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."Risk overview
31 January 2012 - C&C in the Transition Movement
Transition & C&C Contraction and Convergence (C&C) is a proposed global framework for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to combat climate change. Conceived by the Global Commons Institute in the early 1990's, the Contraction and Convergence strategy consists of reducing overall emissions of greenhouse gases to a safe level (Contraction) where the global emissions are reduced because every country brings emissions per capita to a level which is equal for all countries (Convergence). The Global Commons Institute was founded in the United Kingdom in 1990 by Aubrey Meyer and others to campaign for a fair way to tackle climate change. Contraction and Convergence is intended to form the basis of an international agreement which will reduce carbon emissions to avoid climate change. It is expressed as a simple mathematical formula. This formula can be used as a way for the world to stabilize carbon levels at any level. The supporters of Contraction and Convergence anticipate that future negotiations would focus solely on what that final level should be. Transition United States
Climate Change
An Incontestable Truth Many Eminent Contributors "The UK All Party Parliamentary Climate Change Group has sets out a disciplined approach to address climate change through a framework of “contraction and convergence”.
This DVD was produced on behalf of the UK House of Commons All Party Parliamentary Climate Change Group of MPs (APPCCG) by GCI and Tangent Films. It was distributed to all sitting UK MPs in 2007. It points to the disciplined approach we need to address climate change. Not an approach based on wishful thinking, but a rational framework which leads to the solution foreshadowed in the original 1990 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and subsequently much ignored.
The UNFCCC called on all countries to recognise their equal but differentiated responsibilities to cut carbon emissions, and to recognise that the eventual equitable distribution of carbon rights had to be achieved. Over 180 countries signed up to the UNFCCC's aims, but have so far failed to deliver the action necessary to achieve them. Time is now running desperately short. We need to implement the framework known as Contraction & Convergence (C&C), as proposed by the Global Commons Institute (GCI), in order to prevent further delay or sub-standard measures which might fool us into believing that we're dealing with climate change, when we're not.
This DVD gives an explanation of C&C. Experts also explain why they support C&C and Aubrey Meyer, whose work in developing C&C has been recognised in awards from the Schumacher Society and the City of London. He presents a risk analysis to show how C&C can react to stabilise the amount of C02 in the atmosphere as natural carbon sinks begin to fail. For more information, please follow these links
Thanks to our contributors: Sir Crispin Tickell, Grace Akumu, Alex Evans, Prof. Bill McGuire, Chris Motters-head, Jon Snow, Prof. Michael Mainelli, Prof Paul Jowitt, Dr. Julian Salt, Mark Lynas, Jack Pringle, David Wasdel, Dr. Andrew Dlugolecki, Dr. Robin Stott, Angela Mawle, Lorna Walker, Jeffrey Newman, Fred Pearce, Dr. Joshua Wairoto.
COLIN CHALLEN MP, Chair APPCCG Contraction and Convergence - An Incontestable Truth [1] The Irreducible Response to Climate Change [2] Transition Worcester
International
National
Local
Strong international climate change protocols, Contraction & Convergence, a moratorium on biodiesal production, Oil Depletion Protocol. rethinking economic growth, biodiversity prtoection, a realistically high price on carbon.
Strong climate change legislation, Tradable Energy Quotas,
a national food security strategy, devolution of of powers to local communities, support for the relocalisation of industry.
Transition initiatives, Energy Descent Plans, Climate Friendly Communities, Community Supported Agriculture, land trusts, credits unions, locally owned energy supply companies.
The first speaker was Dr. Robin Stott, a GP and Chairman of the UK Medical Peace and Environment Group. His talk looked at the implications of climate change on our approach to healthcare. Climate change, he argued, is the most siugnificant public health problem of this century. The other challenge that sits alongside it is that of global inequity and the lack of social equity. Climate change, initially at least, will affect the poorer people in the world most gravely. Our responses need to include informing people and organisations, affirming that we need to both put our own houses in order and advocate for global solutions, and identifying frameworks for global agreement. The model Stott put forward, which will not be new to regular readers of Transition Culture, is Contraction and Convergence. C&C promotes an equitable global agreement, which would reign in the emissions of more affluent nations while also allowing sustainable development of poorer nations. It transfers money to poorer nations and creates a policy virtuous cycle which enables economic and social progress within environmental limits. If brought into operation, he argued, it would unleash a boom in low carbon technologies, and would do much to avert the potential public health catastrophe the potential for which is inherent within the climate change crisis. Transition Town Totnes
The first evening was a talk by Aubrey Meyer, originator of the Contraction and Convergence approach. As well as being an extraordinary climate change activist, he is also a concert violinist, and his talk featured some virtuouso playing as well as a passionate setting out of the case for Contraction and Convergence as a response to climate change. You can read a part of the interview I did with him earlier that day exploring the relationship between peak oil and climate change [here]. Transition Culture
Rob said one of the really interesting things he’s seen is the idea that resilience is something that needs to happen everywhere, not just here [in the developed world]. He went on to say, “We’ve creamed the fat off the developing world for the last 400 years, and the idea that we would put up the fence and say ‘we’ll not sort this out for ourselves’ is irresponsible. We need to have two processes that run in parallel–re-localization here, understanding that total re-localization is impossible, but maybe working toward an 80-percent/20-percent mix of local and imported goods. There’s the process of contraction and convergence, with the developed world scaling down and the developing world scaling up. Helping to create food security in the developing world is really necessary.” U.K. 5th U.K. Transition Conference
Liverpool Hope University July 2011
The Third Great Transition:
A contraction-and-convergence approach in which the rich nations cut back voluntarily on consumption, and share equitably with poor countries, while everyone works to reduce human population in the long run to two to three billion people, and ecosystem protection becomes a top international priority. This requires not a technological revolution, but rather a spiritual one, in which we enter into a partnership with nature to maintain the Earth's living systems. Like scenario number two, this would be wonderful, but also seems unlikely: in this case we face deep-set cultural and perhaps even biological behavior patterns that would make it extremely difficult for people to change from attitudes of personal and tribal selfishness to a primary concern for humanity and the Earth as a whole. Green City Blue Lake
Cleveland OHIO
Transition,
Managed politically led
UN programmes
Contraction and Convergence
Political programmes,
Bottom up approach,
Transition Towns
Local economies, alternative currencies,
Education The Organic Gardening Conference 2011
Neil May
30 January 2012 - "Never Give Up." Advice to GCI, after economists blownapart at IPCC's cost/benefit Waterloo.
Triumph for Global Commons
as climate economists told to,
“Try
Again.” 1995: - They were 'livid' Archive page ~129
Economists, who have spent the past two years attempting
to estimate what level of resources the world’s governments
should put into trying to halt or slow the rate of global
warming, have been told by a UN Agency to go back and do
their work again.
The economists aroused international outrage earlier this year,
when it became known that they were valuing the life of a
citizen of a developing country at only one fifteenth of the life
of an American or European citizen.
What was to have been their final report was rejected at a
recent meeting in Geneva of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC). “If their estimates of damage had been
accepted, the world community would have been advised that
little need be done to slow the warming process because it
was cheaper not to do anything,” said Aubrey Meyer, founder
director of the London-based, Global Commons Institute.
The decision is a triumph for the Institute and its founders, and all
those who have been working to oppose what has become known as
the ‘unequal life valuation’.
When doing their sums, the economists accepted the premise
that, many more lives would be lost in the poorer countries
than the richer ones, as a result of global warming.
But, extraordinarily, they calculated the value of a human life at
what a person is prepared to pay to avoid the risk of dying!
Obviously, the inhabitants of poor countries could afford to pay
much less them people in rich countries - one fifteenth was the
figure used by the economists.
Hence their conclusion that a life in a developed Western
country is worth 15 times more than a life in the so-called Third
World!
The figures they came up with reflected these findings: value of
an American or West European $1.5 million; value of an African
or Indian $100,000.
On this basis the report concluded that the value of damage
done as a result of lives being lost was very much greater in
the developed countries than in all the rest of the world put
together. This, despite the fact that only the 20% of the world’s
people live in these countries and occupy less than 20% of the
world’s land area!
GCI circulated these and other corrections before the meeting
and by the time it began, there was an immediate and insistent
rejection of the unequal life-evaluation used in the economists’
work.
But the economists’ report was handed to a closed subgroup
of “government only” negotiators who spent three days
considering what should be done. And an attempt was even
made by some governments to prevent non-governmental
agencies like the Global Commons Institute speaking during the
negotiations.
At the end of the last plenary session of the last day a “final”
text was presented to delegates for adoption. The chairman,
Mr. Jim Bruce of Canada, insisted that the whole section was
passed as it stood and, despite the controversy, brought
down his gavel and closed the meeting. All the OECD country
delegations, many of whom were professional economists sat
in complete silence and allowed this decision to go through
unchallenged.
However, at the 11th hour, the Cubans saved the day.
They had been in the queue to speak before the gavel came
down and the chairman was obliged to reopen the meeting.
Rejecting the text outright, the Cubans pointed out that several
arguments had not been answered and that the errors in the
assessment had not been corrected. Key developing countries
didn’t trust the technical validity or competence of the report,
in particular the way the distribution of the damages had been
worked out.
Brazil also then rejected the report saying that “they were
formally protesting on behalf of their government”. “This was
a quite remarkable outcome” Mr. Meyer said. “But for the final
words of the Cubans and others, the game would have ended
with the IPCC “knowingly publishing wrong data.” So now the
economists, most of whom are from rich countries, have two
months to reconsider their conclusions for a specially-convened
meeting in Montreal in October.
“When Jim Bruce brought the gavel down, I thought all the work
GCI had done had been wasted,” Mr. Meyer said.
“Funny how even a defeat can be defeated, if you hang-in until the
end.”
GCI has achieved an enormous amount working on a tiny
budget. It needs funding to continue its important work.
30 January 2012 - Future Islam "New Protocol? The answer is C&C."
National governments now need to agree on a new protocol that commits everyone to reducing the total global emissions of greenhouse gases to a safe level. But what would such a new protocol look like?
The answer is called Contraction and Convergence. "C&C" is a framework that forces governments to agree on three vital questions. First, what is a safe concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases? Is it twice the current concentration? Half the current concentration? The present concentration? Many scientists argue a safe concentration is what it was during the 1960s. The fact is that the Earth system can absorb a certain amount of greenhouse gases without causing harmful change to the climate. So once a safe concentration is agreed upon, it is then easy to calculate the total global amount of greenhouse gas that can be emitted each year.
The second question C&C forces governments to answer is, 'When will the total global emissions of greenhouse gases be reduced to the amount needed to maintain atmospheric concentrations at the agreed safe level?' In 2050? 2100? Next year? The sooner the better, of course, because the longer we wait the more harm is done to people and nature and the more expensive it becomes to fix the problem.
The third important question a C&C framework would force governments to reach agreement on concerns how the permissible annual amount of greenhouse gas emissions will be allocated between nations. The simplest and fairest way is to give every person an equal share. This is called a per capita allocation, and is what C & C calls for. One important feature of C&C is that it treats nations fairly . Under this framework, the emission entitlement of people in a poor country will increase relative to what it is now, while that of people in a wealthy country will decrease. This is fair because historically poor countries have not caused the global warming problem and they need to now quickly develop to eliminate poverty. However, under a new C&C-framed protocol, all countries, including developing countries, will be committed to meeting their specified national greenhouse gas targets by the agreed date.
30 January 2012 -International Panel Sustainable Resource Management; "Moderate C&C or Tough C&C?"
International Panel for
Sustainable Resource Management
The Steering Committee - A Broad Partnership
Government & IGOs:
Canada, China, Chile, Denmark, EC, Egypt, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Indonesia, India,
Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway Russia, South Africa, Switzerland, Tanzania & USA OECD.
Observers: UK
CIVIL Society Organisations: ICUS, IUCN, & WBCSD
Having reviewed the trends in the use of natural resources and accompanying undesirable environ-mental impacts in the first section of Chapter 2, the last section of that chapter considers possible future implications by presenting three brief scenarios: (1) business as usual (leading to a tripling of global annual resource extraction by 2050); (2) moderate contraction and convergence (requiring industrialized countries to reduce their per capita resource consumption by half the rate for the year 2000); and (3) tough contraction and convergence (aimed at keeping global resource extraction at its current levels).
None of these scenarios will lead to actual global reductions in resource use, but all indicate that substantial reductions in the resource requirements of economic activities will be necessary if the growing world population can expect to live under conditions of sustainable resource management. The key message of the tough scenario is that despite population growth to roughly 9 billion people, the pressure on the environment would remain roughly the same as it is now.
"This manifesto supports the Bolivian government’s proposals for a binding global treaty recognising Mother Earth Rights. This will protect the rights of indigenous people, who live in wildernesses or other tribal lands, for all time and make the patenting of any plant species illegal.
We need a democratic global forum to plan to halt the growth in emissions and to mitigate the impacts that are now inevitable. They would draw on all the expertise represented by climate scientists, world food and health experts and support each others’ development towards
self-government and economic independence."
30 January 2012 - Glolbal Warming Causes, Brian Williams: "What is C&C?"
In 1990, a group of activists led by Aubrey Meyer founded the Global Commons Institute (GCI). Its objective is to find a solution to global warming that is fair to all inhabitants of the Earth.
A GCI publication, Contraction and Convergence - A Global Solution to a Global Problem, states: "Because everyone—regardless of status—is now increasingly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, the rich have little choice but to share the burden of contraction fairly."
The GCI presented its original agenda to the Second World Climate Conference in 1990. Later, at the urging of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it developed a plan that is now known as "Contraction & Convergence" (C&C). The goal of C&C is to reverse the current state of affairs in which industrialized countries account for a growing share of emissions. Developing countries suffer most of the effects of global warming, and the two sides cannot agree on how to solve the problem. The institute observed: "We consider that a failure to face and secure a global commitment of this kind will result in a perpetual stalemate in the international political process to the extent that the agreement and delivery of global abatement targets will become less and less possible."
The "contraction" portion of C&C refers to setting an emissions "budget" that would stabilize the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at a safe level by 2100. The institute's original target was 450 parts per million (ppm). However, in light of recent scientific research, and the fact that the world is already feeling the effects of global warming at current concentrations, the institute suggests that the target might have to be lowered to 350 ppm—or even 280 ppm, where it was at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. To get the carbon dioxide concentration to a safe level and keep it there, it will be necessary to reduce emissions substantially below current levels.
The "convergence" portion of C&C deals with how the right to emit carbon is allocated worldwide. At first, the distribution of these rights would be based on how much each country currently emits. Over time, however, the right to emit would converge toward equal amounts per person worldwide. The year when convergence occurs would be negotiated by the world community. The GCI originally suggested 2045, the centennial of the founding of the United Nations, but it concedes that convergence might not occur until 2100. Even after convergence occurs, the amount of allowable emissions would continue to decline.
Source: Global Commons Institute, Contraction and Convergence: A Global Solution to a Global Problem. http://www.gci.org.uk.
Obama, supported some form of cap-and-trade legislation as well as substantial emissions reductions by the middle of this century.
In the meantime, states and cities are taking action against global warming. The most ambitious legislation so far is the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.5 The act orders a 10 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and authorizes cap-and-trade as one way to achieve it. Lawmakers consider it a first step toward meeting the state's commitment to an 80 percent reduction of emissions from 1990 levels by the year 2050. California, which has long been a leader in air-quality legislation, has also moved to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. However, the proposed limits were blocked by the Bush administration. If the next administration allows California to go ahead with those limits, the auto industry will likely challenge them in court. Meanwhile, in the Northeast and the West, some states have created voluntary cap-and-trade programs and have set emissions-reduction goals. In addition, a growing number of states have adopted Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) programs, which require utilities to generate part of their electricity from renewable sources such as wind power and solar energy. According to the Renewable Energy Policy Product, 16 states now have RPS in place. However, some believe that RPS requirements allow politicians to make business decisions best left to utility company executives.
At the local level, hundreds of cities have taken steps to reduce their emissions. Seattle has been in the forefront of local efforts. Time's Jeffrey Kluger explains:
Mayor Greg Nickels . . . who was incensed after the Senate walked away from the international Kyoto global-warming accords, began what has become a nationwide movement to bring U.S. cities into compliance. As of [March 2007], 431 mayors representing more than 61 million Americans had signed on, imposing higher parking taxes, buying hybrid vehicles for the municipal fleet, helping local businesses audit their energy use and even converting traffic lights from incandescents to LEDs, which are 90% more efficient.6
Businesses, too, have started to address the problem. At the 2000 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, business leaders called climate change the greatest threat facing the world. Since then, a number of corporations have joined forces with environmental groups to find ways to reduce emissions. One such alliance is the U.S. Climate Action Program (USCAP), which favors a regulated economy-wide, market-driven approach to protecting the climate. Many believe that market forces will lead to a solution to global warming, just as they led to oil replacing coal as our principal source of energy. Fred Krupp, the president of the Environmental Defense Fund, recently said: "Global warming skeptics notwithstanding, fixing global warming won't be a drain on the economy. On the contrary, it will unleash one of the greatest floods of new wealth in history. When Congress finally acts, America's entrepreneurs and inventors will find the capital they need to solve global warming—and a lot of people will make a killing."7 Despite Krupp's optimism, some climate activists fear that alliances like USCAP will put corporate profits ahead of saving the planet.
30 January 2012 - C&C & the Goethe Institute, Wolfgang Sachs Interview
Contraction & convergence - Interview with Wolfgang Sachs
In this connection again and again we often hear you using two buzz-words – “contraction” and “convergence”. Could you give us a quick run-down on what you mean?
It is all about balancing out the way resources are used on a globally sustainable level. The idea is to put the “resource-guzzling”, rich countries on a diet – i.e. contraction – in order to enable the poorer countries to raise their consumption to a minimal level so that their livelihoods would be ensured and a certain degree of affluence would be guaranteed – i.e. convergence.
30 January 2012 - C&C; Kate Pickett at National Legal & Policy Centre
Kate Pickett, a professor of epidemiology at the University of York, who once equated the American desire for good service in restaurants with“servitude,” spent her talk arguing for a socialist West. Reviewing data drawn from her bookThe Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, she assessed neither life expectancy nor “happiness”could be improved through increased wealth creation, and that “greater equality” (e.g., reduced purchasing power) “may be leverage” to “rein in carbon emissions.” She expounded:
"In terms of global wealth, those who look at the need to change the economic structure of the world to cope with climate change talk about contraction and conver[gence], that we must raise the standards of living and the wealth of the developing world while sort of contracting the consumption and wealth of the developed world…The optimistic message from our work is that that will not compromise our health or happiness. And so, contraction and convergencefor climate change reasons is actually likely to bring us social benefits, and we can have a high quality of life and sacrifice."
This sacrifice would be borne only by “the rich, developed economies,” where “a bit more poverty for those who have far too much I think would be a very good thing.” Pickett suggested “three things” to equalize wealth inside the UK: “a land value tax,” “a massively increased inheritance tax,” and “the abolition of private education.”
"Clearly, any system for tackling these problems has to treat rich and poor countries differently. India, producing 1.6 tonnes of carbon per person annually, cannot be treated the same as the USA, producing 24.0 per person. Any regulatory system has to include policies for contraction and convergence or 'cap and share. Both approaches propose a year-on-year contraction in permitted emissions levels, leading to an eventual convergence on equal per capita emissions across the planet." "The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger"
Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson
29 January 2012 - Dr Mayer Hillman attacks John Ashton's 'Plan B' saying Ashton has no plan at all.
This letter was sent on November 15 2011 by Dr Mayer Hillman of PSI. It expressed grave concern about the confused attitude of British civil servants as they prepared for climate change negotiations at COP-17. The letter was sent to Dr William Rees, Terry O'Connell and Mike Hutchinson and also copied to an extensive list of other eminent persons.
29 January 2012 - CHINA Dialogue "C&C - a credible global strategy."
Sick but not quite dead, the UN climate process stumbles on.
Credible global strategies for reducing emissions must be readied for the moment the politics change. "The only politically realistic way for negotiators to agree on how to share out a safe global-emissions budget will be to decide on some future date at which all countries converge on equal per-capita rights to the atmosphere (the “contraction and convergence” model). Ultimately, though, the question of which formula is used to share the emissions budget out is less important than defining the overall size of such a budget – and then making sure that enforcement mechanisms are robust enough to ensure the world stays within it." The CHINA Dialogue December 07, 2010
The multilateral zombie Alex Evans
28 January 2012 - Creative Designer Marie Loh crafts on C&C music connnections in eco-web-bio
On a website called Mum' Got Talent designer Marie Loh journeys through growing realization of the environmental crisis with candour, good humour and creative flair.
It really thrills me that 'stringularity', linking music and the C&C response to climate change, appeals to her so easily. As another friend said recently: - "C&C & music; staggering intrinsic beauty."
28 January 2012 - Problem-Deniers or Solution-Deniers - Who do you choose?
27 January 2012 - Environment Society has registered strong C&C support.
The Society’s Board unanimously agreed that the ‘Contraction and Convergence’ framework provides an important step forward in helping all sectors of community, business and government to understand how we can move forward together, on a global scale, to tackle climate change. John Brady, Chair of the Society welcomed this approach and said, “On behalf of the Society for the Environment I am proud to endorse the ‘Contraction and Convergence’ framework which will be important in helping us to work towards a sustainable and equitable future, not just for the UK but communities and economies worldwide.” Society for the Environment
1. Arboricultural Association (AA)
2. Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB)
3. Chartered Institution of Wastes Management (CIWM)
4. Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM)
5. Institute of Agricultural Management (IAgrM)
6. Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM)
7. Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA)
8. Institute of Fisheries Management (IFM)
9. Institute of Professional Soil Scientists (IPSS) (associate member)
10. Institution of Agricultural Engineers (IAgrE)
11. Institution of Chemical Engineers (IChemE)
12. Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE)
13. Institution of Environmental Sciences (IES)
14. Institution of Water Officers (IWO)
15. Landscape Institute (LI)
16. Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS)
17. Royal Meteorological Society (RMetS)
27 January 2012 - 'Climate Denial' or 'C&C Denial' - which is worse?
Tom Burke, John Ashton and Nick Mabey of E3G are all 'C&C Deniers'. While 'Climate Deniers' are being accused of 'crimes against humanity' by Jim Hansen, what should 'C&C Deniers' be accused of?
26 January 2012 - "C&C Equity & Survival" Asia-Europe Forum Cooperation on Climate Change
INTRODUCTION
Dangerous climate-change threatens survival. Avoiding it involves establishing
global rights. Recognizing resource-constraints, the challenge is to establish and
protect these rights in a constitutional - not a chaotic - manner.
In the private and public sectors and for the common good, C&C rises to this
challenge. Recognizing “no equity, no survival”, a shift from the purely commercial
guesswork of “efficiency with (no)-regrets”, to the constitutional framework of
“equity and survival”, is developing in the future vision for the UNFCCC.
With present trends of “Expansion & Divergence” we face an increasingly
uneconomic growth. Reviewing this and economic ‘efficiency’, GCI’s presentation
will propose a global-rights-based future in “Contraction & Convergence” (C&C).
We will demonstrate C&C’s principles and methods and highlight inititatives and
support calling to C&C to become the basis of negotiation at the UNFCCC. C&C in the Asia-Europe Environment Forum Round Table
Jeju Republic of Korea 25-26 March 2004 published by ASEF
26 January 2012 - "C&C Equity in Adversity" The Crucible
The CRUCIBLE editorial observes; - “The poor, less industrial countries are largely those that will suffer the consequences of global warming: ‘worsening and greater frequency of storms, floods, desertification, crop failures, famines, eco-system collapse, species migrations and extinctions, disease vectors, refugees, social tensions, economic failures and large-scale political conflicts . . . [with] the rising of sea levels through warming of the waters . . . [to] cap all of these tragedies’. [Aubrey Meyer’s article “Equity in Adversity”] compares the global apartheid, with the few offering a legacy of poverty - in the widest sense - to the many, with the political apartheid with which he grew up in South Africa. In the end, the only solution that ensured a future of any description was one that involved every citizen of the country. The visionary genius and transcendental forgiveness of Nelson Mandela made that possible. Similarly, the solution to global warming has to be planet-wide, or it will not work. Contraction and Convergence answers this call to unity.” Equity in Adversity - The Crucible
26 January 2011 - Scottish Government "C&C's valid focus on distributional issues."
DfT, DTI and Defra) and, in terms of local level data for each of the three cities, local authorities ( e.g. Highland Council). The work also draws on scenario planning - [1] Tyndall Centre, [2] Foresight Futures, [3] Henley Centre/Environment Agency and [4] Contraction and Convergence.
The strength of scenario planning lies in its ability to illustrate possible future 'paths', consider emerging (or possibly emergent) issues and so aid in the management of risks and opportunities The report draws upon 13 scenarios from four sources:
The Tyndall Centre - four scenarios - these explicitly focus on the different ways in which a 60% reduction in CO2 emissions can be achieved by 2050. The four scenarios are based upon varying levels of economic growth and energy demand.
Foresight Futures - four scenarios - although not specifically based on climate change, they contain scenarios that are consistent with CO2 reduction. They are based upon different sets of social values (either individual or community focused) and governance arrangements (either interdependent or autonomous).
Henley Centre/Environment Agency - four scenarios - these are focused on 'environmental futures' in the round and are based upon different visions of consumption (dematerialised or material consumption) and UK governance systems (sustainability-led compared to growth-led).
Contraction and Convergence, while not strictly a scenario planning tool, provides a valid and important input by virtue of its strong focus upon (social) distributional issues and equity.
“Conference recognises the urgent need for action to mitigate climate change given the potentially disastrous consequences for the planet. We pledge to achieve a low carbon emitting society and commit the SNP to supporting the adoption of the internationally-recognised principle of 'Contraction & Convergence'.” Alex Salmond
Scottish National Party
26 January 2012 - Ban Ki Moon "Climate Agreement by 2015. C&C is flexible and fair."
"Secure comprehensive climate change agreement with all parties to UNFCCC by 2015." Ban Ki Moon
"In order to allocate responsibility for emission reduction, numerous theories have been suggested, ranging from the simple ‘total emissions’ estimates to the much more complex ‘contraction and convergence’ estimates that seek to quantify a country’s responsibility at a ‘fair’ level by which emissions should be reduced.
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. This is achieved while both the developed and the developing countries put in place mechanisms to minimize growth in overall emissions, the developed countries taking into account the developing countries need to exceed their current emission levels in the pursuit of economic growth.
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. This is significant because historical emissions amount to about 1100 tonnes of CO2 per capita for the US and the UK, while the People’s Republic of China’s stand at 66 tonnes per capita and India’s at 23 tonnes per capita. Currently, the per capita emissions figures for the US, the People’s Republic of China, and India stand at 20 tonnes, 6 tonnes, and 1 tonne respectively.
Post 2012, a multi-track framework that takes into account historical responsibility, equity implications, and future emissions would address some of the more critical issues in building a consensus on ‘common but differentiated’ responsibilities of countries, and enable action by countries at all levels of development, if not in the form of quantitative reduction targets, then by policy-based commitments.
This would involve more stringent reduction responsibilities and clear quantitative targets for Annex-I countries, and more sector-specific policy-based initiatives in other countries, including the fast-growing emerging economies. Over time, this flexible mechanism could be made more stringent for developing countries as they reach a certain level of development. This would enable developing countries to participate in the emissions reduction process while also pursuing low-carbon economic growth."
Ban Ki-moon Secretary General of the United Nations. Ban Ki Moon's career encompasses many years of service in government and on the global stage, including as his country’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade; postings in New Delhi, Vienna, and Washington DC; and responsibility for a variety of portfolios, including foreign policy, national security, and policy planning. His ties with the United Nations date back to 1975, when he worked for the foreign ministry’s United Nations division. He holds a bachelor’s degree in international relations from Seoul National University and a master’s degree in public administration from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.
Rajendra Pachauri Director of TERI, Chair IPCC. Director of TERI and Chairman IPCC is Director of the newly established Yale Climate and Energy Institute (YCEI) and President, TERI North America. He has been the Chairman of IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) since 2002, and Chief Executive of TERI (The Energy and Resources Institute) since 1982. He accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 on behalf of IPCC, which shared the honour with former Vice President Al Gore. He has been conferred with several awards including ‘Padma Vibhushan’ the second highest civilian award in 2008, ‘Officier De La Légion D’Honneur’ by the Government of France in 2006, and ‘Padma Bhushan’ in 2001 for his outstanding contribution in the field of science, engineering, and environment. He is actively involved in several international forums dealing with climate change policies and has been associated as faculty with academic and research institutions of national and international repute. He has authored 23 books and several papers and articles.
Goh Kun Acting President (2004) and Prime Minister (2003/04) Mayor of Seoul Metropolitan Government (1998–2002); Prime Minister (1997/98) Co-President of Korea Federation for Environment Movement (1996/97) President of Myong Ji University (1994–97) Mayor of Seoul Metropolitan Government (1988–90) A Member of the 12th National Assembly (1985–88) Minister of Home Affairs (1987), of Agriculture (1981/82), of Transportation (1980/81) Governor of the Jeonnam Province (1975–79) Director-General of the Bureau of the New Village Movement, Ministry of Home Affairs (1973–75)
Yvo de Boer Executive Secretary UNFCCC [2009 -2010]. Before joining the UNFCCC, he was Director for International Affairs of the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning, and Environment of the Netherlands. Prior to his position as Executive Secretary, Mr de Boer has served as Vice-President of the Conference of Parties to UNFCCC and as Vice-Chair of the Commission on Sustainable Development.
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo President of the Philippines and holds many records. Elected as Senator during her first try in politics in 1992, she was re-elected Senator in 1995 with nearly 16 million votes, the highest number of votes in Philippine history at that time. She was elected Vice President of the Philippines in 1998 with almost 13 million votes, the largest mandate in the history of presidential or vice presidential elections. She was sworn in as the 14th President of the Philippines on 20 January 2001 by Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. after the Supreme Court unanimously declared the position of President vacant, the second woman to be swept into the presidency by a peaceful People Power revolution (EDSA II).
Zhou Dadi He has worked towards the development of sustainable energy strategy, and promoting policy on energy conservation, and policy of environmental protection including climate change of the People’s Republic of China. He has been the chief investigator for many important national and international projects and programmes. He is the chief advisor on the national energy strategy. He was the LA and CLA of the WG3 of IPCC for the Second, Third, and Fourth Assessment Reports. Zhou was awarded with the OECD CTI awards of the year 2000 and the 2007 Climate Protection Award of US EPA. Since May of 2008, Zhou is Senior Associate of Carnegie endowment for international peace.
Bindu Lohani Vice-President (Finance and Administration) of ADB (Asian Development Bank) and is a member of ADB’s Management Team. He assumed the position in April 2007. Dr Lohani is responsible for the functional areas of treasury, controllership, information technology, budget and human resources, administrative services, and the offices of the Secretary and General Counsel. Prior to this, Dr Lohani was the Director General of ADB’s Regional and Sustainable Development Department and concurrently, he was ADB’s Chief Compliance Officer and the Special Advisor to the President on Clean Energy and Environment. Dr Lohani began his career in ADB in 1985 in Infrastructure Department and has assumed various responsibilities, including the Secretary of ADB.
Hideki Minamikawa
He joined the Environment Agency (promoted to the Ministry of the Environment in 2000) in 1974. His previous posts include Director-General of Environmental Health Department; Director-General of Waste Management and Recycling Department; and Director-General of Nature Conservation Bureau. From September 2006 to June 2008, he was the Director-General of Global Environment Bureau and was in charge of international negotiations on climate change as well as making policies for domestic GHG emission reduction and protection of the ozone layer. He has also contributed to the promotion of international cooperation. He assumed the present position in July 2008.
Khempheng Pholsena
Minister to the Prime Minister’s Office, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, in charge of Water Resources and Environment Administration, and Chairperson of the Lao National Mekong Committee, GMS Minister. From 2004 to 2007, she held the position of Vice-President, Finance and Administration, Asian Development Bank in Manila, Philippines.Khempheng was Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs from 2003 to 2004. From 2001 to 2003, she was Vice-President of the Committee for Planning and Cooperation and responsible for coordination of ODA for Development Cooperation including round-table process of coordinating international donors and development planning of the government.
Rachmat Witoelar
A former Indonesian Ambassador to Russia (1993–97) is currently the Minister of State for the Environment of the Republic of Indonesia. He was the President of the Governing Council UNEP (2005–07) and the COP 13 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2007–08). Mr Witoelar is actively engaged in national and international organizations. He was founder and the Chairman of the Indonesia Council of World (ICWA), which established in 1998. At present, he is serving as the member of the ICWA government board.
Charles O Holliday
Chairman of the Board of DuPont since 1 January 1999. He served as Chief Executive Officer from 1 February 1998 until 1 January 2009. He is a member of the National Academy of Engineering. He is also the former Chairman of the Business Roundtable’s Task Force for Environment, Technology, and Economy; the WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable Development); The Business Council; and the Society of Chemical Industry – American Section. Mr Holliday serves on the Board of Directors of Deere & Co. He is Chair Emeritus of the Board of Directors of Catalyst. He is also Chairman of the US Council on Competitiveness and is a founding member of the International Business Council.
Shigeru Kiyama Senior Special Advisor for Climate Change in October 2008. He has previously served in the JBIC (Japan Bank for International Cooperation), which extended concessionary loans (Japanese ODA loans, and so on and was predecessor of the present JICA as Resident Executive Director for Africa; Director General, Treasury Department; Director General, Development Assistance Department I (ASEAN); Director General, Development Assistance Department II; (the People’s Republic of China, Viet Nam, Sri Lanka); Senior Advisor for NGO; Deputy Director General, Policy Planning and Coordination Department; Deputy Director General, Project Development Department.
Hoesung Lee Vice-Chair of the United Nations IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and Professor of Energy/Environmental Economics at Keimyung University. He was co-Chair of IPCC Working Group III in 1992–97 for the Second Assessment Report and since then lead author and review editor. He was founder and first president of the Korea Energy Economics Institute—a government’s energy policy research agency. Dr Lee served as President of the International Association of Energy Economics—headquartered in the United States with the mission of advancing energy economics. He was senior advisor to the Minister of Energy and Resources and the Minister of Environment. Dr Lee served on the board of numerous corporations and organizations domestic as well as international, including Hyundai Corporation and Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, headquartered in Japan.
Ira C. Magaziner Currently serves as the Chairman of the Clinton Climate Initiative and the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative, and as a board member of the Alliance for a Healthier Generation and the Clinton Hunter Development Initiative. From 1993 through 1998, he served as Senior Advisor to President Clinton for Policy Development at the White House, where he supervised the development and implementation of the administration’s policy for commercialization of the Internet and supervised the development of the President’s Health Reform Initiative. Prior to his White House appointment, Mr Magaziner is one of America’s most successful corporate strategists at SJS Inc., which he founded, and at the Boston Consulting Group.
Emil Salim A former government Minister of the Republic of Indonesia, but the role he has been playing on the environment agenda is global, beyond his country’s border. He chaired various positions at the global level like Chairperson of the Tenth United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (2001/02), Chairperson of the Preparatory Committee for the World Summit (2002), Head of Indonesia Delegation for UNFCCC (2007), and Indonesian delegation member for the World Ocean Conference (2009). He has been teaching in University of Indonesia since 1972. He established a number of environmental NGOs in Indonesia. Currently, he is an Advisor to the President of Republic of Indonesia.
Prabir Sengupta He has held many important positions in the provincial Government of Assam and in the Government of India. He has been Secretary to the Government of India on a consecutive basis in the Ministries of Industry, Petroleum and Natural Gas, Defence and Commerce. He participated in a number of bilateral and multilateral discussions as also for signing of important agreements. After his stint in the Government of India, he became the Director of Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, a management and research institute and was able to raise level of the Institute to 6th or 7th rank among all the Indian institutes including the Indian Institute of Management (IIM). In TERI, Shri Sengupta has been associated with a number of TERI projects.
Maurice Strong Chairman of Cosmos International Group; Hon. Professor of Peking University, Tongji University and Environmental Management College of China; Hon. Board Chairman of Peking University Environment Fund; Hon. President, Oriental Environment Research Institute (the People’s Republic of China); Special Senior Advisor of China International Institute of Multinational Corporations; Member of United States National Academy of Science; Vice-Chairman, Chicago Climate Exchange; Member of Korean Academy of Science and Technology. He has served as Under Secretary General and Special Advisor to the Secretary General of the UN; Senior Advisor to the President World Bank; Member, Foundation Board, World Economic Forum; First Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme; First President of the Canadian International Development Agency.
Larry Brilliant President of the Skoll Urgent Threats Fund and Advisor to Google.org, and to Jeff Skoll. The Skoll Urgent Threats Fund does grant making and advocacy to help solve issue related to climate change, nuclear weapons, water scarcity, emerging potential pandemics, and conflicts in the Middle East. Larry is a physician–epidemiologist who lived in India for 10 years working on the successful WHO (World Health Organization) smallpox eradication programme. He also founded The Seva Foundation. He was VP of Google and first Executive Director of Google.org. Larry chairs the National Biosurveillance Advisory Subcommittee and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Yoichi Kaya
Currently the Director General, RITE (Research Institute of Innovative Technologies for the Earth); Guest Professor, Keio University; and Program Director, Japan Science and Technology Agency. He is the recipient of seven awards from four Japanese academic institutions as also three publication awards. He served as the President, Institute of Electrical Engineers of Japan in 1993/1994 and President, Japan Association of Energy and Resources in 1997–2000. He is also the Chairman, Committee on Global Environmental Policy, Industrial Policy Council, METI.
Hiroyuki Watanabe He joined Toyota in 1967 upon completing postgraduate studies in aeronautical engineering at Kyushu University. In 1986, Dr Watanabe became the chief engineer responsible for the Toyota Crown, which is the best-selling luxury car in Japan. Named to the Board of Directors in 1996, he directed Toyota’s R&D works on hybrid and fuel cell vehicles, and was responsible for Toyota’s Future Project Division and worldwide operations in after-sales service and parts. In 1999, he was made a managing officer, and in 2001, a senior managing director, responsible for R&D, product development, environmental affairs, quality control, and IT & ITS development and operations. In June 2005, he became a senior technical executive.
Lorie Wigle She leads Intel’s Eco-Technology effort, which is focused on the sustainable manufacturing and usage of Intel’s products. This corporate-wide function drives Intel’s market position across energy-efficient performance and design for the environment. In this capacity, Lorie also drives external programmes related to client, server, and data centre efforts including Intel’s participation in Green Grid and the Climate Savers Computing Initiative. Recently, Lorie’s team also launched the Intel Open Energy Initiative to focus internal and external efforts on promoting standards and computing solutions in the electricity industry. Lorie has been with Intel for 25 years in a wide variety of Marketing and Product Planning roles and was the General Manager of Intel’s Internet Imaging Services group. She has an MBA from Portland State University and a BA degree from the University of Oregon.
Dato Lee Yee Cheong Chairman of the Governing Board of the UNESCO International Science, Technology, and Innovation Centre for South–South Cooperation; President of the ASEAN Academy of Engineering and Technology; a Director of UMW Holdings Berhad; a Commissioner of the Energy Commission of Malaysia; an Adjunct Professor of the National Energy University (UNITEN) Malaysia; and the Special Advisor on Sustainable Energy to the co-chairs of the Inter Academy Council. He was former President of the World Federation of Engineering Organisations and Co-Chair of ‘Science, Technology, and Innovation’ Task Force of the UN Millennium Project.
Nitin Desai He has had a long stint as a government official in India and then joined the UN in 1990. In India, he was in the Planning Commission (1973–88) and later in the Ministry of Finance as the Chief Economic Adviser (1988–90). In the UN, where he was Under Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs, his major work was the organization of a series of global summits, including the Rio Earth Summit (1992), and the Johannesburg Sustainable Development Summit (2002). After his retirement, he has been involved in a variety of public policy activities nationally and internationally. He is a member of the National Security Advisory Board and the Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change.
Conor McCoole Managing Director and Head of Standard Chartered’s award winning project finance team in Asia. His primary responsibility is to originate and oversee financial advisory and debt arranging mandates for projects across Asia. Standard Chartered has project and export finance teams in Singapore, Hong Kong, Beijing, Mumbai, Seoul, and Tokyo and has completed transactions in the power, infrastructure, oil and gas, and telecom sectors. The team was recognized as the Best Project Finance House in Asia by Project Finance International, Euromoney, The Asset and Finance Asia in 2007. Conor has extensive finance experience gained over 16 years at Standard Chartered Bank, Barclays Bank, and UFJ Bank with a focus on energy and power sector. He has completed project financings for power (gas, coal, hydro, and geothermal), gas field developments, LNG plants, petrochemicals, ports, oil terminals, and offshore oilrigs.
Kirit S Parikh Professor of Economics since 1967. He is Member, Planning Commission, Government of India and the architect of India’s Integrated Energy Policy; former (Founder) Director (Vice Chancellor), IGIDR (Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research), Mumbai and Chairman, IRADe (Integrated Research and Action for Development), New Delhi. He was a Member of the Economic Advisory Council of the prime ministers of India, Atal Behari Vajpayee, P V Narasimha Rao, Chandra Shekhar, V P Singh, and Rajiv Gandhi is a Fellow of the National Academy of Sciences, India. He has had numerous awards. He was honoured with the Padma Bushan by the President of India in March 2009. Dr Parikh has authored, co-authored, and edited 25 books covering a wide range of areas and has also published numerous articles.
Raj Singh
He joined the Swiss Re from Allianz SE where he held the position of Group Chief Risk Officer from 2002. From 1989 to 2001, Mr Singh worked for Citigroup, where he held a number of senior positions, mainly in the area of credit and structured finance. Lastly, he was Managing Director Risk/Merger and Acquisitions for Citibank Northern Europe and with site responsibility for Citibank Belgium. Mr Singh is a Member of the International Financial Risk Institute, founding Chairman of the Chief Risk Officers Forum, and an associate of the American Banking Association.
Vinod Thomas Director-General and Senior Vice President, IEG (Independent Evaluation Group) at the World Bank Group. His previous positions include Country Director for Brazil and Vice President of the World Bank, Vice President of the World Bank Institute, and Chief Economist for the World Bank in the East Asia and Pacific Region. He was the Staff Director for the 1991 World Development Report entitled The Challenge of Development and the author of numerous books, articles, and reports. Mr Thomas holds a PhD in Economics from the University of Chicago.
Craig Hart Counsel to Alston & Bird’s Energy Infrastructure, Climate Change and Technology Practice in Washington, DC. He concentrates his legal practice in international finance and banking, especially in energy project finance, capital markets, and carbon finance with focus on renewable energy and carbon mitigation technologies. He has substantial experience in financings in the People’s Republic of China and the Middle East. He is active in environmental education through the Energy + Environment Foundation which seeks to strengthen energy and climate curriculum at schools in developing countries, and previously directed the climate change program at the Center for International Environmental Law. He holds bachelors and law degrees from the University of California at Berkeley, masters in economics from New York University, and a Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Back to endorsements UN Bodies
Ursula Schäefer-Preuss Vice-President of ADB (Asian Development Bank) for Knowledge Management and Sustainable Development. She assumed office in November 2006. She is responsible for ADB’s Regional and Sustainable Development Department, Economics, and Research Department, and the Office of Cofinancing Operations. Prior to joining ADB, she was the Director-General of the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development in Bonn/Berlin, Germany. She was responsible for the development policy framework for various countries and regions. She was also engaged in bilateral cooperation with countries in Asia, Latin America, and Europe. Previously, she was Chief of Cabinet of the Federal Minister for Economic Cooperation and Development from November 1998 to 2000.
Haruhiko Kuroda President of ADB (Asian Development Bank) and the Chairperson of ADB’s Board of Directors. He was elected President by ADB’s Board of Governors in November 2004 and was re-elected in November 2006 for a new five-year term. Before joining ADB, Mr Kuroda was Special Advisor to the Cabinet of Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and a professor at the Graduate School of Economics at Hitotsubashi University in Tokyo. In a career spanning nearly four decades, Mr Kuroda has represented Japan’s Ministry of Finance at a number of international monetary conferences as Vice Minister of Finance for International Affairs. Mr Kuroda holds a BA in Law from the University of Tokyo and a Master of Philosophy in Economics from the University of Oxford.
26 January 2012 - "Music the very essence of the Universe" Michio Kaku
"Music the very essence of the Universe"Michio Kaku
26 January 2012 - Cabinet Office 10 Downing St. "UK Climate Act is based on C&C Principle."
After an effort covering 21 years, to read - at last - this 'acceptance' published on the website of the UK Cabinet Office at No 10 Downing Street, means we have turned a page: -
25 January 2012 - African Executive - "Bring in EBCU & Emissions Permits based on C&C."
On the global stage, our economic policy shall be the Energy Backed Currency Unit to put the white man's credit and his genocidal hydrocarbon geo-politics back in its box (in other words we are committed to a global 'positive money' currency with the emission permits as the underlying value); and at the national level we shall have positive national currency spent as a universal income grant into circulation in consensus local bodies for agriculture and forests and grasslands and health at home. We urge all citizens and leaders of Group of 77 (G77) and China to work to implement this position and pursue this policy internationally and at home: globally, let us work to enforce our position with an oil embargo against NATO as necessary, to create the space and the political momentum to bring in the EBCU backed by emission backed permits based on contraction and convergence / cap and share; and positive money for universal income grants and land redistribution at the national level. There must also be border controls to prevent muddling up of global and national trade: global trade will decline with declining hydrocarbon exploitation, and national trade will be denominated in the national people’s currencies.
25 January 2012 - C&C & Academia: "C&C is what we have been waiting for."
"Bjørn Lomborg, for example, suggests that extending the
terms of Kyoto throughout the century would mean that the world would have to
wait one year to enjoy the economic prosperity it would have enjoyed in 2050 if no
international action to combat climate change had been undertaken."
Rival architectures can usefully be analysed in terms of their fit with
four principles of equity: -
C1: A safe atmosphere: climate architectures (and the measures they involve)
should aim to minimise ‘dangerous climate change’. There is no consensus as to what constitutes dangerous climate change, or what level of global warming would trigger it since the idea has an irreducibly normative, as well as natural
scientific, component (Schneider and Lane, 2006, p. 7). However, a useful
working definition can be found in terms of the aim to limit increases in atmospheric
concentrations of CO2 to a doubling of their pre-industrial level of
280 parts per million (ppm). For comparison, atmospheric CO2 concentrations reached 377 ppm in 2004 – a 35 per cent increase on the pre-industrial level (Keeling and Whorf, 2005).
C2: Affordability: climate architectures should not be excessively costly to adopt for
existing and subsequent generations. This is a complex issue, given that estimating
the social and economic impacts of alternative climate responses rests not only on accurate models of climate change for different levels of CO2, but also of development, population growth and migration (Tol, 2002, pp. 48ff.).
P1: Universal participation: members of all countries should be represented in the
construction of the climate architecture and its mechanisms and policies; and while future generations cannot participate directly, their interests should also be taken into consideration at all times.
P2: Fair burden sharing: the costs of implementing the architectures and the
measures they involve should reflect the differing contributions of each country (and its members) to present and future climate change as measured by their current and historical greenhouse emissions.
Each person on the planet is granted an ‘equal right to emit’ greenhouse gases
by virtue of their equal right to use the benefits provided by a shared atmosphere.
This principle is treated as intrinsic to the architecture of the approach.
A
‘global ceiling’ for greenhouse emissions is set based on a calculation of the amount
the atmosphere can withstand without dangerous climate changes emerging.
Each country is allocated a yearly ‘carbon emissions budget’ consistent with the
global ceiling not being exceeded, and calculated according to each country’s
population size relative to an agreed base year.
The key aim is to bring about a stabilisation, and later a contraction, in global
greenhouse emissions so that they stay below a safe level, together with the idea
that, in the longer term, all countries will converge on a roughly equal level of per
capita emissions compatible with the long-term stability of the climate system.
Within this approach, a country that wants to emit more than its yearly quota must
buy credits from countries that have spare capacity. The country selling the credits
can then invest the receipts in activities enabling it to develop in a sustainable
manner. The flexibility of this approach means that many developing countries will
not be required to reduce their emissions to the same extent as developed countries
even though there will be a cap on how much their emissions are permitted to
grow. While ‘emissions trading’ is a key feature of all of the proposed successors to
Kyoto, the trading zone under Contraction and Convergence covers the whole
planet from the outset.
Unlike a number of competing approaches, Contraction and Convergence, if fully
implemented, could be expected to reduce the risks of dangerous climate change
substantially. Although the approach would be more costly to implement than its
rivals in the short to medium term, it sits more easily with principles C1 and C2
than its rivals when we focus on the longer term. It also has the merit that, because
it adopts emissions targets based on scientific criteria for protecting the atmosphere
it reduces the role of power politics in determining the structure of the regime. The
approach still involves a certain amount of horse trading associated with the
selection of the base year (as well as with the specific details of mechanisms
concerned with emissions trading and the role of sinks) but much less than with
rival architectures. Moreover, the ‘convergence’ part of Contraction and Convergence
at least partly deals with the need to achieve a fairer international distribu
tion of the benefits associated with CO2 emissions. For all these reasons, this
architecture seems to fit better with principle P2 than its rivals.
Finally, Contraction and Convergence also offers an interesting approach to the
problem of historical responsibility, which has hitherto dogged attempts to construct
a truly global solution to climate change for some developed countries
(principle P1). Contraction and Convergence, in being a fundamentally forwardlooking
approach to climate change, does not allocate the most costly duties of
climate mitigation and adaptation to developed countries because they are responsible
for the emergence of climate change. Rather, it distributes the duties of climate
management in line with their ability to undertake the protective measures deemed
necessary to safeguard a future where dangerous climate change is avoided. As a
result, Contraction and Convergence may prove more attractive, and therefore
motivational, than rival architectures that appeal to the controversial historical
duties members of developed countries possess as a result of the behaviour of their
ancestors. EQUITY AND THE KYOTO PROTOCOL Edward Page
Journal compilation
Political Studies Association
POLITICS: 2007 VOL 27(1)
Over 20 years ago, the debate on what to do to tackle global warming and still maintain good international relations was already won, by the commonsense approach of Contraction and Convergence – fair shares for all. Each country should count on their fair share of carbon emissions based on their population – and we would get there by starting from where we are now and agreeing mutual cuts. The big emitters would agree to steeper cuts than the lower emitters – and after some time, everybody in the world would have the same, safe emissions rights. You ignore it at our peril. Urbanity Durbanity
The commons and fair allocation
What would constitute a fair initial allocation of this commodity within an emissions trading
scheme that included all nations of the world?1 One answer is provided by the well-known
Contraction and Convergence proposal (Meyer 2000) developed in the early 1990s. Under
Contraction and Convergence, the nations of the world converge to a situation under which
rights to the contracting quantity of permitted global emissions are allocated on an equal per
capita basis. That is to say, they converge to a situation under which the quantity of available
emissions rights allocated to each of them in a given year is calculated by dividing the rights to
the permitted global emissions for that year by the global population in that year (or an agreed
base year) and then multiplying this quotient by each nation’s population in that year (or the base
year) (Meyer 2004) Richard Starkey Tyndall Centre
The EU was a prime promoter of the Kyoto
conference but their delegates conceded that
most of the EU member countries themselves are
not meeting their Kyoto treaty carbon dioxide
reduction obligations. It was however generally
agreed by all that anything over a 2ºC rise in
global temperatures was "dangerous”.
