbon
50 Gt C
40 Gt C
29 Gt C
16 Gt C
8 Gt C
0 Gt C
The full submission goes on to analyse rising-risk and how to use C&C to orgnanize to face that.
In this material there is an overview chart showing 3 scenarios:
C3 - Impossible Risk
C2 - Dangerous Risk
C1 - Acceptable Risk
The C1 scenario clearly shows a full-term C&C-event to achieve zero emissions globally by 2050.
This analysis is explained in the article in the submission, which is also published separately by Climate Action [UNEP] here
Because of the momentum now in the damage curve, it is clear that the C1 - 'Acceptable Risk' - scenario is the case argued for.
Climate Action 2007 C&C
"Technically, the C&C model is a coherent and mathematically-stable framework. It holds the science policy content together as a unity, science-based on the contraction side of the argument and rights-based or 'constitutional on the 'political' side of the argument. C&C is in effect a bill of rights, It simply plots a full-term event for achieving equal per capita emissions rights globall [Convergence] but governed by the overall emissions limit over time that stabilises the atmosphere concentration of GHG at a 'safe' value [Contraction]. The UNFCCC makes C&C generically true, but C&C specifically embraces a calculus built on this truth."
 Transcript of the final session at COP-3 1997: -
 C&C 'Inevitably required': -
 High Level Statement, Asian Development Bank, Manila June 2009
"The framework of contraction and convergence provides a flexible methodology
to address the problem of allocation of emission rights. The contraction of overall
world emissions pursued along with the convergence of countries average per
capita emissions, allows developing countries to partake of the carbon budget. The
per capita entitlements approach is an effective one in that it takes into account
historical responsibility and is based on the egalitarian distribution of the commons,
within which international justice positions of causal responsibility 'such as the 'polluter
pays principle', come in."
Ursula Schaefer-Preuss - Vice President of ADB.
Haruhiko Kuroda - President and Chair ADB Board.
Ban Ki-moon - Secretary General of the United Nations.
Rajendra Pachauri - Director of TERI, Chair IPCC.
Yvo de Boer - Former Executive Secretary UNFCCC.
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo - President Philippines.
Zhou Dadi - Chief advisor national energy strategy, People's Republic of China.
Full Signatory List to this statement of over thirty eminent people: -
 Rates of C&C: -
 C&C in UK Climate Act
 C&C - Right Principle & correcting Wrong Rates projected COP-15.
 Chinese Government accepted the C&C Principle July 2009 with 'their' rates: -
"Since the principle of 'contraction and convergence' was first proposed by the Global
Commons Institute in 2000, it has been widely embraced by some industrialised
countries. Under contraction and convergence, each country will start out with emission
entitlements equal to its current real emissions levels, and then, over time, converge
to equal its per capita entitlements, while the overall global budget contracts to
accommodate the emissions reduction objective. The convergence principle should
be applied immediately rather than later as the 'converged point' in the future. 'Real
emissions' is a different concept to 'emissions entitlement'. A country's high/low per
capita real emissions cannot justify its high/low emission entitlements. In the process
of convergence, the rights and interests of country B are really infringed by country
A. In the NEA-based solution, the concept of convergence can still be incorporated,
but it now merely means 'convergence of real emissions' rather than 'convergence of
emission entitlements'. Each country's gaps between its emission entitlements and
real emissions need to be balanced by the traded emissions quotas."
Greenhouse gas emissions reduction - a theoretical framework & global solution
Development Research Centre of the State Council People's Republic of China 2009
 Seeking a negotiation to 'correct' rates of C&C - see opposite and here: -
 Diverse and general endorsements of C&C after 20 years & News
 C&C Foundation
 C&C Foundation Document
A strongly worded letter has been sent by Dr Harley Wright of Climate Sense Australia to all UNFCCC negotiators.
TO COP Climate Ambassadors and Chief Negotiators
FROM Dr Harley Wright | Climate Sense | Sydney | Australia [basic cv attached]
DATE 10 May 2012
- Emergency team 'to advise what needs to be done, how best to do it'
- Adopt Contraction & Convergence for fair, strong, prompt abatement
I write with two ideas for the COP meetings in Bonn next week. I am a retired environmental scientist and manager, alarmed at the UNFCCC's insufficient progress to reduce carbon emissions.
Durban Decision too little, too late
The Durban Decision was the last straw the new legal instrument etc is to come in to effect from 2020. After 20 years of the Framework Convention (28 years by 2020!) this is insufficient and alarmingly too late to avert dangerous climate change.
On reading Parties submissions to ADP for your meetings in Bonn, I was dismayed at the ad hoc and excessively ponderous process under which the UNFCCC/COP is working. Present proposals focus on what individual Parties are prepared to do not what needs to be done.
Commendably, the UNFCC processes satisfactorily delivered the Kyoto Protocol and the Marrakesh Accords - good examples of the cooperation needed to tackle this complex and diabolical problem. They were promising first steps - but time has run out. A 2020 commencement of whole world abatement is too late.
Who can forget Kevin Conrad’s electrifying words at the Bali COP?
If for some reason you are not willing to lead; leave it to the rest of us; please get out of the way.