A new fix-it slogan emerged at COP-9 called
“contraction and convergence” or “C&C”.
The “contraction” means the total volume of
greenhouse gasses should be reduced. (Which
had been decided almost a decade previously.)
The “convergence” however is a new concept.
The idea is that all countries should reduce their
emissions proportional to their use. To quote
New Scientist December 2003 the idea is that by
2050 “every citizen of the world would have an
equal right to pollute”. Priority One
Allan J. Yeomans
Environmental Justice
The problem of allocation in the context of limits; the concept of environmental space and environmental inequality;
inter- and intra-generational justice; contraction and convergence
Disciplines: ethics, political science, policy studies Earthscan Curricula for the 21st Century
The total framework within which a UK carbon-rationing regime must be established if the goal really is climate victory is pretty simple in outline for all that. It depends in fact on one of those solutions which is so simple that no-one could see it until it was formulated by a non-expert thinking outside the box. This is the framework known as contraction and convergence (C&C), first proposed by a tiny NGO called the Global Commons Institute in 1990. It is probably best explained in the words of Aubrey Meyer, the man behind it: -
Global greenhouse emissions need to be reduced by 60 percent in less than a hundred years. When governments agree to be bound by such a target, the diminishing amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that the world could release while staying within the target can be calculated for each year of the coming Century. This is the contraction part of the process. The convergence part is that each year’s tranche of the global emissions budget gets shared out among the nations of the world in a way that every country converges on the same allocation per inhabitant by say 2030. Countries unable to manage within their allocation would, within limits, be able to buy the unused parts of the more frugal countries.
This means, startlingly, just what it says. Over time, we converge on an equal share for every human being of the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases which it is judged safe for humanity as a whole to go on emitting. The global percentage reduction target and the date for reaching it are decided on the basis of our best scientifically informed estimate of what will give us the best chance of keeping now-inevitable global warming within survivable limits. We then work towards meeting that target on the understanding that well before we do so, every country will be operating within an equitable national emissions allocation. This allocation will be equitable because it will depend only on national population, multiplied by the personal carbon budget on which we shall have converged for each global citizen. As within the suggested UK rationing scheme, trading around these national allocations is permissible, but the overall global emissions quota is firmly capped.
A standard reaction among people encountering these proposals for the first time is to say, 'How hopelessly idealistic!' And such incredulity is perfectly understandable at first blush. Genuinely equal shares worldwide in a key resource equality not just in theory (high-sounding declarations of universal human rights and so forth), but in hard practice, to which the hitherto globally rich and dominant must conform themselves - and to a fixed timescale! Whose leg does he think he's pulling?
But this response will not survive much careful reflection. For what, actually is the alternative? We have to turn the global-warming super-tanker around, if not quite on a sixpence then certainly within a very limited stretch of sea - and its currently lumbering momentum is powered increasingly by the burgeoning carbon emissions of hugely populous and ambitiously industrializing developing countries. Any chance which a C&C framework offers for halting this process will be greater than the chance of halting it within a global regime where the already developed nations continue trying to defend their own turf, their own historic claims to far more than their fair share of the planet's absorptive and regenerative capacities, because that chance is simply no chance. Whatever may have been the pros and cons. from all the possible perspectives of real international equity in the past, the case for it now is irresistibly and urgently practical. It is with the climate war as Benjamin Franklin famously reminded the Continental Congress preparing to sign the US Declaration of Independence: we must hang together, or we shall assuredly hang separately. That is now the hard unvarnished truth for global humanity.
No doubt it explains why endorsement for the principle, at any rate, of C&C has in fact been forthcoming from a good many quarters where one would expect brisk intolerance of mere hopeless idealism. These include the World Bank, the European Parliament and the UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has explicitly recognized the logic, and tile World Council of Churches has called for commitment to the framework. It would require impossibly high standards to regard all these bodies as lacking in seriousness. Together, the weight or their testimony, suggests that it is may be dismissing C&C as impracticable which is actually the unrealistic option.
What all this means for a country like Britain is that we must act, at last, to redress the historic balance, not through windy 'apologies' for this or that colonial atrocity, nor just through a much more generous development aid budget, but through making the break in this critical arena. That means setting ourselves a reducing carbon ration within assumptions compatible with global convergence and then offering decisive leadership in the international process which will be required for choreographing the actual introduction of the C&C framework worldwide. This a very demanding kind of engagement when compared with our current stance, but it is no less than a survival imperative. There is still a huge job to be done in campaigning and preparing for C&C, never mind in implementing it. The question for this book and this chapter, however is how all this relates to a deep-sustainability understanding of what we are about. The Sustainability Mirage: Illusion and Reality in the Coming War on Climate Change
John Foster
International-GlobalClimate Treaty
A global scheme needs a global institution such as a Global Commons Trust, presumably run by the UN, to operate a world wide system of permits. Global schemes thus by-pass nations, except perhaps as a vehicle for transmitting the funds to their populations. The apportionment formula is of course a thorny question: the formula might be based on Contraction & Convergence (C&C), promoted by the Global Commons Institute (Meyer 2000) and accepted at various times by various national governments, and under which national shares of a global emissions budget start at the current shares of global emissions and converge over (perhaps a short) time to equal per capita shares. If countries sign up to the general principle of a global cap, it is quite possible that the actual pathway ends up resembling the framework proposed by Frankel (2007), which is an ingenious set of elaborations on C&C performing a tricky balancing act of incentives. Or, as soon as the world recognizes the extent of the emergency, we may be into Greenhouse Development Rights territory (Baer et al 2007) - an approach that also explicitly addresses inequality within nations. The negotiations might get messy, but the rallying cry must be simple. Fleeing Vesuvius
Edited by Richard Douthwaite
Some activists hope that this exigency would now drive
all countries to move towards an acceptable solution and
practical wisdom suggests thai it can only be equity based
to be endurable. It is this realisation that made the Royal
Commission on Environmental Pollution of the UK
recommend, as early as in 2000, the contraction and
convergence strategy in its report to the government and
Ihe government's Energy While Paper of 2003 to implicitly
accepted it in projecting future UK emissions. The insurance
industry is the earliest among the business community to
recognise the seriousness of global warming and the most
concerned to find a quick solution, as it impacts its bottom
line directly. Looking for a real-world solution that will truly
work, the Chartered Insurance Institute of the UK had no
hesitation in accepting per-capita emission convergence. Problems and Prospects of Environmental Policy
M.S. Bhatt, Shahid Ashraf, Asheref Illiyan,
Jamia Millia Islamia (India) Dept. of Economics
Nigel Dower examines dimate change from the perspective of selected cosmopolitan theories. From these theories he derives the cosmopolitan resonsibiliyt of individuals. As he points out, even if cosmopolitanism can be translated into practical climate policies, individuals will have to take some responsibility for bringing about the needed changes. Put another way, cosmopolitan responses to climate change need to occur at the level of institutions, including what Dower calls cosmopolitical changes and at the level of 'active global citizenship engagement'. In examining the latter, Dower focuses on three questions: if effective international cooperation to address climate change is to be realized, how important is it to allow for a variety of pragmatic principles, such as precaution. 'contraction and convergence' and 'polluter pays', and how significant are ethical principles that different individuals and groups can accept? What is the nature and extent of the obligations of individuals with respect to climate change, particularly those whose lifestyles are carbon-intensive, here and now - prior to any changes in laws, regulations, economic incentives or social expectations? And what is the relevance of these individual obligations for the likelihood and legitimacy of government policies for addressing climate change? Ethics and Global Environmental Policy: Cosmopolitan Conceptions of Climate Change
Paul G. Harris
In one of these approaches, all human beings are credited with an equal entitlement to emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, acceptable (but ever reducing) totals of emissions are shared out accordingly, and countries wising to emit beyond their entitlements would have to purchase surplus entitlements from poorer countries that were not using their own entitlements to the full. This is the approach of Contraction and Convergence. This process would be redistributive in itself, but might need in-built constraints to prevent poor countries trading away the whole of their entitlement, leaving nothing with which to sustain the need of their own citizens (e.g, for an electricity supply with which to provide for basic needs). The redistributive element of this process could contribute a good deal towards development, but would not be sufficient to remedy global poverty, in, for example, sparsely populated regions of the Third World, or countries with huge pockets of poverty alongside rapidly rising carbon consumption, such as China, India and Brazil. Thus if this approach were fully implemented, but nothing else were done internationally to foster development, then not even the Millennium Development Goals would be attained by the target date of 2015, let alone the eradication of poverty. Therefore if this approach is to tackle poverty as well as global warming, simultaneous but separate policies of capacity building and poverty eradication would be required as well. Ecological Awareness: Exploring Religion, Ethics and Aesthetics
Sigurd Bergmann, Heather Eaton
Summary of Policies
There is a wide range of basic policies that, taken together, would achieve an effective greenhouse mitigation strategy for the energy sector:
• An international target for atmospheric CO2 concentration of 350 ppm or lower.
• An international agreement to set the nations on the pathway known as 'Contraction and Convergence' with the goal of achieving the same average per capita greenhouse gas emissions by all countries within several decades (Global Commons Institute website).
• Science-based national greenhouse gas emissions targets, both short term and long term, to set the initial direction of change and the final goal.
• Targets, both short term and long term, for renewable electricity, renewable heat, and efficient energy use. The Oxford Book of Climate Change and Society
John S. Dryzek, Richard B. Norgaard, David Schlosberg
"Perhaps the most interesting lessons for the authors came from being involved in a very small-scale version of the type of negotiations that are taking place internationally as nations try to agree on global emission reduction targets. Although there were only five organizations involved, the negotiations mirrored the international negotiations in many ways. The participants sought an equitable distribution of the burden of climate change response, while arguing for their own special circumstances and the need for differentiation of targets to take these circumstances into account.
It is interesting, though perhaps not surprising, that a contraction and convergence approach emerged as the only equitable way to provide differentiation of targets across the participants. Some authors (e.g. Garnaut 2008; Singer 2006) believe that such an approach is the only way to achieve a successful equitable outcome in international negotiations on climate change response and the ATN experience supports this conclusion. However, the key factor that allowed this approach to succeed in the ATN was the commitment of all parties to the ATN partnership and its spirit of collaboration. A similar spirit is sorely needed in international negotiations on climate change response."
Contraction and Convergence; A Global Solution to a Global Problem Universities and Climate Change
Chris Riedy Jane Daly Walter Leal Filho
You can choose either the 9-regions version or the complete 200 countries version of the model. The 200 countries version is a large package (5MB) because it has full computations for all the countries. The nine-regions model (2MB) contains basic data for all the countries but carries out computations only on the regions, and when parameters are changed the recalculation will be much faster. One of the new features of v8 is a facility for the users to redefine regions, this feature works on the small as well as the large model. It is recommended that initially you experiment with the 9-regions version. Description: Users can download the Excel workbook itself here.
Contraction and Convergence Options model
Since August 2007, The World Bank Institute Professional Development program for Parliamentarians & Parliamentary Staff has been available online. By making this series of learning modules publicly available, the World Bank Institute will assist a greater share of the world parliamentary community in fulfilling their role in the governance process.
Contraction and Convergence
While the Kyoto Protocol is the legally binding international regime on climate change, a number of proposals have been put forward as alternatives for future regimes. Brazil proposed setting differentiated emissions reduction targets for Annex I countries ranked according to the impact of their historic emissions on temperature rise. In general, countries with a longer record of greenhouse gas emissions will have a greater share of responsibility for emission reductions than countries where industrialization started later. The proposal was originally designed for application to Annex I countries. However, it could theoretically be applied to developing countries as well. “Contraction and Convergence”, conceived by the Global Commons Institute in the early 1990s, is a framework based on equity. Contraction and convergence uses two principles: contraction of global carbon emissions and convergence of per capita emissions across the world’s population. It proposes reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions to a safe level, or “Contraction”, where global emissions are reduced because every country brings emissions per capita to a level that is equal for all countries, or “Convergence”. The convergence mechanism assists in distributing emission allowances and eventually, at the end of the convergence period, countries will have allowances in proportion to their populations. Developed countries would be the first to make large cuts in their emissions levels, whereas developing countries would be permitted to keep increasing their emissions levels for a period before also beginning to cut their emissions. This framework, intended to form the basis of an international agreement is expressed as a simple mathematical formula, which can be used as a method for stabilizing carbon levels in the atmosphere. Parliament and Climate Change
Unit 8: Responding to Climate Change through International Negotiations
However it is achieved, avoiding dangerous climate change requires industrialised nations to cut emissions by at least 80% (some estimates cite a figure of 95%) while developing nations grow their economies. One proposed global framework is contraction and convergence (C&C), which was conceived by the Global Commons Institute [GCI] in the early 1990s. C&C consists of reducing overall emissions of GHGs to a safe level (contraction), with global emissions being reduced because every country brings emissions per capita to an equal level (convergence). The first stage of implementation is a contraction budget for global emissions consistent with stabilising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at a pre-agreed safe maximum concentration. C&C is favoured by the European Commission, European Parliament and many other government bodies; and with the contraction aspect reducing total carbon emissions, it is supported by many campaigners. Supporters of C&C, such as the Climate Justice Project, believe that the safe maximum is much lower than other estimates. Specifically, they believe that the IPCC's safe estimate of 550 ppmv CO2 is wrong and risks entering a phase of runaway ‘climate feedback’, with one change causing another with unpredictable results. They advocate a more precautionary approach, with atmospheric CO2being stabilized at 350–450 ppmv. In the UK, to reach these targets, individuals' emissions would need to be cut by between 60% and 90%. GCI has information on C&C. Open University
Setting a Personal Target Contraction and Convergence
9.45 - 10.10am: Registration
10.10: Welcome on behalf of the University of Southampton
Pro-Vice Chancellor, Adam Wheeler 10.15 - 10.30: Introduction: Why climate change and violence?
Dr. Mark Levene (Crisis Forum. History, University of Southampton) 10.30 - 12.00: First session: How bad is bad? What the science is telling us
David Wasdell (Director, Meridian Programme)
'Climate Dynamics and the Potential for Violence in an Interconnected World' Prof. Kevin Anderson (Tyndall Centre, University of Manchester)
'Reframing Climate Change: from long-term targets to emission pathways'
Chair: Peter Challenor (National Oceanography Centre, Southampton) 12.15-1.15: Second session: Climate Change and Security
Prof. Paul Rogers (Peace Studies, University of Bradford)
Chair: Dr Rob Johnson (History of War, All Souls and Faculty of History, University of Oxford) 2.00 - 3.30: Third session: Structural underpinnings of violence in an age of acute climate change
Patrick Holden, CBE (Director, Soil Association) - 'Food security' Aubrey Meyer (Global Commons Institute)
'The Stern report and the economics of genocide'
Chair: Prof. Tony McGrew (Social Sciences, University of Southampton) 3.45 - 5.15: Fourth session: Future shock
Prof. Dave Webb, (Praxis Centre, Leeds Metropolitan University, and vice-chair CND)
'Geo-engineering and its implications'
Chair: Dr. Stefan Skrimshire (Lincoln Theological Institute, School of Arts, Histories and Cultures, University of Manchester)
Final session roundtable (all speakers available). Southampton University
Crisis Forum
"Climate change is a pressing reality. From hurricane Katrina to melting polar ice, and from mass extinctions to increased threats to food and water security, the link between corporate globalization and planetary blowback is becoming all too evident. Governments and business keep reassuring the public they are going to fix the problem. An epochal change is called for in the way we all engage with the climate crisis. Key to that change is Aubrey Meyer's proposed "Contraction and Convergence" framework for limiting global carbon emissions, which he outlines in this book." "Surviving Climate Change"
Editors Mark Levene & David Cromwell Southampton University Crisis Forum
Ethical issues across scales of governance in China
in moving towards Contraction and Convergence
SCALE
ETHICAL OBLIGATIONS
POLICY GOALS
Global
Global safe levels met
Ensure participation in and support of global climate regime and that safe levels of CO2 are met.
Regional
Assuring fair share with regional partners, in this case East Asia.
Responsibility to manage regional carbon flux and industrial outputs between cooperating nations
National
Ensure nation’s just/fair share of global emissions. Addressing independent responsibility to act and bring emissions to fair share.
Ensure compliance at all scales below.
Determining directives for energy sector, infrastructure, innovation, and
technology transfer.
Intra-
national
Cooperative and procedurally fair planning across provinces and ecosystems. Ensuring emissions spillover does not occur.
Emissions balance across regions within China on economic and ecosystem based collaborations,
and encouragement of collaboration
between urban regions.
Provincial
Determination of fair share amongst provinces and ensuring fair share
even if growth is sacrificed.
Ensuring fair share even at cost of growth. Implementing provincial level emissions caps.
Increasing procedural capacity and representation of participation of various levels of authority.
Urban/
Regional
Ensuring cost-effective reduction method and active planning goals around CO2 reduction.
Ensuring on the ground implementation of larger scale development and fighting unregulated development. Improvement of local participation
in procedural process.
Strict implementation of planning codes.
CO2 reduction in project choice. Support for choosing green buildings. Controlling developers. Improving insulation in buildings.
Firms/
Business
Ensuring firm or business is complying with CO2 regulation and that emissions leakage is not happening internally.
Increasing CO2 reduction compliance.
Installing cleaner more energy efficient
technologies. Demanding proof of compliance
with other partner firms. Engaging in robust
technology transfers for efficiency gains.
TVEs
Enforcing cleaner production and adoption of cleaner technologies. Ensuring compliance on the ground.
Implementing clean evelopment and
production strategies on the ground. Most
difficult regulatory issues here, and impetus for
business as usual is strongest.
Individual
Reducing personal GHG footprint
as much as possible.
Conscious effort of consumption habits.
Changing personal preferences and habits.
Understanding carbon footprint in every dimension.
Contraction and convergence
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 and global solution
Development Research Centre of the State Council People’s Republic of China 2009
The really inconvenient truth, which we do not wish to discuss, and certainly is not on any political platform to date, are these ones. This is actually a statement from the World Business Council on Sustainable Development, or at least the output from a workshop they held in the early '90's in Antwerp, Belgium. Looking at the data on material resource trends, pollution around the Earth, matching this against production and carrying capacity, that workshop concluded that in the industrial world, reductions of up to 90 percent would be required by the middle of this century, in order to enable necessary growth to occur in the Third World, and to keep the whole within the carrying capacity of the planet.
This is now a version of what we call 'contraction and convergence.' We in the rich countries have got to slow down. In fact reduce our consumption to create the ecological space necessary for those who deserve to grow, so that they can come up to a decent standard. Keep in mind there are now officially a billion people on Earth who are malnourished, that's calorically malnourished.. And probably another two billion who are deficient in some dietary standard or other. We don't notice, because we've always had plenty in this resource-rich part of the planet. But the fact is, about half the people on Earth are still living the Malthusian dilemma. Just based on our consumption date, we in North America should be designing an economy that uses 80 percent less in absolute terms in order to create the space for others to gain their fair share.
This paper introduces a mechanism of international technology diffusion via FDI and imports
into recursive-dynamic CGE modeling for climate policy analysis. As a novel feature, the
mechanism distinguishes spillovers from foreign do domestic capital within sectors and
across sectors within the production chain. The paper applies the mechanism to the analysis of
a contraction and convergence type climate policy focusing on China. The mechanism of
international technology diffusion leads to an increase in China's energy productivity an a
decline in China's economic growth rates in a convergence process. In this case, inter-regional
emissions trading could (more than) compensate China's welfare losses due to climate policy.
Otherwise, China's welfare losses due to climate policy could be significant. Technology Diffusion under Contraction and Convergence: A CGE Analysis of China
Michael Hubler
Proposals include 'contraction and convergence‘, an idea promoted by the Global Commons
Institute and supported by many developing nations (Meyer 2000). This framework aims to
'contract‘ overall carbon emission safely below the threshold to avoid runaway climate
feedbacks and keep warming within tolerable limits. At the same time overall per capita
carbon emissions would ‗converge‘ by redistributing emissions entitlements. Human Development Reseach Paper
Peter Newell, Jon Phillips
and Dustin Mulvaney UNDP
Contraction and Convergence (C&C) is a proposed global framework for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to combat climate change. Conceived by the Global Commons Institute in the early 1990s, the Contraction and Convergence strategy consists of reducing overall emissions of greenhouse gases to a safe level (contraction), where the global emissions are reduced because every country brings emissions per capita to a level which is equal for all countries. It is intended to form the basis of an international agreement which will reduce carbon dioxide emissions to avoid climate change, carbon dioxide being the gas that is primarily responsible for changes in the greenhouse effect on Earth. It is expressed as a simple mathematical formula. This formula can be used as a way for the world to stabilize carbon levels at any level. The supporters of Contraction and Convergence anticipate that future negotiations would focus solely on what that final level should be. The ʺconvergenceʺ would specify entitlements to emit carbon distributed between countries world. Initially these entitlements would reflect current emissions and eventually, these initial entitlements will converge towards equal per capita emissions across all countries. Spain, Water and Climate Change in COP 15 and Beyond:
Aligning Mitigation and Adaptation through Innovation (WP)
Elena Lopez‐Gunn - Real Instituto Elcano
"The Kyoto Protocol, completed in the early hours of December 11th 1997, at present is no more than a potential breakthrough in the development of effective global policy for the control of atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and the mitigation of human-induced global climate changes. The core issue of the negotiations has been deferred until COP4 in November 1998. The industrial countries have negotiated a compromise that subject to ratification will legally bind them to commitments beyond those in the UNFCCC. But, the ratification of the Protocol by the US still remains contingent on achieving the “meaningful participation” of “key” developing countries in the abatement regime and the multilateral acceptance of international emissions trading. This is a struggle to define property rights. These key developing countries include India and China and they have made it clear that their acceptance of trading is contingent on the achievement of “equitable allocations” of emissions entitlements based on achieving equal per capita entitlements globally.
COP issued instructions to the technical bodies attached to the UNFCCC to “define the relevant principles, modalities, rules and guidelines for emissions trading” in time for COP4 in November 1998 in Buenos Aires. GCI argues that "Contraction and Convergence" is the approach that can break through this deadlock and welcomes the fact that major parties and interest groups in this dispute have already acknowledged that they take this approach seriously and that it has growing support throughout the world. As a leading economics commentator Peter Jay has noted, “… unless there is some recognition that eventually no one group of human being can expect to have an internationally recognised right to consume more of the world's limited capacity to absorb greenhouse gas emissions than any other group, it is hard to see how a globally enforceable policy can be built by consent.” And in the words of the President of GLOBE International"Contraction and Convergence is not simply the right way to solve the problem, it is the only way to solve the problem.” The Kyoto Protocol & the Emergence of “Contraction & Convergence” as a framework for an international political solution to greenhouse gas emissions abatement.
A Meyer 1997
Contraction and Convergence is the major proposal based on egalitarianism. Developed by the Global Commons Institute, it proposes that all countries should move, over a period of time, towards equal per capita emissions, with total emission levels contracting and per capita emissions converging at a safe level. The model is flexible as to the time-frame and final emission level and potentially allows national circumstances to be taken into account. Climate Policy
Elsevier
Caps like the Copenhagen Accord’s global 2°C increase ceiling imply a wake-up call for rallying stakeholders. The real job starts when this overall long-term goal must be specified in work packages by country. For reasons of clarity and mutual understanding the global 2°C ceiling is best translated in individual Parties’ annual emissions per person “contraction and convergence” trajectories from 2010 to 2050. The London based Global Commons Institute has propagated the contraction and convergence idea since the 1990s. Cancun: muddling or policy reversal - Aviel Verbruggen
Sustainable Energy Research
We are living in a world that the CIA coined VUCA – times of volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity. If one looks at the nature of the recent commodity price crisis (2007), financial crisis (2008), economic recession (2009), public debt crisis and oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico (2010) one can arguably identify a “transgression problem” (Pascal Lamy) at their root. Humanity is transgressing thresholds at two levels:
Humanity is transgressing reasonable limits of debt - The recent recession was to a large degree caused by the collapse of an asset bubble that inflated financial values well beyond the true value of underlying economic resources just for the sake of stimulating demand. Once the asset price bubbles burst and increased public borrowing was needed to protect the banks and to fund economic recovery, public sector debt and gross external debt rose sharply. According to IMF calculations the total cost of the financial crisis will amount to the astronomic figure of $12 trillion or 20% of annual world output.
Humanity is transgressing “planetary boundaries” - Under the weight of both the growing size and the intensifying activity of humanity, human impact is no longer only at local levels. Global natural systems are being affected. Climate is the most visible system that is being destabilized, but others are equally critical (oceans, fresh water, biological diversity etc.). Earth systems scientists are working on nine planetary boundaries where dangerous tipping points into less favorable conditions for human survival are highly likely.
These phenomena are similar in nature and have impacts that go far beyond the financial and ecological systems: When assessing the progress that has been made on the Millennium Development Goals, Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki Moon, had to admit in June that improvements in the lives of the poor have been unacceptably slow, regionally uneven and that some hard-won gains are being eroded again by the climate, food and economic crises. In fact all phenomena are related to governance failures:
Failure of governance to limit debt levels in relation to GDP;
Failure of governance to acknowledge planetary boundaries and to decouple GDP from energy and resources;
Failure of governance to meet globally accepted targets in redistributing GDP for the benefit of the most vulnerable persons in the world.
This development path is unsustainable and prone to destabilization and conflict, passing on to future generations vast and perhaps crippling financial, ecological and social debts. What is needed is a higher degree of systemic resilience. Therefore, governance agendas should be transformed from single issue-objectives to multiple, integrated social-ecological ones:
As to the finance system governance should aim at higher levels of bank capital and liquidity and at taking precautionary measures to prevent risks without endangering sustainable growth. As to national budgets the task is to reduce the increasing levels of public debt.
Concerning planetary boundaries the time is ripe for identifying scientifically endorsed resource and emission caps, and for establishing reduction targets associated with these caps - “Contraction and convergence” strategies. There is also a strong case for getting prices right in order to properly account for energy and material flows.
As to global poverty governance needs to reinforce the MDGs and Rio Process and deliver tangible results.
In a way one of the key challenges for economic governance is to devise broader measures of well-being to assess the right things along the triple bottom line of people, planet and growth in the right way, so that policy makers know towards what they should steer and what progress they are making in that direction. “What gets measured gets done.” This is a task that has begun with the Istanbul declaration of the OECD world forum in 2007. To monitor the state of an economy, there should be an accepted set of performance indicators to help diagnose the state of the system. Today one single indicator prevails – GDP growth. Growth is essential. But the question is – what kind of growth. To tackle this question involves a twin effort in governance: To complement GDP growth as the principal indicator of economic development with other indicators of ecological and social progress and to refine GDP so that is covers much more than material growth. Today this is no longer an academic exercise. It is key for a governance system that is responsibly addressing the integrated social-ecological challenges and adequate to the volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity of our times. Sustainability and Global Governance
Wolfgang Schüssel
The GES Advisory Board provides advice on the development of the GES, may suggest themes and special events at the GES, helps attracting high-ranking participants, and may propose new Advisory Board members. Its members benefit from a privileged access to the GES’s business, political, civic, and academic communities, and to state-of-the-art economic research on global affairs. Full listed GES Advisory Board
What is equally significant about this historically-grounded eschatological resource is the
manner in which it transcends the argument for purely and simply merging history with
natural history. Ideas about the end appear to be an outcome of civilisational
development from the ancient Near East, yet have endured when all the civilisations out
of which the ideas emanated have long gone the way of Nineveh. Why?
Fundamentally, I suspect, because they are expressive of a deep consciousness about
what is 'wrong' with civilisation and what needs to be put right to set humanity on its path
to reconciliation with itself and Mother Earth. The ideas carry within them a great list of
things which would need to be done by way of environmental and social justice to arrive
at such a destination. In our own time, the climate campaigner, Aubrey Meyer has
exquisitely captured the essence of this purposefulness in his entirely scientific
proposition for a route - Contraction and Convergence - by which all humankind might
arrive at an equal carbon entitlement which would also provide a practical framework
within which yearly, incremental carbon reduction could be brought to safe-limits ref While mitigation of dangerous climate change - and within an actually, normative timeordered
process - has been the project's ostensible aim, underlying it is an ethical end goal
suffused with compassion and loving-kindness for all living things. Yet the reason
why Meyer's proposition has been, and remains still-born is not on account of its
practicality, but, much more pointedly, because its implementation would undercut,
indeed starve, the sources of hegemonic worldly power.
One can almost speak of Contraction and Convergence in the past tense now because the
chronological time has come and gone in which the international system might have
grasped mitigation as its urgent priority. Looking back from a further vantage point, we
are unlikely to be surprised by the system's failure. Indeed, in a sense there was no failure
because it had nowhere else to go other than 'business as usual'. What will be truly
disastrous for humankind, however, is if - as a consequence of the system's impending
climate-precipitated collapse - the rest of us give way to despair, anomie and even greater
estrangement from each other. I have always said I do not wish to be around to see the
further violent consequences. Yet there is an alternative to this 'system' dependency. As
believers or agnostics, humanists or atheists, those who were system acolytes who have
had their Damascene conversion, or dissenters who were never there in the first place, we
might yet take into our own hands the opportunity which this crisis now offers: to create
our own alternative, right-living space and to invest its accompanying special time with
meaning. This is not the path of resignation but on the contrary, one of heightened
awareness followed by practical grass-roots action for and by the common weal. And
historians might have a critical role as pathfinders and beacon carriers in this process by
bravely demonstrating that in the context of where we find ourselves this is neither
misplaced nor lunatic but rather a project whose legitimacy and worth is embedded in
human consciousness and historical practice. Climate blues:
or how awareness of the human end might re-instil
ethical purpose to the writing of history
Mark Levene
Aubrey Meyer - The science-based, global climate policy framework of Contraction and Convergence (C&C) provides an equitable solution to cutting carbon emissions so that collective efforts to reduce emissions are effective. Three elements are at the core of the C&C campaign: (1) the constitutional concept of C&C; (2) the relevant techniques and processes of C&C; (3) the sustained effort to present C&C as the basis of the proportionate response to climate change. AnimationPresentation
Climate Change Diplomacy
International Conference Malta February 2008
Contraction & Convergence and Greenhouse Development Rights:
A Critical Comparison Between Two Salient Climate-Ethical Concepts Taken together, the above suggests that GDRs performs worse against all of the four criteria. In its present form, GDRs is also inappropriate to implement the right to development and to solve the development crisis. Compared to GDRs, C&C is easier to negotiate and to implement, C&C has a higher potential to lead to a global climate compromise, C&C rests on less contestable ethical foundations, and has a higher potential to stimulate changes in public attitudes and awareness. All in all, C&C is the preferable concept. However, with a view to tackling the climate challenge, C&C should put more emphasis on the fact that in the future for many countries the conventional development path based on increasing economic growth and the consumption of fossil fuels will no longer be feasible. Climate change largely challenges prevalent international institutional control mechanisms. To overcome the climate crisis, it is therefore the more important to create a global atmosphere of trust as a basis for comprehensive cooperation across social, economic, and cultural divides. The image of a divided world which is in the centre of the GDRs Framework (e.g. Baer et al. 2008:91) may aptly describe reality but it may not show a vision of how to bridge the gap between rich and poor, North and South. C&C, however, evokes the image of a global community in which, under growing pressure, people in poor and rich countries alike act together to bring about a more careful and sustainable management of the atmosphere. However, a global climate partnership based on C&C will only be achieved once the obligation of rich countries to assist adaptation in poorer countries is duly recognized. This is not a question of charity but a question of justice and fairness. Climate Ethics Critical Analysis of Climate Science and Policy
Rock Ethics Institute, Pennsylvania State University
This module is available through Distance Learning. The module explores and analyses critical concepts and terms central to debates over climate change, including risk and uncertainty, adaptation and mitigation, burden sharing, and problems and issues relating to regimes, strategies and policy instruments for addressing global warming. It evaluates the evolution of the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Kyoto Protocol and considers it effectiveness. It evaluates the effectiveness of mitigation and adaptation strategies as well as the flexibility mechanisms. It evaluates risks and uncertainties in the climate change arena and considers alternative approaches such as Contraction and Convergence. The method of assessment is by assignment with 4 separate assignments for the module. Teaching is through an E-Learning portal that enables access to electronic resources and e-mail contact with academic staff.
GE0246 Managing Climate Change Risk SYNOPSIS OF MODULE MSc Disaster Management and Sustainable Development
This programme addresses an intense growth of interest in sustainability issues and will help you learn specific design skills in a globally relevant specialism. As well as this, you will gain an understanding of the social, cultural and environmental forces that will underpin the inevitable changes in how we make architecture. The degree is tailored to allow you flexibility in how you wish to study, either with an element of distance learning or full time on campus. In this way we hope you can arrange, if you wish, to study whilst living overseas or continuing in work. Of course you can also benefit from this degree as an extension to your current undergraduate studies.
Why Advanced Sustainable Design? - It would be fair to say that the greatest challenges facing the built environment lie in how we respond to the sustainable agendas being set by governments and changing attitudes of both individuals and a wider society. We are all being asked to reduce our ecological footprints but what does this mean for architecture and those who work within the field? We can be merely reactive to ever increasing legislation and regulation. Alternatively, we can gain skills and understanding to become proactive and fully involved in producing intelligent solutions to both local and global challenges.
Moves towards international strategies of ‘contraction and convergence’ mean that advanced sustainable design is not limited to the developed world. This programme allows you to explore how to formulate localised, appropriate, robust and effective solutions to the global phenomena of climate change and resource depletion. Architectural design has always balanced precariously between art and science. Much of what we are told about sustainable strategies is in the context of technology, where we are asked for instance to measure and reduce of carbon emissions from our buildings. This course teaches you not only how to do this but also how to design responsively and creatively. We want you to be both knowledgeable and reflective about sustainable agendas, ultimately for you to design or procure more thoughtful buildings.
MSc in Advanced Sustainable Design
The Green Register's Foundation Course is designed to give delegates a thorough overview of all the essential issues surrounding sustainable building practices and to network with like-minded individuals across a range of disciplines. It is also the ideal course for new members of staff who need to get up to speed on sustainable construction issues. In addition to the main subjects presented – energy, water and waste minimisation – relevant legislation and Contraction and Convergence as an important social issue are also covered. The Green Building Foundation Course
Contraction and convergence is a principle whereby those who emit at
above average rates reduce their emissions while those who emit at a rate
below average may increase their emissions. These two trajectories converge
on an emissions level that is ‘acceptable’ (that is, at a level that will not
trigger Global Climate Change). This is deemed equitable because of the close link between economic
development and GHG emissions and thus satisfies the requirement for
intergenerational equity as specified in the Bruntland Report’s articulation of sustainable
development (UNWCED, 1987). Carbon Trading: Accounting and
Reporting Issues
JAN BEBBINGTON and CARLOS LARRINAGA-GONZALEZ
University of St Andrews, UK and University of Burgos, Spain
The conditions of equity and ecological limits, taken
together, suggest a key role for the model known as
“contraction and convergence” in which equal per capita
allowances are established under an ecological cap that
converges towards a sustainable level (Meyer 2004). Societal transformations for a sustainable economy
Tim Jackson Natural Resources Forum
Contraction and converqence: The last hope?
Surported by China, Germany, The European Parliament, Stern and many others, this concept is on the idea that everyone on planet Earth has the right to emit the same quantity of GHG. At present a US citizen emits 20 tonnes of CO2 each year, a UK citizen emits 11 tonnes while a Nigerian only emits 0.09 tonnes. Contraction and Convergence [C&C] is the Global Commone Institute’s proposed UNFCCC-compliant climate mitigation strategy for an equitable solution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions through collective global action. The ultimate objective of the UN Climate Treaty is to move to safe and stable GHG concentration in the atmosphere and C&C starts with this. C&C recognizes that subject to this limit, we all have an cqual entitlement to emit GHGs to the atmosphere, since continuing unequal use will make it impossible to get global agreement needed for success. The Kyoto Protocol cannot be the basis of this success, because it is not science-based and, due to divergent national interests, it does not include all countries. Scientists have advised on safe concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and on the global cap on emissions necessary to achieve it. A level of 450 ppmv has until recently been regarded as the upper limit for keeping under the maximum temperature oncrease of 2 degrees above the pre-industrial average.
From the inception of a global agreement, C&C schedules the mandatory annual global contraction [reduction of emissions] that will keep CO2 concentrations from rising beyond the agreed safe level. This rate of contraction must be periodically adjusted to take account of the increasing release of GHGs caused by climate warming. C&C proposes emissions entitlements to every country. While starting with current emissions, it proposes a scheduled convergence to equal per person entitlements for everyone on the planet by an agreed date [see figure above]. That way, convergence will reduce the carbon shares of the developed over-emitting countries sharply until they converge with the [temporarily rising] shares of the developing countries. The latter will be able to sell their surplus carbon shares to the wealthier nations. Emissions trading will be subject to rapid investment in renewable energy.
The 14th session of the Conference of the PArties to the Climate Change Convention [COP-14] will be held in conjunction with the 4th Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the PArties to the Kyoto Protocol [CMP 4] in Poznan, Poland, from 1 o 12 December 2008.In 2012 the Kyoto Protocol expires. To keep the process going there is an urgent need for a new climate protocol. In 2012 the Kyoto Protocol runs out. It is to be hoped that discussions at the Climate Conference in Copenhagen in 2009 and subsequent agreements lead to a Copenhagen Protocol to prevent global warming and cliamte change. Earth Environments: Past, Present and Future
By David Huddart, Tim Stott
Most scientists agree that human-made emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, have to be reduced signifiantly. The North is the main emitter of these gases and should make the most cuts. Many Southern countries argue that emission targets should be set on a per capita basis within a framework of “contraction and convergence”: per capita emissions should converge globally to an agreed ceiling, allowing emissions of developing countries to increase and those of developed countries to contract. Accepting this framework may enable an equitable long-term agreement to be negotiated: one that meets developing countries’ demands for fairness; accepts the need for eventual limits on developing countries’ emissions; and meets the prerequisite for an effective, long-term international agreement to avoid dangerous climatic change. Climate and Equity after Kyoto -
Corner House Briefing
There are also other ideas and models that can help us think differently and challenge conventional thinking. Perhaps one of the most significant is the concept of "contraction and convergence‟ developed by Aubrey Meyer of the Global Commons Institute, in response to the threat of runaway climate change (Meyer 2000). Meyer notes that the whole world needs a contraction in the production of carbon dioxide - an output of increased industrialisation and economic growth. Rich and poor nations must eventually converge in their carbon production, to avoid catastrophe. Less developed nations must be allowed to develop – so their carbon use goes up - whilst industrialized and post industrial nations must make substantial reductions. OXFAM Briefing - Well-being in consumer culture and the New Poor Sandra Carlisle and Philip Hanlon
"Luxury emissions are different from survival emissions, which emphasises the need for a strategy of contraction and convergence, whereby rich countries rapidly reduce emissions and poor countries can increase emissions to achieve health and development gain, both having the same sustainable emissions per person.
Contraction and convergence
Climate change requires two possibly conflicting actions. Carbon emissions must be reduced to avoid the worst outcome of climate change. Poor countries need rapid economic development so that no country, community, or individual is too poor to adapt to climate change. The concept of contraction and convergence, developed by the Global Commons Institute, considers the need to pursue both these actions simultaneously. Contraction and convergence reduce overall carbon emissions to a sustainable level but do so according to an equal share of emissions per person globally. Industrialised countries would dramatically reduce their emissions whilst developing countries would increase theirs to allow for, and stimulate, development and poverty reduction." Lancet and University College London Institute for Global Health Commission
Managing the Health Effects of Climate Change
More recently, awareness of the threat of global ecological hazards to human health has seen the emergence of ‘ecological’ forms of public health. A number of different approaches to this topic can be discerned within our discipline (Hanlon and Carlisle 2010). Some, for example, have applied a very traditional scientific model to particular issues that will arise from a given rise in global temperature. Consider, for example, the challenge of ‘contraction and convergence’ (Meyer 2000). This is a concept that has been developed in response to global warming and other environmental threats. The idea is simple. The world needs a contraction in output of carbon dioxide but for all to buy into such an agreement it must be transparently just: hence the need for convergence. Less developed nations must be allowed to develop, which may mean increased carbon utilization, whilst industrialized and post industrial nations must make substantial reductions. However, an ethical framework which ensures global justice and equity while safeguarding the rights of individuals has yet to emerge. This will be a key challenge if the world is not to face runaway climate change and collapse. In Search of Transformational Change
The Future Public Health: An Integrative Framework
Prof Phil Hanlon, Dr Andrew Lyon, Dr Margaret Hannah, Dr David Reilly & Dr Sandra Carlisle
"Fortunately, the nations of the world have signed the UNFCCC – the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. This commits all nations to work together in solving the global warming problem. However, national governments now need to agree on a new protocol that commits everyone to reducing the total global emissions of greenhouse gases to a safe level. But what would such a new protocol look like?
The answer is called Contraction and Convergence. "C&C" is a framework that forces governments to agree on three vital questions. First, what is a safe concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases? Is it twice the current concentration? Half the current concentration? The present concentration? Many scientists argue a safe concentration is what it was during the 1960s. The fact is that the Earth system can absorb a certain amount of greenhouse gases without causing harmful change to the climate. So once a safe concentration is agreed upon, it is then easy to calculate the total global amount of greenhouse gas that can be emitted each year. The second question C&C forces governments to answer is, 'When will the total global emissions of greenhouse gases be reduced to the amount needed to maintain atmospheric concentrations at the agreed safe level?' In 2050? 2100? Next year? The sooner the better, of course, because the longer we wait the more harm is done to people and nature and the more expensive it becomes to fix the problem. The third important question a C&C framework would force governments to reach agreement on concerns how the permissible annual amount of greenhouse gas emissions will be allocated between nations. The simplest and fairest way is to give every person an equal share. This is called a per capita allocation, and is what C&C calls for. One important feature of C&C is that it treats nations fairly. Under this framework, the emission entitlement of people in a poor country will increase relative to what it is now, while that of people in a wealthy country will decrease. This is fair because historically poor countries have not caused the global warming problem and they need to now quickly develop to eliminate poverty. However, under a new C&C-framed protocol, all countries, including developing countries, will be committed to meeting their specified national greenhouse gas targets by the agreed date.
Once a new protocol is in place based on the C&C framework, national governments can then begin the difficult and complex task of negotiating their way through the various implementation issues - that is, working out how to most efficiently and fairly reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to the agreed safe level. In his report to the UK Treasury, Nicholas Stern, former Chief Economist of the World Bank, argued that international co-operation to solve the global warming problem must cover all aspects of policy to reduce emissions including pricing, technology, the removal of behavioural barriers, as well as action on emissions from land use. C&C does not solve all these problems, but provides a framework for their negotiated solution." Details on the Contraction & Convergence framework can be found at the web-site of the Global Commons Institute. "Winning the Struggle Against Global Warming
A Report to the Earth Charter International Council"
by Brendan Mackey of Australia National University and Song Li of the World Bank
"…the Parties included in Annex I shall implement domestic action in accordance with national circumstances and with a view to reducing emissions in a manner conducive to narrowing per capita differences between developed and developing country Parties while working towards achievement of the ultimate objective of the Convention”.
"This resolution formed part of the agreement on flexibility mechanisms reached at negotiations in Bonn in July 2001. This is one of the first times official reference has been made in climate change negotiations to the concept of per capita emissions and reflects a growing level of support for some broader principle of equity that would, in time, permit developing countries to take on fair and reasonable targets. Perhaps the most systematic and influential proposal building on the idea of equal per capita entitlements to the use of the global atmospheric commons is the approach known as ‘contraction and convergence’ advocated by the Global Commons Institute." Comprehensive emissions per capita for
industrialised countries
Hal Turton and Clive Hamilton THE AUSTRALIA INSTITUTE
Two models are currently being pitted against one another in the discussion of a fair climate regime:Contraction and Convergence (C&C) and Greenhouse Development Rights (GDR s). The controversy revolves around issues of fairness and feasibility, and the question of how fair is fair enough. Other approaches with the potential to mitigate emissions fairly are not in discussion at present. The debate over these concepts is vital, as having actors who are individually committed to ambitious goals but divided at the conceptual level could prove fatal for climate policy as a whole. The following is an overview in the magazine of the Heirich Boell Foundations of the core elements of both with Katrin Krause and Konrad Ott for C&C and Tilman Santarius for GDRs. How Fair is fair Enough?
The leading solution for setting national targets based on per-capita emissions is the Contraction and Convergence model developed in the UK by the Global Commons Institute. It has been “on the table” since 1990, and is promoted as a basis for a post Kyoto agreement by a group of developing countries led by India. Built on the ideal of per-capita emissions rights, the model is practical in its implementation. Because the emissions cuts required by developed nations are so deep, convergence to a per-capita solution is only possible over time. In contraction, the total annual emission of greenhouse gases reaches a ceiling, and then gradually contracts. The convergence mechanism facilitates the distribution of emission entitlements across the world to converge on equality. At the end of the convergence period countries receive entitlements in proportion to the size of their population. Developed countries are the first to make large cuts in their emissions levels, whereas developing countries are permitted to keep increasing their emissions levels for a period before also beginning to cut their emissions. The model has widespread support from scientists, businessmen, politicians, and faith groups. It has received endorsement from a long list of luminaries, including: -
Raul Estrada, Chairman Kyoto Protocol Negotiations
Nick Clegg, UK Deputy Prime Minister
Ed Milliband, Leader of the UK Labour Party
Sir David Attenborough, Naturalist
Dr Tim Flannery, Australian of the Year Contraction and Convergence
Alan Marshall Tasmania
"Global Commons Institute has devised a greenhouse gas abatement proposal called “Contraction and Convergence” (Global Commons Institute 1997) in which the emphasis is placed not only on a significant contraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, but also on an equitable per capita distribution of the resulting global carbon budget. The latter implies a transition to a point (convergence) where future entitlements to emit will have become proportional to population. The uniform per capita allocation of emission rights reflects egalitarianism in the sense that all people have inherently an equal right to pollute. The egalitarian criterion per se has a strong philosophical appeal. However – under contraction of the global carbon budget – it is unlikely to be acceptable for industrialized countries with currently high per capita emissions unless the transition path allows for long-term “smooth” adjustment towards the terminal point. Equity considerations are not only ethically founded; they also conform to the idea that equity might “serve a positive role as a unifying principle that facilitates an international greenhouse warming agreement” (Rose and Stevens, 1996 p.1)." ZEW discussion paper No. 99-13 - C&C - Contraction and Convergence of Carbon Emissions: The Economic Implications of Permit Trading
Christoph Böhringer and Heinz Welsch
The concept of “contraction and convergence” originated with the Global Commons Institute in London and has resonated well with political actors, including those of the European Parliament. Two basic ideas are merged into one scheme: (i) contraction of emissions and (ii) convergence of entitlements to emit CO2. The fundamental idea behind this proposal is the conviction that only very ambitious emission reductions leading to 350 – 450 ppm CO2 can adequately prevent dangerous interference with the climate system in line with Art. 2 UNFCCC; this shall be reached by a specific target year, e.g. the year 2100. In addition, equity is solely interpreted as equal per capita entitlements to be achieved by a transition from present day per capita emissions to equal emission rights by a convergence year, either in a rapid non-linear fashion or as a linear transition between present day per capita emissions and equal per capita emissions. Reasoning Goals for Climate Protection Specification of Article 2 UNFCC
Federal Ministery of the Environment Germany
"The most prominent proposal is that of ‘contraction and convergence’ [GCI] Under this model, global emissions would be reduced over time, and entitlements to emit would be proportional to population for each country after a transition period—a convergence towards equal per capita allocations across the globe. The underlying ethical position is that each human being has an equal right to the atmosphere, and if access to the atmosphere as a repository for greenhouse gases has to be rationed, then each person should be entitled to an equal share. Industrialized countries would be allocated many fewer permits than their current emissions, and thus have to buy permits from developing countries. India and other developing countries with low per capita emissions are supporting the concept of equal per capita emissions rights, but others with relatively high emissions intensity (such as South Africa) would be unlikely to support this allocation rule. To agree on equity models such as contraction and convergence would thus require a fundamental rethink in rich societies about what their fair share of global resources and the global environment is, to acknowledge that they have been using a far greater share than is rightfully theirs and to drastically reduce their claim on global resources." Developing Countries and the Future of the Kyoto Protocol
FRANK JOTZO (Australian National University)
The report reviews the scientific, policy and economic context to managing greenhouse gas emissions from aviation. It provides a short assessment of the Contraction and Convergence model developed by the Global Commons Institute, finding it both appropriate for the present study and of considerable value for climate policy studies more generally. The report goes on to develop aircraft emission scenarios for each EU nation over the period 2002-2050, taking into account fuel efficiency improvements and sometimes applying uplift factors3 relating to radiative forcing. These scenarios are subsequently compared with national carbon contraction and convergence profiles for 450ppmv and 550ppmv for EU member states; for the UK the 550ppmv contraction and convergence profile is consistent with the UK government’s 2050 target of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 60%. Growth Scenarios for EU & UK Aviation: contradictions with climate policy
Drs Alice Bows, Paul Upham, Kevin Anderson
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change, Manchester University 16 April 2005
The idea of Contraction and Convergence (C&C) was first advocated in 1990 by Aubrey Meyer, a UK-based South African musician, author and founder of the Global Commons Institute. It offers a straight-forward framework for an international agreement on climate change, the basic principle of which states that all citizens of the world have an equal right in principle to emit greenhouse gases. This right would be granted by a specified future date, the flat individual allowance for each citizen to be derived from an agreed eventual global greenhouse gas concentration target (often claimed by Meyer and others to be around 450 ppm). The C&C strategy consists of reducing global emiss ions of greenhouse gases to secure this target level (i.e. 'contraction'); a goal reached because every country brings its emissions per capita to a level which is eventually equal for all countries (i.e. 'convergence'). Initially, these entitlements would reflect the current distribution of emissions across nations, but would eventually converge by a date to be agreed through negotiation (often suggested to be 2050). In order to meet these per capita targets, nations would be entitled to trade allowances, thus facilitating financial transfers from higher-emitting nations to lower-emitting ones. Why We Disagree About Climate Change
MIke Hulme
each person on the planet is granted an equal right to emit carbon by virtue of their equal right to use the benefits provided by a shared atmosphere. This principle is treated as intrinsic to the architecture of the approach and not a longer-term aspiration as in the case of Kyoto Plus.
a ‘global ceiling ‘ for greenhouse emissions is set based on a calculation of the amount the global environment can withstand without dangerous climate change taking place.
each country is allocated a yearly ‘carbon emissions budget ‘ consistent with the global ceiling not being exceeded, and calculated according to each country’s population size relative to an agreed base year. The name of the approach comes from the notion that over time, it aims to bring about a stabilisation, and later a contraction, in global greenhouse emissions so that they stay below a safe level; and that, in the longer term, developed and developing countries will converge on a roughly equal level of per capita emissions.