Surely it is time for another heartfelt plea to fairness and common sense? We need strong, prompt and widespread abatement starting ASAP not 2020.
Emergency action and planning
COP should move to an emergency footing. It could adopt more assertive methods of providing future options and plans like the Marshall Plan after WWII. The Durban Platform for Enhanced Action could create a crisis team from its representatives. Importantly, it could be project managed by an exemplary project manager, eg someone with strong achievements in industry, defence or government. Such a team and leader should have special powers, which minimise hindering, bureaucratic processes, common in current UNFCCC processes. Importantly, it would advise and recommend on what needs to be done and how best to do it.
The terms of reference for an emergency team to provide prompt, strong and widespread carbon abatement could be to, eg: -
Review and report on options for carbon abatement to avoid a temperature increase of 2°C, with 75% confidence, [draft for COP 18, final for approval at COP19]
Recommend a plan, perhaps with options, which has a timetable, targets (KPIs) and indicative management structure to implement the plan (Preliminary approval at COP 19 then full approval at COP 21 (2015) for full implementation to start in 2016.)
Report on the likely needs for sustainable development in developing countries as an allied issue, noting particularly the role of the Green Climate Fund and the likely contribution of large funds from carbon permit trading. Suggest options to facilitate sustainable development.
Importantly, team members allegiances and responsibilities should be to the UN process. They would work to find the best way to save the world’s climate and subordinate their home country special interests. No country name tags.
Unless the current sluggish process is rocket-boosted, we should all be extremely concerned.
Sydney bridge Framework to fair, strong carbon reductions to start 2016
I sent you my recent submission to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change with suggestions for fair, strong and prompt action [email ca 18 to 20 April].
My framework is but one possible way to achieve strong, prompt and widespread abatement from 2016 to 2050. It is based on contraction and convergence.
Contraction and Convergence
From Prof Ross Garnaut’s 2008 Review. Garnaut is an eminent Australian economist
The only realistic chance of achieving the depth, speed and breadth of action now required from all major emitters is allocation of internationally tradable emissions rights across countries. For practical reasons, allocations across countries will need to move gradually towards a population basis.
He notes also: -
Under contraction and convergence, each country would start out with emissions entitlements equal to its current emissions levels, and then over time converge to equal per capita entitlements, while the overall global budget contracts to accommodate the emissions reduction objective. This means that emissions entitlements per capita would decrease for countries above the global average, and increase (albeit typically at a slower rate than unconstrained emissions growth) in countries below the global average per capita level. Emissions entitlements would be tradable between countries, allowing actual emissions to differ from the contraction and convergence trajectory.
And further: -
The contraction and convergence approach addresses the central international equity issue simply and transparently. Slower convergence (a later date at which per capita emissions entitlements are equalised) favours emitters that are above the global per capita average at the starting point. Faster convergence gives more emissions rights to low per capita emitters. The convergence date is the main equity lever in such a scheme.
My Framework suggests: -
a contract and converge process could be implemented with countries representing 70% of world emissions; i.e. not full country participation non-participating developed countries would be coerced into joining by trade measures (compliant with GATT) and peer pressure each participating country would be free to choose the means of achieving its entitlement under the UN’s contraction and convergence process emissions from small and developing countries may be better managed with alternative measures.
Your Excellencies, there seems no comprehensive analysis of the ways and means the world can agree on carbon abatement. But the contraction and convergence model, promoted by the Global Commons Institute in London, has wide acceptance as the best means for carbon abatement. It enables us to break out of the current impasse.
In summary: - Durban’s new instrument to ‘come into action’ 2020 is too late. It is not acceptable.
Hence you could;
- Strive for COP to adopt slick and strong emergency processes and plans for abatement starting 2016
- Promote contraction and convergence as the fair means to reduce carbon soon.
I wish you all the best at Bonn next week. Our world depends on it.
Dr Harley Wright | Climate Sense | Mob: +61-(0)428 976 450 e: firstname.lastname@example.org ABN 21
694 462 481 | 20 Victoria St, Roseville, NSW 2069, Australia | Tel: +61-2-9412 2313
I am an Australian citizen who is deeply concerned that the world is not acting firmly enough to deal with the increasing threats from global warming. I am retired and have no commercial or government affiliations. I am acting on my own account and putting my relevant experiences to use.
The proposal is founded on the principles of Contraction and Convergence. It has four essential steps.
- Agree on a global maximum emissions cap to 2050 [eg, 1000 gigatonnes CO2] This is contraction.
- Agree on the principle of equal per capita emissions at some stage [the date is not determined in this step, simply the principle]. This is convergence.
- Agree on the date when all emissions entitlements become equal per person. This is the crux of the issue. The date(s) of convergence determines the size of the high-value trade in entitlements between high-carbon and low-carbon countries, viz developed and developing countries.
- Determine emissions profiles, issue permits, manage reconciliation and facilitate global trade. High-carbon countries buy permits from low-carbon with annual trade of around $100 billion or more depending on the carbon price.
These four steps enable a fair determination of each country’s emissions entitlements. Step 3 in particular is highly contestable and most difficult. Agreement on these four steps can resolve the crisis and hiatus. Other issues are secondary to these core steps which need to be resolved first.