Within this overall approach, a country that wants to emit more than its yearly quota must buy credits from countries that have spare capacity. The country selling the credits is then free to invest the receipts in activities enabling it to develop sustainably. An emissions mechanism is a key feature of all of the proposed successors to Kyoto, but in this version the trading zone covers the whole planet from the outset. The consequence is that Contraction and Convergence offers a unique mixture of equity and flexibility which does not seek a literal convergence in greenhouse emissions, but rather a convergence in the rights of all countries to make use of the atmospheric commons. Unlike a number of competing approaches, Contraction and Convergence, if fully implemented and complied with, could be expected to reduce the risks of dangerous climate change substantially, although it will not prevent many adverse impacts in the short to medium-term. It also has the merit that it adopts emissions targets based on scientific criteria for protecting inequalities between developing and developed countries, and between generations, relative to its rivals. It will also tend to improve, relative to rival approaches, the position of the worst off since research suggests strongly that very many of the worst off will be members of developing countries in a future world blighted by climate change. Finally, it will be attractive to those who wish to bring as many people as possible to the point where they have enough since the measures it will introduce will benefit many millions of people in developed and developing countries who lead, or will lead, lives lacking in what is needed for a decent life without bringing more than a very limited number of people below the sufficiency level." "Contraction and Convergence - the Global Solution to Climate Change" -
Aubrey Meyer Green Books. C&C was pioneered by the Global Commons Institute Climate Change, Justice and Future Generations Edward Page
Contraction and convergence
In this connection again and again we often hear you using two buzz-words – “contraction” and “convergence”. Could you give us a quick run-down on what you mean?
It is all about balancing out the way resources are used on a globally sustainable level. The idea is to put the “resource-guzzling”, rich countries on a diet – i.e. contraction – in order to enable the poorer countries to raise their consumption to a minimal level so that their livelihoods would be ensured and a certain degree of affluence would be guaranteed – i.e. convergence. Goethe Institute - Interview with Wolfgang Sachs
Creative Policy Solutions: Contraction and Convergence
Aubrey Meyer, musician and composer, former member of the UK Green Party and co-founder of the Global Commons Institute in 1990, is an active promoter of climate mitigation through ‘Contraction and Convergence’ - a practical and equitablc approach to combating climate change. He believes that those economists who argue that climate mitigations is too expensive a policy option effect ively condone the murdering of many of the world's poor. He argues (Meyer 2000) that although greenhouse gas emissions have been accumulating in the atmosphere as a result of industrialization for over 200 years, suggesting that in principle every citizen on the planet has an equal right to emit, there must be an equitable individual allowance based on safe global emissions targets provided by the best scientific understanding available.Contraction and Convergence offers a simple model on which an international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions can be based.
It can be achieved in three stages: -
1. securing an agreement on a cap on CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere;
2 calculating the speed at which emissions need to be reduced to reach that target;
3 calculating the consequent total carbon budget and allocating a per capita allowance throughout the world.
The result will be that per capita emissions from each state wil converge at a fair level while the global sum of emissions will 'contract’. Meyer believes that greenhouse gas concentrations should contract to 450 ppm and that convergence to equal per capita emissions should be achieved by 2030. This process requires the creation of a carbon currency, which could finance clean technology and eradicate Third World debts, combat global poverty, and minimize the economic differences between the developed and developing worlds. As Flannery (2005) notes, this ‘strong medicine,' could be the foundation for a new Kyoto that does away with ‘free-riders’ but will mean definite political and economic costs for the developed nations. Contraction and Convergence is thus a vehicle for achieving global equity not only in CO2 emissions but also in economic wealth, prsoperity and human well-being. The rich nations of the North are by far the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases. Even today, Africa's accumulated emissions are a small fraction of those produced by the UK. But Contraction and Convergence can only be realized of the participation, dialogue, debate and accommodation that is beginning to characterize global politics in major areas of environmental and sustainability policymaking develop further. NGO pressure groups, independent think-tanks, swcientific organizations and corporate and government bodies, which form 'epistemic' or knowledg-based communities must work with rather than against each other if agreement on climate change is to be secured. As Gough and Shackley (2001. p332) write: - "The science-policy nexus represented by the IPCC and supporters of the UNFCCC Kyoto Protocol, with its inclusion of Government officials, international organizations, scientists, NGOs, business and so on incorporates the key elements of an epistemic community. A distinctive knowledge-based approach to climate assessment and policy has emerged within the IPCC in which the NGOs have been instrumental both as expert advisors and in provideing the legitimacy of inclusiveness needed for the epistemic coalition to have sufficient authority. The fact that environmental NGOs (ENGOS), governmental and intergovernmental actors, the scientific establishement and even some business groups are in coaltion can be atermendously powerful influence. NGOs that have helped to create the climate change epistemic community have needed to move their own terms of reference towards science and technical policy measures and resonses away from ethics and overtly political matters, such is the price of membership of the coalition. This is to shut the door on the use of a range of potnetially useful concepts and devices such as global equity and North-South development." Understanding Sustainable Development
John Blewitt
"Expansion and Divergence have characterised human use of nature throughout history. Humankind has increasingly expanded those parts of the ecosphere dominated, disrupted and destroyed by it. At the same time, levels of natural resource consumption have increasingly diverged within human societies. In response to problems emerging on this development path, the ‘Contraction and Convergence’ approach has now been postulated for the specific field of climate sustainability. This approach can in fact be applied as a general principle. An overarching environmental policy goal, it would imply reducing excessive overall levels of natural resource consumption while at the same time harmonizing per capita consumption levels worldwide. However, fundatmental structural and development circumstances - in the realms of demography, economy, technology, politics and social psychology stand in the way of realizing this concept of sustainability." Kontraktion und Konvergenz als Leitbegriffe der Politischen Okonomie der Umwelt
Karoly Henrich
"Contraction refers to the 'full-term event' in which the future global total of greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions from human sources is shrunk over time in a measured way to near zero-emissions within a specified time-frame. The example shows 90% by 2100. Calculating future emissions contraction on the basis of concentrations and sink evidence is a non-random way of responding to the objective of the UNFCCC.
Contraction and convergence
"The current state of global overshoot highlights the need for analysis and strategy to bring the human economy within the limits of the biosphere. Similar concerns about global emissions of carbon dioxide have led to a conceptual framework for reducing these emissions known as ‘contraction and convergence’. First described by the Global Commons Institute (Meyer 2000), contraction and convergence proposes a framework for stabilizing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations through two complementary approaches:
Contraction. The need to reduce humanity’s CO2 emissions to a level that will result in the eventual stabilization of atmospheric carbon dioxide at an agreed-upon level (e.g. 550 ppm).
Convergence. The need to collectively negotiate how this reduction in greenhouse gas emissions will be allocated between nations.
Costs of emissions reductions will adversly impact the economies of some regions more than others. Dislocating coal jobs in the poorer regions will have a greater political-economic impact than on the wealthier coastal and urban regions where the energy from coal is primarily used. As Hu (2009) argues, it is the wealthier regions that need to make the reductions first, allowing interior and western regions to continue developing while the wealthier regions taken on the burden of beginning the process of contraction and convergence across sectors. In developing a national C&C roadmap, China’s governance will require a scalar methodology of oversight resembling the approach introduced as the climate box. Ensuring that this box is tightly sealed is a difficult problem for the Government, as emissions slippage will almost certainly occur at multiple levels. Furthermore, each of these scales of governance represents an opportunity for intervention by foreign governments, non-governmental organisations, firms and other parties that have an interest in seeing China converge its CO2 output and contract towards the nations fair share of global emissions. The primary challenges facing China will be on-site compliance and accountability of climate strategies, and the developments of more robust forms of public participation to ensure that they are measurably effective. China’s Responsibility for Climate Change:
Ethics, Fairness and Environmental Policy - Paul Harris
The Global Commons Institute has been advocating a per capita approach in international climate negotiations since 1990, under the name “Contraction and Convergence.” This model has been endorsed by a number of governmental and non-governmental organizations, including the European Parliament, the United Kingdom’s Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and India. Under the Global Commons Institute’s proposal, emissions quotas would ultimately be allocated to countries on a per capita basis. But the developed nations would first be given an adjustment period of several decades during which time they would reduce their emissions to a universal per capita level. This is the “contraction” phase. Once the heaviest emitters of CO2 had reduced their emissions levels, the right to emit carbon would be allocated to countries on a per capita basis. This is the “convergence” phase. The precise rate and magnitude of the two phases would be worked out through international negotiations. Once the convergence phase began, a global cap-and-trade program would be established so that nations that were unable to work within their per capita allocations of allowances would be able to purchase additional emissions allowances from other, more carbon-frugal countries. Allocating the Costs of the Climate Crisis
Washington Law Review Amy Sinden
Hypotheses are shorthand for a complex reality: they reduce a dense tangle of events to a simple but comprehensible schema. In order to picture which development paths might bring the world to a greater level of resource justice, it may be useful to employ the hypothesis of 'contraction and convergence' that developed out of research on future climate policy. It concentrates on two development paths: one for the industrial countries, one for the developing countries.
Equality - at what level?
In the 'contraction and convergence' model for the future, the world's nations adjust their use of resources so that in half a century from now they no longer overstretch the absorption and regeneration capacity of the biosphere. Since no nation has the right to a disproportionate share of the global environment, each one tries - though with individual variations - to achieve the common goal of material and energy consumption compatible with the d emands of other countries, while remaining within the load-bearing capacities of the biosphere. In the end, there is no justification for any other distribution of globally important resources; the right of all nations to a self-defined and equal development p ermits each nation only to make claims that are socially and ecologically sustainable at a global level. This is what the argument inspired by Kant comes down to: institutional patterns of resource consumption should be considered unjust if they rest upon rules which cannot in principle be adopted by all other nations. This image of the future requires that the industrial countries contract - that is, that they reduce their consumption of resources. For it strictly follows from the above premises that the overconsumers should first of all step down from their excessively high level. R eso urce justice in the world crucially depends on whether the industrial countries are capable of retreating from overconsumption of the global environment. The example of greenhouse gases may serve to illustrate the path of shrinking resource consumption. By the middle of the century, the overconsumers must reduce by 80 to 90 per cent the strain they put on the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, in order to do justice to the precepts of both ecology and fairness. Since fossil energy at present accounts for the bulk of resource budgets in the rich countri es, it has proved useful to speak of a 'Factor 10':5 which means that by mid-century these countries will have to manage on resources ten times lower than the consumption levels of 1990 - unless viable technologies for the disposal of CO2 can be developed in the meantime. W e should remember that the consumer class in the countries of the South is placed under the same responsibility. The Factor 10 formula simply defines the order of magnitude; lower or even higher targets may be set in individual cases. Although Factor 10 refers to fossil resources, the aim is also to reduce consumption of biotic resources; the cuts may turn out be less drastic, but the limited areas of land suggest that restrictions will have to apply here too. The developing countries, for their part, appear in the model as tracing an upward curve in resource consumption. First, poorer countries have an unquestionable right to attain at least the 'dignity line' of resource consumption which should apply to all citizens of the world. Without access to kerosene or biogas, without an energy and transport infrastructure, it is hard to satisfY even the basic n eeds of human life. Moreover, each country will try to achieve different images and forms of a prosperous society - an ambition that in turn requires access to resources such as energy, materials and land. But the upward movement cannot lead to an exponential curve; it should follow a linear path and tend towards convergence with the industrial countries in a common 'target corridor'. For the ascent ends at an upper line of ecological sustainability for all; natural limits set the framework for justice. The future model of 'contraction and convergence' thus combines ecology and justice. It begins with the insight that environmental space is finite, and it ends with a fair sharing of the environment by the citizens of the world. Fair Future
Wolfgang Sachs and Tilman Santarius
The only alternative to the Kyoto targets seems to be the possibility of contraction and convergence. This is a three-stage process where initially agreement is sought on the upper limits for C02 emissions. Once the overall limit has been agreed, there has to be further agreement of the proportion of the gas released that remains in the atmosphere, so that the rate of reduction ill emissions to reach the overall target can be estimated. The third stage is the allocation of maximum consumption targets for each nation. This allocation process is still the center of dispute, as a fair leyel should be an equal allocation to each person. The means to get round this potential impasse would be to have a transition period for the convergence, with the higher consuming countries trading peemits with those who were more efficient in their use of fossil fuels. Such an agreement would allow the flow of capital from the rich to the poorer countries and there would be a strong incentive to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and to maintain
efficiency in all energy use. Howeyer, making such a proposition is only the first step in the process, which is likely to be long and difficult. As we have already seen in the last ten years (from Rio to Kyoto. via the Hague and Bonn), it is extremely difficult to make global agreements on the environment, and progress towards even converging on an approach has been painfully slow. Perhaps it is at the local level that public policy can haye a greater impact on the quest for sustainable transport. Sustainable Transport and Public Policy
David Bannister UCL
"Various approaches have been proposed for allocating commitments to countries regarding the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. One of these methods is the ‘contraction and convergence’ approach, which defines emission permits on the basis of converging per capita emissions under a contracting global emission profile. The approach is unique in its simplicity. Only two major issues need to be negotiated and agreed upon: the target atmospheric concentration of CO2 and the date when the entitlements are to converge at equal per capita allocations. According to the contraction and convergence approach, developing countries can continue their current emission trends, whereas industrialized countries should reduce their emissions quite dramatically. This regime represents a shift away from the current approach towards defining commitments for all parties and their evolution over the long term. This article analyses how allocation schemes determined by the contraction and convergence approach might affect certain OECD and non-OECD countries. Results for eleven countries selected for analysis (United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Japan, China, Venezuela, Thailand, Brazil, India and Indonesia) reveal that trends observed in the past few decades in most industrialized countries will lead to the contraction and convergence target." Greenhouse gas emission reductions in the post-Kyoto period:
Emission intensity changes required under the ‘contraction and convergence’ approach
E. Kuntsi-Reunanen and J. Luukkanen
The ‘Contraction and Convergence’ (C&C) approach, which also assigns, in principle, an equal per capita ‘right’ to GHG emissions to all people, and expects emissions of all countries to converge to that level by a set date, can be seen as an application of the ES approach. (Kuntsi-Reunanen and Luukkanen, 2006; Meyer, 2000; Najam, et al., 2003; Pearce, 2003). Although initially dismissed as idealistic, there are signs that its political acceptability is growing, in part because there seems to be no other way to bring countries like China and India into the fold of a global climate change regime. Many political and business leaders, including the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, have expressed support for the adoption of a global agreement based on the Contraction and Convergence model, recognising that, in global political terms, it is the most realistic basis for forging international consensus on a post-Kyoto climate change agreement (Global Commons Institute, 2008; Spiegel Online International, 2007). Sharing the atmosphere: A proposal for an equitable and sustainable global trading scheme for greenhouse gas emissions
Ton Bührs University of Warwick
"Contraction and convergence" - "One way of ensuring climate equity or justice assumes equal rights to the global commons - that is the oceans, Antarctica, space and the atmosphere. One influential example of this way of thinking is the Contraction and Convergence approach. In this case, the goal is to see net aggregate emissions decline over time below some maximum threshold level that stabilises greenhouse gas concentrations with per capita emissions of Annex I and Non. Annex I countries arriving at equality. A key assumption within this approach is that international climate change agreement should be based on the equitable distribution of rights to emit greenhouse gases. It is interesting to note that the idea did not come from a well-resourced international NGO or one of the international agencies, but was forced on the climate-change negotations by the determination of a few campaigners like Aubrey Meyer, a former classical musician. With some savings, a suitcase, a laptop computer, some support from friends he toured the climate-change negotiations to press his arguments. He and his colleagues could be seen as the Robin Hoods of climate negotiations from the 1990s onwards." Climate Change - from Science to Sustainability:
Stephen Peake Jo Smith OUP
WHOSE ATMOSPHERE? The IPCC low concentration scenario results in a CO2 concentration of 450 ppmv CO2 and a total greenhouse gas concentration equivalent to about double pre-industrial levels. TIlis would produce a long.term temperature increase of about 2.5·C at the present best estimate of climate sensitivity. However, it is difficult to maintain that such a target would be tolerable with respect to the human rights of considerable sections of the world population. A lower target is required. taking into account not only
the aggregate cost of dimate change mitigation, but also protection of the inalienable livelihood rights of la rge numbers of world cit izens. The Climate Action Network has therefore called for a target which keeps the global mean temperature increase below 2”C above pre·industrial levels, with the temperature being reduced as rapidly as possible after the time that it peaks. Such a target is unlikely to be ‘safe”, but the probability of a large scale dangerous change would be lowered for most regions. So far, both Northern and Southern governments - apart from the Island States - have shown little interest in defining low danger emission caps in the climate negotiations. All parties disregard the fact that when it comes to capping emissions, the choice is between human rights and the need for affluence. The task of keeping the temperature rise below 2’C appears too large, and too threatening to the economic interests of consumers and corporations. In particular, it still seems to have escaped the attention of Southern countries that dimate protection is of the utmost importance for the dignity and survival of their own people. It is time they become protagonists of climate protection, because climate protection is not simply aoout crops and coral reefs, but fundamentally aoout human rights. The point of convergence of North and South on equal emission levels cannot be achieved at the expense of contraction , i.e. the transition to globally sustainable levels of emissions. Once again, sustainability gives rise to equity.
In the Policy scenano GHGs concentrations are forced ,n stead to remain below 550 ppm CO2-eq at the end of the century. The policy tool is a global cap-and-trade scheme on which allowances are distributed according to the contraction-and-convergence (CC) rule, in 2010 permits are first distributed in proportion to present emissions and then progressively converge to a full equal-per-capita allocation scheme in 2050. We name this policy scenario 'Stabilization'. Investing in a Low Carbon Power Sector
Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei [FEEM]
In 1990, a group of activists led by Aubrey Meyer founded the Global Commons Institute [GCI]. Its objective is to find a solution to global warming that is fair to all inhabitants of the Earth. A GCI ublication,"Contraction and Convergence: A Global Solution to a Global Problem", states:
"Because everyone - regardless of status - is now increasingly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, the rich have little choice but to share the burden of contraction fairly."
The GCI presented its original agenda to the Second World Climate Conference in 1990. Later, at the urging of the IPCC, it developed a plan that is now known as "Contraction & Convergence" (C&C). The goal of C&C is to reverse the current state of affairs in which industrialized countries account for a growing share of emissions. Developing countries suffer most of the effects of global warming and the two sides cannot agree on how to so solve the problem. The Institute observed, “We consider that a failure to face and secure a global commitment of this kind will result in a perpetual stalemate in the international political process to the extent that the agreement and delivery of global abatement targets will become less and less possible." Environmental Regulations and Global Warming Point/Counterpoint:
Issues in Contemporary American Society - Paul Ruschmann Alan Marzilli
"Contraction and Convergence" This scheme was first introduced by the NGO Global Commons Institute (GCI) in 1990 and has been refined further into what is popularly termed “contraction and convergence.” According to GCI, it is not possible to tackle the climate issue without adhering to these two key elements—contraction (environmental integrity) and convergence (equal per capita entitlements) (Meyer 2000). "Options for Protecting the Climate"
Mark Malik Aslam WRI
Per Capita the Only Way
Support from unexpected quarters came as a welcome surprise for developing countries such as India, which have demanded that international climate change negotiations be based on the principle of equity. A report released by the UK’s Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP) in June 2000 said that an effective, enduring and equitable climate agreement will require greenhouse gas (GHG) emission quotas to be allocated to nations on a simple and equal per capita basis. The UK government is expected to respond in writing in the form of a commentary on the report, an explanation of how existing policies and programmes can be reconciled with it and what new policies - if any - the govemmenl is considering in light of the report. So far, the UK has held a position of indifference towards the South’s demand to calculate GHG emissions on a per capita basis as each human being has an equal entitlement to the atmosphere. As a system of per capita entitlements cannot enter into force immediately, the report proposes ‘contraction and convergence’. “Initially shares are ‘as is’, that is, approximately proportionaito each country’s income”, explains Aubrey Meyer from the London-based Global Commons lnstitute, a leading advocate of this approach. ‘’Over an agreed future period of years however, all countries will converge on the same allocation per head of their population in a base year to be agreed. This means the quotas of industrialized countries fall year by year, while those of developing countries rise until all nations emit equal amounts of GHG per head (convergence)." The RCEP report proposes 2050 as the year for convergence. It will also be cut-off date for national populations, that is, further changes in acountry’s population will not affect its emissions quotas. From then on, after convergence has been achieved, the quotas of all nations would decline together at the same rate (contraction). According to the report, commentators on climate diplomacy have identified contraction and convergence as the leading contender among the various proposals for allocating emissions quotas to nations in the long run. To make an agreement based on per capita allocation quotas more feasible. The report supports emission trading between nations. Countries that wish to emit GHG in excess of their respective quotas would be able to purchase unused quotas at prices that incline other countries to emit less than their quotas. Relevance of Environment Narottam Gaan
"Contraction and Convergence [C&C] would reduce the complexity of climate negotiations to two simple variables that would need to be agreed:
• the target atmospheric concentration of CO2, and
• the date when entitlements converge to being equal per capita.
The approach offers the best chance of solving a great, and immensely destructive, international paradox. Interestingly, C&C would also fit the stated position of the otherwise recalcitrant United States. In his statements on climate change, President George W. Bush set out specific criteria for what sort of treaty the US would be willing to sign. They included: a truly global deal including emissions targets for developing countries (or, from another perspective, entitlements) and the need for a science-based approach.Contraction and convergence, with its global participation design and formal greenhouse gas concentration target is exactly such an approach." "Ecological Debt"
Andrew Simms on C&C
Contraction and Convergence a framework for long-term climate policy, is an idea promoted by the Global Commons Institute. The aim is to avoid climate destabilization in an equitable way. The first part starts with the assumption that there is a certain safe level of GHGs in the atmosphere. If this level is exceeded, the world would risk catastrophic effects of climate change. It is difficult to say exactly what the safe level is, but it is commonly agreed that CO2 concentrations should stay within a range of 450-550 part million by volume [ppmv]. On the basis of this the worldwide CO2 emissions can be calculated. To be realistic, contraction should take into account the current CO2 emissions and the growth path of emissions in the short term. In the longer term, there has to be a large contraction of emissions in order to stay within the safe level of for example 450 ppmv in the atmosphere. Based on the agreed upper limit of CO2 concentration combined with a feasible rate of emissions reduction over time a global emissions budget can be set. The second part convergence is about an equitable distribution of the worldwide emissions budget. The ideal would be an equal per capita distribution of the emissions entitlements. This could be done per year and distributed per country. The emissions entitlement should then be tradable between countries. Given population growth and the fact that emissions have to be reduced over time, the per capita entitlements will become less each year. A sudden introduction of an equal per capita distribution of emissions entitlements would not be politically acceptable. The current per capita emissions in developed countries are many times higher than those in developing countries. Climate Change in Developing Countries
M van Drunen, R Lasage, C Dorland
Contraction and convergence
What would it imply to bring the world to a greater level of resource justice? The vision of ‘contraction and convergence’ (Meyer, 2000) anticipates two different development paths: one for industrial countries: one for developing countries, All nations of the world would adjust their use of resources so that in half a century from now they no longer overstretch the absorption and regeneration capacity of the biosphere, Since no nation has the right to a disproportionate share of the global environment, each one endeavours - though with individual variations - to achieve the common goal of material and energy consumption compatible with the demands of other countries, while remaining within the carrying capacity of the biosphere. In the end, there is no justification for any other distribution of globally important resources: the right of all nations to a self-defined and equal development permits it only to make claims that are socially and ecologically sustainable al a global level. Given that the industrial countries excessively occupy the global environmental space, it follows that they are called upon to contract - that is, that they reduce their consumption of resources drastically. Resource justice in the world crucially depends on whether the industrial countries are capable of retreating from overconsumption of the global environment. The example of greenhouses gases may serve to illustrate the path of shrinking resource consumption. By the middle of the century, the over-consumers must reduce by 80 to 90 percent the strain they put on the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, in order to do justice to the precepts of both ecology and fairness. Clearly, the need to reduce fossil fuel consumption and carbon emissions applies to the ‘global North’, which includes the wealthy consumer classes of the South. On the other hand, the contraction and convergence perspective sees developing countries as tracing an upward curve in resource consumption. First, poorer countries have an unquestionable right to attain at least a ‘dignity line’ of resource consumption that should apply to all citizens of the world. Without access to kerosene or biogas, without an energy and transport infrastructure, it is hard to satisfy even the basic needs of human life. Moreover, each country will try to achieve different images and forms of a prosperous society - an ambition that in turn requires access to resources such as energy, materials and land. However, this upward movement ends at an upper line of ecological sustainability for all; natural limits set the framework for justice. As it happens, a number of emerging economics are already about to hit that limit in the coming decade. The conceptual model of 'Contraction and Convergence’ thus combines ecology and justice. It begins with the insight that environmental space is finite, and it ends with a fair sharing of the environment by the citizens of the world. It was as early as October 1926 that Mohandas Gandhi sensed the impasse of development. In one of his columns for Young India, the mouthpiece of the Indian independence movement, he wrote ‘God forbid that India should ever take to industrialization after the manner of the West. The economic imperialism of a single tiny island kingdom (Britain) is today keeping the world in chains. If an entire nation of 300 million took to similar economic exploitation, it would strip the world bare like locusts.’ More than 80 years later the wider implications of this statement have lost none of its relevance. Indeed, its importance has increased, since today there are no longer 300 million but 1000 million setting out to imitate the model of development that began in Britain with the Industrial Revolution. Gandhi suspected that it would not be possible to restore India’s dignity, and still Iess China’s or Indonesia’s, at the economic level of Britain. The biophysical limits to the spread of the Euro-Atlantic civilization have impressively confirmed Gandhi’s intuition. The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology
Michale Redclift and Graham Woodgate
"If a target is set for an acceptable concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and an 'emissions budget' set to to meet it, it becomes possible to work out for every year from now until the target is met what everybody's logical and equal share is of the atmosphere's ability to soak up our waste emissions. To do this a formula is used so that, in an agreed timeframe, entitlements to emit are pre-distributed in a pattern of international convergence so that, globally, shares become equal per capita. This unavoidable procedure - if chaos is to be avoided - was described and given the term 'contraction and convergence' by the London-based Global Commons Institute. In essence, the world has a carbon cake strictly limited in size. Beyond certain dimensions it becomes rapidly poisonous for everyone, and the only way to begin negotiations on how to cut the cake is to start with the principle that we all have equal access rights. What we do with them is another matter." Governing for Sustainable Urban Development
Yvonne Rydin
"Clearly, any system for tackling these problems has to treat rich and poor countries differently. India, producing 1.6 tonnes of carbon per person annually, cannot be treated the same as the USA, producing 24.0 per person. Any regulatory system has to include policies for contraction and convergence or 'cap and share. Both approaches propose a year-on-year contraction in permitted emissions levels, leading to an eventual convergence on equal per capita emissions across the planet." "The Spirit Level: Why Greatr Equality Makes Societies Stronger"
Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson
The issue of 'equity' broadens the policy discourse by including considerations not primarily motivated by the impacts of climate change and mitigation policies on global welfare as a whole, but rather by whether climate change and mitigation policics would exacerbate existing inequalities among and within countries. This is the basis for policy strategies that seek to promote greater equity in global use of resources by
allowing the emissions of developing nations to expand while overall global emissions are reduced. An important product of this is the 'contraction and convergence' approach in which the pursuit of greenhouse gas stabilization drives convergence of per capita emissions and income. This focus has led from considerations of equity towards an agenda of sustainable development. Ethics, equity, and international negotiations on climate change edited
Luiz Pinguelli Rosa, Mohan Munasinghe
"One increasingly popular proposal for action on climate change involves 'contraction and convergence'(Meyer 2000) which calls for per-capita emissions of each state to be brought to a level that is equal with other states and that the atmosphere can withstand, in practice meaning that emissions in wealthy countries would come down to a safe level (contraction) and in most developing countries would go up to that level (convergence). The notion of contraction and convergence is essentially based on egalitarianism (Heyward 2007: 526). The equal per-capita amount that the atmosphere can withstand is roughly l .5 tonnes carbon-dioxide equivalent per person per year, which compares with about 20 tonnes in the United States, on one end or the spectrum, and about 0.1 tonnes in Mali, on the other (Smith 2006: 97). What the cosmopolitan corollary would require is that this policy be implemented not only among states but within them as well. This would mean that while most people in rich countries would lower their greenhouse gas emissions to the globally safe per-capita level most people in poor countries would be allowed to increase their emissions to that level. A difference between this approach and international doctrine is of course that poor people in wealthy states would not bear an unfair burden. Conversely, while most people in poor and developing countries would be allowed to increase their greenhouse gas emissions to the globally safe level, a large minority of people - the affluent - in those same countries would be required to reduce them. The precise amounts set for people would reasonably and fairly depend on their circumstances. Some people are in no position to reduce their emissions, and some emissions over the safe per capita limit might be allowed for certain people if there is no alternative. At the same time, it is reasonable and probably necessary to expect some people to reduce their emissions below the globally safe level. The candidates for this requirement will be those who have polluted far more than they should have done already and who have the means (financial technological and so forth) to reduce their emissions below the globally safe level while still meeting their basic needs." World Ethics and Climate Change: From International to Global Justice
Paul G Harris
C&C and the US
Interestingly. Contraction and Convergence (C&C) would fit with the stated position of the otherwise recalcitrant US. In his statements on climate change, President Bush set out specific criteria for what sort of treaty the US would be willing to sign up to. These indude a truly global deal with emission targets (or from another perspective entitlements) for developing countries and the need for a science-based approach. C&C,wlth its global participation design and formal greenhouse gas concentration target is exactly such an approach. C&C is also fully consistent with the famous 1997 Byrd Hagel US Senate resolution that stipulated that the US would not sign up to any treaty that did not include developing countries. This has enormous and from a development perspective, very positive consequences since it can liberate resources to finance development. However, as action to combat global warming is delayed, emissions grow and populations rise, and the sustainable size of a carbon cake slice will get smaller and smaller. ln other words, the sooner we act the better. Governance for Sustainable Development
Georgina Ayre, Rosalie Callway
CHAPTER 18 POLITICS IN THE GREENHOUSE: CONTRACTING AND CONVERGING
Together, these steps represent an approach called Contraction and Convergence (C&C). Although it does have an ethical basis, C&C is essentially a pragmatic approach. Given the need to create a worldwide solution, because of growing emissions from the developing world and the reluctance of the USA to contemplate an approach which is not worldwide, C&C resolves this problem. Contraction and Convergence Green Books 2000 Meyer.
A personal account of the subject and of the climate negotiations. Energy and Climate Change: Creating a Sustainable Future
David Coley
The per capita emissions and the time for adjisting to safe levels of CO2 concentration are matters to be negotiated internationally. This strategy will hopefully lead to a just and legally-binding framework for global safely and saving the world from a looming catastrophe. While some developed countries like Denmark, The Netherlands, United Kingdom and Japan have endorsed this principle of 'contraction and
convergence' at the Kyoto discussions, some others like USA, who are the worst polluters, have not yet agreed to do so. Natural Resources Management and Livelihood Security
K V Sundararaman M. Moni, Mrityunjay M. Jha
"The world is defined by an effective policy commitment to high mitigation through strong policy coordination. In the 'coordinated mitigation world', the international community succeeds in developing a new Kyoto-like regime, negotiated under the UNFCCC entailing greater mitigation action by both the major Industrial Countries as well as Developing Countries. Contraction and Convergence interacting with markets and technology change succeeds in achieving deep emission cuts." Climate Change Policy in the European Union:
Confronting the Dilemmas of Mitigation and Adaptation?
"I recall a conversation with leading environmental officials in China in the early 1990s in which my Chinese interlocutors stated that anthropomorphic global warming was a substantial problem that required a global response. They said then that China would accept control on levels of greenhouse emissions and be ready to join a global 'system for trading emissions rights, as long as the starting point was equal per capita initial rights. This is not an unreasonable position: but it alone would provide no basis for agreement with developed countries. What sort of principle might guide allocation of a global emissions budget across countries? To be widely accepted as being reasonable, the principles will need to be simple. ln the end, they will need to give much weight to equal per-capita rights to emissions. They will need to allow long periods for adjustment towards such positions - within the overriding requirement to stay within an environmentally responsible global emissions budget.
One possible way of bringing together the latter two elements would be the 'contraction and convergence’ approach that has been discussed favourably in Germany and India and within which all countries emissions converge on an equal per capita amount at some appropriately defined future time. There will need to be headroom for emissions growth in rapidly growing developing countries within a general principle of equitable sharing of the adjustment burden. The headroom may take the form of challenging emissions intensity targets for example with emissions intensity of output falling at a rate that exceeds half of the GDP growth rate. A limit would need to be placed on the provision of headroom for rapidly growing developing countries. For example, if the ‘contraction and convergence’ approach were to be accepted as the first organizing idea and an 'emissions intensity alternative’ introduced for rapidly growing developing countries, the 'headroom' could be withdrawn at the point where the developing country rising per-capita emissions reach the (rapidly falling) per-capita emissions of standard (that is, moderate emissions developed countries (Europe, Japan, New Zealand). The principles will need to embody developed country commitment to investment in research and development and subsequent diffusion of technologies related to greenhouse gas mitigation to developing countries." International Institutions and Economic Development in Asia
Thanh Tri Vo Editor
"Sustainable Development is a commitment to improving people's well being, while recognizing the existence of only one planet. Living within global limits requires from humanity to define these limits in realistic terms and find ways to allocate maximum human demand' in ways acceptable to all nations. Contraction and Convergence as proposed by Aubrey Meyer from the Global Commons Institute provides such a framework for globally allocating the right to emit carbon in a way that is consistent with the physical constraint, of the biosphere. The approach rests on two transparent principles:
Contraction: reducing humanity's emissions to a rate that the biosphere can absorb.
Convergence: distributing total emissions in a way that is considered fair to all." The Future of Sustainability
Edited by Marco Keiner
In 2000 the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution [RCEP] famously called for a 60 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, based on the principle of contraction and convergence. In doing so it paved the way for the 80 per cent target now enshrined in legislation. This illustrates France's bid for cognitive leadership by promoting an argument for policy norms based on fairness. The French approach bears similarities to the 'contraction and convergence' model promoted by Meyer (2000), which views the atmosphere as a global commons and distributes national responsibilities on the basis of international and intergenerational equity. In addition, China and the developing world have a normative preference for the 'contraction and convergence' model.
Meyer, A (2000) “Contraction and Convergence - The Global Solution to Climate Change” Green Books The European Union as a Leader in International Climate Change Politics
Rüdiger Wurzel (Editor), James Connelly (Editor)
"If the complex process of reducing global carbon emissions is to have a fighting chance of succeeding, then it must start with a broad framework agreement, one that nations both big and small can live with. The most likely candidate is Contraction and Convergence (C&C) devised by the Global Commons Institute GCI). C&C is a science-based, global policy framework proposed to the UN since 1990 by GCI with the objective of safe and stable greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere and the principles of precaution and equity. The contraction budget for global emissions will be consistent with stabilising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases [GHGs] at a pre-agreed concentration maximum deemed to be safe, following IPCC WG1’s carbon cycle modelling. The international sharing of the budget as ‘entitlements’ results from a negotiable rate of linear convergence to equal shares per person globally by an agreed date within the timeline of the full-term contraction:concentrations agreement." The ZEDbook: solutions for a shrinking world
Bill Dunster (Author), Craig Simmons (Author), Bobby Gilbert (Author)
The fact that everyone has to eventually eliminate their emissions and arrive at carbon neutrality makes it a little easier to construct an international policy framework. Achieving carbon neutrality is a grand challenge, but it's one that we can and must meet. The good news is that an international policy framework already exists. In the early 1990s, Aubrey Meyer, founder of the U.K.-based Global Commons Institute, developed "contraction and convergence." The concept is simple and straightforward.
First, you determine what level of global warming is tolerable and what is unacceptable. We'll use 2 degrees C as the threshold. Second, you determine the allowable emissions that would keep you within this target. Our analysis suggests 539 billion tonnes of carbon from 2001 onward (484 billion tonnes from 2007 onward). This corresponds to the assumption of a 4.5 degrees C climate sensitivity, the upper bound of the IPCC likely range, meaning that there is less than a 330/0 chance of breaking the 2 degrees C threshold. The final contraction target is carbon neutrality, and we'll assume this occurs in 2100.
Now we must allocate the 539 billion tonnes of carbon emissions to individual countries between 2001 and 2100. This is the convergence phase. On the convergence date, the principle of global equity is evoked, and every person on Earth is given the right to emit the same amount of carbon. That is, per capita carbon emissions for all countries converge to a common number. We'll use 2075 as the convergence year, although there is no reason why it could not be the same as the contraction year, 2100. Finally, a date has to be chosen beyond which additional credits are not gained for increasing your country's population. That is, increasing your allowable emissions by increasing your country's birth rate is not to be encouraged. Keeping Our Cool
Andrew Weaver
“Contraction & Convergence is the centrepiece of our Climate Justice Project, but it’s just a framework, and won’t achieve anything unless people know about it and support it. Ultimately, our politicians have to be convinced that Contraction & Convergence is the way forward, and the Climate Justice Project is all about how we achieve this.” The Climate Justice Project
"One of the possible and likely the most prominent approaches is the process of "contraction and convergence" towards equal per capita emissions. This is based upon the assumption that the world's population seeks to stabilise CO2 concentrations at 450 ppmv (a level that might prevent dangerous impacts). Annual emissions of about 2 Gt carbon by the end of next century and not more than 600 Gt cumulative carbon emissions in the period from 1990 to 2100 would be the upper limit to the worlds carbon dioxide emissions. Under the convergence approach, equal per capita emissions would guide the allocation procedure over the long-term, i.e. per capita emissions of the various countries would converge to an amount considered to be sustainable. Obviously, this scenario would demand that industrialised countries curtail emissions significantly. Yet imposing this limit would also necessitate caps on developing countries in the near future. Most developing countries perceive equal per capita emissions in the long-term as an acknowledgement of the "equity" concerns of the Convention." “Contraction and Convergence; A Global Solution to a Global Problem" - Global Commons Institute The Kyoto Protocol
Herman Ott and Sebastian Oberthur
Contraction and Convergence (C&C) is one popular and well known policy option which assumes that the only practical and equitable way of allocating carbon is on an equal per capita basis (Meyer, 2004).
It allows nations to choose their own policy path towards low emissions. This more flexible approach then creates the opportunity for lessons learnt to be adopted elsewhere and for policy efforts to be scaled up or down as appropriate. It would ensure some level of global fairness and could provide Britain the opportunity to take a global lead on local action, international climate aid and technology transfer. Once the carbon budget has been allocated between countries, governments can develop their own national policy framework, or band together with other countries to develop regional carbon cap or tax schemes. ZERO CARBON BRITAIN 2030 A NEW ENERGY STRATEGY
The second report of the Zero Carbon Britain project
By early 2004 most countries which had signed were unlikely to meet their treaty obligations, following a history of disagreements. Even if the Protocol is agreed by all and it becomes legally enforceable, it will only run until 2012. The Protocol is seeking marked cuts in emissions, and targets will probably be based on nantional populations. Measures will seek ‘contraction and convergence’: reduced emissions, leading ultimately to similar emissions restrictions for all. The ideal would be that every citizen in the world would have the same right and quota to pollute. But this is unlikely to be reached before 2050 at best. Environmental Management
N K Sharma
There are many models and ideas that can help us think differently and challenge conventional thinking. Just one of those is contraction and convergence, a concept that has been developed by Aubrey Meyer, in response to the threat of runaway climate change.
The whole world needs a contraction in the production of carbon dioxide - an output of increased industrialisation and economic growth. Rich and poor nations must eventually converge in their carbon production, to avoid catastrophe. Less developed nations must be allowed to develop so their carbon use goes up - whilst industrialized and post industrial nations must make substantial reductions. There's another word for this: redistribution. And this model, of course, can apply to many resources and not just the carbon that affluent societies depend on.
This might not look like a vote winner, but the evidence suggests no really viable and sustainable alternatives. It seems likely that changing the social structure and the economy will not, by themselves, achieve this even if we knew how to do it. If we are to survive and thrive, then cultural change is also necessary. And that means we need to change ourselves as well, however little that appeals. University of Glasgow
The "Contraction and Convergence‟ approach to global climate policy would work by defining a global stabilisation target for greenhouse gas concentrations, and then sharing out the resulting global carbon budget on the basis of convergence to equal per capita entitlements to it by some negotiated date. Entitlements would be tradable, allowing countries to sell unused allowances providing low income countries, with their low per capita emissions, with a major new source of finance for development. The Greenhouse Development Rights approach is another attempt to solve the question of how to share out a global emissions budget. Resource scarcity, fair shares and development
A WWF/Oxfam discussion paper - Alex Evans
It's important to note that one typically unmentioned aspect of being socially responsible is to abstain from having children or, at the most, to only conceive one child per family, especially in the developed nations. There arc already too many consumers on this planet for our collective good, and children in the North consume much more wastefully than children in the South. The U.N. Millennium Forum Declaration (2000) demanded "a world where everyone lives in a clean environment with a fair distribution of the earth's resources," This international resolution validates the concepts of "contraction and convergence" and "equitable rationing on a per capita basis" as the best way and the only fair way to allocate resources and greenhouse gas emission pennits at the global and national level relative to absolute nominal targets. This far-sighted global resolution has vitally important implications for the future treatment of global climate refugees. Awakening to World Disorders and Climate Realities
Michael Clarke
Governments obviously have a key role in both causing and aiding solutions to Climate Change. Just as clearly, companies that are particularly damaging must change their ways and help to reduce the threat. However, we cannot rely on these institutions to do this out of goodwill: we must take action ourselves, both by pressurizing governments and companies, and by changing our own lifestyles. In the summer of 2005 a group of between 60 and 80 cyclists rode from London, England, to the site of the G8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland. Climate change was high on the agenda for the G8 that year and the riders were joining Upsetting the Offset with 1000s of other people in Scotland to lobby, protest and demonstrate. Their concerns were diverse. Some wanted to lobby the leaders of the G8 to take the environment more seriously and adopt contraction and convergence policies to mitigate what they saw as an imminent climate catastrophe, others saw the G8 itself as part of the problem and incapable of offering effective solutions to this or any other problem of late capitalism. As the G8 consists of the leaders of the most polluting, and advanced capitalist, nations, these protestors saw little hope that they would be able to do anything to solve the problems that were a product of the very system they oversaw and which gave them their authority. Instead, they saw a need for a more radical change in which people took direct responsibility for the problems of climate change and sought to create a more egalitarian world in which the rapacious economic growth of the affluent capitalist nations was challenged both through protest and through a strategy of selective disengagement: a process of creating alternative ways of organizing, and developing alternative technologies, in everyday life. See Global Commons Institute (1996) ‘Draft Proposals for a Climate Change Protocol based on Contraction and Convergence: A Contribution to Framework Convention on Climate Change’, Ad Hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate, 6th September 1996 AGBM/1.9.96/14, Global Commons Institute (2001) References for Contraction and Convergence, 11 August, http://www.gci.org.uk/refs/C&CUNEPIIIg.pdf and Meyer, A. (2004) ‘Briefing: Contraction and Convergence, Engineering Sustainability’, 157(4): 189-92. Upsetting the Offset The Political Economy of Carbon Markets
Steffen Böhm & Siddhartha Dabhi
I. The Case for Carbon Egalitarianism
The search for an adequate response to the problem of climate change has fostered a minor industry in the development of new proposals that advocates suggest should be incorporated into post-Kyoto climate agreements. One proposal that has become increasingly popular in recent years is "Contraction and Convergence" (C&C). Its most persistent and vocal advocate is Aubrey Meyer, the founder of the Global Commons Institute (GCI). a small non-governmental organisation which has consistently "punched above its weight'" in the climate policy community. GCI describe C&C as a "science-based, global climate policy framework”. The "contraction" elcment of C&C is straightforward. The science tells us that global carbon dioxide emissions ultimately exced "safe" levels. Therefore, the "budget" for global emissions must contract to a level "consistent with stabilising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at a pre-agreed conccntration maximum deemed to bc safe.” In other words, global emissions must be reduced ("contracted") to a safe level. The "convergence" element of C&C is also quite simple. Currently, some people (regions. nations and individuals) emit more carbon dioxide than other people. "Convergence" requires that we move toward "equal shares per person globally" or an equal per capita allocation of emission rights." It is the convergence element - or, more accurately the end point of convergence - that is of primary interest to us. The idea of equal emission rights per person globally suggests a universal right to equal carbon emissions. This rights-based reading of the proposal is supported by Athanasiou and Baer: A workable climate treaty must ... be a constitutional, "rights of man" kind of treaty, one in which we affirm that we all, however proud or humble we may be, have the same ultimate claim to the atmospheric commons. They make it clear that they envisage. "a radical expansion of [human] rights ... into the new territory of economic rights to global environmental resources." We might call this position, "cosmopolitan carbon egalitarianism" (or, for brevity, "carbon egalitarianism"). Why should we be "carbon egalitarians'? Athanasiou and Baer put the case dramatically: "We need to restrict global emissions - drastically and soon - and this means that we need a global climate accord. And this, in turn, means that we have to find a fair way to divide up a finite ‘atmospherie space'. To be blunt: unless you think that global apartheid is a realistic and desirable option, the issue is, necessarily, frairness in a finite world. And at the end of the day, there just isn't any way to conceive of such fairness except in [equal] per capita terms." Seeking Environmental Justice
Sarah Wilks
The Global Commons Institute has been advocating a per capita approach in international climate negotiations since 1990, under the name “Contraction and Convergence.” This model has been endorsed by a number of governmental and non-governmental organizations, including the European Parliament, the United Kingdom’s Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and India. Under the Global Commons Institute’s proposal, emissions quotas would ultimately be allocated to countries on a per capita basis. But the developed nations would first be given an adjustment period of several decades during which time they would reduce their emissions to a universal per capita level. This is the “contraction” phase. Once the heaviest emitters of CO2 had reduced their emissions levels, the right to emit carbon would be allocated to countries on a per capita basis. This is the “convergence” phase. The precise rate and magnitude of the two phases would be worked out through international negotiations. Once the convergence phase began, a global cap-and-trade program would be established so that nations that were unable to work within their per capita allocations of allowances would be able to purchase additional emissions allowances from other, more carbon-frugal countries. Allocating the Costs of the Climate Crisis
Washington Law Review Amy Sinden
"One of the most promising ideas in this area is called Contraction and Convergence, in which a ‘carbon budget’ is set for all nations based on a per capita allocation of allowable emissions. Under this system, nations with more carbon usage (usually the rich ones) would be able to buy credits from the poorer nations which had operated within their ‘carbon budget’." Modern Life: As Good as It Gets?
Richard Docwra
Contraction and Convergence is based on the principle of historical responsibility and equality or rights. It can be best defined as a future international climate regime based on converging capita emissions in conjunction with a gradual decrease in global emissions towards stabilization or GHG concentrations (Meyer 2000). Originally conceived by the Global Commons Institute in the early 1990's, it is based on two principles: First. contraction or global carbon emissions in order to achieve a pre-defined CO2 concentration target: Second. convergence of per capita emissions across the global population. In the short run this tantamount to a reduction for the developed states, while those in the developing countries are able to increase their per capita emissions in order to develop economically. Eventually per capita emissions converge at a per-capita level. DEVELOPING COUNTRIES AND EMISSION REDUCTION COMMITMENTS
Understanding the Drivers of Environment
Ruchika Saluja National University of Singapore
Peter Garrett capped a 25-year career as rock star with the band Midnight Oil by being named Minister of Environment in Australia. Less well known, but just as influential, is the work of the London-based violinist Aubrey Meyer, who has campaigned tirelessly and with considerable success for an equity-based solution to greenhouse gas emissions called “Contraction and Convergence”. The ISIS Agreement
Alan Atkisson
"Aubrey Meyer's principle of Contraction and Convergence, while hinging on the absolute equitability of allocating every person on earth the right to the same quantity of carbon emissions, in practice calls for a dramatic reduction in the non-renewable energy use of the most industrialized populations." Inhuman Nature
Nigel Clark
"Per capita emissions allocated according to Contraction and Convergence [2030 convergence year] under an emissions pathway designed to stabilize atmospheric GHG concentrations at 450 ppmv CO2 equivalent." Climate Ethics
Henry Shue
“The EU position resembles the Contraction and Convergence [C&C] approach, which requires long-term convergence of per capita emissions, while affording countries with per capita emissions below the global average the right to increase further their emissions before reducing them in line with the required global average.” "The Social and Behavioural Aspects of Climate Change"
Pim Martens
"One widely discussed and advocated framework for tackling climate change which claims a strong foundation in this mythic position of climate change as social justice is that of 'Contraction-and-convergence' (Meyer. 2001). Contraction-and-convergence has been widely endorsed by organizations ranging from the international negotiating bloc of the Africa Group, the Church of England, and from individuals such as Germany's Chancellor, Angela Merkel. The Indian Prime Minister has repeatedly stressed this principle when articulating the negotiating position of his country in international negotiations: 'Longterm convergence of per capita emissions is ... the only equitable basis for a global compact on climate change' (Singh. 2008)." The Future of Ethics
Stefan Skrimshire
Contraction and Convergence is a concept that refers to a long-term strategy for reducing global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This is a process where overall GHG emissions are reduced (contraction) while emissions reductions from the Global South would be less aggressive than those of the Global North through per capita allocation so a, to enable development in the Global South as well as flexibility for a transition from carbon based energy sources to renewable energy sources. This proposal has gained support from a number of policy participants with a particular sensitivity to issues of climate justice and equality. Eventually, all emissions entitlements would converge at an equal per capita emissions level dependent upon particular geography and political economy. The Politics of Climate Change
Maxwell T. Boykoff (Editor)
The Global Commons Institute has vigorously promoted the theme of equity in international negotiations on global warming and has come up with a radical approach of contraction and convergence. Aubrey Meyer and his colleagues accept that the only fair solution is that each individual currently alive has a right to energy use, and therefore to some inevitable carbon emissions. Given the aspirations of nations to achieve westernized lifestyles and patterns of consumption, equity will lead to greenhouse gas emissions far exceeding those of today and being more along the lines of the WEC's middle to high projections. Contraction, says Meyer, is for survival and means reducing global fossil fuel use by sixty per cent over the next one hundred years. That means that profligate users need to curb their emissions by efficiency gains, and by implementing alternative sources of energy. Convergence, on the other hand, will ensure that unequal per capita consumption of fossil carbon is policy-driven to parity. For contraction and convergence to work, targets and schedules will need to be set for all countries, based on their current populations and emissions. A sixty per cent final reduction on 1990 levels would mean an entitlement of approximately 0.5 tonnes of carbon per individual. Forest destruction and its inherent carbon emissions would also need to be included in the calculations. Meyer views emissions trading as a useful interim mechanism since it will provide countries with an incentive to keep their emissions below the quota. Consequently a number of developing countries have shown interest in promoting the overall idea of equity. It is unlikely to be accepted by the United States, which would ultimately have to reduce carbon emissions by ninety per cent. Furthermore, the United States argues that it is only by its consumption of cheap fossil fuels that it can compete for trade in global markets against cheap labour. The Breakdown of Climate
Peter Bunyard
From a scientific perspective it is interesting to consider the issues of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ and ‘bureden-shring’ in the context of meeting the ultimate objective of the UNFCCC. A ’rights-based’ approach wold be based on equal rights of people to the global commons and can be translated into equal per capita emissions rights. This is the backbone of the 'contraction & convergence' approach that has been embraced in the climale change policy debate by quite a number of non-govemmental and political groups, 'contraction' implying a global reduction of carbon dioxide emissions consistent with the canying capacity of the atmosphere, and 'convergence' referring to converging per capita incomes in different regions at some future date. Primer on Climate Change and Sustainable Development
Mohna Munasinghe and Rob Swart
Climate Change has health impacts and is arguably the most important global health issue of the 21st century, as it threatens to undermine the environmental conditions that sustain life on earth. Fossil fuel buming is impacting un the Earth's climate, through build-up of carbon dioxie in thc atmosphere. The atmosphere is a global, limited resource. Developed Countries such as the UK are using a disproportionately large share of the atmosphere. The UK emits 10 to 12 tonnes of carbon per person per year, compared with a global average of 1.2 tonnes per person. This resource should be distributed equitably between countries which should not exceed a fair 'carbon allocation (ESRC 2001) the so·cal1ed Contractiona and Convergenceframework. The NHS both contributes to climate change and wil1 have to deal with its health impacts. It is a high priority for the NiHS to reduce its caroon dioxide emissions. Progress in Sustainabale Development Research
Roberto A Lopez
Future Emission Reduction Negotiations
It is accepted by all that the present Kyoto Protocol is still only a start. By 2012 new targets must be set to achieve genuine reductions in emissions. A musician, Aubrey Meyer, concerned about the problems of implementing the present agreement, has proposed a fair solution to the global warming problem. He feels that it has the 'harmony and internal consistency' of music. The Energy Challenge
Geoffrey Haggis
Contraction and Convergence" A shorthand term for the equitable distribution of carbon dioxide releases to atmosphere, so that each nation eventually has the same per capita emission level. This would achieve (in time) a stabilized global CO2 ceiling level of say 450 ppmv. Thc Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution's 22nd Report 'Energy - the Changing Climate' of June 2000 has stated: 'The most promising and just basis for securing long·tcrm agreement is to allocate emission rights to nations on a per capita basis - enshrining the idea that every human is entitled to release into the atmosphere the same quantity of greenhouse gases. But because of the very wide differences between per capita emission levels around the world and because current global emissions are already above safe levels, there will have to be an adjustment period covering several decades in which nations' quotas converge on the same per capita level This is the principle of "Contraction and Convergence" which we support'. The Royal Commission went on to say: 'For the UK, international agreement along these lines which prevented carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere from exceding 550 ppmv and achieved convergence by 2050 could imply a reduction of 60 per cent from current annual carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 and perhaps of 80 per cent by 2100. These are massive changes'. Dictionary of environmental science and technology
Andrew Porteous
Contraction and Convergence. This proposal originally from the Global Commons Institute in the UK, defines as the goal a target of stabilised greenhouse gas concentration, assesses a global emissions pathway [variation in emissions with time] that would lead to this goal, and allocates emissions pathways to individual countries aimed at converging on the same emissions per capita at some future date such as 2050 or 2100. This would allows some initial increase in emissions per capita, but greater reductions for countries with high emissions per capita. Climate Change: The Science, Impacts and Solutions A. Barrie Pittock
Today I am going to take the position that an essential part of a successful implementation phase for the Protocol is a progressive reduction in emissions, moving towards equal per capita emissions rights throughout the world. This position is sometimes called ‘contraction and convergence’. It may seem like the other end of the traditional ideological spectrum compared with a position that espouses emissions trading. Contraction and convergence is based on equity – in the justice sense. It may seem absurdly optimistic. However, I think it has to be part of the plan, so that we can all share a common sense of direction. If we set out on this path it will be a historic undertaking. On a technical level, it might be seen as a feat comparable to the European re-discovery of the rest of the world from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries. On a moral level, it might rank with the commitment to abolish slavery. It certainly will not be easy. We all know that Kyoto, alone, will not solve the problem, even if it were implemented 100% by all the Annex 1 signatories. It is merely a change in direction, with CO2e emissions (from Annex 1 countries) going down, rather than up. Turning the ship around, for those who need another reassuring metaphor. So, where are we going? ‘Reduction’ is not a destination. ‘Contraction and convergence’ is a destination. It is a bio-geophysical ‘endpoint’. We will know when we have arrived, and we can measure our progress along the way. Contraction & Convergence: the Silver Lining in the Climate Change Clouds
Rodney R. White Geography & Environmental Studies, University of Toronto
CONGRESS OF THE SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITIES UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO 1st JUNE, 2002
Although no approach to climate change has followed ‘contribution to problem’ reasoning to the letter, historical responsibility is a component in the vast majority of the 40+ proposed architectures vying to replace the Kyoto Protocol when it expires in 2012 (see eg Bodansky et al, 2004; Aldy et al, 2003). As we saw above, the UNFCCC gestures towards – yet falls short of an unambiguous endorsement of – this approach when it states that ‘The Parties should protect the climate system…in accordance with their common and differentiated responsibilities’ (UN, 1995: p.5). A clearer endorsement still is contained in proposed architectures that endorse the aim of ‘contraction and convergence.’ This states that a successful architecture will manage the transition to a stabilisation, and later a contraction, in global greenhouse emissions so that they stay below a safe level while also bringing about an international convergence on a roughly equal level of national per-capita emissions (see eg Meyer, 2000). Perhaps the most explicit use of historical responsibility, however, is found in the influential ‘Brazilian Proposal’, first outlined in 1997. The proposal asserts that greenhouse emissions reductions required under the UNFCCC should be distributed amongst the developed nations according to their respective historical contributions to climate change (Miguez, 2002, pp.24ff). Distributing the burdens of climate change
Paper presented to the 4th ECPR Conference, University of Pisa, 6-8 September 2007
Ed Page, Department of Politics and International Studies, Warwick University, UK
In 1990, the Global Commons Institute (GCI) drew up a proposal regarding “equity for survival.” The proposal was based on the idea that the climate problem couldn’t be resolved without reducing the ever-growing gap between the rich and the poor. In terms of abatement, a fair burden-sharing scheme would place much of the responsibility on the shoulders of the industrialized countries since they have historically been responsible for most of the emissions. As a result of this growing political awareness, GCI developed a method for reducing emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) based on “equity for survival.” The method, called “contraction and convergence” (C&C), was first developed by Tony Cooper and Aubrey Meyer in the spring of 1996. A team from GCI then presented the idea to the second Conference of the Parties (COP 2) in Geneva, in July 1996. Since then, the idea has garnered support from more and more governments and NGOs. Long-term climate targets: To each his own quota
Hans H. Kolshus - research assistant at CICERO.
The history of the climate negotiations shows that such commitments for developing countries, even for the most powerful and resource rich of them, can only be within reach if they are perceived as fair and just. This is a political fact. The concept of Contraction and Convergence may be very difficult to give concrete shape, but the idea needs to be present in the future structure of an international climate regime. Principles of justice must however, also be reflected at the national level where they raise difficult problems of equality, with potentially far-reaching politcal connotations. Fairness in Adaptation to Climate Change
W. Neil Adger, Jouni Paavola, Saleemul Huq, M. J. Mace
In the UK, this challenge of policy integration has been revealed dramatically
in recent scholarship that has emphasized the large disparity between
aviation policy and climate policy, given the UK Government’s commitment to
achieve ambitious CO2 reduction targets (Bows et al, 2006). Without prompt
action to curtail the growth of demand for air travel, forecasts indicate that all
other UK sectors would have to almost completely decarbonize by 2050 in
order to compensate for aviation emissions (Bows et al, 2006, p3). The authors
argue that the use of a ‘contraction and convergence’ policy regime is required
in order to achieve the required emissions reductions; aviation policy should
therefore be compatible with – rather than contrary to – such a regime. Climate Change and Aviation -
Issues, Challenges and Solutions
Edited by Stefan Gössling and Paul Upham
Relying on past cases of appropriorion or allocation of other unclaimed resources from the "global commons" of Antarctica, the oceans and the moon, Raymond finds link precedent ror any of the five standard allocation arguments. Instead the recurring Humean claim to exclusive national property rights based in possession (like those implicit in GHG emission rights) is often opposed by "a more radical egalitarian re jection of any exclusive control that does not benefit all citizens of the world." Such a view can be seen, he suggests, in the Common Heritage of Mankind [CHM] principle that has been proposed for the management of the high sea, and that is reflected in the Moon Treaty. This principled resistance to what Raymond terms the ‘enclosure’ of the global commons contrasts with schemes that assume private-property-right allocation to be a necessary mechanism for avoiding the "tragedy of the commons," of an over-appropriated atmosphere. Despite its explicit rejection in principle of the private allocation of the atmosphere’s absorbtive capacity, Raymond identifies several coneptual links between the CHM idea and the "Contraction and Convergence” proposal for an equal per capita assignment of national emissions shares, and sees in this ideal the potential to overcome several prominent normative objections to the privatization of the atmosphere. Political Theory and Global Climate Change
Steve Vanderheiden, John Barry
Setting a framework for the future Implementing existing agreements and fulfilling obligations to developing countries are essential basic steps, but the world will ultimately need to agree a more logical and coherent framework to tackle climate change than the Kyoto Protocol. In the end, fossil fuels will have to be rationed to stop climate change. The big question is, how? Controlling global warming means shrinking and sharing the carbon emissions cake. It needs shrinking both to a level, and in time, to avoid dangerous climate change. And it needs sharing on a basis that can lay the foundations of a global deal acceptable to the majority world. Many believe that poor countries deserve, per person, a larger slice because of their historical under-use. A minimum workable global deal will mean moving, in a set, negotiated timeframe, to entitlements to the carbon cake that are at least equal. A recent, but retrospective baseline year would be used for population comparisons to determine national entitlements. To create a flexible framework that allows for the smoothest possible transition, entitlements will also need to be tradeable. At any one time it is likely that many countries will have either surplus or deficit entitlements. Policy wonks call this ‘contraction and convergence’. It fits US demands for a global deal that is science-based, and it also fits the original design of the UNFCCC. Balancing the Other Budget
Andrew Simms, policy director of NEF and Romilly Greenhill, economist for Jubilee Research
Climate scientists have proposed a contraction and convergence approach in order to share out the impacts of climate change in a more equitable manner on a global scale. This approach adopts the following principles: -
The precautionary principle
The polluter-pays principle
The equity principle
Equal per capita emissions allocations underlie the “contraction and convergence” framework put forward by organization, such as the Global Commons Institute. Under this approach, annual emissions per capita in different countries would be allowed to converge toward similar levels over time and possibly roughly equate to the rate at which the natural systems can absorh the excess greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere (thus stabilizing concentrations). This would require contractions in emissions by some countries and allow increases in emission, in others. Some also suggest that this should form a basic principle underlying the allocation of emissions caps in a global emiss ions trading system, should one eventually be established. Elements of the principle of contraction and convergence have merit and should on equity grounds hold some sway in the international negotiation proces. However, a single equal allocation of emissions rights across the globe is somewhat simplistic and may not necessarily lead to an efficient outcome. Different countries have different resource endowments, different population growth rates ane different opportunities for cost-effective emissions reductions. Countries are also likely to face different transitional constraints and adjustment burdens. These differences would at least to some extent need to be reflected in any negotiated agreement to ensure that they did not present perverse incentives or excessive burdens to particular countries. The allocution of emissions rights would also need to take into account international flows of embodied emissions. Understandably, there is considerable resistance to thecontraction and convergence principle alliong countries that have high per ca pita emission levels. The Complete Guide To Climate Change
Brian Dawson and Matt Spannagle
Because of the long phase-in time that would be required to move toward per capita allocations in the developed nations. those developing nations pushing for per capita allocation have proposed an approach usually re ferred to as ·'contraction and convergence’. Contraction and convergence means an allocation that would allow the large emitter nations long enough time, perhaps thirty or forty years to contract their emissions through the replacement of greenhouse gas-emitting capital and infrastructure and eventually converge on a uniform per capita allocation. Support for contraction and convergence has been building around the world with the European Parliament in 1998 recently calling for its adoption with a 90 percent majority. A per capita allocation would be just for the following reasons:
• It treats all individuals as equals and therefore is consistent with theories of distributive justice .
• It would implement the ethical maxim that all people should have equal rights to use a global commons.
• It would implement the widely accepted polluter-pays principle American heat: ethical problems with the United States’ response to global warming
Donald A. Brown.
Aubrey Meyer takes this tack in advocating. C&C is the idea that each person should get an allowance of greenhouse gas emissions; at first wealthy country citizens would get a larger allowance than citizens of poorer countries but eventually the allowances would converge to one amount, which would contract to the level commensurate with climate stabilization. What Meyer does, in a steady stream of emails and on his web is Contraction and Convergence to point to statements made by others that either explicitly or implicitly refer to this idea. Thus over time he has developed a very long list of people who agree with contraction and convergence. Debating Climate Change: Pathways Through Argument to Agreement
Elizabeth L. Malone
The Contraction and Convergence approach was designed by the Global Commons Institute, a London-based think tank.i Under Contraction and Convergence, all countries would collectively agree a target for a stable atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, such as 450 parts per million. A ‘global emissions budget’ would then be calculated, derived from the target atmospheric concentration figure. The target would be reviewed annually so that it could be revised with new scientific findings. Once the ‘contraction budget’ has been decided, the next question would become how to distribute the entitlements arising within this carbon ‘cake’ between countries. Under Contraction and Convergence, the allocations of emissions entitlements between countries would converge by a specific date. By that year, entitlements would be allocated in proportion to national population as it was in a specified baseline year. Full emissions trading is also stipulated as a design feature of the concept. Contraction and Convergence would reduce the complexity of negotiations to two simple variables that would need to be agreed: the target atmospheric concentration of CO2, and the date at which entitlements would converge at equal per capita allocations. Fresh Air - Options for the Future Architecture of International Climate Change Policy
Alex Evans for the New Economics Foundation
The Royal Commission on Envrionmental Pollution (RCEP) in its 22nd Report, Energy: The Changing Climate had, inter alia, already addressed these two issues with the Commisslon favouring the 'contraction and convergence' approach, which would allow an equaJ per-capita emission allowance to every citizen of the world, thus 'the result of this new allocation would, of course, be an enormous reduction for the current high emitters and some scope for emissions growth by developing countries. What is interesting is the broad conclusion of the 22nd Report; a reduction by industrialized countries of 60% or more by the year 2050, was formally adopted by tbe UK Government in the Energy 'White Paper of 2003 (OTI, 2003), only to be taken to a legally binding target of at least an 80% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 with a reduction in emissions of at least 34% by 2020 by the Climate Change Act 2008. Disappearing Destinations
Andrew Jones Mike Phillips
"Some analysts argue that to reduce resource use all the way to levels below the earth's carrying (a reduction of perhaps 30%), we will have to establish a regulatory regime to set hard limits on the global use of various critical and nonrenewable resources and sinks. These limits would start at a reasonable level, then be reduced over time to carrying capacity, which would allow us time to adjust. Setting such limits immediately raises the question of how access to these restricted resources will be apportioned. Equitable access issues are also raised by our current system of access rights defined by which resources happen to be found in which countries, and who has the money to capture and control those resources. Equity considerations require reassessing these approaches to access. In the case of establishing resource limits, a more equitable access approach would be to apply these limits in the form of global per capita allowances. Supporting equitable resource access in developing countries means the resource use in developed countries must decrease enough to allow room for some growth in developing countries. This model is known as contraction and convergence - the resource use is capped, and the cap is lowered over time contracting resource use so that it converges on a sustainable level." "The Challenge of Sustainable Economic Growth"
Sustainable Economic Development Initiative Northern Arizona
Ron Hubert President and Chairman of the Board"
The basic plan, known as ‘Contraction and Convergence’ has important advantages.It takes into account differing circumstances and means of all countries [rich and poor], thereby meeting the developing countriesm for fairness, at the same time it eventually imposes the same climate-safe GHG limits on everyone. Since Kyoto, the equity coalition has argued for GHG emission targets to be set on a per capita basis, rather than merely percentage reductions over 1990 levels as required by the protocol. While this seems fair in the long run, if countries were required to equalize their per capita GHG emissions immediately, the result would be economic havoc in the North. Since the typical American is responsible for 25 times more GHG emissions than the average Indian, this arrangement would decimate the U.S. economy. Therefore, the aim would be for the per capita emissions of every country to eventually converge around a level considered climate safe. Countries with per capita GHG emissions already below the safe level could increase their per capita emissions upward to this limit, while countries over this per capita ceiling would have to reduce their GHG emissions down to this safe level by the required date. This basic plan, known as 'Contraction and Convergence' has important advantages. It takes into account the differing circumstances and means of all countries (rich and poor), thereby meeting the developing countries' demands for fairness; at the same time, it eventually imposes the same climate safe GHG limits on everyone. This proposal, originally developed by the London based Global Commons Institute (GCI), has gained the support of several African nations, China and India. It would require countries to tentatively agree upon (1) what constitutes a safe concentration of atmospheric GHGs; and (2) when this level will be reached. This target could be revised up or down periodically in the light of improved climate knowledge. In order to reduce GHG concentrations to the agreed ceiling by the agreed date, countries would have to agree on a yearly global emissions budget. Then countries would allocate this annual GHG budget among each other with the goal of converging their per capita emissions by a negotiated date. Thus, contraction and convergence commits countries to a negotiated but flexible program for equalizing per capita GHG emissions at safe levels of concentration over a fixed time frame. Toxic Loopholes: Failures and Future Prospects for Environmental Law
Craig Collins
The idea of making per capita emissions the basis for equitable burden sharing Is a much·dlscussed option that Is favored by many developing countries. Such formulas are often referred to as convergence measures. A dynamic example of this approach from the Global Commons Institute is Contraction and Convergence [see suggested reading]. Under this option over time developed countries wound reduce emissions in proportion to their population and developing countries would increase emissions according to their population. Eventually, developed and developing coutries would converge to the same per capita emissions ratio. For the environmental goals of the UNFCCC to be met, the ratio and length of expected of time until convergence would have to be calculated to ensure the necessary amount of GHG emissions reductions. Climate Change Economics and Policy:
An RFF Anthology Professor Michael A. Toman
The next step in the RCEP's analysis moved into the socio-economic deploying ethical argument, to address how the tolerable emissions might be allocated among the inhabitants of the planet, "Our view is that an effective. enduring and equitable climate protocol will eventually require emission quotas to be allocated to nations on a simple and equal per capita basis." The policy recommendalion was that “nations emissions quotas (should) follow a contraction and convergence trajectory". Applying the general principle to the specific case of the UK led to the conclusion that UK carbon dioxide emissions (must) be reduced by almost 60% from their current level by mid-century. Sustainable Development in Practice
Case studies for engineers and scientists By
Adisa Azapagic, Slobodan Perdan, Roland Clift
The economics of dealing with climate change - both adaptation and mitigation - must be addressed at the level of macro-economics (Stern, 2007; UNDP 2007). The recognition that climate change requires a macro-ecocnomc or programmatic approach means the linking climate change to the global poverty alleviation programme is a useful way forward. One radical climate change position has been “Contraction and Convergence" which proposes emissions allowances on a per capita basis (Aubrey Meyer 2001). Development Policy as a Way to Manage Climate Change Risks
Bert Metz Marcel Kok
With regard developing and developed nations, carbon emissions and economic growth have been the subject of some discussions about compromise, and indeed it can be found within the Kyoto Protocol. This is the idea of Contraction and Convergence [C&C] [Meyer 2000] The developed , wealthy nations would switch to a low fossil high energy efficiency economy and so contract their carbon emissions.. Meanwhile, the developing nations would be allowed some leeway and so increase emissions. In this way the developing and the developed nations, on a per capita basis, would see their respective emissions converge. Climate Change: Biological and Human Aspects
Jonathan Cowie
We know something about the principles that would underlie sustainability and it is possible to suggest measures that would move us in its direction, but reflexivity means that it is impossible to draw up a detailed blueprint. Contraction and Convergence is the proposal that the total of emissions produced globally should contract over the next few decades. It is under consideration for the future. The Principles of Sustainability
Simon Dresner
Contraction and Convergence For reasons of clarity and mutual understanding the global 2 °C ceiling is best translated in individual parties’ annual emissions per person “contraction and convergence” trajectories from 2010 to 2050. The London based Global Commons Institute has propagated the contraction and convergence idea since the 1990s. The exercise of designing trajectories is a worthwhile test of commitment. Depending on how registered large sources and sectors are treated in the convention, the contraction and convergence trajectories can be made either including or excluding their emissions. A Turbo Drive for the Global Reduction of Energy-related CO2 Emissions
Aviel Verbruggen
One suggestion made by a variety of different people is that each person has a right to emit an equal amount of greenhouse gases. This view then takes an egalitarian approach to the distribution of one kind of energy right. This view is remarkably popular. It was for example expressed by Anil Agarwal in their Global Warming in an Unequal World. It also underpins the proposal known as Contraction and Convergence which has been developed and defended by the Global Commons Institute. The Ethics of Global Climate Change
Denis G. Arnold
Contraction and Convergence - one of the most interesting concepts for a contract for peoples’ CO2 justice is currently being discussed under the title Contraction and Convergence [C&C]. Here, a contract of a global CO2 emissions allowable limits in advance [contraction] is proposed with a process of gradually approximating a distribution of emission allowances to egalitarian criteria [convergence]. Principle ofsustainability:Adraftoftheological andethicalperspective
Markus Vogt
It is not just neoliberals who argue this: advocates of fair trade argue that the promise of global integration should be made real for the global South by the North opening its markets to South, with goods receiving a fair price and produced under good labour and environmental conditions. The South has a right to development, even in a globally constrained world, and should not be expected to pay the price for problems caused by high mass consumption in the global North (Baer, Atanasiou et al., 2007). From this perspective, the response to climate change and peak oil should not be localisation, but an equitable sharing of the right to emit and to burn oil, such as Aubrey Meyer’s proposals for ‘Contraction and Convergence’,2 Carbon Trading, and the Clean Development Mechanism. Ecolocalisation as an urban strategy in the context of resource constraint and climate change - A (dangerous) new protectionism? Peter North
At its best, where it has an element of unconditionality, hospitality is always asymmetrical - as ethical philosophers have often noted. Whatever rules and restrictions might be applied, whatever regulations it demands, hospitality worthy of the name begins with an opening, a welcome, an offering of assistance – even before any check to see if the `guest’s’ papers are in order, if they are `deserving’ of an invitation. Hospitality, in other words, like Roberts and Parks’s call for an overture from the North to the South, pivots on an offer that does not await the verdicts, the judgements, the assessments of deservedness that depend on calculation. Again, this may not be as new or as alien to current climate politics as it first appears. Elsewhere, if we take a second look at some of the more searching attempts to apportion responsibility and make amends for global climate change, these too seem at risk of edging over a threshold of calculability and dropping into unfathomable depths. Aubrey Meyer’s principle of contraction and convergence, for example, while hinging on the absolute equitability of allocating every person on the earth the right to the same quantity of carbon emissions, in practice calls for a dramatic reduction in the non-renewable energy use of the most industrialised populations. Likewise, current proposals to address the `ecological debt’ owed by early industrializing regions to the rest of the world for their historical use of fossil fuels imply `a fundamental realignment of who owes whom in the international economy’ – and in this way point towards a massive global redistribution of wealth. Beyond Justice? The Radical Asymmetries of Climate Change
Nigel Clark: Beyond Justice? The Radical Asymmetries of Climate Change
Redress for profligacy, incentives for conservation, allowing resources to be transferred from rich countries to poor ones, thus leading to distributional equity, equity, efficiency and sustainability. A formulation that carries this insight is that of Contraction and Convergence [C&C]. A market based scheme can work well in achieving cost-effective reductions within this allocation framework. Some have suggested using the C&C and per capita entitlements as the basis for long-term negotiations. Climate Change and Developing Countries (Advances in Global Change Research)
Nijavalli H. Ravindranath, Jayant A. Sathaye
An allocation approach based on contraction and convergence (Meyer, 2000) is suggested in the Paper. The allowances are assumed to follow a linear trend from their present per capita level for industrial regions and the per capita emission by 2012 for developing regions towards an equal per capita allocation by 2050. The per capita emission allowances are then assumed to follow the per capita emission profile towards the stabilization target. Modelling Energy Systems and International Trade in CO2 Emission Quotas
The Kyoto Protocol and Beyond
Tobias A. Persson
Contraction and Convergence
Aubrey Meyer, a former viola player and composer, has been promoting Contraction and Convergence (C&C) since 1991, soon after he became aware of the dangers that climate change presented, and how little Kyoto would do to solve the problem. C&C would establish an annual global cap on emissions based on the best science; create an entitlement to the emissions that would be shared by all humans, reflecting the principles of justice and equity; allocate each country a share of the emissions based on population; trade the allowable emlssions internationally, creating a considerable flow of money from the richer to the poorer nations; and shrink the availabllity of emissions certifica tes as the annual allowable emissions level was lowered. C&C has won considerable support, Including from some national leaders and many climate leaders. The consensus among its supporters is that C&C should provide the foundation for a future global treaty. The Climate Challenge: 101 Solutions to Global Warming
Guy Dauncey
In the absence of systemic change, there certainly are things that have been done and more can be done in the future to lessen capitalism’s negative effects on the environment and people. There is no particular reason why the United States can’t have a better social welfare system, including universal health care, as is the case in many other advanced capitalist countries. Governments can pass laws and implement regulations to curb the worst environmental problems. The same goes for the environment or for building affordable houses. A carbon tax of the kind proposed by James Hansen, in which 100 percent of the dividends go back to the public, thereby encouraging conservation while placing the burden on those with the largest carbon footprints and the most wealth, could be instituted. New coal-fired plants (without sequestration) could be blocked and existing ones closed down. At the world level, contraction and convergence in carbon emissions could be promoted, moving to uniform world per capita emissions, with cutbacks far deeper in the rich countries with large per capita carbon footprints. The problem is that very powerful forces are strongly opposed to these measures. So such reforms remain at best limited, allowed a marginal existence only insofar as they do not interfere with the basic accumulation drive of the system. What Every Environmentalist Needs to Know About Capitalism
Fred Magdoff and John Bellamy Foster
“Contraction and Convergence” - the concept increasingly being taken up international agencies referes to the need to reduce consumption among wealthy states to enable poorer states to raise their standard of living. A similar commitment is needed at the smallest scale so that gender equality can be harnessed to reduce negative envrionnmental impact on the whole population, not just those who have the power and wealth [as currently obtains] or the visibility [the risk of the current environmental movement] to affect policy. The Sustainable Development Paradox
Rob Krueger David Gibbs
Under what we have termed a “Beyond Kyoto” scenario, all nations would pursue the goals of “Contraction and Convergence” [Meyer 2000] consistent with the IPCC’s findings on carbon-carrying capacity and principles of equity and sustainability. The purpose of the collective effort in this case is to begin the process of withdrawing society from activities presumed appropriate for designing nature. Instead humanity would embrace the goal of restoring a commons relation between society, the atmosphere and climate. Climate Change Fiver Years After Kyoto
Velma Grover
A new climate treaty would at least pay lip service to the obligations of developing nations, although it could probably not require them to reduce emissions. Instead, a new Kyoto might be shaped by the notion of “Contraction and Convergence” [Meyer 2000] now popular in European environmental circles. Unstoppable Global Warming
Fred Singer Dennis Avery
The UK’s target of a 60% reduction by 2050 was originally suggested by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP) as a means to limit the rise in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide to 550 parts per million (ppm) (RCEP 2000) and was adopted by the Government in the 2003 Energy White Paper (DTI 2003c). The RCEP target was based on the assumption that all nations would be contributing to a global reduction in carbon emissions via a framework called ‘contraction and convergence’. This ensures that over time, firstly global carbon emissions would contract and secondly, there would be global convergence to equal per capita shares of this contraction (GCI 2001). The UK Government has not yet adopted C&C as its international negotiating position for the period after the Kyoto agreement, despite RCEP’s advice. Setting a national target is only part of what is needed to stabilise global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases – it has little value unless it eventually forms part of a strong global agreement, which the UK must work towards achieving. 40% House Brenda Boardman, Sarah Darby, Gavin Killip, Mark Hinnells,
Christian N. Jardine, Jane Palmer and Graham Sinden
One widely accepted proposal is to stabilize emissions at 450 ppmv through a process of 'contraction and convergence', permitting the developing world to grow economies and emissions while the developed world reduces emissions so that the two converge at roughly equal per capita allocations by 2050, perhaps as a result of trading in carbon permits. Key Topics in Conservation Biology
David McDonald Katrina Service
Any movement critical of the unrestricted growth of a global Carbon Shop has the good fortune of having available to it at least one already-formulated positive agenda –a rallying point which is both scientifically sound and based on the principle that everyone should have equal rights to use of the atmosphere. This is the principle of “contraction and convergence”. According to this principle, countries would negotiate (and, if necessary, constantly renegotiate) a ceiling on carbon-dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere in line with changing scientific estimates of the danger level. They would then agree to progressive cuts in emissions which would allow that goal to be reached at the same time that emissions levels among rich and poor were gradually equalized. The Carbon Shop Planting New Problems
Larry Lohmann - World Rainforest Movement
An area of interest in Kyoto related discussion concerning mitigation is the notion of targets for per capita emissions. As of 2007, the Kyoto Protocol has no global targets for per capita emissions; existing targets are just for particular countries, specifically developed countries. There is no policy measure that addresses the atmosphere as a whole, since exiting instruments are all based on only a part of the world’s emissions. Outside the Kyoto process, particularly in developing countries, a number of authors have written about the desire to create a more equitable approach for “sharing the atmosphere based on establishing that all countries are entitled to the same per capita consumption of energy and materials and are therefore also entitled to equal per capita GHG emissions rights. This approach is known as Contraction and Convergence, an idea initiated by the Global Commons Institute during the 1990s. Climate Change in the 21st Century
Stewart J. Cohen, Melissa W. Waddell
Contraction and Convergence. It is unlikely that everyone in the world will ever use identical amounts of fossil fuels. However, it is highly likely that any deal to manage the global commons of the atmosphere will have to based on this principle. In an agreed timeframe, entitlements to emit are predistributed in a pattern of international convergence so that globally they become equal per capita. This procedure is unavoidable if chaos is to be prevented. But it is possible that this framework will succeed without reform of our moneytary system. Sovereign Debt at the Crossroads: Challenges and Proposals for Resolving the Third World Debt Crisis Chris Jochnick, Fraser A. Preston
These possibly-safe trajectories require global emissions to fall by 70% or 85% by 2050. What would this mean for a country like Britain? If we subscribe to the idea of “contraction and convergence,” which means that all countries aim eventually to have equal per-capita emissions, then Britain needs to aim for cuts greater than 85%: it should get down from its current 11 tons of CO2e per year per person to roughly 1 ton per year per person by 2050. This is such a deep cut, I suggest the best way to think about it is no more fossil fuels. Sustainable Energy
David Mackay
The most high-profile possible frameworks for emissions cuts and climate change is ‘Contraction and Convergence’. Under this proposal each country would be allocated its share of the overall emissions budget fulfilling the US requirement that developing countries are given emissions targets. Climate Change: Small Guides to Big Issues
Melanie Jarman
Redress for profligacy, incentives for conservation, allowing resources to be transferred from rich countries to poor ones, thus leading to distributional equity, equity, efficiency and sustainability. A formulation that carries this insight is that of Contraction and Convergence [C&C]. A market baserd scheme can work well in achieving cost-effective reductions within this allocation framework. Some have suggested using the C&C and per capita entitlements as the basis for long-term negotiations. Climate Change and Developing Countries (Advances in Global Change Research)
Nijavalli H. Ravindranath, Jayant A. Sathaye
Contraction and Convergence. One of the most interesting concepts for a contract for people’s CO2 justice is currently being discussed under the title Contraction and Convergence [C&C]. This is a contract that allows an upper limit global CO2 emissions [contraction] with a process of gradually approximation to a distribution of emission allowances to egalitaristichen criteria [convergence]. Prinzip Nachhaltigkeit
Markus Vogt
‘Contraction and Convergence’ is one such proposal developed by a small London-based NGO called the Global Commons Institute and its charismatic head, the musicican Aubrey Meyer. The basic idea which underpins the proposal is that developed countries have to contract their emissions down to an agreed level which would address the UNFCCC’s aim of avoiding dangerous interference in the climate system. Governing Climate Change (Global Institutions)
Harriet Bulkeley, Peter Newell
“So the only other option requires us to make deeper cuts in our emissions in order to allow developing countries some room to expand theirs. If we divided up the total allowance of 10 billion tonnes equally between the 7 billion people in the world that would give us a new target of 1.5 tonnes each – just 1,500 carbos. This requires that we reduce our emissions by 87% by 2050, and if the world population keeps increasing, by even more. This proposal called Contraction and Convergence has many powerful supporters. Like them I believe it is the only just and politically feasible option.” Carbon Detox
George Marshall
"The overall effect would be an annual contraction of global carbon emissions, as the different countries converged towards the same amount per person. Unsurprisingly, this approach is known as 'contraction and convergence'. It was devised by a man called Aubrey Meyer. He is one of those extraordinary people whose lack of relevant qualifications appears to work in his favour: he's a concert viola player. Meyer was able to leap over the more constrained proposals of the professionals and produce an idea that was simple, based on science and fair. But while adopting the principle of contraction and convergence would not mean an end to the political arguments, they would no longer take place in a moral and intellectual vacuum. The negotiators would have a target - an equal division of the planet's capacity to absorb pollution - which is both factual and fair. The best estimate of the planet's total carbon sink in 2030 will change as the science improves, but the target can change with it. With an equal global carbon allocation, countries will no longer be able to claim that they can't act because others are not obliged to join in. They might not like this proposal, but they cannot deny that it is even-handed." Heat
George Monbiot
"Luckily, a workable solution is currently on the table, one which recognises that equal rights to the atmosphere are integral to efforts to protect the climate from major destabilisation. First developed by Aubrey Meyer of the Global Commons Institute in London, it has begun to receive tacit support from within the British government, adding to support from the European Parliament. the Africa Group of Nations and the governments of India and China. This solution has an elegant logic which cuts right through all the UN jargon and complexity which has blighted international climate policy so far. It's called Contraction and Convergence." High Tide: The Truth About Our Climate Crisis Mark Lynas
Until recently, most players in the climate-policy arena assumed that while global-warming emissions needed to be cut substantially, they did not need to be reduced to zero, so it would be fair for all people across the globe to share a reduced annual greenhouse-gas limit. Poor people could keep increasing their fossil-fuel use until their emissions reached the limit, and people in rich countries would need to keep reducing their emissions until they reached the same per capita level (a principle known as 'contraction and convergence'). Climate Code Red
David Spratt and Philip Sutton
25 January 2012 - C&C & many Economists; "Convergence date is main equity lever."
"A precise version of the per capita approach, often referred to as ‘contraction and
convergence’ (GCT 2000), has figured in the international
debate for some time. It has been promoted by India and has been discussed
favourably in Germany and the United Kingdom (German Advisory Council on
Global Change 2003; UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution 2000).
Recent reports have shown increasing support for variations on this general
approach, see for example, Stern (2008) and the Commission on Growth and
Development (2008).
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."Global Commons Institute 2000, ‘GCI C&C Briefing’, originally published as Meyer, A. 2000, Engineering
Sustainability 157(4): 189–92. Garnaut Review - C&C Chapter
Ross Garnaut now argues for a ‘modified contraction and convergence framework’
The contraction and convergence approach has figured in the
international climate change debate since being developed by the
Global Commons Institute in the United Kingdom during the 1990s.
The approach has been promoted by India and discussed favourably in
Germany and the United Kingdom. Reports by Nicholas Stern and the
Commission on Growth and Development in 2008 supported variations
on this general approach pointing to the need for all countries to aim
for equal per capita emissions over the long term. Garnuat Climate Change Review; Update 2011
Establishing ecological limits
The material profligacy of consumer society is depleting
key natural resources and placing un-sustainable burdens on
the planet’s ecosystems. Establishing clear resource and
environmental limits and integrating these limits into both
economic structure and social functioning is essential. This
means paying a much closer attention to the ecological
limits of economic activity. Identifying clear resource and
emission caps and establishing reduction targets under
those caps is vital for a green economy. To the extent that
they have been implemented, the stabilization targets and
emission budgets established for carbon provide an
exemplar here (IPCC, 2007; CCC, 2010).
The conditions of equity and ecological limits, taken
together, suggest a key role for the model known as “contraction and convergence” in which equal per capita
allowances are established under an ecological cap that
converges towards a sustainable level (Meyer 2004). This
approach has been applied, to some extent, for carbon.
Similar caps should be established for the extraction of
scarce non-renewable resources, for the emission of wastes
(particularly toxic and hazardous wastes), for the drawing
down of “fossil” groundwater sources and for the rate of
harvesting of renewable resources.
Effective mechanisms for achieving targets under these
caps need to be set in place. Once established, these limits
also need to be integrated into a convincing economic
framework. Societal transformations for a sustainable economy - Tim
Jackson
Natural Resources Forum
The Garnaut Climate Change Review suggested an allocation of the global mitigation entitlements budget that was based on convergence towards equal per capita entitlements in 2050. The general approach of contraction and convergence (Global Commons Institute, 2000). The global emissions concentrations objective defines a global budget for emissions over a specified period. There needs to be an agreement on allocation of that budget amongst countries. Agreement has to be based on principles that are widely seen as being fair. Seen to be fair in rich and poor countries. Seen to be fair in rich countries which start with extremely high emissions per person, like Australia Canada and the United States, and in rich countries in which each person has far lower levels of emissions, like Europe, Japan and New Zealand. Seen to be fair in developing countries with rapidly growing economies like China, India and Indonesia, and in poor countries with stagnant or slowly growing economies as in many parts of Africa and the South Pacific. No proposal has any chance of being accepted as being fair through most of the developing world, and in my judgment in the world as a whole, unless it is based on the idea that each country’s entitlements to emit will converge on equal per capita levels at some time in the future. There will be widely different views of the time over which convergence should occur. There has been much international discussion of the Garnaut Review’s proposed basis for allocating entitlements.
Some commentators in developing countries, including China, have said that 2050 is too long to wait for convergence (Project Team of the Development Research Centre of the State Council 2009). Seventh Annual Whitman Lecture delivered at the Peterson Institute
Washington, DC December 1, 2009
Contraction and convergence
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 Gase Emissions Reductions - A Theoretical Framework & Global Solution
Development Research Centre State Council People's Republic China 2009
I suggested a set of principles in the 2008 Review, and
developed them in the Final Report in line with the structure of pledges in the
Cancun agreements. In brief, developed countries would accept commitments
to reduce emissions within a “contraction and convergence” framework. China
would deliver on its commitment to reduce the emissions intensity of output 40 to 45 percent between 2005 and 2020. Other developing countries would
accept emissions intensity targets that are as close as possible to the ambition
of the Chinese targets. When a developing country’s emissions per capita
reached the (falling) average levels of the developed countries, it would accept targets for absolute reductions within a contraction and convergence framework along the lines of the developed countries. The parameters of the commitments would be calibrated to achieve agreed climate objectives. THE LIMITS TO ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE
Ross Garnaut Vice-Chancellor’s Fellow and Professorial Fellow in Economics,
The University of Melbourne
Keynote Address, Four Degrees or More?
Australia in a Hot World, Melbourne, 13th July 2011
John Rawls’s liberalism is the dominant political philosophy of our time.
But is it compatible with the values of green economics? I argue in this paper
that it is founded on ungreen economics.
In particular, Rawls’s ‘difference principle’, which takes inequalities to be
just if they benefit the worst off, is subjected here to three counter-arguments.
Firstly, an argument based on one from Norman Daniels.
Secondly, an argument based on one from Jerry Cohen.
Thirdly, and most originally: inegalitarian modes of ‘societal’ organisation
are ecologically unsustainable. The difference principle unconsciously assumes
that the Earth is infinite, that the more we raise the lowest boats the better;
disregarding that we may already have raised the lowest boats – in Western
societies at least – let alone, obviously, the higher boats, more than the
ecosphere can tolerate. Rather than envying the rich, or building up the assets or income of the poor, the necessary thing to do is primarily simply to build down the rich to a level where
their (i.e., our) lifestyle actually is sustainable, which is argued for in the contraction and
convergence model “Beyond an ungreen-economics-based political philosophy” Dr Rupert Read -
International Journal of Green Economics
"Contraction and Convergence (C&C) refers to an approach originally proposed by the Global Commons Institute (GCI) but now widely agreed to represent a fair and meaningful way of achieving stabilization targets. Overall emissions 'contract’ to a level compatible with the stabilization target, and per capita emissions 'converge' towards an equal per capita shares of the overall emissions budget. Very simply, C&C is a way of transparently structuring future negotiations on the understanding that prosperity is governed by ecological limits on the one hand and fair shares on the other."
For more information on the approach see for example Meyer 2004, See also briefings by the Global Commons Institute, online here and here Prosperity Without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet
Tim Jackson
Recommendations for establishing resource limits and integrating them into economic institutions
Identify clear resource and emission caps, and establish reduction targets under those caps. Apply the model of “contraction and convergence” in which equal per capita allowances are established under an ecological cap that converges toward a sustainable level.
Reform tax codes for sustainability. Internalize the external costs of economic activities by shifting the burden of taxation from economic goods (e.g., incomes) to ecological bads (e.g., pollution). Offset new taxes on resource use or carbon with reductions in taxes on labor.
Support ecological transitions in developing nations. Create robust funding mechanisms (akin to the Global Environment Facility) to make resources available for investment in renewable energy, resource efficiency, low-carbon infrastructures, and the protection of habitats and biodiversity.
"The Global Commons Institute has devised a greenhouse gas
abatement proposal called “Contraction and Convergence” (Global Commons Institute 1997) in which the emphasis is placed not only on a significant contraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, but also on an equitable per capita distribution of the resulting global carbon budget.
The latter implies a transition to a point (convergence) where future entitlements to emit will
have become proportional to population. The uniform per capita allocation of emission rights
reflects egalitarianism in the sense that all people have inherently an equal right to pollute. The
egalitarian criterion per se has a strong philosophical appeal. However – under contraction of
the global carbon budget – it is unlikely to be acceptable for industrialized countries with
currently high per capita emissions unless the transition path allows for long-term “smooth”
adjustment towards the terminal point.
Equity considerations are not only ethically founded; they also conform to the idea that
equity might “serve a positive role as a unifying principle that facilitates an international
greenhouse warming agreement” (Rose and Stevens, 1996 p.1)." ZEW discussion paper No. 99-13 -
C&C - Contraction & Convergence of Carbon Emissions:
The Economic Implications of Permit Trading
Christoph Böhringer and Heinz Welsch
"The notions of the right to climate protection or climate security of future generations
and of shared responsibilities in a common world can be combined to
assert that, collectively, we have the right only to emit some very small amount
of GHGs, equal for all, and that no-one has the right to emit beyond that level
without incurring the duty to compensate. We are therefore obliged to pay for
the right to emit above that common level. This can be seen as one argument in favour of the ‘contract and converge’
proposition, whereby ‘large emitters’ should contract emissions and all individuals
in the world should either converge to a common (low) level or pay for the
excess (those below that level could sell rights)."
Source: Contraction and Convergence ™ (C&C)
is the science-based, global climate policy
framework proposed to the UN since 1990 by the Global Commons Institute (GCI) The Economics of Climate Change
Nicholas Stern on C&C
5. The lifecycle of the sustainable development paradigm: a fading adage?
In the social arena, the campaigners for de-growth tend to actively shy away from the notion of sustainable development a la Brundtlànd report, and even more in its ecological modernization interpretation endorsed by ‘green companies’, viewing it as a false and unfeasible project that delays the urgent changes needed, as for instance in the case of global climate change.
There are a number of reasons for the weakening of the appeal of the concept of sustainable development that has largely dominated ecological economics and wider environmental and social discourses over the past two decades (Zaccaï, 2002; Hopwood et al., 2005; Vivien, 2008). This weakening no doubt contributes to the success of flourishing works and initiatives under the banner of de-growth. This section looks at the future of de-growth as a potential emergent paradigm appealing to many sectors of society in lieu of the concept of sustainable development.
Although some progress may be detected for particular objectives arising from the sustainable development paradigm, the general picture with regard to environmental pressure, even when depicted by official agencies, continues to look bleak at global and even regional levels (OECD, 2008; EEA, 2009). The final words of the summary of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005) make explicit that the changes that could reverse the increasing damages to ecosystems and
biodiversity are not under way. The international official objectives of halting biodiversity loss in 2010 are not being achieved in Europe and elsewhere. Regarding the issue of global climate change the latest findings indicate, report after report, towards more severe and bleaker assessments if the current weak policies for tackling the problem are not modified.
Lack of agreement on GHG emission
reductions at Copenhagen in December 2009 is in stark contrast to the main objectives suggested by the IPCC, such as peaking global CO2 emissions within the next years and decreasing them by 80% by 2050 in rich countries. Actual known trends in energy consumption signal that the world is moving in another direction. At the emission rates of 2007, leading to an increase of approximately 2 extra ppm per year, the concentration of CO2 at 450 ppm in the atmosphere might be reached within 30 years. These are inescapable uncomfortable facts (Walker and King, 2008).
Contraction and Convergence [C&C]. This plan combines equal rights to emit with grandfathering [or assigning rights based on past emissions, the higher the past emissions, the larger the grandfathered emissions rights]. Each country is allocated emissions right based on its past emissions. Countries that exceed desired per capita global emissions have their allocation reduced in each succeeding year, while countries that emit less that this target receive a higher allocation each year. Over time global emissions contract while high an low emitting countries converge on the same per capita emissions [Global Commons Institute]. World Economic and Social Survey 2009
Promoting Development Saving the Planet
UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs
One cannot say anything about the extent to which future policy may shift
climate change from this course on the basis of fulfilment of pledges on
emissions reductions to 2020 within the Cancun agreements, unless one has a
set of principles within which one can relate pre-2020 to post-2020
commitments. I suggested a set of principles in the 2008 Review, and
developed them in the Final Report in line with the structure of pledges in the
Cancun agreements. In brief, developed countries would accept commitments
to reduce emissions within a “contraction and convergence” framework. China
would deliver on its commitment to reduce the emissions intensity of output 40
t0 45 percent between 2005 and 2020. Other developing countries would
accept emissions intensity targets that are as close as possible to the ambition
of the Chinese targets. When a developing country’s emissions per capita
reached the (falling) average levels of the developed countries, it would accept
targets for absolute reductions within a contraction and convergence framework
along the lines of the developed countries. The parameters of the commitments
would be calibrated to achieve agreed climate objectives. 4 Degrees or More? 2011 Conference
Australia in a Hot World, Melbourne, 13 07 2011
Professor
Ross Garnaut
The University of Melbourne
Contraction and convergence
The contraction-and-convergence approach assigns every human being an equal entitlement to greenhouse gas emissions. All countries would thus move toward the same per capita emissions. Total emissions would contract over time, and per capita emissions would converge on a single figure. The actual convergence value, the path toward convergence, and the time when it is to be reached would all be negotiable. [Meyer]. World Bank Development Report 2010
Development and Climate Change
The Global Commons Institute has devised a greenhouse gas
abatement proposal called Contraction and Convergence (Global Commons Institute 1997),
in which the emphasis is placed not only on a significant contraction of anthropogenic CO2
emissions, but also on an equitable per capita distribution of the resulting global carbon budget.
The latter implies a transition to a point (convergence) where future entitlements to emit will
have become proportional to population. The uniform per capita allocation of emission rights
reflects egalitarianism in the sense that all people have inherently an equal right to pollute. The
egalitarian criterion per se has a strong philosophical appeal. However – under contraction of
the global carbon budget – it is unlikely to be acceptable for industrialized countries with
currently high per capita emissions unless the transition path allows for long-term “smooth”
adjustment towards the terminal point. Contraction and Coonvergence of Carbon Emissions: An Interntemporal Multi-Region CGE Analysis. Journal of Policy Modeling: The Fiscal Implications of Climate Change International Monetary Fund
A deal for UNFCCC-compliance is really needed at COP-17 Durban, December 2011.
It is yet achievable with C&C.
*The Issue remaining* is simply now getting governments to agree the same rate of convergence.
At COP-15 the Annex One countries prescribed 2050 as the convergence year.
Before COP-15 the Chinese Government prescribed 2010 as the convergence year.
The solution is obvious - you're nearly there; negotiate to the middle of this -
References for the above are here with detail here - Support for C&C is now vast and diverse and discussing ways to make what is achievable actually happen is very desirable now. Long Finance
"The Kyoto Protocol, completed in the early hours of December 11th 1997, at
present is no more than a potential breakthrough in the development of effective
global policy for the control of atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and
the mitigation of human-induced global climate changes. The core issue of the
negotiations has been deferred until COP4 in November 1998. The industrial
countries have negotiated a compromise that subject to ratification will legally bind
them to commitments beyond those in the UNFCCC. But, the ratification of the
Protocol by the US still remains contingent on achieving the “meaningful
participation” of “key” developing countries in the abatement regime and the
multilateral acceptance of international emissions trading. This is a struggle to define
property rights. These key developing countries include India and China and they
have made it clear that their acceptance of trading is contingent on the achievement
of “equitable allocations” of emissions entitlements based on achieving equal per
capita entitlements globally.