'Sydney Bridge' Dr Harley Wright
Climate Sense Australia
This proposal has already been sent directly to the Heads of Delegations to UNFCCC negotiations from these countries: -
- United States
- United Kingdom
Multi-signature Letter to
Chris Huhne Minister at the Department of Energy and Climate Change
here and below . . .
UNFCCC-compliant Global Climate Change Framework
We all face an increasingly urgent situation with the threat of runaway rates of climate change occurring and the persistent failure to come to terms internationally to deal with this. COP-15 was another example of this and the odds for COP-16 appear no better as things stand.
So we write to you with the request to convene a high-level public meeting to focus on this predicament and the international need to establish a UNFCCC-compliant Global Climate Change Framework to redress this threat as soon as possible.
Contraction and Convergence is a prime example of this. It is a rational formulation for reconciliation of 'Climate Justice without Vengeance'. With the growing support for this approach internationally, we specifically note the positions taken in the UK context by: -
The RCEP in 2000 that, "The government should press for a future global climate agreement based on the contraction and convergence approach [C&C], combined with international trading in emission permits. Together, these offer the best long-term prospect of securing equity, economy and international consensus."
- The UNFCCC Executive at COP-9  - achieving the objective of the UNFCCC "inevitably requires contraction and convergence".
- The Liberal Democrat party that, "an agreement must be based on reducing emissions overall, while equalising emissions between the developed and developing worlds "the principle of contraction and convergence."
- Yourself and what you called the "morally compelling logic" of C&C.
- The All Party Parliamentary Group on Climate Change in the previous parliament.
- The UK Climate Act, which Adair Turner effectively characterised as C&C in evidence to the EAC and DECC select committees last year saying that converging to equal per capita entitlements globally is the only option that is, "doable and fair" for organising and sharing the full-term emissions-contraction-event to bring us to UNFCCC-compliance and that "if, for reasons of urgency the rate of global contraction has to be accelerated, for reasons of equity the rate of international convergence has to be accelerated relative to that."Â
Several ideas derived from C&C have surfaced since Kyoto with ideas that can be perhaps in various ways incorporated into C&C. However, there is an overwhelming need for an over-arching UNFCCC-compliant Framework that enables the globally competing interests of the over-consuming and the under-consuming to be reconciled with each other and with the objective of the UNFCCC in a non-random manner.
We feel that C&C is the veteran and indeed the apex example of this and urge you to consider our request. At Kyoto in December 1997 and shortly before they withdrew from these negotiations, the USA stated, "C&C contains elements for the next agreement that we may ultimately all seek to engage in."
The adversarial reasons for their withdrawal then were in play again at COP-15: - http://www.gci.org.uk/public/COP_15_C&C.swf
C&C answers this in a unifying and constitutional way and the need for this answer becomes increasingly critical.
With best wishes
Former Chair UK All Party Parliamentary Group on Climate Change
Professor Sir Tom Blundell FRS, FMedSci,
Department of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge,
Former Chairman of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution
Professor Peter Guthrie OBE
Professor in Engineering for Sustainable Development in the UK
Fellow of St Edmund's College Cambridge
Professor Martin Rees
Trinity College Cambridge
Sir John Houghton
President, John Ray Initiative
CEO Tangent Films
The Rt Revd & Rt Hon Richard Chartres KCVO DD FSA
Bishop of London
Anthony J. McMichael, MBBS, PhD
Professor and NHMRC Australia Fellow National Centre for Epidemiology & Population Health
ANU College of Medicine, Biology and Environment
Australian National University
Honorary Professor of Climate Change and Human Health, University of Copenhagen
President Royal Institute of British Architects [RIBA]
Former President of RIBA
Member of Parliament India
Wykeham Professor of Logic, Emeritus, Oxford University
Lord David Puttnam
PPRIBA Hon AIA FRSA Dip Arch BA(hons)
Partner Pringle Brandon LLP; Director WIRED architects Ltd
Chair Article  (UK reg. charity 1112621 for Development and Disaster Relief)
Vice Chair Construction Industry Council (CIC)
Council Member International Union of Architects (UIA)
Past President Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA)
Commandeur Des Arts et Lettres
Sir John Harman FRSA Hon FICE, FIWEM, FIWM, FSE, DCL
Professor Aubrey Manning, OBE,FRSE
Emeritus Professor of Natural History, University of Edinburgh
The Archbishop of Canterbury's Secretary for Public Affairs
Sir Crispin Tickell
Director Policy Foresight Programme Oxford University
Professor Sir Michael Marmot MBBS, MPH, PhD, FRCP, FFPHM,FMedSci
Director, UCL International Institute for Society and Health
MRC Research Professor of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London
Chairman, Commission on Social Determinants of Health
Chairman, Department of Health Scientific Reference Group
Professor Sir Andy Haines
Director, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT
[in a personal capacity]
Professor Brendan Mackey
The Fenner School of Environment & Society
The Australian National University
* Member, IUCN Council (Oceania Regional Councilor)
* Member, Earth Charter International Council
Professor David Orr