COP issued instructions to the technical bodies attached
to the UNFCCC to “define the relevant principles, modalities, rules and guidelines for
emissions trading” in time for COP4 in November 1998 in Buenos Aires.
GCI argues that "Contraction and Convergence" is the approach that can
break through this deadlock and welcomes the fact that major parties and interest
groups in this dispute have already acknowledged that they take this approach
seriously and that it has growing support throughout the world. As a leading
economics commentator Peter Jay has noted, “… unless there is some recognition
that eventually no one group of human being can expect to have an internationally
recognised right to consume more of the world's limited capacity to absorb
greenhouse gas emissions than any other group, it is hard to see how a globally
enforceable policy can be built by consent.” And in the words of the President of GLOBE International"Contraction and Convergence is not simply the right way to
solve the problem, it is the only way to solve the problem.” The Kyoto Protocol and the Emergence of “Contraction
& Convergence” as a framework for an international
political solution to greenhouse gas emissions abatement. A Meyer 1997
"High Level Dialogue on Climate Change"
Asian Development Bank
on C&C
“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 Schäefer-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
We are living in a world that the CIA coined VUCA – times of volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity. If one looks at the nature of the recent commodity price crisis (2007), financial crisis (2008), economic recession (2009), public debt crisis and oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico (2010) one can arguably identify a “transgression problem” (Pascal Lamy) at their root. Humanity is transgressing thresholds at two levels:
Humanity is transgressing reasonable limits of debt - The recent recession was to a large degree caused by the collapse of an asset bubble that inflated financial values well beyond the true value of underlying economic resources just for the sake of stimulating demand. Once the asset price bubbles burst and increased public borrowing was needed to protect the banks and to fund economic recovery, public sector debt and gross external debt rose sharply. According to IMF calculations the total cost of the financial crisis will amount to the astronomic figure of $12 trillion or 20% of annual world output.
Humanity is transgressing “planetary boundaries” - Under the weight of both the growing size and the intensifying activity of humanity, human impact is no longer only at local levels. Global natural systems are being affected. Climate is the most visible system that is being destabilized, but others are equally critical (oceans, fresh water, biological diversity etc.). Earth systems scientists are working on nine planetary boundaries where dangerous tipping points into less favorable conditions for human survival are highly likely.
These phenomena are similar in nature and have impacts that go far beyond the financial and ecological systems: When assessing the progress that has been made on the Millennium Development Goals, Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki Moon, had to admit in June that improvements in the lives of the poor have been unacceptably slow, regionally uneven and that some hard-won gains are being eroded again by the climate, food and economic crises. In fact all phenomena are related to governance failures:
Failure of governance to limit debt levels in relation to GDP;
Failure of governance to acknowledge planetary boundaries and to decouple GDP from energy and resources;
Failure of governance to meet globally accepted targets in redistributing GDP for the benefit of the most vulnerable persons in the world.
This development path is unsustainable and prone to destabilization and conflict, passing on to future generations vast and perhaps crippling financial, ecological and social debts. What is needed is a higher degree of systemic resilience. Therefore, governance agendas should be transformed from single issue-objectives to multiple, integrated social-ecological ones:
As to the finance system governance should aim at higher levels of bank capital and liquidity and at taking precautionary measures to prevent risks without endangering sustainable growth. As to national budgets the task is to reduce the increasing levels of public debt.
Concerning planetary boundaries the time is ripe for identifying scientifically endorsed resource and emission caps, and for establishing reduction targets associated with these caps - “Contraction and convergence” strategies. There is also a strong case for getting prices right in order to properly account for energy and material flows.
As to global poverty governance needs to reinforce the MDGs and Rio Process and deliver tangible results.
In a way one of the key challenges for economic governance is to devise broader measures of well-being to assess the right things along the triple bottom line of people, planet and growth in the right way, so that policy makers know towards what they should steer and what progress they are making in that direction. “What gets measured gets done.” This is a task that has begun with the Istanbul declaration of the OECD world forum in 2007. To monitor the state of an economy, there should be an accepted set of performance indicators to help diagnose the state of the system. Today one single indicator prevails – GDP growth. Growth is essential. But the question is – what kind of growth. To tackle this question involves a twin effort in governance: To complement GDP growth as the principal indicator of economic development with other indicators of ecological and social progress and to refine GDP so that is covers much more than material growth. Today this is no longer an academic exercise. It is key for a governance system that is responsibly addressing the integrated social-ecological challenges and adequate to the volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity of our times. Sustainability and Global Governance
Wolfgang Schüssel
The GES Advisory Board provides advice on the development of the GES, may suggest themes and special events at the GES, helps attracting high-ranking participants, and may propose new Advisory Board members. Its members benefit from a privileged access to the GES’s business, political, civic, and academic communities, and to state-of-the-art economic research on global affairs. Full listed GES Advisory Board
Consider the ambitious target for reducing carbon emissions suggested two years ago by Britain’s Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. Its proposal was to reduce emissions by 60 per cent by 2050, possibly through an international agreement called Contraction and Convergence, which has been much discussed in Johannesburg. This would give every country a quota for carbon emissions, based on its population and would allow countries to trade these emission rights. This would gradually reduce worldwide carbon emission and encourage the development of more efficient technologies. In the meantime, it would ensure a flow of funds from rich countries to poor ones, which, because of their lower levels of car ownership and industrialisation, would have surplus emission rights. Capitalism is the best way to save the planet
Anatole Kaletsky in the Times
"We assume a global ‘deal’ based on ‘contraction and convergence’ to limit, reduce and maintain total global emissions within defined limits (the contraction); we also assume that the UK’s total share of emissions progressively comes into line with its fair global share (the ‘convergence’), with significant transfer payments to developing countries during the process to facilitate their sustainable development." The Great Transition NEF Recommendation: -
"Government must agree a global fair deal on climate change with appropriate contraction and convergence targets to avert dangerous climate change, reflecting the UK’s ‘fair share’ of total sustainable carbon emissions." The Great Transition
New Economics Foundation - 2010
Since enforcing a carbon cap via tradeable permits effectively creates a huge economic value, it should belong to all citizens rather than a small minority. Such a commitment to equity leads to a plan for the sharing of the global commons, such as the Global Commons Institute’s Contraction and Convergence the first approach to tackling climate change that began fromthe simple notion that each person on the planet had an equal right to produce CO2. The ‘convergence’ was the name given to the commitment to share these emissions fairly within a meaningful cap on total output of CO2. Overproducing countries would then be required to compensate underproducing countries. The ‘contraction’ is the process of all countries, in step, reducingtheir emissions gradually over the next 50 years. The scheme is illustrated in Figure 7.2. The rising curve is the historical increase in CO2 emissions; these are portrayed following a sharp descent over the next century (the contraction) during which time countries also converge towards a share of the global total that represents the size of their population.
Green Economics
Molly Scott Cato
But can costs and benefits ever be calculated on a value-free basis? Can one put an objective cash figure on the value of the human lives that will be lost as a result of the increased storm damage warming will cause, or on the extra deaths from disease? Is there a value-free monetary figure for the worth of the species that will become extinct and the coastal plains and islands that will be submerged by rising seas, particularly given the extreme amount of uncertainty about what will actually happen? Most ordinary people would say it was not possible to put a cash value on such things, but the Pearce team had lost the facility to think like ordinary people. The team members didn't see a problem because there was a standard CBA technique, willingness-to-pay, which they could use to prepare their valuations. As far as they were concerned, the benefit of stopping global warming circa 2050 was the total amount that those likely to be hurt by it in that year seemed likely to be prepared to pay to stop it happening. Naturally, as poor people in poor countries can't offer to pay very much to save themselves, the team valued deaths and damage affecting them at much less than deaths and damage in wealthier parts of the world. This grossly distorted the international distribution of the cost of warming in their chapter which, when it was published in draft in 1994, purported to show that the industrialized countries, the ones causing the damage by their heavy fossil fuel use, would suffer twice as much from warming as the rest of the world put together. This was despite the fact that 85 per cent of all the low lying land lost as a result of rising sea levels would be in non-industrialized countries, as would three quarters of the reductions in fresh water supplies, and 78 per cent of the extra deaths.
Aubrey Meyer was outraged when he saw that the team had valued a life saved in China or India at $100,000, a fifteenth of the value of lives saved in Europe or North America, and he began circulating a letter to eminent people all over the world, protesting what he called "the economics of genocide." His "silly campaign of misinformation and abuse," as Pearce later described it, collected five hundred signatures in support, some from authors working on other chapters of the IPCC's Assessment. This meant that when the IPCC tried to get national delegations to approve the Assessment as a whole at a meeting in Geneva in June 1995, there was so much unease about the Pearce chapter that the chairman, James Bruce of Canada, sent the Policymakers' Summary, the only part of the report over which the IPCC had control (tbe contents of the chapters were the responsibility of the writing teams alone), to a private, governments-only committee for consideration. The committee's recommended re-wording of the Summary, with the disputed valuations still intact, came back to the full meeting only ten minutes before it was due to end. A vote was taken to approve the entire Assessment as a package, and Bruce quickly gavelled the meeting closed, ignoring the Cubans who had been waiting to speak. When this was pointed out, Bruce was obliged to re-open the meeting. The Cubans then rejected the amended wording outright because GCI's arguments had not been answered. At this point, Brazil backed the Cubans with a formal protest, and Bruce had no option but to call a special meeting in Montreal in September 1995 to settle the issue.
Several unsuccessful attempts were made to get the Pearce team to modifY its draft chapter in the three months between the Geneva and Montreal meetings. "We won't be revising it," the New Scientist quoted Pearce as saying.' "This is a matter of scientific correctness versus political correctness." Similarly, when the British Government's chief adviser on sustainability, Sir Crispin Tickell, the former diplomat who had aroused Margaret Thatcher's interest in environmental issues, wrote a friendly letter to Pearce in which he referred to the value of a statistical life and the willingness-to-pay method as "economists' artefacts," an illtempered reply came back saying Sir Crispin was "wrong on every point." Tickell later described the valuations as "ludicrous" and wrote to the IPCC to protest. When further pressure on the Pearce team failed in Montreal, the IPCC had the choice of dumping its chapter entirely or leaving its figures out of the Policymakers' Summary. In the event, the chapter was retained but the Summary effectively disowned it by stating in the course of a detailed critique that "the value of life has meaning beyond monetary value." The Growth Illusion
Richard Douthwaite
There is also extensive coverage of this whole episode here and even a praise-poem here
For reasons of equity, there is much support for a 'contraction and convergence' scheme, which would provide allowances for carbon emissions to all countries in proportion to their population. This also requires agreement among the main emitters that global emissions shuold be capped, by issuing a total number of permits which represents less than current global emissions. Thc cap should then decresse over time (so that we can ideally reduce our global emissions by 80-90 percent by 2050 or earlier. Developed countries would receive fewer permits than their current emissions, and would thus have to buy excess allowances from poor states that emit less than their allocated permits. This would generate a flow of aid from rich to poor countries, declining inequality and convergence of per capita income levels, though without any implication that actual equality would be reached in the foreseeable future An Introduction to Climate Change Economics and Policy
Felix FitzRoy, Elissaios Papyrakis
The ‘Contraction and Convergence’ (C&C) approach, which also assigns, in principle, an
equal per capita ‘right’ to GHG emissions to all people, and expects emissions of all
countries to converge to that level by a set date, can be seen as an application of the ES
approach. (Kuntsi-Reunanen and Luukkanen, 2006; Meyer, 2000; Najam, et al., 2003;
Pearce, 2003). Although initially dismissed as idealistic, there are signs that its political
acceptability is growing, in part because there seems to be no other way to bring
countries like China and India into the fold of a global climate change regime. Many
political and business leaders, including the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, have
expressed support for the adoption of a global agreement based on the Contraction and
Convergence model, recognising that, in global political terms, it is the most realistic
basis for forging international consensus on a post-Kyoto climate change agreement
(Global Commons Institute, 2008; Spiegel Online International, 2007). Sharing the Atmosphere
A Proposal for an equitable and sustainable global trading schme for GHG emissions
Ton Buhrs University of Warwick
"Contraction and convergence" - "Given the obvious shortcomings of an immediate "equal per capita allocation of emission rights that would be compatible with scenarios leading to stabilising GHG concentrations at low levels, their proponents usually see it as a longer-term objective (Meyer, 2000). Allocation for near-term targets would thus be an interpolation between current emission levels and a longer-term equal per capita allocation." OECD "Beyond Kyoto" Energy Dynamics and Climate Stabilization
The idea of making per capita emissions the basis for equitable burden sharing Is a much·dlscussed option that Is favored by many developing countries. Such formulas are often referred to as convergence measures. A dynamic example of this approach from the Global Commons Institute is Contraction and Convergence [see suggested reading]. Under this option over time developed countries wound reduce emissions in proportion to their population and developing countries would increase emissions according to their population. Eventually, developed and developing coutries would converge to the same
per capita emissions ratio. For the environmental goals of the UNFCCC to be met, the ratio and length of expected of time until convergence would have to be calculated to ensure the necessary amount of GHG emissions reductions. Climate Change Economics and Policy:
An RFF Anthology Professor Michael A. Toman
A well-known proposal is “Contraction and Convergence,” which creates a transition toward equal per capita rights. The global target for per capita emissions shrinks steadily toward a sustainable level. Countries with per capita emissions above the global target have their emissions allocation reduced over time; countries below the global target receive gradual increases in their allocations. Using this strategy, global emissions would contract while per capita emissions among countries would converge (Global Commons Institute 2010). Climate Economics: The State of the Art
Frank Ackerman
Elizabeth A. Stanton
Stockholm Environment Institute-U.S. Center
"Contraction and Convergence is a prime example of a UNFCCC-compliant Global Climate Change Framework. It is a rational formulation for reconciliation of 'Climate Justice without Vengeance'. 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."
Letter and 250 other signatories at: - http://www.gci.org.uk/politics.html
Professor Tim Jackson
Sustainable Development Surrey University Robert Costanza
Gordon and Lulie Gund Professor of Ecological Economics
Director, Gund Institute for Ecological Economics
25 January 2012 - C&C & Population/Consumption "Managing the 2 sides of the coin."
Contraction and Convergence
Climate change is driven, and its impacts are experienced, to different extents by different populations across the globe. Total emission figures mask a huge heterogeneity in per person energy consumption which varies widely both within national borders and between them. Equity, including equality of opportunities for development, must therefore be the central pillar around which climate change policy is developed. In response to these discrepancies, ‘Contraction and Convergence’ presents a framework in which finite bio-spherical capacity is equitably shared amongst all of the earth’s inhabitants, thus placing the importance of per capita emissions centre stage. This framework recognizes the right of the developing world to develop economically, and that their per capita emissions will rise as a result. On the other hand the emissions of the developed world will have to contract, with the overall objective of arriving at an equitable global per capita emission level. Population growth is fundamentally relevant to this model, since total population size will largely determine the cap at which total safe emissions can be set. Again the complexity of this issue is crucial to grasp: in the short term, it will be in the interests of individual countries to have large populations to capture as large a share of the global emissions as is possible. At the global level the reverse is the case; the larger the global population, the smaller the per capita global emission level will be.
PSN will promote increased understanding of the links between population and climate change and advance approaches, such as contraction and convergence, which mirror the PSN ‘Population – Consumption Coin’ concept by recognizing the twin rights and responsibilities of the developed and developing worlds. The Population and Sustainability Network
"Humanity as a whole is already consuming more resources than the earth can in the longer term provide. Therefore consumption in the richer countries will have to be reduced to allow those in poorer countries to attain a decent lifestyle. Consumption will inevitably grow in developing countries as they industrialise and urbanise, even if they take on board the need for sustainable lifestyles. It will be up to wealthier communities, principally in developed countries, to moderate their lifestyles and adopt consciously green practices. We already know that what one country considers acceptable would be considered far from acceptable to another. How should the level be set? By whom? On what criteria? The concept of Contraction and Convergence (C&C) was conceived by the Global Commons Institute in the early 1990s. The principle is that the rich should consume progressively far less resources per capita than before, while the poor consume rather more than they did, so we converge towards a common ‘fair share’ for each, which the planet can sustain. We support this principle of C&C or global equity, but it must take account of the plain arithmetic fact that every additional person reduces everyone else’s sustainable share. We have therefore insisted on including a population base year at which the ultimate target figures, notably for sustainable carbon emissions per person, should be calculated country by country. Without it, countries with high population growth would consume ever more, at the expense of those who had succeeded in restraining or reducing their numbers. We were delighted when Kofi Annan endorsed our view in his Chairman’s Key Recommendations following a conversation we had with him after a workshop we gave at the Global Humanitarian Forum in June 2009." Population Matters
This Policy Position Statement (PPS) sets out CIWEM's position on the importance of addressing current levels of population growth, resource consumption and moving towards living within environmental limits in the UK.
For some pollutants such as carbon dioxide we have a fairly clear scientific understanding of the carrying capacity and the reductions required. The Global Commons Institute proposed the system of "Contraction and Convergence", which provides a mechanism for reducing carbon emissions and tackling climate change in an equitable manner. Its principle could be extended to wider environmental pollution and resource exploitation quota systems. Presently many industrialised countries effectively export much of the pollution associated with their consumption, as manufacturing and raw materials production have moved to less industrialised countries where labour and resources are cheaper and environmental regulations are less stringent. As such countries industrialise and their domestic demand for products increases as a result of wealth creation, such environmental pressures are likely to increase further before they become more tightly regulated.
CIWEM calls for:
An end, globally, to the presumption that economic growth and population growth are essential for a successful society, with societal wellbeing and a healthy natural environment afforded greater status in this respect.
A demonstrable commitment by the Government to align all aspects of the UK economy, including its population, with the principle of living within environmental limits.
An urgent and informed public debate on sustainable human population movement and growth for the UK using independent research and data which also measures the impact of people's lifestyles on the environment, and considers issues such as faith, cultural attitudes, poverty and migration.
The Government to monitor and report on the impact of population and people's lifestyles on the environment, such information being essential to planning and evolving communities and to planning for action on climate change.
Wider education, especially in schools, regarding the environmental impacts of the UK's consumer culture, with a focus on more needs-based living, society and family.
A complete review of all benefits and fiscal policies to identify any perverse incentives for people in the UK to have more than two children, leading to a non-coercive policy which encourages people to 'stop at two'.
Wider public education regarding reproduction and fertility, in all areas of global society, and provision of free family planning support to all.
The UK to lead the way in international negotiations to increase levels of overseas development committed to educating men and empowering women to take greater control of their own fertility.
A clear and concerted effort to eradicate poverty, recognising the clear correlation between poverty and higher reproduction rates. This effort should foster development not based on a traditional western model and utilise leading techniques and technologies which are 'light touch' on the environment.
The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) is the leading professional body for the people who plan, protect and care for the environment and its resources, providing educational opportunities, independent information to the public and advice to government. Members in 98 countries include scientists, engineers, ecologists and students. Chartered Insitute for Water and Environmental Management [CIWEM]
Contraction and Convergence
Climate change is driven, and its impacts are experienced, to different extents by different populations across the globe. Equity should therefore be a maintained as a guiding principle around which climate policy is developed. The model of contraction and convergence seeks to develop a framework in which the finite biospherical capacity is equitably shared amongst all of the earth’s inhabitants. Contraction and convergence describes a process whereby the high emitters of green house gases contract the rates at which they consume fossil fuel energy and eventually converge at a sustainable level with those who need to increase their consumption above what they currently consume in order to achieve satisfaction of necessary material and social needs. It has the advantage of explicitly recognizing the developing world’s right to develop, and the likelihood that their per capita emissions will grow as a result of this process, and of identifying a globally equitable way of managing this within the context of a global need to reduce carbon emissions. There is an important distinction to draw between the “luxury” and “survival” emissions produced between different populations and the patent and urgent need to address gross inequalities and widespread poverty experienced in many parts of the world. Addressing human development through stimulating economic activity and other means of improving human welfare will inevitably lead to increases in GHG emissions; there is hence an allowance for an increase in emissions from poor populations in the contraction and convergence model. The budget at which emissions should contract to is estimated to start at 450 CO2 ppm (at the time that Kyoto was created), which may have to be revised downwards towards 350 ppm, this however doesn’t account for any feedbacks triggered in the climate system which might mean that the budget would have to be set even more conservatively. The convergence date sets 2100 as an approximation to reach a globally equitable distribution of energy consumption, though efforts should be focused on the earliest date possible, as we move past the point of equity for equity’s sake towards the pursuit of equity for survival. Since this model is based on equilibrium between per capita and total rates of emissions, population is a critical factor influencing its achievability. Population projections are central for the subject of negotiation, and increasingly so if the medium UN 2050 projections, upon which the contraction allowance was crafted are jeopardized as a result of a crumbling base of global family planning services resulting in stalling rates of fertility decline in many countries. Population is the major denominator of this model, largely determining how hard it will be to achieve a globally feasible and equitable per capita emission figure; at the global level, a larger world population means a lower, more difficult to achieve, number. Similarly it could prove counter-intuitive if it became in the interest of nations to stimulate population growth in order to increase their share of the global emissions budget in an absolute sense. Population Dynamics and Climate Change
Study for DFID December 2009 Susannah Mahew, Karen Newman, Judith Stephenson
Contraction and convergence - What is a sustainable lifestyle? Humanity as a whole is already consuming more resources than the earth can in the longer term provide. Therefore consumption in the richer countries will have to be reduced to allow those in poorer countries to attain a decent lifestyle. Consumption will inevitably grow in developing countries as they industrialise and urbanise, even if they take on board the need for sustainable lifestyles. It will be up to wealthier communities, principally in developed countries, to moderate their lifestyles and adopt consciously green practices. We already know that what one country considers acceptable would be considered far from acceptable to another. How should the level be set? By whom? On what criteria?
The concept of Contraction and Convergence (C&C) was conceived by the Global Commons Institute in the early 1990s. The principle is that the rich should consume progressively far less resources per capita than before, while the poor consume rather more than they did, so we converge towards a common ‘fair share’ for each, which the planet can sustain. We support this principle of C&C or global equity, but it must take account of the plain arithmetic fact that every additional person reduces everyone else’s sustainable share. We have therefore insisted on including a population base year at which the ultimate target figures, notably for sustainable carbon emissions per person, should be calculated country by country. Without it, countries with high population growth would consume ever more, at the expense of those who had succeeded in restraining or reducing their numbers.
We were delighted when Kofi Annan endorsed our view in his Chairman’s Key Recommendations following a conversation we had with him after a workshop we gave at the Global Humanitarian Forum in June 2009. Population numbers, lifestyles, and sustainable technologies are a classic trade-off. If we want a sustainable future, we need to address not one or two but all three of these issues in parallel. Population Matters
Contraction and Convergence
In the early 1990s, the Global Commons Institute developed the theory of contraction and convergence as a means to reducing greenhouse emissions in an equitable manner. The Contraction part lays down an annual fall of global emissions. The Convergence determines how the entitlements to emit carbon are distributed between the countries of the world and is based on per capita entitlements. The per capita element, however, risks encouraging countries to increase their population to earn more entitlements. Thus, if convergence and contraction is to work, it will be necessary to set maximum populations beyond which no further entitlements would be gained. Submission from Sustainable Population Australia for COP-15
OPT recommends: - "That the principle of “contraction and convergence” (rich and poor converging towards a common per person emissions target) be accepted as an equitable starting point for distributing total tolerable carbon emissions, provided that this is allocated to states on the basis of their population size at a specific date. This would encourage the adoption of population restraint policies; whereas allocation on a simple per person criterion would encourage continued population growth, thus continuously reducing every person’s carbon entitlement." Statement endorsed by: - Sir David Attenborough, Naturalist, Broadcaster and wildlife film-maker*
Prof Sir Partha Dasgupta, Frank Ramsey professor of economics, University of Cambridge*
Prof Paul Ehrlich, Professor of population studies, Stanford University*
Prof John Guillebaud, Emeritus Prof family planning, University College, London*
Susan Hampshire, Actor and population campaigner*
James Lovelock, Gaia scientist and author
Professor Aubrey Manning, Pres Wildlife Trust, Emeritus Prof Natural History, Edinburgh University
Professor Norman Myers, Visiting Fellow, Green College, Oxford University*
Sara Parkin, Founder/Dir and trustee, Forum for the Future*
Jonathon Porritt, Founder/Dir, Forum for the Future; Fmr Chair, UK Sus. Dev. Commission*
Professor Chris Rapley, Former director, the British Antarctic Survey The Optimum Population Trust on C&C
"Contraction and Convergence is a prime example of a UNFCCC-compliant Global Climate Change Framework. It is a rational formulation for reconciliation of 'Climate Justice without Vengeance'. 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. C&C answers this in a unifying and constitutional way and the need for this answer becomes increasingly critical."
Letter & signatories at: -
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population [estab. 2001] Jonathon Porritt
Forum for the Future Sara Parkin,
Founder Director, Forum for the Future Roger Martin
Chair, Optimum Population Trust
25 January 2012 - C&C Foundation 'Has Created Excellent Movies' Harley Wright, Australia
The C&C Foundation is a non-profit organsisation with a mission to put Contraction & Convergence at the heart of the United Nations Framework on Climate Change agenda as an over-arching principle for an effective and fair post Kyoto climate deal by working to ensure C&C is understood by the public and policy makers in every nation. The interviews recorded to camera with various people by the C&C Foundation
The C&C Foundation is now registered as a not-for-profit company and is seeking registration as a Charity.
25 January 2012 - More input to Rio+20 - "C&C for geo-political stability."
Carrying Capacity and Ecological Limits - Living within the carrying capacity of the Earth, recognition of the achievement of basic needs and livelihoods within ecological limits, and a move away from economic expansion, especially in developed nations, under a framework of contraction and convergence guaranteeing geopolitical stability. This policy recommendation was put forward in relation to the Green Economy in the context of Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication for the Earth Summit 2012 by One Earth, Stakeholder Forum and EPF. Green Economy
In the Context of Sustainable Development and PovertyEradication
25 January 2012 - Argentina "C&C is an option for negotiations up to and beyond 2012."
Enabling the Full, Effective, And Sustained Implementation of the Convention
through Long-Term Cooperative Action Now, Up To, and Beyond 2012
One task of the AWG-LCA is to frankly and openly discuss how to guarantee continued economic
development while also achieving the necessary sharp global cuts. In this regard, the concept of contraction and convergence, supported by adequate financing, technology and capacity building and compensation for lost development opportunity, remains an option for our consideration within these negotiations. This approach provides one option for balancing the effort by developing countries to secure their development needs while reducing GHG emissions over time. As countries secure their development objectives, they are better equipped to adapt to climate change and mitigate without detrimental impacts on their societies. Submission for the Ad-Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA)
ARGENTINA September 2008
25 January 2012 - Climate Change & India; "Per capita basis; population fixed in year of agreement."
AN EQUITABLE SOLUTION: AN ETHICAL ISSUE
To discourage free riding during the negotiation period and beyond, we suggest that countries are accountable for their own emissions for a specific period, say after 1990 or 2000. That is whatever decisions are arrived at, will be applicable retroactively from say 2000. That is, the clock starts ticking and all emissions are cumulated for each country even during negotiations. This way, negotiations will conclude faster and policy actions to reduce emissions will begin soon. Regardless of the outcome of the negotiations, these emissions will be shown against each country and that much less will be available to them in future. This way, the countries taking actions in advance get their rewards and procrastinating countries will have to do more later. The only fair allocation of the global environmental space is on per capita basis. The desirability of distributing permits (quotas) on per capita basis is recognized at least in the long run. The belief that 'all men are created equal' was voiced eloquently in the US Declaration of Independence and was a message 'heard around the world'. If the population is fixed in the year in which the agreement is reached, the South does not benefit from population growth in future. Climate Change and India; Issues Concerns and Opportunities
P R Shukla, S K Sharma and P V Ramana
25 January 2012 - UNESCO COMEST on C&C "Fair and pragmatic"
UNESCO COMEST on C&C
"The principle of contraction & convergence refers to the emission of gases contributing to the greenhouse effect. A fair and pragmatic approach, it is argued, would be to move gradually towards quotas that would not be indexed on GOP, as is the case in the Kyoto Protocol, but rather on population, while gradually reducing the permitted total towards the 60% reduction commended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Such a principle may be seen as a consequence of both the principles of environmental justice and the principles of earth as global commons. The particular problem whether future emissions allocations should be based on a per capita basis, as the so-called “contraction and convergence” proposal suggests, or on a country basis, might be seen in a different light if humanitarian aid were internationally organized on a basis of each country’s ability to pay. The greater duty of rich countries to contribute to such aid might be politically easier to accept than more stringent emission limits imposed on “more polluting” and “past polluting” countries than LDCs (least developed countries), which would also cost “richer” countries more."Contraction and Convergence (C&C) is the science-based, global climate policy framework proposed to the United Nations since 1990 by the Global Commons Institute (GCI).
See http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/ICE.pdf UNESCO - The Ethical Implications of Climate Change: A Report by the
World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST)
25 January 2012 - C&C & UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment "Receiving Significant Attention."
"An approach that is receiving significant attention, and endorsed by the German Advisory Council on Global Change, is some form of contraction and convergence whereby total global emissions are reduced (i.e., contraction) to meet a specific agreed target, and the per capita emissions of industrialized and the developing countries converge over a suitably long time period, with the rate and magnitude of contraction and convergence being determined through the UNFCCC negotiating process. "Contraction and Convergence” (C&C). C&C is a science-based global climate-policy framework proposed by the Global Commons Institute (GCI) with the objective of realizing "safe”13 and stable greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. It applies principles of precaution and equity, principles identified as important in the UNFCCC but not defined, to provide the formal calculating basis of the C&C framework that proposes:
• A full-term contraction budget for global emissions consistent with stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at a pre-agreed concentration maximum deemed to be “safe” using IPCC WG1 carbon cycle modelling.
• The international sharing of this budget as ‘entitlements’ results from a negotiable rate of linear convergence to equal shares per person globally by an agreed date within the timeline of the full-term contraction/concentration agreement.
• Negotiations for this within the UNFCCC could occur principally between regions of the world, leaving negotiations between countries primarily within their respective regions, such as the European Union, the Africa Union, the US, etc, comparable to the current EU bubble.
• The inter-regional, inter-national and intra-national tradability of these entitlements should be encouraged to reduce costs.
• Scientific understanding of the relationship between an emissions-free economy and concentrations develops, so rates of C&C can evolve under periodic revision." UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
Policy Responses
25 January 2012 - C&C & the World Bank "draws attention to inequities in global consumption."
Contraction and convergence
The contraction-and-convergence approach assigns every human being an equal entitlement to greenhouse gas emissions. All countries would thus move toward the same per capita emissions. Total emissions would contract over time, and per capita emissions would converge on a single figure. The actual convergence value, the path toward convergence, and the time when it is to be reached would all be negotiable. [Meyer]. World Bank Development Report 2010
Development and Climate Change
Since August 2007, The World Bank Institute Professional Development program for Parliamentarians & Parliamentary Staff has been available online. By making this series of learning modules publicly available, the World Bank Institute will assist a greater share of the world parliamentary community in fulfilling their role in the governance process.
Contraction and Convergence
While the Kyoto Protocol is the legally binding international regime on climate change, a number of proposals have been put forward as alternatives for future regimes. Brazil proposed setting differentiated emissions reduction targets for Annex I countries ranked according to the impact of their historic emissions on temperature rise. In general, countries with a longer record of greenhouse gas emissions will have a greater share of responsibility for emission reductions than countries where industrialization started later. The proposal was originally designed for application to Annex I countries. However, it could theoretically be applied to developing countries as well. “Contraction and Convergence”, conceived by the Global Commons Institute in the early 1990s, is a framework based on equity. Contraction and convergence uses two principles: contraction of global carbon emissions and convergence of per capita emissions across the world’s population. It proposes reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions to a safe level, or “Contraction”, where global emissions are reduced because every country brings emissions per capita to a level that is equal for all countries, or “Convergence”. The convergence mechanism assists in distributing emission allowances and eventually, at the end of the convergence period, countries will have allowances in proportion to their populations. Developed countries would be the first to make large cuts in their emissions levels, whereas developing countries would be permitted to keep increasing their emissions levels for a period before also beginning to cut their emissions. This framework, intended to form the basis of an international agreement is expressed as a simple mathematical formula, which can be used as a method for stabilizing carbon levels in the atmosphere. Parliament and Climate Change
Unit 8: Responding to Climate Change through International Negotiations
Contraction and Convergence [C&C]. This plan combines equal rights to emit with grandfathering [or assigning rights based on past emissions, the higher the past emissions, the larger the grandfathered emissions rights]. Each country is allocated emissions right based on its past emissions. Countries that exceed desired per capita global emissions have their allocation reduced in each succeeding year, while countries that emit less that this target receive a higher allocation each year. Over time global emissions contract while high an low emitting countries converge on the same per capita emissions [Global Commons Institute]. World Economic and Social Survey 2009, Promoting Development Saving the Planet
UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs
25 January 2012 - "C&C & Multi-Faith support." Buddhist, Jewish, Islamic, Christian . . .
On the positive side, emerging technologies and old-fashioned human courage suggest ways that could reduce these problems. The Arab Spring has seen an encouraging reaction against repressive autocracies. The Occupy movements illustrate an overdue response to the stranglehold of big money and big corporations. What is really needed is a Global Spring, an overthrowing of old-world thinking which 1) keeps the world wedded to a toxic cocktail of profligate fossil-fuel use and 2) promotes the hedonic treadmill (the fruitless pursuit of material and status goods as the way to happiness). Key elements of this reawakening will be contraction and convergence (less ecological waste by the rich and more consumption of materials and information by the poor), particularly through global education and rights-based family planning. From the Medical Director's Desk
Benevolent Organisation for Development, Health & Insight [BODHI]
Founding Patron His Holiness XIV Dalai Lama Founded in 1989
The concept of "Contraction and Convergence” [C&C] takes the present distribution of the emissions as the starting point for the process of emissions reduction ("Grandfathering") in order to gradually achieve the objective of two tons of CO2 per head. The advantage is that this offers Countries with high emission rates a transition period that makes it easier to get started. It furthermore, in a certain sense, offers these countries protection by allowing for the gradual compliance with environmental safeguards. Existing injustices are transitionally recognized in this concept, without thereby being approved. However the C&C system - as is the case with all systems implemented on a global scale - cannot be realized in the short term, since the opposed interests cannot yet be reconciled. It can however be ascribed as a guideline function for actual climate policy. The C&C concept has its starting point in justice considerations, and therefore has an ethical foundation. Global Crisis, Global Challenge, Global Faith
Allan Boesak & Len Hansen Beyers Naude Centre University of Stellenbosch SA
The answer is called Contraction and Convergence . "C&C" is a framework that forces governments to agree on three vital questions. First, what is a safe concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases? Is it twice the current concentration? Half the current concentration? The present concentration? Many scientists argue a safe concentration is what it was during the 1960s. The fact is that the Earth system can absorb a certain amount of greenhouse gases without causing harmful change to the climate. So once a safe concentration is agreed upon, it is then easy to calculate the total global amount of greenhouse gas that can be emitted each year. The second question C&C forces governments to answer is, 'When will the total global emissions of greenhouse gases be reduced to the amount needed to maintain atmospheric concentrations at the agreed safe level?' In 2050? 2100? Next year? The sooner the better, of course, because the longer we wait the more harm is done to people and nature and the more expensive it becomes to fix the problem. The third important question a C&C framework would force governments to reach agreement on concerns how the permissible annual amount of greenhouse gas emissions will be allocated between nations. The simplest and fairest way is to give every person an equal share. This is called a per capita allocation, and is what C&C calls for. One important feature of C&C is that it treats nations fairly . Under this framework, the emission entitlement of people in a poor country will increase relative to what it is now, while that of people in a wealthy country will decrease. This is fair because historically poor countries have not caused the global warming problem and they need to now quickly develop to eliminate poverty. However, under a new C&C-framed protocol, all countries, including developing countries, will be committed to meeting their specified national greenhouse gas targets by the agreed date. Winning the struggle Against Global Warming
A manageable first step relating particularly to carbon emissions, supported by a wide coalition of concerned parties, is of course the 'Contraction and Convergence' proposals initially developed by the Global Commons Institute in London. This involves granting to each nation a notional 'entitlement to pollute' up to an agreed level that is credibly compatible with overall goals for managing and limiting atmospheric pollution. Those nations which exceed this level would have to pay pro rata charges on their excess emissions. The money thus raised would be put at the service of low emission nations or could presumably be ploughed back into poor but high-emission nations who would be, so to speak, in credit as to their entitlements, so as to assist them in ecologically sustainable development.
Such a model has the advantage that it seeks to intervene in what is presently a dangerously sterile situation. At the moment, some nations that are excessive but not wildly excessive polluters (mostly in Western Europe) have agreed levels of reduction under the Kyoto protocols, and are moving with reasonable expedition towards their targets; some developed nations that are excessive polluters have simply ignored Kyoto (the USA); some rapidly developing nations that are excessive polluters have also ignored Kyoto because they can see it only as a barrier to processes of economic growth already in hand (India and China). A charging regime universally agreed would address all these situations, allowing the first category to increase investment aid in sustainable ways, obliging the second to contribute realistically to meeting the global costs of its policies, and enabling the third to explore alternatives to heavy-polluting industrial development and to consider remedial policies. This scheme deals with only one of the enormous complex of interlocking environmental challenges; but it offers a model which may be transferable of how international regimes may be constructed and implemented.
"The vision of contraction and convergence as a response to climate change, which is described in this volume, is one that I support. I have also called upon our Church to undertake an ecological audit of some sort; information about how to do this can be found in Part Three. Such local, internal responses are vital if our voice as a Church is to have integrity." Sharing God's Planet "Those who think contraction and convergence is Utopian simply haven't looked honestly at the alternatives." Rowan Cantuar - The Archbishop of Canterbury
GLOBAL COMMONS INSTITUTE (GCI) is an independent group founded in 1990 and based in London. Its focus is the protection of the global commons of the global climate system. Since 1996 it has encouraged awareness of "Contraction and Convergence" (C&C) as an international framework for sharing the arrest of global greenhouse gas emissions. This site details C&C and its growing support around the world. Wisconsin Interfaith Power and Light
Resolution 32: - The Anglican Consultative Council notes the Statement to the Anglican Communion from the ACEN, and endorses its recommendation that all Anglicans be encouraged to: -
recognise that global climatic change is real and that we are contributing to the despoiling of creation
understand that, for the sake of future generations and the good of God’s creation, those of us in the rich nations need to be ready to make sacrifices in the level of comfort and luxury we have come to enjoy
expect mission, vision and value statements to contain commitment to environmental responsibility at all levels of church activity
educate all church members about the Christian mandate to care for creation
work on these issues ecumenically and with all faith communities and people of good will everywhere
ensure that the voices of women, indigenous peoples and youth are heard
press government, industry and civil society on the moral imperative of taking practical steps towards building sustainable communities.
recognise that global climatic change is real and that we are contributing to the despoiling of creation.
commend initiatives that address the moral transformation needed for environmentally sustainable economic practices such as the Contraction and Convergence process championed by the Archbishop of Canterburyii.
understand that, for the sake of future generations and the good of God’s creation, those of us in the rich nations need to be ready to make sacrifices in the level of comfort and luxury we have come to enjoy.
expect mission, vision and value statements to contain commitment to environmental responsibility at all levels of church activity.
educate all church members about the Christian mandate to care for creation.
work on these issues ecumenically and with all faith communities and people of good will everywhere.
ensure that the voices of women, indigenous peoples and youth are heard.
press government, industry and civil society on the moral imperative of taking practical steps towards building sustainable communities.
Aubrey Meyer’s visionary Contraction and Convergence proposition (you can read more on this in Meyer’s‘The Case for Contraction and Convergence,’ in David Cromwell and Mark Levene, eds., Surviving Climate Change, The Struggle to Avert Global Catastrophe, London: Pluto Press, 2007, pp. 29-56), is not only at fundament about piku’ah nefesh, it also in its insistence on an time-ordered reconciliation of all humanity by way of equal carbon entitlement is nothing less than eschatological in its vision of a world community which has arrived at its ethical end-goal. But Meyer’s proposition, of course, does not openly speak in these prophetic terms. Utterly grounded in the climate science, its purpose is to find a practical framework by which yearly, incremental carbon reduction can be brought to safe-limits. And its method is social justice. While all humanity will converge to a common carbon point, it will be the rich countries who will have to do almost the entirety of the ‘contraction’ to meet the overall targets, and in the process – through the tradability of entitlements – enabling the poor and disadvantaged the investment not only for clean sustainable technologies but a belated meeting of their fundamental right to wellbeing. A Jewish community which takes to its soul this ideal of and makes of it a goal of practical implementation is one which is truly fulfilling its time-honoured purpose. It would also in the process be helping to break an actual log-jam. Contraction and Convergence has been much theorised but what is arguably needed now is visible evidence that it can be made to work in a Western environment where the ‘sacrifice’ has to be made. Normative Judaism through its historic orthopraxy is particular suited to this exercise. Traditionally Jews lived by a very tight code of rules and observations governing every aspect of conduct and behaviour in their daily lives. Large numbers of the religious still do so. Re-orientating these guidelines to a template governing a sustainable life-style would not as an idea be that revolutionary. In the sense that it would actually involve a thorough-going programme of transition to low-energy living it would be as far-reaching as could be conceivably imagined. Can Jews help to stop Climate Change?
The Responses We Propose
We see hope and rejoice in progress made. We heard at our meeting that:
The Kyoto Protocol is now legally binding in 128 nations
Many provinces, dioceses and parishes within the Anglican Communion are actively pursuing actions towards environmental sustainability
Task forces within the Anglican Communion are addressing inter-related issues, such as trade and poverty, and women’s issues
Parishes in some provinces have begun to use programs to help them reduce the environmental footprint of their activities (Eco-congregations/ Footprint Files, etc).
In the light of these hopeful signs, we encourage all Anglicans to:
recognise that global climatic change is real and that we are contributing to the despoiling of creation
commend initiatives that address the moral transformation needed for environmentally sustainable economic practices such as the Contraction and Convergence process championed by the Archbishop of Canterbury [ii]
understand that, for the sake of future generations and the good of God’s creation, those of us in the rich nations need to be ready to make sacrifices in the level of comfort and luxury we have come to enjoy
expect mission, vision and value statements to contain commitment to environmental responsibility at all levels of church activity
educate all church members about the Christian mandate to care for creation
work on these issues ecumenically and with all faith communities and people of good will everywhere
ensure that the voices of women, indigenous peoples and youth are heard
press government, industry and civil society on the moral imperative of taking practical steps towards building sustainable communities.
Operation Noah, the Churches' climate-change campaign, argues that a new treaty must be signed by 2012. It must be truly global, equitable and binding. The Contraction and Convergence scheme developed by the Global Commons Institute (www.gci.org.uk) offers one solution. This requires global emissions to contract to a safe level, and national emissions, which diverge between rich and poor nations, to converge to an equal, tradable entitlement. But some developing countries have their own understanding of what equitable means. They want rich nations to pay off their"carbon debt" — the greenhouse gas already hanging in the atmosphere from their wealth-creation — by giving poor nations corresponding entitlements to emit in the future. This question of historic responsibility is opening up a fault-line between church leaders and many development agencies. What is certain is that contraction and convergence of emissions, by whatever route, is inescapable. Britain must give vigorous international leadership on the post-Kyoto treaty. Church Times 11 February 2005
On Monday, the Archbishop of Canterbury endorsed "contraction and convergence," the plan of the Global Commons Institute to confront climate change by allotting to every human being an equal right and quota to emit carbon dioxide. Dr. Rowan Williams said the viability of the human species is threatened by our "offences against the environment," which are menacing the possibility of maintaining any viable notion of universal justice in the short term, and the survival of the species in the long run. He said the emergence of "fortress societies" and "the most vicious kind of global conflict" would be among the consequences of failing to confront the tough choices that the natural order is now posing to humanity. United For Peace
Pierce County Tacoma Seattle Washington State USA
We now know that Greenhouse emissions from Irish society are threatening the future survival of the one-third of the world's population who are directly and uniquely dependent on what nature provides for them at a local level. He argued that justice and global security not only requires the Western world to give more but for us to actually take less. Rather than trying to buy our way out of the Kyoto Protocol we should be looking to do whatever we can to reduce the three tonnes of waste and the sixteen barrels of oil that every one of us uses each year. Such a reduction would again be a key statistic in the GNP index to which I referred above. This is not a message of gloom and doom, nor one of restricting anyone's freedom. The Global Commons Institute in the U.K. has developed the concept of 'Contraction and Convergence' which advocates the allocation of an equal carbon quota to every citizen on the planet to trade and use as they see fit. Flying to Florida on holidays would still be on the cards for anyone who wants to go there. The only difference is that the carbon cost would be included. We should realise how fortunate we are to live in a country with a mild climate with immense renewable energy resources. That energy will be the key to the maintenance of our economic wealth, but we need to start developing it now. In the near future, we will no longer be able to be so profligate with materials, which all have a significant oil component and which are going to become very expensive as oil production starts to deplete. Our current conspicuous consumption culture may have a very short shelf life indeed. Jesuit Studies
Eamon Ryan is Green Party TD for Dublin Central
Contraction and convergence is widely seen as the most just long-term response to climate change. Cap and trade schemes are even being explored as a possible response to wider social problems. Wherever they lead us, the parallel currencies set up through such schemes reveal a promising way of bridging the gap between price and value. No less remarkably they put the book of Leviticus politically centre stage, albeit heavily disguised. Perhaps Will Hutton was guilty not of hyperbole but of understatement when he wrote in the Observer in 1999. Leviticus 25 may not only inspire and change the world. It may save it. How Leviticus can save the world
Nick Spencer Difference Magazine
In 48 points or “better steps”, German philosopher and envrionmental ethicist Konrad Ott continues "Kronolid’s struggle with the ethical implications of climate change by elaborating basic foundations on existing and necessary policies for climate change. The short sections are consistently formulated as “ethical claims” and the reader should approach these slowly and with concentration, so that the subsequent steps are converted into one single walk and path. At the core of the author’s argument lies the climate-ethics concept of “Contraction and Convergence”. This argument provokes a constructive debate, and it presumes to to support a concept that has been regarded as “Utopian a decade ago but has now entered the political stage. What might it contribute to international climate policy in a nondistant future? Religion and Dangerous Environmental Change
Sigurd Bergmann Dieter Gerten [Eds]
Assuming an equal right to the Earth's atmosphere, broadly speaking it is possible to envisage different development paths for North and South. All countries are expected in the long run, to converge upon a similar level of fossil energy- use per capita. The North will contract, while the South will expand towards a convergence with the North. Over-users will have to come down from their present level, while under-users are permitted to raise their present level, albeit at a gradient that is much less steep than the one industrial countries went through historically, levelling off at the point of convergence. However, the convergence of North and South on equal emission levels cannot be achieved at the expense of contraction, i.e., the transition to globally sustainable levels of emissions. Once again, sustainability gives rise to equity. Indeed, the vision of 'contraction and convergence' combines ecology and equity most elegantly; it starts with the insight that the global environmental space is finite, and attempts to fairly share its permissible use among all world citizens, taking into account the future generations as well. Pontifical Academy of Sciences
Interactions between Global Change and Human Health
From The Offices of Vatican City
Aspiration for global justice – a bias in favour of the weakest
The aspiration for global justice and special attention for the poor and for those generations who are not yet born are core values of Catholic social teaching. The contraction and convergence approach to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is one option for achieving more global justice through an emission allotment and trading scheme, and a minimum requirement in the light of these values. Contraction relates to the need to reduce the total amount of anthropogenic emissions in order to protect the climate. Convergence relates to
the distribution of these outputs. In order to achieve an equitable allocation of emission rights, it is often suggested that each human being in the world should gradually receive the same emission rights: based on their current per capita emissions, fewer emission rights will gradually be allocated to the industrial countries, while the developing countries will increasingly be granted more emission rights until each country achieves the same per capita rights by 2050. A CHRISTIAN VIEW ON CLIMATE CHANGE
THE IMPLICATIONS OF CLIMATE CHANGE FOR LIFESTYLES AND EU POLICIES
Secretariat of the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community
A Report to the Bishops of COMECE
He supports the efforts of people like Aubrey Meyer of the Global Commons Institute in London, whose carbon emissions model Contraction and convergence [C&C], could become the basis for international agreement and political consensus. Soul Purpose
David Bailey
An ideal for cutting carbon emissions for instance, is a per head allocation globally. This allows low-level developing nations a time of grace to grow. Meanwhile overdeveloped nations, having created the problem of GlobalWarming during two hundred years of industrialisation, take the burden. Initially the burden of reducing carbon emissions suffiently to achieve the aim, while rare of growth of carbon emissions for low-level developing nations would be controllably and increasingly reduced to a turning point which would then approach coincidence with rhe reducing levels of those in the developed countries. Then when equality in emissions has been reached all will continue that decrease together. This is “Contraction and Convergence” C&C, fostered for years by Aubrey Meyer, Director of The Global Commons Institute. Ideally all earm’s resources could be shared in rhis way. Contracting and Converging Compassionately. C & C = COMPASSION Christian Yoga
Harry Holloway
Speaking out in support of encompassing global concepts such as Contraction and Convergence, challenging materialistic lifestyle choices, exploring ways how we can turn and become an eco-just society, taking side with the worst affected groups in overseas countries and also with the worst affected groups here at home, helping them to secure their livelihoods in the face of climate change in liberation-style theology - adapted to Climate Change. Castle Street Methodist Church
1. There is a problem
Global climate change is a global problem.
2. There is a cause of the problem
Systemically driven over-consumption and inequality are the cause of the problem.
3. The problem can be overcome
A global solution is needed to overcome the problem.
4. There is a way to overcome the problem
A global framework for "Contraction and Convergence" based on: -
One: - Precaution Global contraction of carbon emissions
Two: - Equity Convergence to equal shares per head
Three: - Efficiency Global trading of shares ease transition to
Four: - Prosperity with zero-emissions life-style and techniques
Tao says: - “from 1 comes 2, from 2 comes 3 & from 3 come the 10,000 things.”
Some 40 publications appearing in 1999 and 2000 address climate change ethics, including Page’s 1999) journal article ‘Intergenerational justice and climate change’ and Wesley & Peterson’s (1999) journal article ‘The ethics of burden-sharing in the global greenhouse.’ Contraction and convergence: the global solution to climate change, by Meyer (2000), offered an ethically based framework to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions that would lead to equal per capita emissions rights at some agreed future ‘convergence’ date. His idea has gained interest among many nations and is often referred to in international climate negotiations. Roles of religion and ethics in addressing climate change - Paula J. Posas
The ESEP Essay Contest Winner in Philosophy/Religious Studies
"Looking towards the upcoming negotiations on the second commitment period, the Contraction and Convergence Model is an important contribution. It corresponds to the initial vision of the Convention that demands the reduction of CO2 emissions of industrialized countries and leaves space for the development of developing countries. It presents a starting point for deliberations and negotiations directed to finding a justice-based global approach to climate change." World Council of Churches
Rt Revd John Oliver, the Bishop of Hereford, began his presentation saying his aim was to convert the Congress to support the idea of ‘contraction and convergence’. This theory has already considerable support but he was frustrated that so few people know about it. Contraction and convergence is an interim policy framework for implementing emission reduction which meets the US demands that the two thirds world joins and the two thirds world demand for equitable treatment. Contraction involves the world agreeing to contract the amount of emissions over to a specified amount. Convergence involves every country being given a certain number of permits to pollute, according to population size. Countries with spare permits to pollute can sell them to other, more polluting countries through emissions trading.. The Bishop emphasized the need for action now, as insurers calculate that by 2065 the cost of environmental damage will exceed the world’s GDP. The Anglican Communion
Public Policies based on the Concept of Enough Enough has important philosophical and reflective aspects, but it is also at the heart of many concrete proposals and frameworks for making the changes we need, in order to live well in the future. Such proposals include ‘Contraction and Convergence’ based on the idea of a fair distribution of carbon-emission quotas to all citizens of the globe. Jesuit Centre for Faith and Justice
Contraction and Convergence I WAS TREMENDOUSLY EXCITED when I first read about Contraction and Convergence (C&C) in the Independent in May last year. Until then, I felt only despair about climate change. I could see the problem, see the solution – drastic reduction of energy consumption, and also see that it isn‟t happening. Depending on individual and corporate awareness and conscience is clearly not going to save the planet. But Contraction and Convergence, the idea of Aubrey Meyer, founder and director of the Global Commons Institute, is a simple, equitable and comprehensive global solution. Blessed are the Environmentalists
The film An Inconvenient Truth could be mistaken for a Presidential commercial were it not for the evident integrity and earnestness of the protagonist, Al Gore. It is a very gentle, personal, relaxed, sensitive documentary, following Al Gore on his worldwide travels to give his high-tech Apple Mac Global Warming slideshow. He is a missionary in this work. He clearly has a deep conviction that people don't understand Climate Change, that Global Warming is threatening the whole of life on Earth, and that the burden is on his shoulders to explain it - as he puts it - person by person, family by family. Various events from his education, his work and life history have clearly influenced his commitment to environmental protection, and some of these are narrated in between "show time" scenes of the man, at work in front of a selection of different audiences. As I said to Aubrey Meyer of the Global Commons Institute, whom I happened to bump into at the train station the other evening, "I never realised Al Gore was such a great communicator.""Yes", said Aubrey, "He's good on explaining the problems, but he's a bit short on solutions." And it's true : the film dwells only very briefly on the "wedges" that could be implemented to halt Global Warming. It doesn't mention the international Climate negotiations held by the United Nations, and it doesn't talk about Contraction and Convergence, proposed by GCI as the framework for addressing Climate Change worldwide. Interface - Where Christianity meets Culture
We do need to be aware just how damaging air travel is in terms of the build-up of CO2 concentrations in the upper atmosphere. We need to take a precautionary view in the light of what many believe to be a global disaster accelerating through the rest of this century. This is at best only capable of amelioration through drastic cuts in CO2 emissions by the developed nations in accordance with the contraction and convergence principles supported by General Synod and indeed now by an increasing number of international organisations and a substantial majority within the scientific community. Ven Michael Fox Archdeacon of West Ham
Chair - Environmental Issues Group, Diocese of Chelmsford
There is in the long run no choice between this spiralling inequality (and the fortress societies it will create) and some realistic step to deal with our addictions. The Global Commons Institute, based in London, has in recent years been advancing a very sophisticated model for pushing us back towards some serious engagement with this matter of equality, through its proposed programme of ‘Contraction and Convergence’. This seeks to achieve fairly rapid and fairly substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions – but to do so in a way that foregrounds questions of equity between rich and poor nations. At the moment, rates of emission are fantastically uneven across the globe. In the first forty eight hours of 2004, an average American family would have been responsible for as much in the way of emissions as an average Tanzanian family over the entire year. So what is proposed is that each nation is treated as having the same limited ‘entitlement to pollute’ – an agreed level of carbon emission, compatible with goals for reducing and stabilising overall atmospheric pollution. Since, obviously, heavily industrialised, high-consumption nations will habitually be using a great deal more than their entitlement and poorer nations less, there should be a pro rata charge on the higher users. They would, as it were, be purchasing the pollution ‘credits’ of less prosperous countries. And this charge would be put at the service of sustainable development in poorer nations in accord with the Millennium Development Goals. This would be treated not as an aid issue but as a matter of trading and entitlement. Something to think about
Newport Parish Isle of Wight
Church of England National Environment Campaign
Synod as carried - February 2005
That this Synod: -
1. commend Sharing God’s Planet as a contribution to Christian thinking and action on environmental issues;
challenge itself and all members of the Church of England to make care for creation, and repentance for its exploitation, fundamental to their faith, practice, and mission;
2. lead by example by promoting study on the scale and nature of lifestyle change necessary to achieve sustainability, and initiatives encouraging immediate action towards attaining it;
3. encourage parishes, diocesan and national Church organizations to carry out environmental audits and adopt specific and targeted measures to reduce consumption of non-renewable resources and ask the Mission and Public Affairs Council to report on outcomes achieved to the July 2008 group of sessions;
4. welcome Her Majesty’s Government’s prioritising of climate change in its chairing of the G8 and its forthcoming presidency of the European Union;
5. urge Her Majesty’s Government to provide sustained and adequate funding for research into, and development of, environmentally friendly sources of energy;
6. and in order to promote responsible use of God’s created resources and to reduce and stabilise global warming, commend to the consumers of material and energy, the approach of ‘contraction and convergence’;
7. and to the producers of material and energy systems, safe, secure and sustainable products and processes based on near-zero-carbon-emitting sources.
International perspective We live on a planet of finite size and resources: what I do in my own backyard (especially if it involves a patio heater and propane-fuelled barbecue!) has a global impact. Yet those who suffer most from the consequences of climate change had no say in my contributing activities. If the nations of the world could work together on equitable ways of reducing global warming - as indeed they have already come to scientific agreement, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, on its reality and causes that would be an enormous step forward for the good of humankind, not only in the practical consequences but also in fostering co-operative behaviour in our global village. There are already successful models of international co-operation on environmental issues, such as the Montreal Protocol of 1987 which drastically reduced the emission of ozone-destroying substances. But even if not everyone joins in, that does not absolve us from the responsibility of playing our part in adopting sustainable lifestyles. More to the point, Christians in high-income countries can hardly claim to be loving their (global) neighbour when the consequences of their actions may lead to suffering and an increased probability of an early death elsewhere. To refuse to do so when the consequences of our actions are already clear is not only reckless but sinful. The high-income countries of the industrialised West have largely attained their standard of living through the profligate use of natural resources, and particularly of fossil fuels. Those countries can hardly deny the right of less industrialised nations such as China and India to pull themselves up to similar standards of living. Yet if the low-income countries simply emulate the industrialised nations in their use of fossil fuels, the problem of global warming will quickly escalate. One equitable solution which Christians could well endorse is to press for all nations to move towards a position where each is allowed to produce the same amount of polluting gases per capita. Such 'contraction and convergence' could in principle be achieved if there is the political will and international unity required to do so. A Burning Issue
Christian Care for the Environment
CONTRACTION AND CONVERGENCE – A WAY FORWARD
In 1990 a small British institute called the Global Commons Institute presented an idea aimed at solving the global crisis resulting from climate change. They were interested in two issues, equity, between the various peoples of the world, and survival through the maintenance of the present planetary climate regime. Their proposal was called Contraction and Convergence (often given the acronym C&C). The concept assumes that there are limits to growth in fossil fuel consumption if a climate crisis is to be avoided. A typical scenario addressing the issue of survival under C&C would be to stabilise carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere at about 450 parts per million by volume. This compares with the present (unstable and still rising) level of atmospheric carbon dioxide of 360ppmv. This is not to claim that 450ppmv is not without serious risk, given that claims of detectable effects are made for the present levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. If this level is accepted then the scientific community can be asked to estimate the annual world emission rate that would be sustainable (probably about 60% of the present emission rate, as the present emission rate would ultimately lead to much higher levels). Such a generous scenario however would still mean contraction in use by the developed world and restrictions on how much carbon dioxide could be released by developing countries in the future. Equity is addressed by proposing that future entitlements to emit carbon dioxide should be equalised globally on a per capita basis. That is, when fully in place, say in forty or fifty years time, each individual in the world would be entitled to emit the same amount of carbon dioxide measured on a national basis. This is the proposed convergence. It is hoped that this, more inclusive process, would break the present international stalemate that we see in Kyoto negotiations. The US refuses to ratify the Kyoto Protocol until major developing countries commit to curbing their gas emission and points out that developing countries will be responsible for more than half the emissions by 2020. On the other hand, the developing countries point out that emissions by developed countries are thirty times that of the developing world on a per capita basis and they now want their turn to use fossil fuels to aid their development, as the developed countries have done in the past. No wonder there is an impasse! Australia has also refused to sign the Protocol. Basically, the C&C system would provide the basis for a world carbon budget but, because the budget will not be big enough for all to do whatever they wish, carbon emission will need to be rationed on an equitable basis. There are three components to this. Firstly, the budget must be global; every country shares in the atmosphere and its absorptive capacity must be allocated so that no-one gains and no-one is deprived of their share. Secondly, the present situation, where allocations are generally proportional to wealth must be replaced. Thirdly, each person must be entitled to the same amount of greenhouse gas emissions (on a country basis). Studies during the World Wars showed that rationing only works if it is perceived as fair and it is claimed that the C&C system can be seen as fair. There are practical implications with this approach. Developing countries would have strong incentives to direct as much as possible of their development down non-fossil-fuel based energy pathways. As well the C&C mechanism would allow them to sell their unused annual emission entitlements to finance development without the need for massive debt-causing loans. At the same time developed countries would be able to purchase emission entitlements to gain time while they rebuild their infrastructures. While some European and developing countries have expressed varied levels of support for C&C as the basis for a long-term solution, it is early days in the process of exploring just how such a system would work. The Anglican Church, as well as the World Council of Churches, has expressed support for C&C and some of the many statements can be found at: ABC BBCCOE ECENWCC Love Power and Awareness
Anglican Diocese of Canberra and Goulburn
We often talk of the ‘global commons’ meaning for example air, oceans or Antarctica – by definition these are ‘commons’ to be shared. But more ‘commons’ need to be identified. For instance, there are respects in which Land should be treated as a resource to be shared or fish and other marine resources. Or, in order for international action regarding climate change to be pursued, how are allowable emissions from fossil fuel burning or from deforestation to be allocated? How do we as a world share these natural resources between us and especially between the very rich – like ourselves - and the very poor? A proposal by the Global Commons Institute is that emissions should first be allocated to everybody in the world equally per capita, then transfer of allocations being allowed through trading between nations. The logic and the basic equity of this proposal is in principle quite compelling – but is it achievable? Sustainability will never be achieved without a great deal more sharing. Sharing is an important Christian principle that needs to be worked out in practice. John the Baptist preached about sharing (Luke 3 v11), Jesus talked about sharing (Luke 12 v33), the early church were prepared to share everything (Acts 4 v32) and Paul advocated it (2 Cor 8 v13-15). The opposite of sharing - greed and covetousness - is condemned throughout 11 scripture. The sharing of knowledge and skills with those in the third world is also an important responsibility. These new attitudes are not just to provide guidance to policy makers in government or elsewhere. They need to be espoused by the public at large. Otherwise government will not possess the confidence to act. For the public to take them on board, the public have to under-stand them. To understand, they have to be informed. There is a great need for accurate and understandable information to be propagated about all aspects of sustainability. Christian churches could play a significant role in this. Global Warming Climate Change and Sustainability
John Ray Initiative
Imagine a solution to climate change which would simultaneously tackle global poverty and inequality. Aubrey Meyer's 'Contraction and Convergence' proposal could be an answer to both. Contration and Convergence could play a major role in reducing climate change and in reducing the growing gap betwecn rich and poor. The idea that everyone has rights to air, a global commons given us by God, fits with the Quaker Testtmony to Equality. Could Quakers lead the way as we have in the past? What might that mean? Dare to imagine your PM building Contraction and Convergence into its Finance and Property Group, perhaps sending donations to poor countries to pay for all excess carbon emissions! How might Contraction and Convergence affect Friends House? Meeting for sufferings? We cannot continue with business as usual. Our Quaker testimonies to Simplicity, Equality, Sustainability and Peace provide us with a basis for action. Can Quakers lead the way in championing this as we did the abolition of the slave trade? Quaker Magazine - The FRIEND
We have now come to constitute, he says, an almost solid mass of humanity. We are experiencing a phase of contraction and convergence. Teilhard calls the contemporary trend ‘Planetization’ the emergence of a global consciouness. The Creative Christian
Adrian B Smith
With Contraction and Convergence [C&C], governments negotiate a convergence period to an equal per capita distribution of emissions entitlements globally. OSHO World Magazine
The reality is that if we fail to address the consequences of global warming and don’t massively reduce carbon emissions over the next 30 years, the future of human civilization will be in doubt in 100 years time. To prevent this catastrophe we need world wide agreement on Contraction and Convergence. Contraction and Convergence means that we ask climate scientists to tell us how much carbon dioxide can be safely emitted globally. We then move over time to a per capita entitlement with the OECD countries having to massively reduce emissions. So that developing countries being able to grow but having access to new technologies do not emit as much CO2 in the course of their development as did Europe and North America. So it's clear even for those who are not convinced of the need for radical action for moral reasons, that as our climate and environmental problems become more serious, there is need for action in order to preserve human civilization. As Africa is the poorest continent with the least power in the international sytem, it would be the right place for Europe to start in constructing a more just and equitable world order in order to cope with the problemes that face the whole of humanity. Africa and Europe: co-operation in a globalized word
Johannes Müller, Michael Reder, Scribani-European Jesuit Network
Anglican Communion Environmental Network
The Anglican Consultative Council notes thc Statement to thc Anglican Communion from the ACEN, and
endorses its recommendation that all Anglicans be encouraged to: -
[1] recognise that global climatic change is real and that we are contributing to the despoiling of creation
[2] commend initatives that address the moral transformation needed for environmentally sus tainable economic practices such as the Contraction and Convergence process championed by the Archbishop of Canterbury
[3] understand that for the sake of future generations and the good of God's creation, those of us in the rich nations need to be ready to make sacrifices in the level of comfort and luxury we have come to enjoy. Living Communion: Anglican Consultative Council XIII, Nottingham
James Rosenthal
Before the Framework Convention, the Global Commons Institute in the United Kingdom presented a proposal using ‘Contraction’ (to a level of global GHG emissions) and ‘Convergence’ (so that each country converges on the same allocation per inhabitant by an agreed date), aimed at equality in emissions per capita. In this proposal, countries unable to manage within their shares would be able to buy the unused parts of the allocations of other countries. Proposals calling for Contraction and Convergence represent a way to implement per capita equality in the long run. Industrialized countries have nearly locked themselves into a fossil-based infrastructure that requires some lead time to dismantle, even disregarding resistance from power and oil companies. Factors other than population Size need to be taken into account, including geographical and climatic conditions, and intensity of the economy. Contraction in carbon emissions is nevertheless a path for industrialized nations to start down.
For Contraction and Convergence policies to be implemented, nations would need to agree to stay within safe limits of the climate system. A scientifically derived global carbon budget would be the upper limit for all combined emissions, and that budget would be divided among the countries of the world. Industrialized nations would start the contraction process with more of this global budget but would receive fewer and fewer allowances as time goes on. Industrializing nations would begin at a point of much lower levels of emissions but would in the process of development increase those emissions, receiving a larger share of the emissions budget. While the polluting nations would engage in a process of contraction, the developing nations would eventually converge with the industrialized nations at a point that is safely within the absorptive capacity of the atmosphere. Wind, Sun, Soil Spirit - Biblical Ethics and Climate Change
Carol Robb
Climate scientists have proposed a contraction and convergence approach in order to share out the impacts of climate change in a more equitable manner on a global scale. This approach adopts the following principles: -
The precautionary principle
The polluter-pays principle
The equity principle
A Musician's YANTRA
"So powerful is the C&C graphic presentation that it has been called a “yantra”, a term which Buddhists reserve for the most powerful provokers of thought and reflection among the earthly minds. Since Meyer has proved to be no mean marketing expert, he may think of finding a sponsor to make it into up-market dinner tables thus providing a basis for conservation among the influential. What is needed is someone serious, rich and fashionable to launch it on a social occasion. Maybe Bill Gates could leaven the launch of his softwares with something of charitable worth based on “Meyer’s yantra”."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Contraction and Convergence is a prime example of a UNFCCC-compliant Global Climate Change Framework. It is a rational formulation for reconciliation of 'Climate Justice without Vengeance'. 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." Letter and signatories at: - http://www.gci.org.uk/politics.html
Sir John Houghton
President, John Ray Initiative The Rt Revd & Rt Hon Richard Chartres KCVO DD FSA
Bishop of London
24 January 2012 - "C&C is UN Policy" Denis Ambler SPPI
Unlike many who campaign endlessly for bits and pieces of climate-policy, 'sceptics' may not like it, but they have had the wit to realize C&C is the formation that they have to beat.
The UNFCCC said to the record at COP-9 "C&C is inevitably required for stabilization of concentrations," i.e. for UNFCCC-compliance
Denis Ambler goes on to say: -
"It is described by its initiator as “An International Conceptual Framework for Preventing Dangerous Climate Change” and has been adopted and subscribed to by the UN and member countries of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, (UNFCC).
The narrative says that there is a finite global budget for carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere, a total amount beyond which the world will heat uncontrollably and human kind will be visited by dreadful climate disasters, including, but not limited to, stronger hurricanes, rising sea levels, droughts, floods and plagues.
“Climate justice” demands that everyone on the planet has an equal right to emit the same amount of CO2. Greedy western nations have, since the industrial revolution, used up their share of this allowable CO2 amount and must now pay reparation to the undeveloped nations who have not industrialised.
Developed nations must “Contract” their economies by cutting fossil fuel usage to levels reported in 1990 (the Kyoto Protocol) and then transfer knowledge, technology and finance to developing nations, to bring them up to the new lowered expectations of the developed nations, described as “Convergence.”
24 January 2012 - C&C & Medical Professionals - extraordinary C&C champions . . .
Medical organisations and medical professionals have been possibly the most consistently focused, energetic and well-organised in responding to the health challenge of climate change.
24 January 2012 - New Statesman; "C&C - Compelling logic; without exaggeration a formula to save the world."
Fred Pearce in the New Statesman Energy Supplement
This brings us to “contraction and convergence” (C&C). Advocated by a small British group called the Global Commons Institute, which is seeking a trademark for the term, this formula for future global emissions could, without exaggeration, save the world. The contraction half of the formula cuts global emissions year on year so we never go above the critical trillion-tonne threshold of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The convergence half brings about a gradual convergence of national emissions entitlements, according to population. The logic is compelling, but some say it is fantasy politics . . . .
[Its interesting who you find behind the door . . . ]
. . . Big environment groups such as Greenpeace see the formula as a political dead end. I think they are profoundly wrong.
"From the African Union nations to the European Parliament, supporters are queuing up for C&C, and it may be only a matter of time before Kyoto’s 'Plan B' becomes the guiding principle at the UN climate negotiations. Indeed, it is difficult to visualise a final agreement that does not incorporate the basic principles of C&C. “Equity and survival” is the catchphrase of Meyer’s organisation, the Global Commons Institute. If equity is implemented, future generations may well have Aubrey Meyer to thank for their survival." DOES THIS EX-MUSICIAN HOLD THE ANSWER TO THE WORLD’S CLIMATE CRISIS?
New Statesman
24 January 2012 - Insurers and Insurance Industry experts "C&C has a high profile with Insurers."
The considered the views of some insurance industry experts: -
“There is a way of cutting global greenhouse gas emissions that is equitable, sensible and workable. It is called Contraction & Convergence, or simply C&C, and it is the brainchild of the South African musician Aubrey Meyer, founder of the London-based Global Commons Institute.
Meyer is one of the most extraordinary characters on the climate change activist ‘scene’, who grasped the urgency of finding a viable solution to climate change earlier than most of us realised that there was a problem. Almost two decades ago he gave up a professional music career that included playing with the London Philharmonic Orchestra and writing for the Royal Ballet, to focus on the issue.
The C&C concept has been forced onto the world stage by Meyer’s unstinting enthusiasm and incredible work rate. So successful has the lobbying process been that C&C is now a serious contender in terms of forming the basis of the post-Kyoto climate agreement that will, fingers crossed, be signed at Copenhagen in 2009. C&C already has many supporters in government and industry circles around the world.
In the months left however, it is imperative that the mechanism is promulgated as widely as possible as the only option available to bring the climate change beast to heel.
To help accomplish this, I urge you as strongly as I possibly can to support Aubrey and the GCT, for all our sakes and those of our children and grand children.”
This animation of C&C and risk is brilliant. The Kyoto Protocol is having negligible effect. If successful, Kyoto will result in a slowdown in the rise of global temperatures by 0.02C to 0.28C. That isn’t going to help a great deal and we must decide what comes after Kyoto. It has to have the US, India and China on board. The best hope is a system called contraction and convergence, which works on the premise that everyone on the planet has the right to produce the same amount of greenhouse gas. A level is set for the planet and it is divided by the number of people, so that each country knows how much it can emit per head of population. The overall level is then brought down by agreement.” Prof Bill McGuire
Geophysical & Climate Hazards
Director, Aon Benfield UCL Hazard Research Centre
“Even if we do not know the speed or severity of feedback effects, we must consider the probabilities of disastrous acceleration in climate change within very short time-scales. Risk assessment is the core activity of the insurance industry, the biggest industry in the world. Assessment of risk must fully include feedback effects. Insurers are the leading experts in risk and risk modelling. C&C demonstrates how this can be done. C&C already has a high profile with insurers. Governments need to listen to the insurance industry and make C&C central to government policy around the world. From a risk management point of view, C&C produces an important assessment of the risks we face from human-induced runaway climate change and how to frame a response at the policy level.” Prof David Crichton- Benfield Hazard Centre UCL
“C&C is so open and transparent. Within the insurance sector it is recognised by CEOs who know they need a long-term global framework within which they can assess their risk. Without C&C they’re stuck with a guesswork approach. A stable insurance industry is essential for a stable economy and a stable financial sector. Insurance needs a long term global framework so it can plan for the future. C&C will help bring this about. It needs to be adopted at the highest level, from the UN down through every business sector.”
“Aubrey Meyer is the most courageous and brilliant climate researcher I have ever met. He is willing to say what other’s merely think. He is quite fearless of any audience and the most eloquent of speaker’s because he knows that ultimately the concept of Contraction and Convergence [C&C] is indestruct-ible and will in the fullness of time be adopted in some form by the UNFCCC. He has developed his arguments over twenty years with a minimum of fund-ing and has refused to compromise his position in any way for financial gain or glory. He is tireless in his research and quest to understand every nu-ance of the climate debate. It has been an honour for me to have known and worked with such a brilliant mind and such an honest person as Aubrey.He has much support from very well placed and respectable people and deserves global recognition for his work. He is quite simply a modern-day genius who will one day be respected for his vision and beliefs. He should be considered for the Nobel Peace prize as his efforts ultimately will save the planet from the ravages of man-induced climate change.” Dr JULIAN SALT - Director of Climate Solutions
“Aubrey Meyer’s insight into the problem of mitigation of climate change bears the true hallmark of genius: it is simple and robust. His “Contraction & Convergence” model provides a transparent framework that incorporates the clear objective of a safe global level of greenhouse gases, and allocates the responsibility for achieving this internationally with the irresist
ible logic of equal shares. At the same time, the model recognises the practical need for an adjustment period to permit nations to conform to the new logic and prepare for a climate-friendly economy. It is no doctrinaire solution, but a brilliantly pragmatic and elegant solution.” Dr Andrew Dlugolecki - Advisory Board Director, Carbon Disclosure Project
Adviser on Climate Change to UNEP Finance Sector Initiative
“An agreement on global policies to tackle climate change is urgently needed for many reasons. In the first place, evidence is accumulating that the climate system may be more sensitive than we believed even in the recent IPCC report. At the same time, there has not been much progress in putting a systematic halt to emissions, so the problem will get worse. The agreement needs to include credible, strong, phased targets for emissions leading to a global reduction of 50 per cent by 2050; otherwise the price of carbon will be too low to incentivise a change in mindset. The fairest way to share these is the Contraction & Convergence model, which leads to equal emissions percapita in every country." The industry expert’s view
Dr. Andrew Dlugolecki, FCII, Research Fellow, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia.
Author and editor, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
"Many scientists believe that an atmospheric level of 450 ppmv (parts per million by volume) of carbon dioxide should be the initial target for prudence; already we are at 380. For long-term allocation, the “Contraction and Convergence” model (C&C) seems appropriate. The name C&C reflects the facts that the annual emissions contract to a safe level, and the per capita shares converge to become equal. C&C has the advantages of simplicity and fairness, gives long-term confidence in emissions reduction and in the short-term can accommodate a variety of ‘fixes’ as well as facilitating the flow of funds to developing countries." "Coping with Climate Change"
CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF INSURERS
Contraction & convergence
The most realistic way to bring about the required reduction in ghg emissions (which will have the
combined effect of reducing the damage imposed on the insurance industry and encouraging the transition to renewable energy) is that proposed in the concept of Contraction and Convergence (C&C). This concept was created by the Global Commons Institute (GCI) and is incredibly simple in its detail. Essentially, everyone has the right to emit an equal amount of pollution (in this case CO2) to the Global Commons (atmosphere). At present society emits six billion tonnes of carbon a year (6Gtc) to the atmosphere. Coincidentally there are six billion people alive today—hence everyone should be entitled an equal right to emit 1 tonne/yr. To achieve the required global reduction in ghg emissions an agreed target of say 2Gtc by 2040 could be set and the system allowed to contract to that global budget by converging on an agreed per capita allowance. Those states that need to emit more than their share will have to buy emission entitlements from those that have an excess. This would operate in much the same way as the envisaged emissions trading scheme to be set up within the Kyoto Protocol.
Figure 10.9 - The red line shows Business as usual CO2 emissions (BAU). The solid segments show ‘Contraction, Convergence, Allocation and Trade’ to manage emissions down by at least 60% within a given time frame and ‘contraction budget’. The renewables opportunity is worth trillions of dollars—the biggest market in history. Annex One is the developed World. Gtc: trillions of tonnes of carbon equivalent.
Figure 10.9 illustrates this process, showing that by the year 2100 emissions will have fallen to well below today’s levels, and will emanate from what are, today, developing countries. Since economic progress is dependent on energy, the shortfall from ‘Business as usual’ energy consumption will need to be met from two directions: efficiency gains, and a rapid growth in renewable energy sources. It is clear from this that emissions trading can only be an intermediate stage, since the total volume of emissions must fall. The only blockage to this simple system is the absence of political will to ‘step outside the box’ instead of conducting a tortuous round of negotiations of the Kyoto Protocol. One way to unblock this impasse is to amass a large enough consensus of stakeholders behind the concept of contraction and convergence, persuading governments to supersede the Kyoto Protocol. The insurance industry is an obvious place to start such a campaign as it has so much to lose and so much to gain. If society continues down the fossil/Kyoto route, future economic losses are likely to become unsustainable: the current rate of increase in damage from natural hazards is 12% pa and the rate is accelerating. Given that the global sum of such losses was $100bn in 1999 (Munich Re, 2000), it would outstrip global GDP (growing at 3% pa) by 2065, if the trends persist. If the insurance industry rallies behind C&C, it not only reduces that risk, but it is well placed to invest in the future renewables market. In fact one could argue that as the insurance companies own the oil companies (through equity ownership), insurers form the only industry that has the collateral and the need to adopt the C&C logic. The desired sequence of events is shown in Figure 10.10.
Beyond Kyoto – contraction and convergence
It is important to recognise that any agreement can be only the first step in what will be a major journey. It is clear that even if the Kyoto targets are met, global emissions will continue to rise because of rapidly rising emissions in the developing world. Substantial further steps will have to be taken to curb emissions globally. Such cuts will inevitably begin to involve poor countries and at the same time rich countries are likely to have to commit to much more serious emission reductions themselves. As a result further emission reduction agreements are likely covering the period 2012-20 and beyond. Climate change: a risk management challenge for institutional investors Indeed, the IPCC in its first assessment reports in 1990 recommended emissions cuts of at least 60% to stabilise CO2 concentrations at 1990 levels and thereby be likely to avoid serious climate disruption. Its subsequent reports have not altered this position. In the longer term, ‘Contraction and Convergence’ (C&C) is likely to become increasingly supported as a policy option. C&C was initially advocated by a small UK think tank, the Global Commons Institute39, but has since gained widespread and authoritative support, including that of some poor country governments and also the recent Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution report40 which recommended that ‘the government should press for a future global climate agreement based on the contraction and convergence approach’. Under C&C, the right to emit greenhouse gases would be apportioned on a per capita basis from a given date. The total amount of emissions would be constrained and would fall steeply until it reached a level considered safe. Since the majority of the world’s population lives in the developing world, while per capita emissions are much higher in the industrialised world, rich countries would need to find ways to reduce their emissions – contraction – by finding efficiencies or renewable energy sources in the next few decades, or pay handsomely for the privilege of continuing to use fossil fuels. In this way they could approach equal per capita emissions to those in other countries – convergence. Ironically, while C&C offers a more robust framework than that outlined by Kyoto, and addresses the issue of equity, it also meets the fundamental objection of the US in that it also requires commitments from the developing world. As a global operational framework it also avoids many of the technical problems of Kyoto (such as defining baselines for emissions trading in countries not subject to an overall target, or the extent of international emissions trading that is permissible). However, much will depend on the detail. Done well, C&C could provide a framework for a genuine, equitable, long term solution to climate change, which reduces political risks and provides businesses and investors with the sort of predictable framework they prefer. But if agreement is hard to reach, C&C might serve to highlight injustices and end up exacerbating tensions. For example, some campaigners have argued for a third ‘C’: ‘compensation’ from the rich world for using up the climate’s absorptive capacity. Whilst this claim is understandable, such a development could well become an emotive issue that could make agreement far harder to reach. Climate Change - A Risk Management Challenge for Insitutional Investors
Mark Manwely and Andrew Dlugolecki
For the long term, the agreement of an international policy based on the principles of precaution,
equity and economic efficiency is critical if we are to reduce the risk and engage all parties in the
endeavour. A number of approaches have been proposed, including the ‘historical’ method, under
which a nation’s future emissions goals would be determined by its past GHG output; the carbon-intensity
approach, in which future emissions goals would be indexed to GDP; and “Contraction and Convergence” which would aim to achieve equal per capita emissions for all nations by an agreed date. Up to now, however, most of the work under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has been directed at finalising and ratifying the Kyoto Protocol.
[For more information on C&C refer to the website of the Global Commons Institute] UNEPFI CEO Briefing
24 January 2012 - Edinburgh University "Moves towards International C&C Strategies."
This programme addresses an intense growth of interest in sustainability issues and will help you learn specific design skills in a globally relevant specialism. As well as this, you will gain an understanding of the social, cultural and environmental forces that will underpin the inevitable changes in how we make architecture. The degree is tailored to allow you flexibility in how you wish to study, either with an element of distance learning or full time on campus. In this way we hope you can arrange, if you wish, to study whilst living overseas or continuing in work. Of course you can also benefit from this degree as an extension to your current undergraduate studies.
Why Advanced Sustainable Design? - It would be fair to say that the greatest challenges facing the built environment lie in how we respond to the sustainable agendas being set by governments and changing attitudes of both individuals and a wider society. We are all being asked to reduce our ecological footprints but what does this mean for architecture and those who work within the field? We can be merely reactive to ever increasing legislation and regulation. Alternatively, we can gain skills and understanding to become proactive and fully involved in producing intelligent solutions to both local and global challenges.
Moves towards international strategies of ‘contraction and convergence’ mean that advanced sustainable design is not limited to the developed world. This programme allows you to explore how to formulate localised, appropriate, robust and effective solutions to the global phenomena of climate change and resource depletion. Architectural design has always balanced precariously between art and science. Much of what we are told about sustainable strategies is in the context of technology, where we are asked for instance to measure and reduce of carbon emissions from our buildings. This course teaches you not only how to do this but also how to design responsively and creatively. We want you to be both knowledgeable and reflective about sustainable agendas, ultimately for you to design or procure more thoughtful buildings.
MSc in Advanced Sustainable Design
24 January 2012 - "Rethinking Globalization in the light of C&C." Hungary
24 January 2012 - "Ethical issues & scales of governance moving to C&C in China." Lingnan University.
Ethical issues across scales of governance in China
in moving towards Contraction and Convergence
SCALE
ETHICAL OBLIGATIONS
POLICY GOALS
Global
Global safe levels met
Ensure participation in and support of global climate regime and that safe levels of CO2 are met.
Regional
Assuring fair share with regional partners, in this case East Asia.
Responsibility to manage regional carbon flux and industrial outputs between cooperating nations
National
Ensure nation’s just/fair share of global emissions. Addressing independent responsibility to act and bring emissions to fair share.
Ensure compliance at all scales below.
Determining directives for energy sector, infrastructure, innovation, and
technology transfer.
Intra-
national
Cooperative and procedurally fair planning across provinces and ecosystems. Ensuring emissions spillover does not occur.
Emissions balance across regions within China on economic and ecosystem based collaborations,
and encouragement of collaboration
between urban regions.
Provincial
Determination of fair share amongst provinces and ensuring fair share
even if growth is sacrificed.
Ensuring fair share even at cost of growth. Implementing provincial level emissions caps.
Increasing procedural capacity and representation of participation of various levels of authority.
Urban/
Regional
Ensuring cost-effective reduction method and active planning goals around CO2 reduction.
Ensuring on the ground implementation of larger scale development and fighting unregulated development. Improvement of local participation
in procedural process.
Strict implementation of planning codes.
CO2 reduction in project choice. Support for choosing green buildings. Controlling developers. Improving insulation in buildings.
Firms/
Business
Ensuring firm or business is complying with CO2 regulation and that emissions leakage is not happening internally.
Increasing CO2 reduction compliance.
Installing cleaner more energy efficient
technologies. Demanding proof of compliance
with other partner firms. Engaging in robust
technology transfers for efficiency gains.
TVEs
Enforcing cleaner production and adoption of cleaner technologies. Ensuring compliance on the ground.
Implementing clean evelopment and
production strategies on the ground. Most
difficult regulatory issues here, and impetus for
business as usual is strongest.
Individual
Reducing personal GHG footprint
as much as possible.
Conscious effort of consumption habits.
Changing personal preferences and habits.
Understanding carbon footprint in every dimension.
24 January 2012 - "C&C: Hang together lest we hang separately." J Foster, Sustainability Mirage.
The total framework within which a UK carbon-rationing regime must be established if the goal really is climate victory is pretty simple in outline for all that. It depends in fact on one of those solutions which is so simple that no-one could see it until it was formulated by a non-expert thinking outside the box. This is the framework known as contraction and convergence (C&C), first proposed by a tiny NGO called the Global Commons Institute in 1990. It is probably best explained in the words of Aubrey Meyer, the man behind it: -
Global greenhouse emissions need to be reduced by 60 percent in less than a hundred years. When governments agree to be bound by such a target, the diminishing amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that the world could release while staying within the target can be calculated for each year of the coming Century. This is the contraction part of the process. The convergence part is that each year’s tranche of the global emissions budget gets shared out among the nations of the world in a way that every country converges on the same allocation per inhabitant by say 2030. Countries unable to manage within their allocation would, within limits, be able to buy the unused parts of the more frugal countries.
This means, startlingly, just what it says. Over time, we converge on an equal share for every human being of the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases which it is judged safe for humanity as a whole to go on emitting. The global percentage reduction target and the date for reaching it are decided on the basis of our best scientifically informed estimate of what will give us the best chance of keeping now-inevitable global warming within survivable limits. We then work towards meeting that target on the understanding that well before we do so, every country will be operating within an equitable national emissions allocation. This allocation will be equitable because it will depend only on national population, multiplied by the personal carbon budget on which we shall have converged for each global citizen. As within the suggested UK rationing scheme, trading around these national allocations is permissible, but the overall global emissions quota is firmly capped.
A standard reaction among people encountering these proposals for the first time is to say, 'How hopelessly idealistic!' And such incredulity is perfectly understandable at first blush. Genuinely equal shares worldwide in a key resource equality not just in theory (high-sounding declarations of universal human rights and so forth), but in hard practice, to which the hitherto globally rich and dominant must conform themselves - and to a fixed timescale! Whose leg does he think he's pulling?
But this response will not survive much careful reflection. For what, actually is the alternative? We have to turn the global-warming super-tanker around, if not quite on a sixpence then certainly within a very limited stretch of sea - and its currently lumbering momentum is powered increasingly by the burgeoning carbon emissions of hugely populous and ambitiously industrializing developing countries. Any chance which a C&C framework offers for halting this process will be greater than the chance of halting it within a global regime where the already developed nations continue trying to defend their own turf, their own historic claims to far more than their fair share of the planet's absorptive and regenerative capacities, because that chance is simply no chance. Whatever may have been the pros and cons. from all the possible perspectives of real international equity in the past, the case for it now is irresistibly and urgently practical. It is with the climate war as Benjamin Franklin famously reminded the Continental Congress preparing to sign the US Declaration of Independence: we must hang together, or we shall assuredly hang separately. That is now the hard unvarnished truth for global humanity.
No doubt it explains why endorsement for the principle, at any rate, of C&C has in fact been forthcoming from a good many quarters where one would expect brisk intolerance of mere hopeless idealism. These include the World Bank, the European Parliament and the UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has explicitly recognized the logic, and tile World Council of Churches has called for commitment to the framework. It would require impossibly high standards to regard all these bodies as lacking in seriousness. Together, the weight or their testimony, suggests that it is may be dismissing C&C as impracticable which is actually the unrealistic option.
What all this means for a country like Britain is that we must act, at last, to redress the historic balance, not through windy 'apologies' for this or that colonial atrocity, nor just through a much more generous development aid budget, but through making the break in this critical arena. That means setting ourselves a reducing carbon ration within assumptions compatible with global convergence and then offering decisive leadership in the international process which will be required for choreographing the actual introduction of the C&C framework worldwide. This a very demanding kind of engagement when compared with our current stance, but it is no less than a survival imperative. There is still a huge job to be done in campaigning and preparing for C&C, never mind in implementing it. The question for this book and this chapter, however is how all this relates to a deep-sustainability understanding of what we are about. The Sustainability Mirage: Illusion and Reality in the Coming War on Climate Change
John Foster
24 January 2012 - Emmeleia - a sad song from once upon a time . . .
Once upon a time, it was so beautiful, that life was truly to die for. But does our failure now to respond to climate changes mean that death is all we have to live for? Why won't we respond to get out of this dreadful mess?
Emmeleia - A lament I wrote once upon a time. Its a sad song that floats in a limbo between these worlds. Its part of larger ballet score linked here
- a very poor recording with a hand-held mike, but in a reasonable live performance.
24 January 2012 - NGLS for UN Secr Gen. "C&C for fair shares of nutrition for life, well-being & sustainability."
World Society for the Protection of Animals WSPA’s Recommendations:
• The economy has to be conceptualized not as end in itself, but as instrumental to achieve a healthy environment and wellbeing for life on earth. Systematic recognition is needed of the social/ethical dimensions of sustainability, e.g. animal welfare.
• Food production needs to move away from industrial, multinational systems towards moderate- and small scale, humane models with local supply chains and markets.
• The rise of the consumption of animal proteins has to be halted by contraction and convergence, thus ensuring a fair share. If a modest increase in consumption of animal products by the poorest people in developing countries is the best way to improve their nutrition, this should be facilitated, and offset by greater reductions in consumption by those better off and better fed. Civil Society Consultation Conducted by the UN Non-Governmental Liaison Service For the UN Secreatry-General’s High Level Panel on Global Sustainability
24 January 2012 - "C&C a general sustainabiltiy principle: Structural circumstances in the way." Karoly Henrich
"Expansion and Divergence have characterised human use of nature throughout history. Humankind has increasingly expanded those parts of the ecosphere dominated, disrupted and destroyed by it. At the same time, levels of natural resource consumption have increasingly diverged within human societies. In response to problems emerging on this development path, the ‘Contraction and Convergence’ approach has now been postulated for the specific field of climate sustainability. This approach can in fact be applied as a general principle. An overarching environmental policy goal, it would imply reducing excessive overall levels of natural resource consumption while at the same time harmonizing per capita consumption levels worldwide. However, fundamental structural and development circumstances - in the realms of demography, economy, technology, politics and social psychology stand in the way of realizing this concept of sustainability." Kontraktion und Konvergenz als Leitbegriffe der Politischen Okonomie der Umwelt
Karoly Henrich
24 January 2012 - Prof Ed Page [Warwick] "C&C more motivational than rival architectures."
"Bjørn Lomborg, for example, suggests that extending the
terms of Kyoto throughout the century would mean that the world would have to
wait one year to enjoy the economic prosperity it would have enjoyed in 2050 if no
international action to combat climate change had been undertaken."
Rival architectures can usefully be analysed in terms of their fit with
four principles of equity: -
C1: A safe atmosphere: climate architectures (and the measures they involve)
should aim to minimise ‘dangerous climate change’. There is no consensus as to what constitutes dangerous climate change, or what level of global warming would trigger it since the idea has an irreducibly normative, as well as natural
scientific, component (Schneider and Lane, 2006, p. 7). However, a useful
working definition can be found in terms of the aim to limit increases in atmospheric
concentrations of CO2 to a doubling of their pre-industrial level of
280 parts per million (ppm). For comparison, atmospheric CO2 concentrations reached 377 ppm in 2004 – a 35 per cent increase on the pre-industrial level (Keeling and Whorf, 2005).
C2: Affordability: climate architectures should not be excessively costly to adopt for
existing and subsequent generations. This is a complex issue, given that estimating
the social and economic impacts of alternative climate responses rests not only on accurate models of climate change for different levels of CO2, but also of development, population growth and migration (Tol, 2002, pp. 48ff.).
P1: Universal participation: members of all countries should be represented in the
construction of the climate architecture and its mechanisms and policies; and while future generations cannot participate directly, their interests should also be taken into consideration at all times.
P2: Fair burden sharing: the costs of implementing the architectures and the
measures they involve should reflect the differing contributions of each country (and its members) to present and future climate change as measured by their current and historical greenhouse emissions.
Each person on the planet is granted an ‘equal right to emit’ greenhouse gases
by virtue of their equal right to use the benefits provided by a shared atmosphere.
This principle is treated as intrinsic to the architecture of the approach.
A
‘global ceiling’ for greenhouse emissions is set based on a calculation of the amount
the atmosphere can withstand without dangerous climate changes emerging.
Each country is allocated a yearly ‘carbon emissions budget’ consistent with the
global ceiling not being exceeded, and calculated according to each country’s
population size relative to an agreed base year.
The key aim is to bring about a stabilisation, and later a contraction, in global
greenhouse emissions so that they stay below a safe level, together with the idea
that, in the longer term, all countries will converge on a roughly equal level of per
capita emissions compatible with the long-term stability of the climate system.
Within this approach, a country that wants to emit more than its yearly quota must
buy credits from countries that have spare capacity. The country selling the credits
can then invest the receipts in activities enabling it to develop in a sustainable
manner. The flexibility of this approach means that many developing countries will
not be required to reduce their emissions to the same extent as developed countries
even though there will be a cap on how much their emissions are permitted to
grow. While ‘emissions trading’ is a key feature of all of the proposed successors to
Kyoto, the trading zone under Contraction and Convergence covers the whole
planet from the outset.
Unlike a number of competing approaches, Contraction and Convergence, if fully
implemented, could be expected to reduce the risks of dangerous climate change
substantially. Although the approach would be more costly to implement than its
rivals in the short to medium term, it sits more easily with principles C1 and C2
than its rivals when we focus on the longer term. It also has the merit that, because
it adopts emissions targets based on scientific criteria for protecting the atmosphere
it reduces the role of power politics in determining the structure of the regime. The
approach still involves a certain amount of horse trading associated with the
selection of the base year (as well as with the specific details of mechanisms
concerned with emissions trading and the role of sinks) but much less than with
rival architectures. Moreover, the ‘convergence’ part of Contraction and Convergence
at least partly deals with the need to achieve a fairer international distribu
tion of the benefits associated with CO2 emissions. For all these reasons, this
architecture seems to fit better with principle P2 than its rivals.
Finally, Contraction and Convergence also offers an interesting approach to the
problem of historical responsibility, which has hitherto dogged attempts to construct
a truly global solution to climate change for some developed countries
(principle P1). Contraction and Convergence, in being a fundamentally forwardlooking
approach to climate change, does not allocate the most costly duties of
climate mitigation and adaptation to developed countries because they are responsible
for the emergence of climate change. Rather, it distributes the duties of climate
management in line with their ability to undertake the protective measures deemed
necessary to safeguard a future where dangerous climate change is avoided. As a
result, Contraction and Convergence may prove more attractive, and therefore
motivational, than rival architectures that appeal to the controversial historical
duties members of developed countries possess as a result of the behaviour of their
ancestors. EQUITY AND THE KYOTO PROTOCOL Edward Page
Journal compilation
Political Studies Association
POLITICS: 2007 VOL 27(1)
24 January 2012 - Around 200 C&C voices and/or campaigns around the world
24 January 2012 - Open University "C&C and setting a Personal Target."
Setting a personal target - Contraction and Convergence
If you are concerned about global climate change, you should set yourself a target. However, it is far from clear how to fix the right level. One school of thought, based around ‘contraction and convergence’, suggests that if everyone moves globally towards 2 tCO2e, the CO2concentration in the atmosphere might stabilise around 550 ppm (parts per million), which could lead to a 2 °C rise in average temperatures. By all countries having the same target, this would be inherently fair. But, increasingly, this figure of 550 ppm is seen as too high, with the instability of climate caused at that level unacceptable. A new figure of 350 ppm has been proposed, but this would mean eliminating substantially all anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions by 2030.
The Global Commons Institute has information on contraction and convergence. Open University: - Setting a personal target, contraction and convergence
Contraction and converqence:
The last hope?
Surported by China, Germany, The European Parliament, Stern and many others, this concept is on the idea that everyone on planet Earth has the right to emit the same quantity of GHG.
At present a US citizen emits 20 tonnes of CO2 each year, a UK citizen emits 11 tonnes while a Nigerian only emits 0.09 tonnes. Contraction and Convergence [C&C] is the Global Commone Institute’s proposed UNFCCC-compliant climate mitigation strategy for an equitable solution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions through collective global action. The ultimate objective of the UN Climate Treaty is to move to safe and stable GHG concentration in the atmosphere and C&C starts with this.
C&C recognizes that subject to this limit, we all have an cqual entitlement to emit GHGs to the atmosphere, since continuing unequal use will make it impossible to get global agreement needed for success. The Kyoto Protocol cannot be the basis of this success, because it is not science-based and, due to divergent national interests, it does not include all countries. Scientists have advised on safe concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and on the global cap on emissions necessary to achieve it. A level of 450 ppmv has until recently been regarded as the upper limit for keeping under the maximum temperature oncrease of 2 degrees above the pre-industrial average.
From the inception of a global agreement, C&C schedules the mandatory annual global contraction [reduction of emissions] that will keep CO2 concentrations from rising beyond the agreed safe level. This rate of contraction must be periodically adjusted to take account of the increasing release of GHGs caused by climate warming. C&C proposes emissions entitlements to every country. While starting with current emissions, it proposes a scheduled convergence to equal per person entitlements for everyone on the planet by an agreed date [see figure above]. That way, convergence will reduce the carbon shares of the developed over-emitting countries sharply until they converge with the [temporarily rising] shares of the developing countries. The latter will be able to sell their surplus carbon shares to the wealthier nations. Emissions trading will be subject to rapid investment in renewable energy.
The 14th session of the Conference of the Parties to the Climate Change Convention [COP-14] will be held in conjunction with the 4th Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol [CMP 4] in Poznan, Poland, from 1 o 12 December 2008.In 2012 the Kyoto Protocol expires. To keep the process going there is an urgent need for a new climate protocol. In 2012 the Kyoto Protocol runs out. It is to be hoped that discussions at the Climate Conference in Copenhagen in 2009 and subsequent agreements lead to a Copenhagen Protocol to prevent global warming and cliamte change. Earth Environments: Past, Present and Future
By David Huddart, Tim Stott
23 January 2012 - PEW Centre "Any conceivable solution embodies a high degree of C&C."
The “Contraction and Convergence” proposal, developed by Aubrey Meyer, assigns every human being an equal entitlement to GHG emissions. All countries should thus move towards the same per capita emissions. Total emissions should contract over time, and per capita emissions should converge on a single figure. The actual convergence value, the path towards convergence, and the time when it is to be reached would all be negotiable. The proposal allows for the trading of emissions entitlements using mechanisms of the kind permitted under the Kyoto Protocol. At one level, this is compelling. It offers a long-term architecture for an international emissions regime, potentially robust across several of the equity dimensions identified in this paper. It would not require developing countries to shift their immediate focus away from their basic needs: their emissions constraints would bite gradually as per capita emissions increased. And by emphasizing entitlements as well as commitments, it could help address the sense of inequity that arises from the unrequited “carbon debt” of past emissions by industrialized countries. Ultimately, almost any conceivable long-term solution to the climate problem will embody, at least in crude form, a high degree of contraction and convergence. Atmospheric concentrations of GHGs cannot stabilize unless total emissions contract; and emissions cannot contract unless per capita emissions converge. The practical question is not whether this is a reasonable scheme, but whether the quickest way to realize it is to base the next stage of the negotiations explicitly on it. The contraction and convergence proposal plays an important role in the climate process. It focuses attention on the ethical questions at the heart of the climate problem, which no long-term solution can afford to ignore. If supported by a critical mass of countries, it would become an important force in the negotiation. The ideas behind the proposal will remain relevant to any discussion of climate and equity for as long as the search continues for a global response to climate change. Beyond Kyoto PEW Centre
Well yes, but think about this . . . "Any conceivable solution involves [at least crude] C&C, yet at its heart lurks a contestable ideological assumption." [?] Yet the Chair of the All Party Group in the UK Parliament on Climate Change said, "C&C is An Incontestable Truth." Who do you think suffers from 'belief systematitis' here? Mr Ashton is a friend of Mr 'Burke' who is a friend of Mr 'Delay', who is a friend of Mr 'Maybe', who is a friend of . . . . scatter John Ash [t]on Wounded Knee . . . . John Ash is a Former Chair of AOSIS from that oil-dependency in Trinidad and Tobago. However, he has now been replaced by the incisive Karl Hood of Grenada - Do all islands rise - or sink - with the tide?
23 January 2012 - "Ideally the agreement would be C&C." Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors
23 January 2012 - 148 Days Left to join these C&C submissions from women & others to Rio+20
21 January 2012 - 148 Days Left to make submissions . . . .
Sustainable and equitable economies must be based on ethical values and global responsibility
Values for respect for nature, spirituality, culture, harmony, solidarity, community, caring and sharing
Value of the global common goods
Sharing worldwide whilst aiming for individual and societal wellbeing within the context of ‘buen vivir16’ (good living)
Sharing means a more equitable distribution: eradicating poverty and changing and reducing excessive consumption patterns, in two direction, contraction and convergence policies. The need for eliminating not only not only extreme poverty, but also extreme wealth, in order to remain within the caring capacity of the planet
Due value to and responsibility for common goods as an ongoing ethical, social and legal challenge for the local, national and international communities in charge of guarding these commons
ANPED is active in the degrowth movement, and asks for contraction and convergence referring the use of natural resources and emissions of waste (incl CO2). Industrialised countries have to contract their economies, to give "space" to developing countries. Just for social and environmental equity reasons. Please add your thoughts on this and good ideas on how to achieve this!
Quotas or not? Resource capped economies?
Posted by SDIN group Rio+20 on April 22, 2011 at 5:06pm
View Discussions
A member Jan Juffermans stated: "Its time for fair sharing nature's interest by using quota's. See Living Planet Report 2010. Fair Footprints is a matter of Human Rights".
This is one of the main discussions in the NGO society. Do we, and if yes, how promote a fair share quota for national/regional economies? ANPED is active in the de-growth movement, and asks for contraction and convergence referring the use of natural resources and emissions of waste (including CO2). Industrialised countries have to contract their economies, to give "space" to developing countries. Just for social and environmental equity reasons.
Please add your thoughts on this and good ideas on how to achieve this!
Sue Riddlestone said:
Hi Leida and Jan,
This is exactly what we mean by one planet living. Living happy, healthy lives within our fair share of the world's resources and leaving space for wildlife and wilderness. The projects we have been working on for twenty years - and I am sure those of others - show how it is possible for a developed country person to live within a fair share and have a BETTER quality of life. And it can be done cost effectively. And so everyone all around the world could have one planet living. If everyone lived like the average European it would be three planet living, like the average American five planet living, like the average Bangladeshi, third of a planet living. So we need a form of contraction and convergence but it has to be something to look forward to and that is what we have been working so hard to show.
One planet living is our positive and aspirational campaign for Rio+20, we are going to call for every country to pledge to have a plan to enable their citizens to achieve one planet living and convening a dialogue to develop solutions to overcome policy barriers to one planet living. Let us know if you back this!
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by John Bunzl on April 27, 2011 at 3:35pm
Yes, this is a worthwhile objective. But it can, firstly, only be achieved by international agreement and, secondly, such agreement is unlikely to emerge from governments by themselves since they only see their own narrow national interests.
So it requires, I believe, a process by which global citizens can both agree such policies and use their votes in a way that drives their respective governments to support them. One such process could be the Simultaneous Policy (Simpol) http://www.simpol.org But there may be others.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Peter Adriance on April 27, 2011 at 10:26pm
Hi Sue - One Planet Living seems an inspired approach to me. It embodies both the practical and moral imperatives of living on one's fair share of the planet's resources. At the core of it is the recognition that we are all living on a single planet and have both rights and responsibilities as citizens of that planet. I find the One Planet Living approach appealing because it covers so many practical aspects while stressing the positive benefits of Contraction and Convergence as an alternative to the many unsustainable practices in place today. Thanks for all your good work to make it a reality! - Peter
The green economy must contribute to the goals of sustainability. The overarching goal of the green economy should be defined in the context of a fair and socially just economic system that meets the needs of all people within the ecological carrying capacity of the planet. The green economy needs to be a new economy, with new models, mindsets and metrics based on a systems approach. Issues such as poverty, climate change, soil erosion, and the loss of biodiversity are emergent properties of unsustainable consumption and production patterns. In order to address the root causes of these symptoms, a holistic—or systems—approach to problem solving is necessary. The green economy must be an economy that moves away from the destructive economic expansion paradigm (at least in rich countries where per capita eco-footprints are above sustainable levels) to one that recognizes ecological limits and that enables people to meet their basic needs, along a global framework of ‘contraction and convergence’. We must transform the nature of our impact on the world’s ecological systems. This will mean using innovation to shift from linear patterns - that consume resources and produce wastes – to cyclical patterns where our actions contribute to ecological and social resilience. This will involve reshaping our identity and recognizing humanity’s potential to support our planet and ensure that it thrives. One Earth - Rio+20
1. Roadmaps with Action Plans at a global, national and civil society level. We support existing proposals for flexible and simple Roadmaps, Action Plans and Sustainable Development Goals as a main operational outcome of Rio+20. It is proposed that Action Plans or Roadmaps include:
A Vision ‐ in line with the Objective of the Conference ‐ to enable citizens to achieve one planet living and a green economy and live happy, healthy lives within the natural limits of the planet, wherever we live in the world, and leave sufficient space for wildlife and wilderness.
Principles drawn from existing international agreements, see Principles for a Green Economy
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Indicators. Based on Sustainable Consumption and Production, what citizens need and contraction and convergence of resource use to one planet living. SDGs could include: sustainable energy; sustainable transport; zero waste to landfill through circular economies; sustainable materials; food security – sustainable and humane agriculture and fisheries; sustainable water; biodiversity and land use; culture & community; Green Economy – equity, fair trade and the local economy; and health & happiness.
Process to develop them in partnership with civil society.
e) Education and training based on Vision & SDGs. One Planet training will be launched at Rio+20.
Support of “Intergovernmental Panel(s) on Resources” to provide scientific evidence of resource availability, resource consumption and safe planetary boundaries and a “Solutions Bank” of peer reviewed solutions for sustainability.
One Planet Living ‐ a Proposal for Rio+20 UNCSD 2012
submitted by BioRegional and Partners
So, what does a focus on a green economy mean in real terms? It means quantifying the value that our ecosystems bring our economies so that we see how important they are as a national asset to the economy and to people. It means that we start scrutinising our budgetary allocations with that in mind so that we can start investing in and restoring in those ecosystems. It means recognising that the shift from a brown economy to a green economy is going to require that we prepare our societies and our workforces with the necessary skills and social protection floors as we make that transition. It means recognising the notion of contraction and convergence in terms of those countries with a high ecological footprint and those with a small ecological footprint -- and thus sharing the costs and the benefits derived from our environment more equitably. Business on the Road to Rio Plus 20
With Vegan Agriculture Network's publication of this article and the Living Centre's incredible menu of upcoming veganic permaculture design courses, 2011 is shaping up to be an informal and year of veganic permaculture as a synergistic complement to the International Year of Forests. This also means that 2012 will be a wonderful follow-up year to launch the first International Veganic Permaculture Convergence (understanding "convergence" in this title to also represent the idea of contraction and convergence), in synchronicity and solidarity with the 2012 Rio+20 Earth Summit and the COP-18 Climate Summit. Permavegan Rio Plus 20
Consumption: How many planets would I need?
There are many ways of looking at our ecological or carbon footprint. If you are looking at carbon footprints you could start by thinking about C02 Contraction and Convergence – C&C calculates that given we have a global population of seven billion. If you divide that up each person can emit up to two tonnes of CO2 a year. At that rate our planet could sustain it. But the problem is that our population is rising and so then that fi gure would have to be reduced still further. Road to Rio + 20
23 January 2012 - DAVOS Values for Post Crisis Economy "C&C best known & structurally simple."
23 January 2012 - PENN State Climate Ethics *In Time's top 15 Websites* - "C&C takes equity into account."
Since most nations entered the Copenhagen and Cancun negotiations
as if national interest rather than global responsibility to others was an
adequate basis for national climate change policies, the commitments
made under the Copenhagen Accord and Cancun agreements fail to satisfy
equity criteria. In fact, in the lead-up to Copenhagen, most of the
justifications for national commitments that had been announced by
countries to reduce their emissions were exclusively focused on whether
they met global goals to reduce GHG emissions unadjusted by equity
considerations.
There have been several proposals discussed by the international community
about second commitment period frameworks that would expressly
incorporate equity into future ghg emissions reductions
pathways. Two such frameworks are known as “Contraction and Convergence”
(C&C, 2009) and “Greenhouse Development Rights” (GDR)
(Bear and Athanasiou, 2009) frameworks. In the lead-up to Copenhagen,
all major GHG emitting nations ignored the C&C or GDR frameworks
or any other comprehensive framework that took equity into
account. In fact, the Copenhagen Accord and the Cancun agreements
allowed each nation to identify its emissions reduction commitment
based upon voluntary national considerations without regard to equity. An Ethical Analysis
of the Cancun Climate
Negotiations Outcome
Donald A. Brown
Associate Professor, Environmental Ethics,
Science, and Law, Penn State University
Off-line Don exchange comments with me as follows: -
Aubrey Meyer comments to Don Brown November 24, 2011 "Hi Don - There's little doubt the Fossil Fuel interests are behind much/most [?] of the disinformation campaign you mention. There's also credulity in the 'commentariat' who just play along, as though 'mediating' that was the major issue.
I stick to the view that the 'main-issue' is getting beyond the brinkmanship over sharing what's left of the emissions-entitlements that sum to UNFCCC-compliance. Like this for example: - http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/COP-17-350GTC-CandC.pdf . . . 'immediate convergence' doesn't translate into immediate 'reductions for LDCs' - if anything quite the contrary - as expanded here for example: - http://www.candcfoundation.com/pages/whatis.html
Negotiating the 'rate of convergence' inter-regionally is the only reconciliation lever left, if we intend UNFCCC-compliance. If we don't, we might as well kiss the kids goodnight, because if recognizing - and acting on - urgency isn't yet the number one driver, we're done for."
Don Brown replies: - "Aubrey: I have felt that since you explained to me in the mid-1990s C&C- that it was the best hope for some agreement. I still feel that way. My take on getting over the brinksmanship is to turn up the volume on those nations that have been the major barriers. It, of course, may not work but it is at least a strategy."
23 January 2012 - GHG Emissions to Atmosphere-concentrations is like a Tap into a Bath [Turn it off!]
Water from the 'tap' [like our 'Green-House-Gas' or GHG emissions] flowing into . . '
the 'bath' [like the global atmosphere], raises the level of the bath-water [like the rate of atmosphere GHG accumulation/concentration] . . . but, the 'bath' is also drained by . . . the 'plug-hole' [like the natural 'sinks for GHG' . . . [affecting/slowing the rate of atmospheric GHG accumulation].
To stop the bath over-flowing, the tap must turned off in the knowledge that the bath level will continue to rise while the tap is being turned off. This is true for emissions, once the need for UNFCCC-compliance in the form of safe and stable future GHG concentrations in the atmosphere is accepted.
For the last many decades, the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration has not just been upwards, it has been *accelerating* upwards [Proof empirical below; Mauna Loa data].
So, just to decelerate the concentration rise to being 'stable' - i.e. before we even think of trying to cause atmospheric concentrations to *fall* - requires taking human source CO2 emissions *downwards* to net-zero emissions globally. To avoid *2 degrees*, it means enacting a full-term C&C event by ~2050 or sooner.
23 January 2012 - Leal Filho Springer Verlag "C&C, the constitutional way to address climate change."
Embracing Historical Obligation
Taking an ecological citizenship approach will have a larger effect, however, beyond simply requiring historical emitters to fund their historical damage: this approach shifts the conversation about the nature of these payments away from the current benevolent "aid" discourse, and creates an obligation from the north to the south for "damages", instead of forcing the south to continue to beg for aid. This shift will help eliminate the superior norther perspective of the south as a cheap resource and easy market, essentially creating an equity that is non-existent today. Proponents of Contraction and Convergence (Global Commons Institute 2009) argue that, as the world is forced to contract its use of fossil fuels, the west should have to contract more in order to converge at a common global per cap emission rate, "Accelerating convergence to equal shares per head, relative to the global rate of contraction is the constitutional way of solving the climate's opponunity cost to developing countries while sharing future constraint at rates that avoid dangerous climate change.” The Economic, Social and Political Elements of Climate Change
Walter Leal Filho
22 January 2012 - "C&C the only reasonable chance of getting global acceptance." RICS Wiley
If we are to mitigate the effects of climate change, we need a rapid reduction in our prodution of greenhouse gases. Through the IPCC, attempts are being made to do this (e,g. Copenhagcn 2009 and Kyoto 1997). Unfortunately, such reductions only include the developed world and the targets set have been small compared to what the climate science indicates is needed.
Figure 23.1 shows the scale of the problem with most developed countries needing to cut their emissions by 80% or more. Figure 23 .1 was created under the assumptions of Contraction and Convergence. This approach starts by setting a maximum safe atmospheric concentration for carbon dioxide, then estimates what level of global emissions gives rise to this, then apportions this to each country based on its population. Countries that currently produce more than this (largely the developed world) can buy the right to emit more from those that emit less than their quota (largely the developing world). Over time the total right to emit would be reduced until the safe level of emissions is reached Contraction and Convergence is seen by many as the only ethically sound way of selling reduction targets that have a reasonable chance of gaining support from the world community.
In order to make the required reductions we will have to simultaneously reduce the amount of energy we use to achieve a set goal (e.g. keeping a building at a particular temperature), and decarbonise our energy production (i.e. increase the use of renewable energy). In the following we look at the plethora of renewable sources we can access. In Chapter 13 we saw how emissions can be reduced through energy efficiency, or the climate directly engineered. Chapter 13 also presented one of many possible combinations of changes to our energy supply that has the potential to make major carbon savings, together with an example abatement curve. Figure 23.1 Contraction and convergence time series (produced with software freely available from the Global Commons website). Solutions for Climate Change Challenges in the Built Environment
Colin Booth, Felix N. Hammond, Jessica Lamond, David G. Proverbs
22 January 2012 - "Today we're addding CO2 to atmosphere at > twice the rate we were 50 years ago." [PROOF]
22 January 2012 - Universities & Climate Change "Not surprising C&C emerged as the only equitable way."
"Perhaps the most interesting lessons for the authors came from being involved in a very small-scale version of the type of negotiations that are taking place internationally as nations try to agree on global emission reduction targets. Although there were only five organizations involved, the negotiations mirrored the international negotiations in many ways. The participants sought an equitable distribution of the burden of climate change response, while arguing for their own special circumstances and the need for differentiation of targets to take these circumstances into account.
It is interesting, though perhaps not surprising, that a contraction and convergence approach emerged as the only equitable way to provide differentiation of targets across the participants. Some authors (e.g. Garnaut 2008; Singer 2006) believe that such an approach is the only way to achieve a successful equitable outcome in international negotiations on climate change response and the ATN experience supports this conclusion. However, the key factor that allowed this approach to succeed in the ATN was the commitment of all parties to the ATN partnership and its spirit of collaboration. A similar spirit is sorely needed in international negotiations on climate change response."
Contraction and Convergence; A Global Solution to a Global Problem Universities and Climate Change
Chris Riedy Jane Daly Walter Leal Filho
22 January 2012 - NASA's Goddard Space Flight Centre flags C&C model
You can choose either the 9-regions version or the complete 200 countries version of the model. The 200 countries version is a large package (5MB) because it has full computations for all the countries. The nine-regions model (2MB) contains basic data for all the countries but carries out computations only on the regions, and when parameters are changed the recalculation will be much faster. One of the new features of v8 is a facility for the users to redefine regions, this feature works on the small as well as the large model. It is recommended that initially you experiment with the 9-regions version. Description: Users can download the Excel workbook itself here.
Contraction and Convergence Options model
22 January 2012 - "C&C an Effective GHG Mitigation Strategy" OXFORD Climate/Society Handbook
Summary of Policies
There is a wide range of basic policies that, taken together, would achieve an effective greenhouse mitigation strategy for the energy sector:
• An international target for atmospheric CO2 concentration of 350 ppm or lower.
• An international agreement to set the nations on the pathway known as 'Contraction and Convergence' with the goal of achieving the same average per capita greenhouse gas emissions by all countries within several decades (Global Commons Institute website).
• Science-based national greenhouse gas emissions targets, both short term and long term, to set the initial direction of change and the final goal.
• Targets, both short term and long term, for renewable electricity, renewable heat, and efficient energy use. The Oxford Book of Climate Change and Society
John S. Dryzek, Richard B. Norgaard, David Schlosberg
22 January 2012 - "C&C - Convergence date should be realized ASAP." MUSE Project Indiana University
For the C&C approach to become operational, the signatories to
the UNFCCC must agree on a safe concentration of atmospheric GHGs,
the proportional allocation of this limited capacity based on national
populations, the fair assessment of current levels of emissions, targets
for contraction of those national emissions that exceed allocations and
the concurrent temporary increase in emissions for those countries which
have not utilized their full allocation – an enormous undertaking that
has thus far been elusive.
Nevertheless, the
proponents of the C&C approach argue that it can provide an equitable
and just response to the climate change challenge that can win the support
of the developing world since it both protects their ability to develop
and obligates the developed world to reduce its excess emissions (Global
Commons Institute 2008).
Albania - Social Democratic Party, PSD
Albania - Socialist Party of Albania, SPA
Algeria - Socialist Forces Front, FFS
Andorra - Social Democratic Party of Andorra, PS
Angola - MPLA
Argentina - Socialist Party, PS
Argentina - Radical Civic Union, UCR
Armenia - ARF Armenian Socialist Party
Aruba - People’s Electoral Movement, MEP
Australia - Australian Labor Party, ALP
Austria - Social Democratic Party of Austria, SPÖ
Barbados - Barbados Labour Party, BLP
Belgium - Socialist Party, PS
Belgium - Socialist Party, SPA
Benin - Social Democratic Party, PSD
Bosnia and Herzegovina - Social Democratic Party of Bosnia and Herzegovina, SDP BiH
Bosnia and Herzegovina - The Alliance of Independent Social Democrats, SNSD
Brazil - Democratic Labour Party, PDT
Bulgaria - Bulgarian Social Democrats, PBSD
Bulgaria - Bulgarian Socialist Party, BSP
Burkina Faso - Party for Democracy and Progress/Socialist Party, PDP/PS
Cameroon - Social Democratic Front, SDF
Canada - New Democratic Party, NDP/NPD
Cape Verde - African Party of Cape Verde’s Independence, PAICV
Chile - Party for Democracy, PPD
Chile - Radical Social Democratic Party, PRSD
Chile - Socialist Party of Chile, PS
Colombia - Liberal Party of Colombia, PLC
Costa Rica - National Liberation Party, PLN
Croatia - Social Democratic Party, SDP
Curaçao - MAN
Cyprus - Movement of Social Democrats EDEK
Czech Republic - Czech Social Democratic Party, CSSD
Denmark - Social Democratic Party
Dominican Republic - Dominican Revolutionary Party, PRD
Ecuador - Democratic Left Party, PID
Equatorial Guinea - Convergence for Social Democracy, CPDS
Estonia - Estonian Social Democratic Party, SDE
Finland - Finnish Social Democratic Party, SDP
France - Socialist Party, PS
Germany - Social Democratic Party of Germany, SPD
Ghana - National Democratic Congress
Great Britain - The Labour Party
Greece - Panhellenic Socialist Movement, PASOK
Guatemala - National Union for Hope, UNE
Guinea - Guinean People’s Assembly, RPG
Haiti - Union of Haitian Social Democrats
Hungary - Hungarian Social Democratic Party, MSzDP
Hungary - Hungarian Socialist Party, MSzP
Iceland - Social Democratic Alliance of Iceland
Iraq - Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, PUK
Ireland - The Labour Party
Israel - Israel Labour Party
Israel - Meretz Party
Italy - Democrats of the Left, DS
Italy - Italian Socialist Party, PSI
Jamaica - People’s National Party, PNP
Japan - Social Democratic Party, SDP
Latvia - Latvian Social Democratic Workers’ Party, LSDSP
Lebanon - Progressive Socialist Party, PSP
Lithuania - Lithuanian Social Democratic Party, LSDP
Luxembourg - Luxembourg Socialist Workers’ Party, LSAP/POSL
FYR Macedonia - Social Democratic Union of Macedonia, SDUM
Malaysia - Democratic Action Party, DAP
Mali - African Party for Solidarity and Justice, ADEMA-PASJ
Mali - Assembly for Mali, RPM
Malta - Malta Labour Party
Mauritania - Assembly of Democratic Forces, RFD
Mauritius - Mauritius Labour Party
Mauritius - Mauritius Militant Movement, MMM
Mexico - Party of Democratic Revolution, PRD
Mexico - Institutional Revolutionary Party, PRI
Republic of Moldova - Democratic Party, PDM1
Mongolia - Mongolian People’s Party, MPP
Montenegro - Social Democratic Party of Montenegro, SDP
Montenegro - Democratic Party of Socialists of Montenegro, DPS
Morocco - Socialist Union of Popular Forces, USFP
Mozambique - Frelimo Party
Namibia - SWAPO
Nepal - Nepali Congress Party
Netherlands - Labour Party, PvdA
New Zealand - New Zealand Labour Party, NZLP
Nicaragua - Sandinista National Liberation Front, FSLN
Niger - Party for Democracy and Socialism of Niger, PNDS
Northern Ireland - Social Democratic and Labour Party, SDLP
Norway - Norwegian Labour Party, DNA
Pakistan - Pakistan People’s Party, PPP
Palestine - Fatah1
Panama - Democratic Revolutionary Party, PRD
Paraguay - ‘País Solidario’ Party
Peru - Peruvian Aprista Party, PAP
Poland - Democratic Left Alliance, SLD
Poland - Union of Labour, UP
Portugal - Socialist Party, PS
Puerto Rico - Puerto Rican Independence Party, PIP
Romania - Social Democratic Party, PSD
San Marino - Party of Socialists and Democrats
Senegal - Socialist Party, PS
Serbia - Democratic Party, DS
Serbia - Social Democratic Party
Slovakia - SMER-Social Democracy
Slovenia - Social Democrats, SD
South Africa - African National Congress, ANC
Spain - Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party, PSOE
Sweden - Swedish Social Democratic Party, SAP
Switzerland - Social Democratic Party of Switzerland
Turkey - Republican People’s Party, CHP
Uruguay - New Space, PNE
Uruguay - Socialist Party of Uruguay, PSU
USA - Democratic Socialists of America, DSA
Venezuela - Democratic Action, AD
Venezuela - Movement for Socialism, MAS
Zimbabwe - Movement for Democratic Change, MDC
Consultative parties
Antigua - Antigua Labor Party
Belarus - Belarusian Social Democratic Party (Narodnaya Hramada), BSDP
Burundi - Frodebu
Cyprus - Republican Turkish Party, CTP
Dominica - Dominica Labour Party
Gabon - Gabonese Party for Progress, PGP
The Gambia - United Democratic Party, UDP2
Greenland - Siumut
Guinea-Bissau - African Party of Independence of Guinea and Cape Verde, PAIGC
Iran - Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan, PDKI
Kazakhstan - All-National Social Democratic Party ‘AZAT’2
Namibia - Congress of Democrats, CoD
Paraguay - Progressive Democratic Party, PDP
Philippines - Akbayan, Citizens’ Action Party
Philippines - Philippines Democratic Socialist Party, PDSP
Russian Federation - A Just Russia Party3
St. Kitts-Nevis - St. Kitts-Nevis Labour Party
St. Lucia - St. Lucia Labour Party, SLP
St. Vincent & the Grenadines - Unity Labour Party
Timor-Leste - Fretilin
Togo - Democratic Convention of African Peoples, CDPA
Tunisia - Democratic Forum for Labour and Freedoms, FDTL
Ukraine - Social Democratic Party of Ukraine, SDPU
Venezuela - PODEMOS
Yemen - Yemeni Socialist Party
Observer parties
Botswana - Botswana National Front, BNF
Central African Republic - Movement for the Liberation of the Central African People, MLPC
Colombia - Alternative Democratic Force, PDA
Democratic Republic of Congo - Union for Democracy and Social Progress, UDPS
Haiti - Organisation of the People in Struggle, OPL
Kenya - Labour Party of Kenya2
Kyrgyzstan - Ata Meken
Palestine - Palestinian National Initiative, PNI
Turkey - Peace and Democracy Party, BDP
Western Sahara - Polisario Front
Fraternal organisations
International Falcon Movement/Socialist Educational International, IFM/SEI
International Union of Socialist Youth, IUSY
Socialist International Women, SIW
Associated organisations
International Federation of the Socialist and Democratic Press, IFSDP
International Labour Sports Confederation, CSIT
International League of Religious Socialists, ILRS
International Social Democratic Union for Education, ISDUE
Jewish Labour Bund, JLB
National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, NDI
Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament (S&D)
Party of European Socialists PES
Social Democratic Group of the Latin American Parliament
World Labour Zionist Movement, WLZM
22 January 2012 - Women's Rio+20 Position "Reduce excess - C&C more equitable."
Sustainable
and
equitable
economies
must
be
based
on
ethical
values
and global responsibility
Values
for
respect
for
nature,
spirituality,
culture,
harmony,
solidarity,
community,
caring and sharing
Value
of
the
global
common
goods
Sharing
worldwide
whilst
aiming
for
individual
and
societal
wellbeing
within
the
context
of
‘buen
vivir16’
(good
living)
Sharing
means
a
more
equitable
distribution:
eradicating
poverty
and
changing
and
reducing
excessive
consumption
patterns,
in
two
direction, contraction
and
convergence
policies.
The
need
for
eliminating
not
only
not
only
extreme
poverty,
but
also
extreme
wealth,
in
order
to
remain
within
the
caring
capacity
of
the
planet
Due
value
to
and
responsibility
for
common
goods
as
an
ongoing
ethical,
social
and
legal
challenge
for
the
local,
national
and
international
communities
in
charge
of
guarding these
commons
This Briefing explains the origins of the climate crisis and describes some of the dangerous trends created by global warming. It describes the global policy framework of 'Contraction & Convergence' (C&C) and how this was created and introduced to the United Nations in the 1990s by the Global Commons Institute (GCI) to avert these trends. Based on the thesis of 'Equity & Survival', C&C seeks to ensure future prosperity and choice by applying the global rationale of precaution, equity and efficiency in that order.
GCI has campaigned for C&C since that time and it has become the most widely cited and arguably the most widely supported framework proposal in the global debate on what to do about climate change. Winning approval and awards, it is now regarded by many as the only basis on which achieving the objective of the UN Climate Treaty is possible: - see Publication Details: Binding: Paperback, 96 pages ISBN: 9781870098946 Format: 210mm x 148mm
4pp colour plates, charts, graphs BIC Code:RBP, RNC, RNP Imprint: Green Books
Composer and string musician, turned award-winning environmentalist, Aubrey Meyer tells Nature Climate Change why he is campaigning for countries to adopt his 'contraction and convergence' model of global development to avoid dangerous climate change. Fiddling with climate change
Nature Climate Change 04 December2011
Follow a busker "A former busker, Aubrey Meyer, thought up what is increasingly regarded as the long-term solution to global warming – and, through relentless campaigning, he has managed to get his idea adopted as policy by many governments, especially in developing countries. Dubbed "contraction and convergence", it starts from the principle that everyone on Earth is entitled to emit the same amount of carbon dioxide. It then determines the level of emissions low enough to avoid dangerous climate change. The total amount put into the atmosphere worldwide each year must then be made to "contract" until it reaches this point. Simultaneously, the totals of individual countries have to "converge", so that each emits the same amount for every one of its citizens; rich countries would have to reduce their totals very heavily, while some poor countries could actually be able to increase theirs. Most experts agree that it is the fairest framework. Persuading Americans to agree to emit the same amount as Ethiopians is another matter." The UK Independent Newspaper - Promoting C&C Solution and book [alongside Barak Obama et al]. Contraction and Convergence - The Global Solution to Climate Change
20 January 2012 - 'Private Planet' David Cromwell of peerless medialens with early C&C advocacy.
"We assume that the UK progressively reduces its carbon footprint so that it uses only its fair share of total global carbon emissions under the given, interim target, making sure that other countries, particularly developing countries, have space to develop and make their own transition to a sustainable future. We assume a global ‘deal’ based on ‘contraction and convergence’ to limit, reduce and maintain total global emissions within defined limits (the contraction); we also assume that the UK’s total share of emissions progressively comes into line with its fair global share (the ‘convergence’), with significant transfer payments to developing countries during the process to facilitate their sustainable development. [In 1997] "Robin Cook's initiative, which was jointly agreed with John Prescott's Department of the Environment, represented one possible way to get the developing world and, by implication, the US, on board the climate train. However, it is not the only way or, for that matter, the sustainable way. Environmentalist Aubrey Meyer believes that he has a more comprehensive 'world-saving idea' that could really cut the Gordian knot of international climate negotiations. Under the auspices of the Global Commons Institute, the London-based lobbying group he helped to set up with friends from the Green Party in 1990, Meyer has been promoting a simple and powerful concept which has already had a major impact on senior politicians and negotiators. GCI's eye-catching computer graphics illustrate past emissions and future allocation of emissions by country, achieving per capita equality by 2030, for example. After this date, emissions drop off to reach safe levels by 2100. This so-called 'contraction and convergence' in emissions has gathered the support of a majority of the world's countries, including China and India. It may be the only approach that developing countries are willing to accept." Private Planet
David Cromwell
20 January 2012 - Government targets based on C&C & IMechE supports it but asks, "Have We Lost the Battle?"
The Government’s targets and budgets have been set using a top-down approach based on the principle of contraction and convergence. This approach involves emissions from industrialised nations reducing (contracting). At the same time, emissions from all nations converge to an overall target consistent with stabilising greenhouse gas concentrations within the atmosphere at an acceptable level. In this way, over time emissions will contract and converge to an equal share per person globally, regardless of the nation in which they live. The desire from most authorities is to constrain the global mean temperature rise to 2°C or below. This translates the contraction and convergence requirement to an 80% reduction target for the UK relative to 1990 levels by 2050 and the adopted budget profile through to 2020. The Institution of Mechanical Engineers supports the principle of contraction and convergence. Climate Change - Have We Lost the Battle
Institution of Mechanical Engineers
20 January 2012 - CII: Back from the Brink "Credible, strong, phased C&C agreement needed."
“An agreement on global policies to tackle climate change is urgently needed for many reasons. In the first place, evidence is accumulating that the climate system may be more sensitive than we believed even in the recent IPCC report. At the same time, there has not been much progress in putting a systematic halt to emissions, so the problem will get worse. The agreement needs to include credible, strong, phased targets for emissions leading to a global reduction of 50 per cent by 2050; otherwise the price of carbon will be too low
to incentivise a change in mindset. The fairest way to share these is the Contraction & Convergence model, which leads to equal emissions percapita in every country." The industry expert’s view
Dr. Andrew Dlugolecki, FCII, Research Fellow, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia.
Author and editor, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
20 January 2012 - Gerhard Berz Munich Re "Is there still hope for us? Lobby for C&C."
20 January 2012 - Ken Livingstone "The Mayor supports C&C, the most widely supported approach."
The LONDON PLAN is based on C&C
Contraction and convergence [C&C] is a simple approach to distributing the total greenhouse gas emission reductions required internationally, between various countries or groups of countries. The approach is based on two principles:
There is an upper limit to acceptable global atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration, beyond which the damage from climate change would not be acceptable;
The atmosphere is a global commons, so that as individuals we all have equal rights to emit greenhouse gases. Contraction and convergence is arguably the most widely supported, equitable, global approach to tackling climate change and the Mayor supports the principle of contraction and convergence.
20 January 2012 - UNEP Decoupling Report - Do we need "Moderate or Tough rates of C&C?"
Having reviewed the trends in the use of natural resources and accompanying undesirable environ-mental impacts in the first section of Chapter 2, the last section of that chapter considers possible future implications by presenting three brief scenarios: (1) business as usual (leading to a tripling of global annual resource extraction by 2050); (2) moderate contraction and convergence (requiring industrialized countries to reduce their per capita resource consumption by half the rate for the year 2000); and (3) tough contraction and convergence (aimed at keeping global resource extraction at its current levels).
None of these scenarios will lead to actual global reductions in resource use, but all indicate that substantial reductions in the resource requirements of economic activities will be necessary if the growing world population can expect to live under conditions of sustainable resource management. The key message of the tough scenario is that despite population growth to roughly 9 billion people, the pressure on the environment would remain roughly the same as it is now.
19 January 2012 - Tina Fawcett Climate Policy - "C&C underpins Personal Carbon Trading."
In most PCT research, the assumption has been that it would be a national policy. The ideas
underpinning PCT are shared with a proposal for global emissions sharing, contraction and
convergence, which is organized on a nation-state basis (Meyer, 2000). However, in theory, PCT
could be implemented at the larger EU level or the smaller regional/subnational level, and these
alternatives are explored below. Personal carbon trading in different national
contexts
TINA FAWCETT -
Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, UK
19 January 2012 - Caroline Roberts CAL "Climate Act proposed C&C."
The new Climate Change Bill coming to the
UK Parliament proposes a 60% limitation
on carbon emissions by 2050, but even this
is not sufficient according to the latest
science. 80% cut is required to limit
temperature rise to 2degrees Celsius.
Greg Barker DECC Minister to MPs;
"C&C aCompelling Vision".
"The C&C framework developed by Aubrey Meyer and the Global Commons Institute in
many ways offers a compelling vision of a future long-term climate regime, and has a
number of distinct benefits. These include: -
Recognition that per capita emissions of developed countries will need to come down
significantly over time;
The establishment of a firm global pathway to limit emissions, with corresponding long
term targets for all countries;
The development of an approach that many consider to represent a fair and equitable
response to climate challenge."
Nick Clegg - Deputy Prime Minister;
"C&C Central to our Climate strategy."
"I fully agree that the GCI's Contraction & Convergence framework provides a realistic & equitable plan for global action. That is why C&C was a key part of the Liberal Democrat's manifesto and why I continue to believe the principle of C&C will be central to our long-term strategy on climate change." Nick Clegg Lib Dem MP [2010]
UK Deputy Prime Minister
Ed Miliband Leader Labour Party; "C&C - attractive Justice element."
Caroline Lucas MP - Green Party Leader; "C&C is Green Party Policy"
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 [2004] - 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."
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.”
Adair Turner - Former Chairman Climate Change Committee "The only sound strategy is C&C."
"Climate change is likely to impose massive economic costs. The case for being prepared to spend huge resources to limit it is clear,” says Turner, arguing that the cost will be repaid many times over by the avoidance of disaster. In any case, “the developed world does not have the moral right to increase the risk of flooding in Bangladesh”, and, he adds acidly, “European executives worried about the cost of action should perhaps consider it the necessary price for preserving at least some skiing in the Alps. Long term the only sound strategy is that of ‘contraction and convergence’ – cutting greenhouse emissions to the point where they are shared equally, worldwide, on a per capita basis.” Lord Adair Turner - Chairman UK Climate Change Committee
Interview in Green Futures
Adair Turner characterised the UK Climate Act as C&C in evidence to the EAC and DECC select committees in 2009 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. He agreed 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.” Evidence to House of Commons
Climate and Energy Committee
Contraction and convergence
Contraction and convergence is a global framework – not yet adopted by the UK government – for tackling climate change through the equitable allocation of carbon rations. The ‘contraction’ component entails setting a global carbon budget, reducing or 'capping' this annually to an agreed level so that the planet's climate once again gains equilibrium. ‘Convergence’ entails giving an equal entitlement of the capped carbon to each of the four billion or so adult inhabitants of the globe. The disadvantaged – generally low carbon emitters – will have entitlements which would allow for economic and social development or which they could sell to high carbon emitters ie. richer, developed countries. The framework implies both carbon rationing and carbon trading. Contraction and convergence is viewed by many as central to discussions on tackling climate change and sustainable development because of its focus on equity - see Sustaining a Healthy Future - Taking Action on Climate Change
This publication has been endorsed by:
Association of Directors of Public Health
British Trust for Conservation Volunteers
Chartered Institute of Environmental Health
Climate & Health Council
Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment
Institute of Public Health in Ireland
Local Government Association
Neil McKay, Chief Executive, NHS East of England
National Heart Forum
NHS Confederation
Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh
Royal College of Physicians of London
Royal Institute of Public Health
Royal Society of Health
Scottish Healthy Environment Network Steering Group
Sustain
Sustainable Development Commission
Sustrans
UK Public Health Association
Produced in consultation with the Carbon Trust
18 January 2012 - 60 Experts with the German Economic Symposium; "Time is ripe for C&C."
June 2011
As to the finance system governance should aim at higher levels of bank capital and liquidity and at taking precautionary measures to prevent risks without endangering sustainable growth. As to national budgets the task is to reduce the increasing levels of public debt.
Concerning planetary boundaries the time is ripe for identifying scientifically endorsed resource and emission caps, and for establishing reduction targets associated with these caps, “Contraction and convergence” strategies. There is also a strong case for getting prices right in order to properly account for energy and material flows.
As to global poverty governance needs to reinforce the MDGs and Rio Process and deliver tangible results.
GES statement [above] and GES Advisory Board [below]
Academia:
Akerlof, George A. Nobel Laureate; Professor of Economics, University of California, Berkeley
Blanchard, Olivier Chief Economist, IMF
Ernst, Richard Nobel Laureate; Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich
Feldstein, Martin Professor of Economics, Harvard University
Freeman, Richard Professor of Economics, Harvard University
Guidotti, Pablo Professor at the School of Government and Member of the Board of Directors, Universidad Torcuato Di Tella
Heckman, James Nobel Laureate; Professor of Economics, University of Chicago
Krueger, Anne O. Professor of International Economics, SAIS, Johns Hopkins University; Senior Fellow, Stanford Center for International Development
Lazear, Edward Professor of Human Resources Management and Economics, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University
Lindbeck, Assar Professor of International Economics, Stockholm University
McFadden, Daniel L. Nobel Laureate; Professor of Economics, University of California, Berkeley
Naím, Moisés Editor-in-Chief, Foreign Policy Magazine
Portes, Richard Professor of Economics, London Business School
Rajan, Raghuram G. Professor of Finance, University of Chicago
Rogoff, Kenneth Professor of Economics, Harvard University
Simonsen Leal, Carlos Ivan President, Getulio Vargas Foundation
Spence, Michael A. Nobel Laureate; Chairman, Commission on Growth and Development
Victor, David G. Adjunct Senior Fellow for Science and Technology, Council on Foreign Relations, Stanford
Yu, Yongding Director, Institute for World Economics and Politics, Beijing
Politics:
Honorary Chairperson
Schmidt, Helmut Former Chancellor, Federal Republic of Germany
Members:
Ahluwalia, Montek Singh Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission, India
Almunia, Joaquin European Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs, European Commission
Al Qasimi, Sheikha Lubna Minister of Foreign Trade, UAE
Arthur, Sir Michael Ambassador to Germany, Embassy of Great Britain
Ba ç , Erdem Governor, Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey
Borg, Anders Minister of Finance, Sweden
Cabral, Antonio José Senior Advisor to the President, European Commission
Liikanen, Erkki Governor, Central Bank of Finland
im ek, Mehmet Minister of Finance, Turkey
Torry, Sir Peter Former Ambassador to Germany, Embassy of the United Kingdom
Turhan, Ibrahim Deputy Governor, Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey
Visco, Ignazio Deputy Director General and Member of the Governing Board, Central Bank of Italy
Weber, Axel President, Central Bank of Germany
Yamaguchi, Yukata Former Deputy Governor, Central Bank of Japan
International and Non-Governmental Organizations:
Cotis, Jean-Philippe Lead Director General, National Institute for Statistics and Economic Studies
De Geus, Aart Deputy Secretary-General, OECD
El-Baradei, Mohamed Former Director General, IAEA
Pachauri, Rajendra K. Nobel Laureate; Chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change;
Director General, The Energy and Resources Institute, New Delhi
Panitchpakdi, Supachai Secretary-General, UNCTAD
Thielen, Gunter Chairman and CEO, Bertelsmann Stiftung
Business:
Banerji, Shumeet CEO, Booz & Company
Browne, Lord John Managing Director and Managing Partner (Europe), Riverstone Holdings
Bürkner, Hans-Paul President and CEO, The Boston Consulting Group
Cleary, Sean Chairman, Strategic Concepts (Pty) Ltd
Evans, Richard CEO (retd.), Alcan Inc and Rio Tinto Alcan
Feldmann, John Member of the Board of Executive Directors, BASF
Frenkel, Jacob A. Chairman, Group of Thirty; Chairman, J.P.Morgan Chase International
Frost, David Director General, British Chambers of Commerce
Haley, John J. Chairman of the Board and CEO, Towers Watson
Hatzius, Jan Chief Economist, Goldman Sachs
Mittal, Sunil Bharti Chairman and Group CEO, Bharti Enterprises
Obermann, René CEO, Deutsche Telekom
Regling, Klaus CEO, European Financial Stabilization Fund
Schwartz, Rodney CEO, ClearlySo
Walter, Norbert Managing Director, Walter & Daughters Consult
Zemlin, Jim Executive Director, Linux Foundation
18 January 2012 - Alex Salmond SNP "SNP Pledges support for Internationally recognised C&C."
“Conference recognises the urgent need for action to mitigate climate change given the potentially disastrous consequences for the planet. We pledge to achieve a low carbon emitting society and commit the SNP to supporting the adoption of the internationally-recognised principle of 'Contraction & Convergence'.” Alex Salmond
Scottish National Party
18 January 2012 - Earth Platform - C&C Search Function
18 January 2012 - Welsh Assembly & Sustainable Development "C&C Core Concept: Living with a carbon ration."
CORE DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS
Welsh Assembly, Welsh Sustainable Development Forum & Cambridge Programme for Industry Living with a Carbon Ration
The concept of carbon emissions ‘contraction and convergence’ was first
proposed by the Global Commons Institute (GCI) in 1990, and has since
been endorsed by many national and international bodies. It is founded
on two principles: firstly, that global CO2 emissions must progressively
reduce; and secondly, that average emissions of people in different parts
of the world must converge to the same level. Creating such an equally
shared ‘carbon ration’ has both a moral and a practical dimension. Since
global warming and climate change will impact every country, there
is no moral justification for some to generate more CO2 than others.
In practical terms, the process of trying to agree individual carbon
quotas for each of the world’s countries would be a never-ending task.
Using a common carbon ration simplifies the process to agreeing what
is the maximum level of CO2 emissions that the atmosphere can absorb
without serious destabilisation of our climate, and then agreeing a
timetable for global per capita CO2 shares to converge to that level.
The existence of globally accepted carbon rations would allow for
countries and individuals to trade carbon-emission rights, reflecting
the principles already operating in carbon emissions trading amongst
businesses today. Such a system would involve each adult having an
equal ‘right to pollute’ in terms of a carbon ration (with a proportion
for children), which would reduce over time to try to reach a global
emissions level that is sustainable. Elements of consumption such as
heating and lighting, the energy embodied in food consumption, and
use of personal and public transport would all have to be included
within the calculations. Such a system would have to be mandatory and
policed by governments. As the carbon ration available to individuals
reduced over time, it would provide clear incentives for governments to
invest in cleaner forms of energy production and companies to develop
more energy efficient ways to meet consumer needs.
18 January 2012 - Climate and Health Council - "C&C is imperative."
Many in the rich world demonise the increasing population in the poor world as the central issue we need to tackle in our attempts to mitigate climate change. Whilst not denying the importance of population stabilisation, examining the relative environmental impacts of different communities allows us to view the burgeoning global population in a broader context. Taking carbon emissions (footprints) to be a useful measure of an individual's environmental impact, we can get an insight into the responsibility for this impact among different populations. The average carbon footprint in Europe is 10 tonnes per person per annum, in North America 20 tonnes, in China 5, in India 2, and in Sub Saharan Africa 1.
So at the present time, one American consumer has the same carbon impact as 20 Tanzanian consumers. It follows that reducing the carbon emissions of those in wealthy countries must have the same priority as stabilising the population. Reducing carbon emissions is the essence of the Contraction component of our favoured policy response to climate change, Contraction and Convergence.
There is no secret about the best way to achieve the demographic transition necessary to stabilise populations. Societies in which women get secondary education , and in which all have ready access to contraception, undergo rapid transitions to replacement levels of population,the magic average of 2.1 children per couple who are able to conceive. Resourcing poor societies is a necessary fist step on this path, and the Convergence element of Contraction and Convergence will lead to billions of dollars being transferred to those living in poor countries.
There are three essential ingredients to Contraction and Convergencewhich ensures that its implementation will have the combined effects of stabilising populations and reducing carbon.
First is to make the scientifically determined amount of carbon emissions which will keep keep our globes temperature within collectively agreed limits the legally binding constraint within which all fossil fuel based activity can occur. This is considerably less than at present, so there needs to be a Contraction of carbon emissions.
Second is to allocate this carbon amount as equal entitlements to each person presently living on the globe. Within the constraints outlined above, high emitters will have less entitlement than their present emissions, low emitters more, leading to a convergence of carbon entitlements. The low emitters will be able to sell their unused entitlements to the high emitters thus getting the necessary resources to enable population stabilisation.
Third, to get maximum benefit from their limited entitlements, everyone will have compelling financial reasons to go about their lives in low carbon ways. So all will have major incentives to create the low carbon economies upon which our future depends.
Getting this framework in place is thus the imperative. Important discussions on whether we should put in place fiscal and other policies to encourage one child or indeed no child families, should take place in the context of the globally implemented framework of Contraction and Convergence.
17 January 2012 - Post Carbon Institute - Bill Rees broadcast on Peak Oil, Cultural Myths & C&C.
Bill Rees speech to Vancouver World Federalist meeting on Radio Ecoshock Show
This is a speech by Dr. Bill Rees delivered April 15th at the World Federalist meeting in Vancouver. It goes a long way to explaining why we fail to act, even as the facts become clear and indisputable. He covers the three brain theory, the limits of evolution, memes, Peak Oil, and cultural myths, plus some thoughts on solutions - mostly contraction and convergence. Rees is one of the few academics more or less calling for a planned economic collapse.
The 53 minute speech is featured in this week's Radio Ecoshock show, broadcast by 20 college and community radio stations in the U.S. and Canada, plus Green 960 AM in San Francisco.
17 January 2012 - "C&C is inevitably required for UNFCCC-compliance." UNFCCC Executive
17 January 2012 - Royal Institute of Philosophy: 2 Grim excerpts from a post-mortem on COP-15
Two grim excerpts from a post-mortem on COP-15 by 'Wykeham Professor' at Cammbridge David Wiggins.
A climate treaty might have come into being if some sufficiency of First World
countries had been prepared to offer Third World countries something along the lines
of the ‘contraction and convergence’ proposals advocated by the Global Commons
Institute. This would have involved drawing up a ‘contraction budget’ for
greenhouse gas emissions and assigning entitlements to each country on the basis of
its population in a baseline year, agreeing at the same time two dates -- a date by
which the entitlements of all countries would converge to being equal per capita
(relative to the baseline year) and a further date by which there would be no further
increase in the carbon concentration of the atmosphere. It would have been a question
whether the United States negotiators were prepared to submit such a treaty to
Congress (especially when it raised so many questions of verification and
enforcement). It would have been a question whether Third World countries would
persist in the objection that, even under this proposal, there is insufficient recognition
of their substantial innocence of the noxious emissions that have brought the
atmosphere to its present state. But in the end, the simple but fundamental thoughts
that prompt such proposals were effectively obscured.
In 1939-40 when HMG was expecting the Blitz and a blackout was instituted
in order to confuse the navigation of enemy bombers and fighters, it took only two or
three weeks for everyone to catch on to the idea and to be ready to tap on their neighbour’s door to tell them in friendly fashion if they were showing even a small chink of light. Citizens caught on effortlessly to the mentality that was expressed in
posters put out by the government: ‘Dig for victory’, ‘If you know something keep it
under your hat’. What organized the thoughts and dispositions of citizens was the
fear of destruction or invasion by a hostile power and an idea of liberty and human decency which they had resolved to uphold to the end. In the present what should organize our awareness and dispositions? A new awareness among the citizen body
at large of the fragility and huge complexity of the life systems on which we depend
and a concern for what remains of the beauty of the earth. But, in the place of ‘Keep
calm and carry on’, I hope we may prefer some version of Hume’s wonderful sentence: -
"All prospects of success in life or even of tolerable subsistence must
fail where reasonable frugality is wanting." A Reasonable Frugality David Wiggins
17 January 2012 - Royal Institute of Philosophy: "C&C+ETS = distributive justice & political success."
17 January 2012 - FT Prof of the Week "C&C to align 'carbon footprints' internationally."
Environmental sustainability
A state in which the demands placed on the environment can be met without reducing its capacity to allow all people to live well, now and in the future.
Evidence is strong that we are exceeding and eroding the earth’s carrying capacity, that there are limits to growth on a finite planet.
Leading thinkers suggest that to stand any chance of achieving environmental sustainability, businesses need to move from a sense of right-to-exploit the natural environment to a worldview of mutual interdependence and radical eco-innovation.
Example
Some routes towards environmental sustainability include: adopt so-called ‘cradle-to-cradle thinking and practices’; dramatically reduce CO2 emissions; stop rainforest destruction; combine contraction and convergence to align carbon footprints internationally.
17 January 2012 - Journal of Social Philosophy [Wiley] - C&C "A Just Response to Climate Change"
Equal Allocations
The most prominent proposal for distributing PCAs is that everyone receive an equal
allocation of PCAs. This is the proposal made by the main designers and advocates of PCAs,
including Anderson, Bottrill, Fawcett, Flemming, Hillman, Monbiot and Starkey.
16 January 2012 - Monbiot - C&C's success results from Meyer's lack of relevant qualifications [?] He should know.
As we've never 'done the end of the world' before, I wasn't clear how he or anybody could actually know what it was that qualified them to know what the relevant qualifications for this novel challenge actually are [stop]. But notwithstanding, Mr Monbiot insisted vigorously that his assessment was a compliment . . . .
"C&C was devised by a man called Aubrey Meyer. He is one of those extraordinary people whose lack of relevant qualifications appears to work in his favour: he's a concert viola player. Meyer was able to leap over the more constrained proposals of the professionals and produce an idea that was simple, based on science and fair. With an equal global carbon allocation, countries will no longer be able to claim that they can't act because others are not obliged to join in. They might not like this proposal, but they cannot deny that it is even-handed." Heat
George Monbiot
16 January 2012 - BBC Richard Black - "C&C has to be negotiated between Governments."
Richard Black March 2009.
[This was - unusually - a genuinely thoughtful, searching and intelligent bit of 'climate-change-journalism'. Its just a pity that Richard quoted the tactically rather extreme December 2008 Report by Jihua Pan from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, rather than the strategically smarter July 2009 Report from the Chinese Government which made the case for C&C at rates consistent with equity and an intelligently correct understanding of the C&C model*. Richard's article preceded that report by four months].
Anyway his piece correctly laid out the case . . .
"The issue is this: how much carbon dioxide should each person on Earth be "allowed" to emit?
Put another way: if emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are to be limited, at some target date, to a figure that science suggests can stave off "dangerous" climate change, then how does that figure break down at the personal level, when shared out among the world's citizens?
The figure that was being bandied about at COP-15 is two tonnes of CO2 (or its equivalent) per person per year. It's derived from the ambition of halving global emissions by 2050 compared with 1990 levels, as expressed by G8 leaders during their summit in Japan.
In turn, this may be enough to constrain the global average temperature rise to within 2-3C at most, which according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) would avoid many of the most damaging projected impacts.
Currently, the average Briton produces about 10 tonnes per year - the average US citizen more, the average Chinese or Indian considerably less. So a great deal of convergence is implied, and I should be remiss if I did not point up here the important role of Aubrey Meyer and the Global Commons Institute in developing the concept of Contraction and Convergence.
So let’s go back to the original question; how much carbon dioxide should each person on Earth be “allowed” to emit? Two tonnes by 2050 might be a starting point for discussions; but precisely how much, and by what means, are clearly questions where important nuances pertain.
Where there are grey areas, there is also much room for political wrangling; and of course any agreement on contraction and convergence towards some figure like two tonnes, with whatever caveats, in the end has to be negotiated between governments." Richard Black - Carbon: How much is enough?
* It was the disastrous mishanding of the issue of *the rates of C&C* at COP-15 - particularly the diktat from Ed Miliband and the team from DECC that convergence must be by 2050 - that almost certainly led to the hugely acrimonious row that broke out [reported by John Vidal in the Guardian] almost immediate the diktat was 'leaked' to the conference on day two.
Ed Miliband gave evidence to the Environmental Audit Select Committee [EAC] in October 2009, more than a year after the Climate Act had been in force and on the eve of taking the rates of C&C in the UK Climate-Act to COP-15 in Copenhagen in December 2009.
This prescription became known as the 'Danish Draft' and it was put forward by a group of Governments led by the UK at COP-15, with the claim that it would avoid exceeding an overal temperature rise of two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial and meet the requirements of equity.
The EAC Chairman asked him, "Will C&C feature in the negotiations at COP-15?"
"I think probably not is the answer," replied Mr Miliband. He went on, "I do not think that will form the basis of an agreement. I think that there is a sort of attractive justice element to the contraction and convergence idea. The complexity of it, though, is what is the point at which convergence takes place and what do we say about different countries' levels of growth at that point, GDP, how should we adjust for different weather conditions and all that?
16 January 2012 - Tim Flannery - Ineffective climate policy amounts to murder of the World's poor.
In The Weather Makers, Tim Flannery claims that economists took the view that doing anything serious about climate change was too expensive to be worthwhile and quoting GCI that this amounts to ‘the effective murder of members of the world’s poorer populations.’
"Looking further ahead, there is a democratic, transparent, and simple form of international agreement that might one day replace Kyoto. Known as Contraction and Convergence (C&C) it has been championed by UK politician Aubrey Meyer for over a decade. In some ways C&C is an ultrademocratic variant of the Kyoto Protocol, for at its heart is the simple idea that the only equitable way to reduce emissions is to grant every human being an equal "right to pollute" with greenhouse gases. As with Kyoto, this right could be traded, though under C&C the volume of trade is likely to be far larger than under Kyoto. When facing a grave emergency, it’s best to be single-minded." The Weather Makers - Tim Flannery on C&C
16 January 2012 - McMichael & Butler ANU: - "C&C - the moral and political ideal."
"A key question arises for high-income
countries. Can they sustain their population’s
health while reducing their markedly oversized
EFs to a level compatible with the needs
of global environmental sustainability? This
question is compounded by recognition that
environmental space must be made for low income
countries to increase their levels of
per-capita production, consumption, and waste
generation—up to, ideally, an agreed-upon
common international level. A coordinated and
equitable multilateral process of this kind would
illustrate the strategy of global contraction and
convergence.”
"The moral and political ideal would
be a world in which all persons, irrespective
of national origin, have the same natural
environmental entitlement: a versatile idea contraction and convergence that has been
mooted as the eventual fair solution to GHG
emissions because the global atmosphere and
climate are global public goods."
SUMMARY POINTS
Human pressures on the natural environment have increased rapidly over the past century,
and the global uptrend remains steep. This increase has caused the emergence of a
range of worldwide, often globally integrated, changes to environmental and ecological
systems.
Investigators have devised several indicators to measure this environmental pressure,
of which the best documented is the ecological footprint. The ecological footprint is a
subset of an even larger, but less well quantified, environmental footprint.
In most countries, much of the gain in population health over recent decades has depended
substantially on an overexploitation of the natural environment (including, in
particular, access to fossil fuel–based energy).
This environmental overexploitation means that many countries have ecological footprints
that are greater, often much greater, than their estimated domestic biocapacity.
The recent experience of various societies shows that high levels ofmaterial consumption
are not a prerequisite for health.
Energy, basic needs (water, food, fiber, etc.), and other material goods can increasingly
be provided via technologies with lower impact.
Many of the technological and behavioral changes needed for sustainable living will yield
direct gains to local population health.
It appears feasible (and morally and politically desirable), via agreed international contraction
and convergence strategies, to achieve sustainability of both global environment
and population health.
16 January 2012 - Forum on Religion & Ecology YALE "C&C - most promising."
Contraction and Convergence
The basic ethical principle of Contraction & Convergence [C&C] is “equal per capita emission allocation.” It reduces global greenhouse gas emissions so that atmospheric concentrations become stabilized at an agreed safe level (contraction) and distributes the permissible emissions under the contraction on an equal per capita basis globally for all countries (convergence).
16 January 2012 - Office of Sustainability, College of Charleston "C&C appeals to a variety for many reasons."
Both the precautionary principle and principles of equity underscore some
form of per capita approach to stabilizing and ultimately limiting GHG emissions.
The advantages of a source approach are that it is inherently based on principles of
equity and thus has a strong justice component that will appeal to a variety of states for
many reasons. Specifically, a ‘contraction and convergence’ (C&C) policy is based on
egalitarian criteria; that is, theoretically every person has the right to pollute to the same
extent (and implicitly to be equally protected from pollution) (Meyer 2000; den Elzen et
al. 2006). Shifting Global Climate Governance: Creating Long-Term
Goals Through UNFCCC Article 2
P. Brian Fisher, Office of Sustainability, College of Charleston
16 January 2012 - EcoLabs "C&C must be part of the new framework."
1.Government policy must start to reflect the recommendations of its own Sustainable Development Commission and start a process of dealing with the contractions between endless economic growth and a finite ecological system. New models of prosperity are urgently required.
16 January 2012 - Women's Health Planet - "Any fair climate deal will be based on C&C."
"Any fair global climate deal is likely to be based on some version of the principle of contraction and convergence whereby international emissions are equalized at low levels per head of population."
16 January 2012 - New Political Centre "C&C - the leading concept at the UNFCCC."
The Durban summit could be looked back on as a success if the treaty negotiations outlined are implemented. So what could this include?
Firstly, such an agreement should be open, transparent, and include the developing world in order to invoke the concept. The leading concept in the United Framework Convention on Climate Change is the principle of contraction and convergence (Meyer, 2000). This is the idea that, as a global community, we need to keep the amount emitted per person constant, and thus every country has to contract their emissions towards an agreed per capita total. The difficulty however, is in defining such a total. For the developed world, this emphasises the importance of a low-carbon economy. Finally, (an issue I shall write about further in upcoming posts) an agreement needs to incorporate the concept of green economy. This can act as a framework by creating global institutions that allow the development of carbon and renewable energy markets on a global scale, as well as maintaining capital flows between the developed and developing world. Such a framework should also take into consideration a potential aid structure to cope with possible natural disasters. This would provide the certainty implied by the positive signals sent by a range of actors in the private sector, and would also minimise regulatory risk.
In short, a progressive, credible pathway of decarbonisation for the global community needs to be created. This will ensure that the spectacle of inactive conference after conference we have witnessed for more than a decade becomes a thing of the past. Climate Change Policy Post-Durban: Where do we go from here? By Jasbir Basi
16 January 2012 - UK Independent promoting C&C Solution [& Book] + Obama et al . . .
Follow a busker "A former busker, Aubrey Meyer, thought up what is increasingly regarded as the long-term solution to global warming – and, through relentless campaigning, he has managed to get his idea adopted as policy by many governments, especially in developing countries. Dubbed "contraction and convergence", it starts from the principle that everyone on Earth is entitled to emit the same amount of carbon dioxide. It then determines the level of emissions low enough to avoid dangerous climate change. The total amount put into the atmosphere worldwide each year must then be made to "contract" until it reaches this point. Simultaneously, the totals of individual countries have to "converge", so that each emits the same amount for every one of its citizens; rich countries would have to reduce their totals very heavily, while some poor countries could actually be able to increase theirs. Most experts agree that it is the fairest framework. Persuading Americans to agree to emit the same amount as Ethiopians is another matter." The UK Independent Newspaper - Promoting C&C Solution and book [alongside Barak Obama et al]. Contraction and Convergence - The Global Solution to Climate Change
14 January 2012 - SPPI's Ambler against C&C "But why attack a solution to a problem you insist doesn't exist?"
The Question that hangs over these two reports is: -
Why would you want to attack a solution to a problem that you insist doesn't exist?
Dennis Ambler of SPPI - Close to contrarian tendency at the Heartland Institute
CONTRACTION AND CONVERGENCE
The process whereby developed countries sacrifice their home industries and populations by imposing ever higher taxes on energy, is known in UN parlance as “Contraction and Convergence.”
It is described by its initiator as “An International Conceptual Framework for Preventing Dangerous Climate Change” and has been adopted and subscribed to by the UN and member countries of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, (UNFCC).
The narrative says that there is a finite global budget for carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere, a total amount beyond which the world will heat uncontrollably and human kind will be visited by dreadful climate disasters, including, but not limited to, stronger hurricanes, rising sea levels, droughts, floods and plagues.
“Climate justice” demands that everyone on the planet has an equal right to emit the same amount of CO2. Greedy western nations have, since the industrial revolution, used up their share of this allowable CO2 amount and must now pay reparation to the undeveloped nations who have not industrialised.
Developed nations must “Contract” their economies by cutting fossil fuel usage to levels reported in 1990 (the Kyoto Protocol) and then transfer knowledge, technology and finance to developing nations, to bring them up to the new lowered expectations of the developed nations, described as “Convergence.”
However, there is a problem and it is that there are two paradigms in force, mutually antagonistic to each other. “Climate Equity and the Millennium Development Goals” require that undeveloped nations are allowed to use fossil fuels to lift them from poverty, whereas “CO2-induced Climate Catastrophe Theory” says global emissions must peak by 2015 and then start coming down to save the planet.
“If I thought that global warming was a crisis I’m not sure that I would agree that Aubrey has worked out about how to solve it or the path down which we ought to go. But he’s serious about it and has a legitimate and well thought out programme that is not about “how do we gain more political power for ourselves, how do we create a command and control economy for the energy sector that we’re in charge of?” He isn’t interested in being in charge of anybody. He is interested in solving a problem and that again makes him unusual because a lot of the environmental groups are really into political power because they know better and they ought to be telling people how to live their lives. Aubrey respects people and he respects individual human beings and he’s not about telling them how to live their lives. I think that makes him very special and I really enjoy seeing him and reading what he’s putting out and looking at his whole programme.” Myron Ebell
Competitive Enterprise Institute
COP-15 Copenhagen, 2009
A new climate treaty would at least pay lip service to the obligations of developing nations, although it could probably not require them to reduce emissions. Instead, a new Kyoto might be shaped by the notion of “Contraction and Convergence” [C&C - Meyer, 2000] now popular in European environmental circles. Unstoppable Global Warming
Fred Singer & Dennis Avery
"Among the worst policies being pushed with the help of Sustainable Development is a scheme called Contraction and Convergence (C&C). The idea is that every human is entitled to emit the same amount of CO2. This of course translates into every being on earth using the same amount of energy -- and, by inference, having the same income. In other words, C&C is basically a policy for a giant global income redistribution."
A reply to him saying that: -
"C&C is not about ‘global income re-distribution’ it is about ‘global emissions *pre*-distribution’ subject to the limit that achieves compliance with the objective of the UN Climate Change Convention. In other words it is a logical proposition to which there have [inevitably] been a range of ideological reactions [of which yours is one and to which you are entitled]."
met with the rather random reply, "stop digging, the world is getting cooler."
"I don't say climate change isn't happening. I just say it isn't happening as fast as people are saying it is."
Pat said this when we shared a platform at the Insitute of Economic Affairs in London, after the publication of the IPCC Second Assessment Report in 1995.
At that debate I said to him, "Pat you lost your battle in IPCC Working Group One but we won our battle in IPCC Working Group Three." This battle was against 'the economists' who's Global Cost/Benefit Analysis gave the ludicrous result that preventing the climate-problem was too expensive, even though "15 Chinese climate-deaths equalled 1 English". Working people at this conference of all stripes were scandalized by that methodology.
Afterwards he said to me, "hey you're really good at this - do you want to go on roadshow with me around the US?" It never happened and things have moved on since then, but later that year the fossil fuel industry's 'Greening the Earth Society' website carried an article saying "Good 'ol GCI for upholding the US Declaration of Independence" which says: -
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Aubrey Meyer's dedication is clear. So is his genius.
This is one favorably stated summary of his plans:
Meyer realized that, if humanity is to survive climate change, a very different kind of international agreement will be required. Climate change threatens humanity as a whole, and so requires a species-level response. Meyer's proposal - "contraction and convergence" (C&C) - proceeds from the recognition that all countries must act together to set a limit on global greenhouse emissions. Once this limit is agreed (the contraction bit), they must decide how the remaining emissions are to be shared. Meyer's suggested basis for this is equity. Given that we are all created equal, why should poor countries accept a smaller share of the shrinking pie? And so, after a period of transition, all countries are allocated emissions entitlements based on their populations (convergence).
In practice, both the contraction cap on emissions and the convergence date to equity would be negotiable. World governments might, say, agree to limit global carbon-dioxide concentrations to 450 parts per million - enough, it is hoped, to keep global warming below 2 C - with convergence by 2030. This would give a less developed country such as Bangladesh a large wad of unused emissions, which it could sell for cash on world markets. Countries such as Australia, meanwhile, would have to buy spare emissions credits in order to keep on using a disproportionate amount of fossil fuel. The result would be large financial flows from rich to poor, giving developing countries the resources to participate in the clean energy revolution.
14 January 2012 - Michael Meacher, "C&C very powerful idea. We move remorselessly towards it."
Contraction and Convergence is a very powerful idea and we are moving remorselessly towards it. Michael Meacher UK Environment Minister [1997 - 2003]
FROM THE RT HON MICHAEL MEACHER MP
MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND AGRI-ENVIRONMENT
Nobel House
17 Smith Square
London SW1P 3JR
Tel: 020 7238 5404
Fax: 020 7238 5976
DEFRA
Department for
Environment,
Food & Rural Affairs
Aubrey Meyer’s contribution to the policy debate on how to avoid dangerous climate change has
been sustained and outstanding.
Since 1989 he and his tiny organisation - the Global Commons Institute (GCI) - have been
successfully challenging officials around the world including politicians like myself to adopt
“Contraction and Convergence”, GCI’s global framework for climate change policies based on
precaution, logic and equity.
With scant material support and an extraordinary dedication and persistence, he created and
communicated this visionary concept for a long-term global framework for negotiating the
international allocation of greenhouse gas emissions permits.
He has already convinced numerous leading figures in the international negotiating community,
the insurance industry, the scientific community, the environmental media and politics of the
absence of effective alternatives to “Contraction and Convergence”. So much so that in June
2000, the UK’s Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution made it a key recommendation to
this government. The concept has been endorsed by the European Parliament and many
members of the UK parliament as well, including the former Secretary of State for the
Environment, John Gummer and Ministers from practically all European countries.
Under GCI’s
advice the concept was led at the UN negotiations by the Indian Government in 1995 and again
by the Africa Group of Nations in 1997. Again as a result of GCI publications, C&C has also
been endorsed by numerous eminent individuals and institutions and is more and more widely
quoted in prestigious academic publications.
Lest we make the planet uninhabitable, the international community must come soon to an
agreement on how to organise the global effort to avoid this. Contraction and Convergence is a
very powerful idea and I have no doubt that the concept will continue to be an influential force in
discussions, as one model of how greenhouse gas emissions can be allocated in a fair and
equitable manner.
If ever there was an initiative that deserved recognition and support, it is the brilliant and
relentless campaign waged by this fiercely independent, creative and apparently quite tireless
individual.
14 January 2012 - Bioregional Solutions Rio + 20 "Goals should be based on C&C."
We propose that the Sustainable Development Goals [SDGs] and indicators
be based on Sustainable Consumption and Production, on Clean Production on what citizens
need for a good quality of life and contraction and convergence of resource consumption based on
ecological and carbon footprint and scientific advice of Intergovernmental Panels including
planetary boundaries. One planet living is the same goal for all – for some it means becoming more
resource efficient, for others it means growing in a sustainable way. This also supports the Millennium
Consumption Goals proposal. SDGs could take a similar approach to the ten one planet living principles. Rio+20
ANPED is active in the degrowth movement, and asks for contraction and convergence referring the use of natural resources and emissions of waste (incl CO2). Industrialised countries have to contract their economies, to give "space" to developing countries. Just for social and environmental equity reasons. Please add your thoughts on this and good ideas on how to achieve this ! Rio Plus 20 SDIN
The green economy must contribute to the goals of sustainability. The overarching goal of the green economy should be defined in the context of a fair and socially just economic system that meets the needs of all people within the ecological carrying capacity of the planet. The green economy needs to be a new economy, with new models, mindsets and metrics based on a systems approach. Issues such as poverty, climate change, soil erosion, and the loss of biodiversity are emergent properties of unsustainable consumption and production patterns. In order to address the root causes of these symptoms, a holistic—or systems—approach to problem solving is necessary. The green economy must be an economy that moves away from the destructive economic expansion paradigm (at least in rich countries where per capita eco-footprints are above sustainable levels) to one that recognizes ecological limits and that enables people to meet their basic needs, along a global framework of ‘contraction and convergence’. We must transform the nature of our impact on the world’s ecological systems. This will mean using innovation to shift from linear patterns - that consume resources and produce wastes – to cyclical patterns where our actions contribute to ecological and social resilience. This will involve reshaping our identity and recognizing humanity’s potential to support our planet and ensure that it thrives. One Earth - Rio+20
1. Roadmaps with Action Plans at a global, national and civil society level. We support existing
proposals for flexible and simple Roadmaps, Action Plans and Sustainable Development Goals as a main
operational outcome of Rio+20. It is proposed that Action Plans or Roadmaps include:
A Vision ‐ in line with the Objective of the Conference ‐ to enable citizens to achieve one planet living and a green economy and live happy, healthy lives within the natural limits of the planet, wherever we live in the world, and leave sufficient space for wildlife and wilderness.
Principles drawn from existing international agreements, see Principles for a Green Economy
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Indicators. Based on Sustainable Consumption and
Production, what citizens need and contraction and convergence of resource use to one planet
living. SDGs could include: sustainable energy; sustainable transport; zero waste to landfill
through circular economies; sustainable materials; food security – sustainable and humane
agriculture and fisheries; sustainable water; biodiversity and land use; culture & community;
Green Economy – equity, fair trade and the local economy; and health & happiness.
Process to develop them in partnership with civil society.
e) Education and training based on Vision & SDGs. One Planet training will be launched at Rio+20.
Support of “Intergovernmental Panel(s) on Resources” to provide scientific evidence of resource availability, resource consumption and safe planetary boundaries and a “Solutions Bank” of peer reviewed solutions for sustainability.
One Planet Living ‐ a Proposal for Rio+20 UNCSD 2012
submitted by BioRegional and Partners
So, what does a focus on a green economy mean in real terms? It means quantifying the value that our ecosystems bring our economies so that we see how important they are as a national asset to the economy and to people. It means that we start scrutinising our budgetary allocations with that in mind so that we can start investing in and restoring in those ecosystems. It means recognising that the shift from a brown economy to a green economy is going to require that we prepare our societies and our workforces with the necessary skills and social protection floors as we make that transition. It means recognising the notion of contraction and convergence in terms of those countries with a high ecological footprint and those with a small ecological footprint -- and thus sharing the costs and the benefits derived from our environment more equitably. Business on the Road to Rio Plus 20
With Vegan Agriculture Network's publication of this article and the Living Centre's incredible menu of upcoming veganic permaculture design courses, 2011 is shaping up to be an informal and year of veganic permaculture as a synergistic complement to the International Year of Forests. This also means that 2012 will be a wonderful follow-up year to launch the first International Veganic Permaculture Convergence (understanding "convergence" in this title to also represent the idea of contraction and convergence), in synchronicity and solidarity with the 2012 Rio+20 Earth Summit and the COP-18 Climate Summit. Permavegan Rio Plus 20
Consumption:
How many planets would I need?
There are many ways of looking at our ecological or carbon footprint. If you are looking at carbon
footprints you could start by thinking about C02 Contraction and Convergence – C&C calculates
that given we have a global population of seven billion. If you divide that up each person
can emit up to two tonnes of CO2 a year. At that rate our planet could sustain it. But the problem
is that our population is rising and so then that fi gure would have to be reduced still further. Road to Rio + 20
14 January 2012 - Governance for Sustainable Development "C&C - consistent with the Byrd Hagel Resolution."
How contraction and convergence (C&C) work,
to reconcile the ecological debt of climate change'
All countries collectively agree a stable atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. A global emissions budget is then calculated derived from the target atmospheric concentration figure. The target is reviewed annually so that it can be revised with new scientific findings. Once the contraction budget has been decided, the next question is how to distribute the entitlements within it between countries. Under contraction and convergence, the allocation of emissions entitlements between countries would converge by a specific date.
By that year, entitlements would be allocated in proportion to national population as it was in a specified baseline year. Full emissions trading is a design feature of the concept. Contraction and convergence (C&C) would reduce the complexity of the climate negotiations to two simple variables that would need to be agreed: the target atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and date at which entitlements wold converge at equal per capita allocations.
The approach offers the best chance of solving a great and immensely destructive international paradox. Developing Countries stand to be hit first and most by global warming. The Millennium Development Goals will all be undermined, if not wrecked by global warming. Yet Developing World Countries have been reluctant to play along with the climate negotiations as conducted to date. They see no reason why (if the rich countries have a had a free ride on the Earth’s finite fossil fuel resources for the whole of their development) that they should jeopardize their own economies through accepting any perceived restraint on their activity. But contraction and convergence deals with this seemingly inescapable trap.
Developing countries have consistently refused to take part in a framework that pre-allocates the property rights to a finite carbon budget in a manifestly inequitable way - so-called grandfathering - in which the starting point is one where countries ‘inherit’ their historical emissions levels. This approach creates in effect a carbon aristocracy.
By specifying a set date for convergence at equal per capita rights, the C&C approach would give developing countries surplus emissions allocations that they could then sell to countries that ne permits most of them developed. The revenue flow from the sale of surplus permits would give developing countries and income from climate change policies which would encourage participation and would create added incentives to invest in clean technologies.
Developing world countries also stand to benefit more the sooner such an agreement is made. As time passes, the cuts needed to prevent runaway global warming becoming bigger and tradable emissions become fewer. In the intervening period, rich over-polluting countries are abusing the global commons of the atmosphere without having to pay.
Interestingly. Contraction and Convergence (C&C) would fit with the stated position of the otherwise recalcitrant US. In his statements on climate change, President Bush set out specific criteria for what sort of treaty the US would be
willing to sign up to. These indude a truly global deal with emission targets (or from another perspective entitlements) for developing countries and the need for a science-based approach.
C&C, with its global participation design and formal
greenhouse gas concentration target is exactly such an approach. C&C is also fully consistent with the famous 1997 Byrd Hagel US Senate resolution that stipulated that the US would not sign up to any treaty that did not include developing countries.
This has enormous and from a development perspective, very positive consequences since it can liberate resources to finance development. However, as action to combat global warming is delayed, emissions grow and populations rise,
and the sustainable size of a carbon cake slice will get smaller and smaller. ln other words, the sooner we act the better. Governance for Sustainable Development
Georgina Ayre, Rosalie Callway
13 January 2012 - Tom Spencer C&C Veteran "The most elegant idea awaiting Humanity's adoption."
"The graphic above is the Contraction and Convergence analysis from Aubrey Meyer at the Global Commons Institute which I regard as the single most elegant and important idea currently awaiting adoption by humanity.
You can click on the image to view the full size original. Animations and full PDF versions are available from the GCI homepage. "
Tom was the very effective President of GLOBE International in the 1990s.
During his Presidency, GLOBE published this land-mark report Briefing for Parliamentarians.
GLOBE C&C Briefing for Parliamentarians.
On Sunday the 17th of May 1998, the leaders of the developed world and Russia will sit down in Birmingham at the World Economic Summit to discuss climate change."Contraction and Convergence" is the only practical and convincing way forward for the world. It is vital that the G8 leaders recognize this and commit themselves to negotiating ahead of COP4 the global solution for what everyone accepts is the global problem. Such negotiation can only be based on the principle of equity and the establishment of the robust and flexible model contained in these pages.
13 January 2012 - UKIAH "Getting into the spirt of C&C in California."
Curtailment and Community
The two main components of Plan C Solutions are Curtailment and Community. Curtailment is the action of reducing our consumption of fossil fuels. Community is the context for a culture where consumption is not the primary value. Community also describes a culture or way of living where relationships are more important than material goods. Since World War II our consumption of fossil fuels has risen dramatically while at the same time the values and benefits we obtained from “community” have declined.
We are facing massive challenges and there is no guarantee that they can be solved or solved quickly. Thus the C of Plan C also stands for Contingency as in “a contingency plan.” Even though it is possible that some breakthrough technology will suddenly make all our concerns go away, it is unlikely. If we do not take seriously the possibility that oil depletion or climate change will force change upon us, we might not begin looking for other options until it is too late. A contingency plan – which is what Plan C provides, is needed.
Although the word curtailment may sound drastic, what it means is a deliberate long term effort to continually reduce our per capita consumption of fossil fuels. The C also stands for a similar but not identical term – Conservation. This recognizes that, although energy plays the most important role in climate change, our consumption of all other natural resources must decline as well. Conservation addresses water, biodiversity, and other areas, secondary to Curtailment but still a vital part of Plan C.
Another way of talking about Curtailment is to use the term Contraction, which is often used to describe a shrinking economy. Since a growing economy is based on increasing consumption of fossil fuels, curtailment implies economic Contraction, the opposite of economic growth. Contraction is often paired with the word Convergence. The combination of Contraction and Convergence are the hallmark of the work of the Global Commons Institute in Great Britain, whose co founder Aubrey Meyer introduced the term to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1996. Convergence in this context means that the world must converge toward equal per capita CO2 emissions across the planet, which would also lead to decreasing inequity.
Calculate, Compare, Confront
There are three more C words that represent the skills needed for achieving reduction – Calculate, Compare and Confront. Calculate means developing the skills one needs in order be able to make the complex energy choices that are needed. Without such “numeracy skills,” we are easily misled by green marketing programs. Compare means using these skills to know the differences between the various energy reduction or curtailment options. Recall the old saying – “If you can’t measure it you can’t change it.” This is often one of the weak points of various movements for change – the lack of skills to evaluate options. The third member of this C trio is Confront. We need to “challenge false assumptions” whether they are called “green” or not. We must cut through the hyperbole of options and see them for what they are. This is vital for our survival as it takes time to change and going down too many false paths could be disastrous.
Community or Consumerism
I have described the analytical side of Plan C; there is also the cultural side best described by the term “Community.” This is, essentially, the opposite of Consumerism. Consumerism is concerned with the acquisition of material goods in a competitive manner while community is concerned with the acquisition of positive relationships in a cooperative manner. Community also means Caring – both for the present inhabitants of the planet as well as future ones. It implies a right sharing of world resources. At its core is the principle of Cooperation while the core of consumerism is competition. “Social capital,” a formal definition of Community, focuses on the value of relationships and other non material human values.”
13 January 2012 - Delta TAIWAN - "Using C&C Principle, Taiwan has the responsibility of a Developed Country."
減量責任的再思考：CCPI中所提出的『目標績效比較』一項上，是基於『共同但有差異的責任』，採用類似『縮減與收斂（Contraction and Convergence）』的方法，在抑制增溫2度的狀況下，估算出各國的減量責任。進而分析若要達到此目標時，各國應遵循的理想減量路徑。其在將該國當前的排放趨勢，與此理想減量路徑相比較，並依兩者之間的落差，作為評分依據。而在此原則下，台灣的減量責任是等同於已開發國家，當前已無排碳量增加的空間。()但目前的減量目標以及政策的規劃，在未來五年間，排碳量仍預估會成長。此舉均將使台灣的氣候政策績效，持續於後端班中徘徊。
13 January 2012 - A Nobel Cause [& Nomination] - "C&C Ensures Equity in Climate Negotiations."
"The contraction and convergence policy option proposes that equalizing global per-capita emissions across countries would ensure equity in the global climate change mitigation process. It supports climate change negotiations that aim to equalize per-capita emissions at a future date, with the levels of permissible global per-capita emissions and the different years by which the emissions have to be equalized varying according to several formulae. This would allow citizens of all countries, regardless of size or level of development, equal space in the atmosphere, and thus equal responsibility to mitigate. While there are concerns that contraction and convergence may provide incentives to high population growth rates, it is entirely feasible, and indeed widely proposed, to place a limit on population beyond which no further entitlements would be granted. Furthermore, countries with high population growth rates would still bave to provide resources for their growing populations. Therefore, the economic incentive to encourage high population growth rates may not even exist." Global Sustainability - A Nobel Cause on C&C
Martin explained, “Aubrey Meyer may not yet be a household name, here in Britain, or indeed, in many other parts of the world. Yet his work is absolutely central to the global fight against climate change.“ The Nobel Institute recognised how important the climate change challenge is to the future of our planet last year, when it awarded the prize jointly to Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for raising awareness about this environmental threat. “We believe that it would, now, be right to recognise the man who has done most to provide an international solution to averting the disaster of global warming.“ Aubrey Meyer realised that we need a comprehensive climate change framework if we are to protect our planet. He founded the Global Commons Initiative in 1990 that developed just such a framework known as ‘contraction and convergence’. “This is the logical way forward. The human race reduces its carbon footprint towards zero at the same time as greenhouse gas emissions on a per capita basis in developed and developing nations converge. If his initiative was recognised now then it would send exactly the right message to world leaders as we consider what comes after the end of the Kyoto round in 2012.”
13 January 2012 - A Bretton Woods Proposal for Climate; Rutquist et al: "The proposal moves to C&C."
By introducing this variation on the per-capita carbon-budget approach, the Bretton Woods proposal moves in the direction of Contraction and Convergence (see GCI C&C Briefing), a well-known burden-sharing proposal characterized by a gradual transition over a specified period from grandfathered allowances to per-capita allowances.
13 January 2012 - Earth Under Fire; Braasch & McKibben: "Since 1990; C&C most highly developed model."
One of the most highly developed models is contraction and convergence which leads from egalitarian ideals by way of science. The best estimate of the amount of greenhouse gas in a stable atmosphere well short of catastrophic climate change would be the target and nations would move towards it [contraction] based on an eventual equal distribution of emissions per person [convergence]. Proponents see the equality as the only way of apportioning ‘use’ of the atmosphere, which has no boundaries and supports everyone. The Global Commons Institute has been bringing this idea to the international climate meetings since 1990. Earth Under Fire
Gary Braasch & Bill McKibben
13 January 2012 - BMA International - "C&C a mechanism to reduce emissions & socio-economic inequality."
A number of proposals have been made for reducing global warming emissions. These range from
technological innovations to mechanisms aimed at capping and rationing carbon emissions. One
framework for reducing emissions has been labelled ‘contraction and convergence’. This relies on
the establishment of a time-bound target for reducing global emissions (‘contraction’). Carbon
emission quotas would then be allocated equally to all the Earth’s citizens. However, people would
be allowed to trade their quotas, with the likely result that financial resources would flow from the
rich to the poor. Over time, it is predicted that disparities in global warming emissions between
different population groups would reduce (‘convergence’).
Although there are logistical barriers to the practical implementation of ‘contraction and
convergence’, it describes a mechanism and approach for reducing global warming emissions
which will help tackle poverty and reduce socio-economic inequalities at the same time. Improving health for the world’s
poor: what can health
professionals do?
BMA International Department
Dr. Mahmood Bhutta, Specialist Registrar, Oxford Deanery, UK.
Ms Belinda Calaguas, Head of Policy, WaterAid, London, UK.
Mr Martin Carroll, International Department, British Medical Association.
Mr. Brandon Cheevers, Policy Associate, WaterAid, London, UK.
Dr. Mickey Chopra, Director, Health Systems Research Unit, Medical Research Council, South Africa.
Dr. Corinna Hawkes, Research Fellow, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC, USA.
Ms Charlotte May, Deputy Head, International Department, British Medical Association
Dr. David McCoy, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London
Mr. George Roycroft, Senior Policy Executive, Science and Education Department, British Medical
Association
Mr. Mike Rowson, Centre for International Health and Development, University College London,
UK and freelance consultant
Editors
Mike Rowson, David McCoy and Martin Carroll
Funders
The BMA would like to acknowledge the generous financial support provided by the Department
for International Development.
11 January 2011 - From Argument to Agreement - Liz Malone "What Meyer does . . . "
Aubrey Meyer takes this tack in advocating. C&C is the idea that each person should get an allowance of greenhouse gas emissions; at first wealthy country citizens would get a larger allowance than citizens of poorer countries but eventually the allowances would converge to one amount, which would contract to the level commensurate with climate stabilization. What Meyer does, in a steady stream of emails and on his web is Contraction and Convergence to point to statements made by others that either explicitly or implicitly refer to this idea. Thus over time he has developed a very long list of people who agree with contraction and convergence. Debating Climate Change: Pathways Through Argument to Agreement
Elizabeth L. Malone
11 January 2012 - Michigan Lawyer, Constance Cumbey and a C&C opponent, offers praise . . .
Maybe this is better than being done over by your 'friends' . . . ?
"Aubrey Meyer's dedication is clear. So is his genius.
This is one favorably stated summary of his plans:
Meyer realized that, if humanity is to survive climate change, a very different kind of international agreement will be required. Climate change threatens humanity as a whole, and so requires a species-level response. Meyer's proposal - "contraction and convergence" (C&C) - proceeds from the recognition that all countries must act together to set a limit on global greenhouse emissions. Once this limit is agreed (the contraction bit), they must decide how the remaining emissions are to be shared. Meyer's suggested basis for this is equity. Given that we are all created equal, why should poor countries accept a smaller share of the shrinking pie? And so, after a period of transition, all countries are allocated emissions entitlements based on their populations (convergence).
In practice, both the contraction cap on emissions and the convergence date to equity would be negotiable. World governments might, say, agree to limit global carbon-dioxide concentrations to 450 parts per million - enough, it is hoped, to keep global warming below 2 C - with convergence by 2030. This would give a less developed country such as Bangladesh a large wad of unused emissions, which it could sell for cash on world markets. Countries such as Australia, meanwhile, would have to buy spare emissions credits in order to keep on using a disproportionate amount of fossil fuel. The result would be large financial flows from rich to poor, giving developing countries the resources to participate in the clean energy revolution.
11 January 2011 - Australian Prof Ross Garnaut Still holds global poll position in C&C advocacy
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."Global Commons Institute 2000, ‘GCI C&C Briefing’, originally published as Meyer, A. 2000, Engineering
Sustainability 157(4): 189–92. Garnaut Review - C&C Chapter
11 January 2012 - Ban Ki Moon leads eminent persons advocating C&C in ADB Climate Change Report
"High Level Dialogue on Climate Change" on C&C
“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 Schäefer-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
11 January 2012 - Ernst von Weizsacker & Ashok Khosla [IUCN] Co-Chair C&C Report to UNEP
Having reviewed the trends in the use of natural resources and accompanying undesirable
environmental impacts in the first section of Chapter 2, the last section of that chapter
considers possible future implications by presenting three brief scenarios: (1) business as
usual (leading to a tripling of global annual resource extraction by 2050); (2) moderate contraction and convergence (requiring industrialized countries to reduce their per capita
resource consumption by half the rate for the year 2000); and (3) tough contraction and
convergence (aimed at keeping global resource extraction at its current levels). None of
these scenarios will lead to actual global reductions in resource use, but all indicate that
substantial reductions in the resource requirements of economic activities will be
necessary if the growing world population can expect to live under conditions of
sustainable resource management. The key
message of the tough scenario is that despite
population growth to roughly 9 billion
people, the pressure on the environment
would remain roughly the same as it is
now. The emissions correspond
approximately to the lowest range of
scenario B1 of the IPCC SRES, but are still
20% above the roughly 5.5 GtC/yr advocated
by the Global Commons Institute for
contraction and convergence in emissions
(GCI, 2003). UNEP - 2011: Decoupling Natural Resource Use & Environmental Impacts from Economic Growth
Dr Ernst von Weizsacker, Dr Ashok Khosla,
Co-Chairs International Resource Panel
11 January 2012 - Conference Board of Canada - "A C&C scheme +renwables is quite plausible."
The United States, under a new administration and hearing an offer of participation by developing countries in an emissions “contraction and convergence” [C&C] regime, could change course and join other Kyoto nations in a new, more aggressive climate change approach. C&C is attractive to both developed countries that are seeking lower unit emission rates while retaining economic growth opportunities and to developing countries that would be permitted to increase their per capita emissions for a time. A C&C scheme “contracts” the world’s GHG emissions by 2050 to stabilize the climate, while letting developing nations increase their per-capita emissions
until they “converge” with those of the industrialized world. Such a scheme would offer attractions to both the United States and the major developing nations. The former would find it appealing because of its very long-term horizon, which provides enough flexibility and time to achieve the desired goal. Developing countries could support that approach because it offers them the opportunity to grow their emissions to match the levels of industrialized countries on a per capita basis. But C&C would require a steep drop in GHG emissions from the industrialized world by 2050. So it would also feature a “clean energy” revolution characterized by the following:
• A move to lower-carbon fuels, such as biofuels and natural gas liquids;
• More stringent automobile fuel-efficiency standards;
• Increased use of fuel cells and hydrogen power;
• Huge investments in clean coal technologies;
• A revival of interest in nuclear options for electricity;
• Proposals to build more large-scale hydroelectric capacity;
• Measures to promote a range of renewable energy technologies;
• Incentives for an expanded use of co-generation (meaning both heat and power);
• Increased energy efficiency in the residential, commercial and industrial sectors; and
• Large-scale carbon sequestration, either underground, or in forests or oceans.
Under the third scenario highlighted above, it may make economic sense for Canada to “reduce more later.” That is, we might let GHG emissions continue to rise, but at a slower pace, peaking around 2025. We would avoid the premature scrapping of existing capital stock, gradually replacing it with a “clean energy” system that would yield rapid GHG reductions from 2025 to 2050. While an aggressive C&C scenario might have minimal impact on Canadian oil and gas production before 2020, it would certainly affect corporate investment decisions before then. And those decisions, taken before 2020, will have consequences for many decades. For example, proposed new oil sands plants might no longer be financially viable. Companies may have to accelerate research and development on sequestration technologies or plan largescale production of hydrogen from natural gas. A C&C scenario—with its accompanying “clean-energy revolution”—is quite plausible. Firms in the oil and gas sector will need to give serious attention to the implications of this scenario for their investments and operations. Are companies in the business of extracting, processing and selling hydrocarbons, or are they providing energy to customers? Major oil and gas firms based in OECD countries would gain more strategic flexibility if they saw themselves, long term, in the “energy” business. Shell and BP, for example, have incorporated renewable technologies and hydrogen into their strategies, even though their oil and gas operations will remain vast into the foreseeable future.
11 January 2012 - Stop Climate Chaos - 'The Global Framework'
Stop Climate Chaos - The Global Framework
We need to tackle emissions at a scale and speed that will keep average global temperature rises as far below 2 degrees as possible, and in the longer-term, stabilise global temperatures well below this level. Any more than a 1.5 degree rise threatens the viability and existence of many countries, particularly those that bear the least responsibility for causing the problem.
A new climate deal should be ambitious enough to avoid the risk of dangerous climate change, but it must also be fair and equitable in its impacts, especially in relation to the world’s poorest and most vulnerable communities. It should also help protect and restore the world’s ecosystems, upon which we all depend.
Different members of the Stop Climate Chaos Coalition support different frameworks for achieving a just and socially equitable climate agreement, including ‘Contraction and Convergence’ and ‘Greenhouse Development Rights’. But whatever the precise framework agreed by the international community, they must be based clearly on principles of justice and equity, for this and future generations.
Achieving this goal is both a huge challenge and a huge opportunity. It will require industrialised countries to take the lead, because they have the greatest capacity and because their per capita emissions are much higher than those in the developing world. But a new climate deal will ultimately enable and support all the countries and peoples of the world in achieving a prosperous
low-carbon future, and the sooner this is achieved, the less it will cost. An aggregate emissions reduction of at least 40% by 2020 (compared to 1990 levels) by industrialised countries should be the first step, leading to total decarbonisation by 2050; which in turn will help deliver a global emissions cut of at least 80% by 2050.
The lack of a comprehensive deal in Copenhagen is a set back but it cannot be allowed to become
a permanent defeat. The world desperately needs a new deal, including a second commitment
period of the Kyoto Protocol, to come into force by the end of 2012 (i.e. when the first
commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol ends). Building momentum towards that outcome
should be the aim of UK policies at home and abroad. Stop Climate Chaos - The Global Framework
09 January 2012 - India PM - "The Simplicity & Fairness of C&C."
09 January 2012 - Sarah Turnbull a Sustainability Expert with C&C form
Passionate, practical, sustainability expert
I am a Chartered Environmentalist with over 12 years of professional experience in the charity, academic and design sectors. My background is diverse and includes experience and training in the arts, education, project management, business development, renewable energy and architecture. I can work with you to design and deliver workshops, training and retrofit & behaviour change programmes. I am also able to work with you to integrate your project team.
Qualifications and Associations
Chartered Environmentalist
MSc Environmental Architecture
Council Member - Energy Institute
Fellow - RSA
Member - Institute of Environmental Sciences
Member - Urban Land Institute European Sustainable Development Council
Languages - English and Japanese
08 January 2012 - 'Baffling 40% Blair income rise'. Did this Dorian Gray trouser 10 of 12 Million £ in 'admin'?
Is this Dorian Gray, or did Tony Blair learn this from Kim Jong il?
'Our' Beloved ex-Leader and the 'baffling' 40% income rise.
Since none of it can be explained, is he banking in Jersey - the North Korea of the North Atlantic - perhaps? Guardian-Observer Report
TONY Blair's company, Windrush Ventures - turnover, £12 million - managed to spend £10.9 million on admin last year, leaving it with a taxable income of barely £1 million. Of those admin costs, £8 million are not explained in the accounts.
No doubt Mr Blair's career takes a lot of administrating - and I for one don't begrudge him a single one of those artisan·made Post·Its or chrome·vanadium ring-reinforcers.
But in an age when we're surrounded by quite legal but not quite-cricket instances of making things tax-efficient - and
remembering the man who pledged to be "purer than pure" - I do feel a little sad. Do you think in the heart of the Tony Blair foundation's vaults, reverse-Dorian-style, there's an oilpainting of the man looking absolutely radiant?
08 January 2012 - Global Carbon budgets for 225 & 350 GTC [1.5 & 2.0 degree temp rise]
Permavegan 2020 is a quarterly blog toward a Green Economic Development Plan for the 2nd congressional district of Maine, with lessons for visionary Green leaders in congressional districts across the United States.
The blog is aimed at the election of a Maine Green Governor, a Green Majority in the Legislature, a Green US President, and a Green Majority in Congress – all by 2020, and all followed by the implementation of an internationalContraction and Convergence treaty between 2021 and 2040.
I call our collective journey toward these difficult but necessary aspirations “Walking the Green Road,” and out of respect for the very first human and non-human constituents in the New England-Acadian Forest of Maine’s 2nd district, I introduce this 2012 series with Black Elk’sPrayer for All Life:
“Hear me, four quarters of the world – a relative I am! Give me the strength to walk the soft earth, a relative to all that is! Give me the eyes to see and the strength to understand, that I may be like you. With your power only can I face the winds.
Great Spirit, Great Spirit, my Grandfather, all over the earth the faces of living things are all alike. With tenderness have these come up out of the ground. Look upon these faces of children without number and with children in their arms, that they may face the wind and walk the good road to the day of quiet.
This is my prayer; hear me! The voice I have sent is weak, yet with earnestness I have sent it. Hear me! It is finished. Hetchetu aloh!
Now, my friend, let us smoke together so that there may be only good between us.1
At the start of a big and serious undertaking, it is wise to fix our intentions with humble prayer. Songs are important, too, and here is a good one from Walela. It has been a source of inspiration to me for nearly a decade:
May we find in the Green Road, in our Green Parties, and in our personal faith traditions2 the strength and the wisdom to be effective leaders in the days ahead:
I wish you all the best in 2012, and thank you for your visit to my blog.
Black Elk said that several times during his life, he had several visions in which he learned things that would help his people. In his “great vision,” at the age of nine, he said he met the spirit that guided the universe and saw a great tree that symbolized the life of the earth and of the Indian people…Black Elk married his first wife, Katie War Bonnet, in 1892. She became a Catholic, and all three of their children were baptized as Catholic. After her death in 1903, he too was baptized, taking the name Nicholas Black Elk and serving as a catechist. He continued to serve as a spiritual leader among his people, seeing no contradiction in embracing what he found valid in both his tribal traditions concerning Wakan Tanka and those of Christianity…Toward the end of his life, Black Elk revealed the story of his life, and a number of sacred Sioux rituals to John Neihardt and Joseph Epes Brown for publication, and his accounts have won wide interest and acclaim.
2 My own faith tradition is an interfaith journey that I cannot separate from my Green political philosophy. I count it a great strength to have Christian denominations and sovereign First Nations keeping the faith in my district. I look forward to sharing more of my religious and cultural inspirations as we walk the Green Road in 2012 and beyond.
Permavegan 2020 is a service of independent public interest researcher Jonathan W. Maxson. Maxson lives with his wifein Mapleton, Maine, where they are presently testing and refining their ideas in the crucible of a vegan permaculture retrofit. Their five-acre microfarm is called Steppingstones and is scheduled for completion in 2016.
07 January 2012 - UK Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg - Why "C&C is central to our strategy."
"Of course, international leadership is vital to achieve an effective deal on
climate change - and we'll push for real progress in the UN Conference in
Cancun this year. We must and will work with Europe, the US, developed and
developing countries alike - and I fully agree that the GCI's Contraction and
Convergence framework provides a realistic and equitable plan for global
action. That is why C&C was a key part of the Liberal Democrats' manifesto
and why I continue to believe that the principle of C&C will be central to our
long-term strategy on climate change."Nick Clegg
06 January 2012 - Greg Barker DECC Minister writes to MPs praising C&C as "Compelling Vision".
"The C&C framework developed by Aubrey Meyer and the Global Commons Institute in
many ways offers a compelling vision of a future long-term climate regime, and has a
number of distinct benefits. These include: -
Recognition that per capita emissions of developed countries will need to come down
significantly over time;
The establishment of a firm global pathway to limit emissions, with corresponding long
term targets for all countries;
The development of an approach that many consider to represent a fair and equitable
response to climate challenge."
06 January 2012 - Times of India - Here's a suggestion . . . .
In response to your story, here's a suggestion/proposal re key clause in the output from COP-17 8.
8. Requests Parties and observer organizations to submit by 28 February 2012 their views on options and ways for further increasing the level of ambition and decides to hold an in-session workshop at the first negotiating session in 2012 to consider options and ways for increasing ambition and possible further actions.
It would be based on the political strategy shown in this short film and in the letter to Ban Ki Moon here.
After sight of this letter, professionals in the Chinese Government got in contact and suggested collaboration.
Kamal Nath will also be responsive to this I imagine.
This Africa Group document is downloaded at around 1,000/month over the last two years and this COP-15 Analysis has been downloaded around 100,000 times in the last two years - NB Chapter 8 on *accelerated convergence rate*.
Given a global emissions budget (the overall amount of carbon that can be released into the atmosphere worldwide), the next task is to allocate each nation’s share of responsibility for the budget—first, by dividing the budget between industrialized and developing nations as a whole, and then, among individual nations. Several proposals suggest that the most equitable approach would be to allocate global emissions reductions by population for example Contraction and Convergence
Katharine Hayhoe is a research associate
professor in the Department of Geosciences at Texas Tech
University and chief executive officer of ATMOS Research & Consulting. Her contribution to the new book by Newt Gingrich was revoked at the last minute as Mr Gingrich has returned to playing 'King CaNewt' on climate change and right-wing rabble rouser Rush Limbaugh has denounced the 'babe'.
In addition to being a climate scientists, Katherine is a practicing Christian who generally take a pro-C&C view Mr Gingrich however is now clearly stuck in Limbaugh.
05 January 2012 - Civitas Laurie Barlow - Durban's Epic Fail [but C&C consensus prevails].
The UN Climate Change Conference last December unfortunately came to a close with no agreement on global NEA goals. National Emissions Allocations are distributed through a global agreement of quotas of allowed emissions per capita for each country. This was proposed by the Global Commons Institute in 2000, and is conceptually accepted as a methodology by many countries. The NEA- based contraction convergence model applies an emissions cap to each country that declines rapidly over 40 years in order to reach the desired global atmospheric goal of 430 ppmv by 2052 (we're at 395 now). It's a cooperative effort, with developed nations assisting the third world countries in their reduction via the transfer of energy and pollution control technologies. Its strategy is that rapidly developing countries such as China and India must quickly pull back on their increasing emissions, and the UK and USA must simply implement immediate reductions in GHG emissions, period. This proved untenable to developed countries at Durban in December 2011, and so no global agreement was achieved. There is a consensus on the model, however, so the negotiation continues.
