Eac Carbon Budgets Enquiry Bbc[b]

Memorandum Submitted by GCI 27 April 2009 to the UK House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Enquiry: Did ‘carbon budgets’ in the UK Climate Act come from C&C?

Contraction & Convergence the International Framework for Preventing Dangerous Climate Change

O

ONE

o

1 GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RISE already. O More than 1 more is extremely 'dangerous'.

CELSIUS TEMPERATURE RISE

CONCENTRATIONS 280 CO2 parts per million

380 ppmv

450 ppmv

400 ppmv ?

RUSSIAN FED.

CARBON EMISSIONS GROSS GIGATONNES PER NATION

CONTRACTION

INDIA

EU CHINA

6Gtc

3Gtc

UNITED STATES 1950

2000 USA

RF

EU

2050

2100

2150 6

CARBON EMISSIONS TONNES PER CAPITA

1900

CONVERGENCE

Gtc 1850

5

4

3

2 CHINA 1 copyright GCI 2008

INDIA 0

1

“Achieving the goal of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change inevitably requires contraction and convergence.”

Joke Waller Hunter Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

COP-9 in Milan in 2003

2

CONTENTS 1. Summary 2. Where did the UK budgets come from and are they adequate to keep within a 2o limit? 3. Were the climate models and assumptions used by the Committee on Climate Change valid in setting carbon budgets? 4. What was the basis on which the Committee on Climate Change arrived at the UK’s share of the global effort to cut emissions? 5. Note on the methodology of C&C and how it came into RCEP 6. Note on the methodology of C&C and positive feedbacks 7. Impact of C&C Proportionality-Rule on the UK Climate Act 8. The emerging consensus for C&C’ 9. Risk: the real danger of not doing enough soon enough 10. Reference material supporting the the GCI Memorandum

3

4

W Asia

E Asia

Africa

India

C Asia

C&S America

1850

E Asia

Africa

C Asia

C&S America

China

Oceania

W Asia

Canada

W Europe

India

E Europe

USA

1900

Canada

China

W Asia

E Asia

Africa

Oceania

India

C Asia

C&S America

1850

1900

Gross Emissions In Giga Tonnes Carbon

E Europe

W Europe

1900

USA

C3

1850

Gross Emissions In Giga Tonnes Carbon

Gtc 1800

2Gtc

4Gtc

6Gtc

8Gtc

China

Oceania

C2

Gtc 1800

2Gtc

4Gtc

6Gtc

8Gtc

Canada

W Europe

Gross Emissions In Giga Tonnes Carbon

Gtc 1800

2Gtc

4Gtc

6Gtc

8Gtc

E Europe

USA

C1

1950

1950

1950

2000

2000

2000

2050

2050

2050

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2100

2150

2200

0

1

2

2100 2150 22006 Convergence by 2040 to Equal Per Capita 5 Emissions Entitlements 4 In Tonnes Carbon 3

C3

0

1

2

2100 2150 22006 Convergence by 2040 to Equal Per Capita 5 Emissions Entitlements 4 In Tonnes Carbon 3

C2 C3

Convergence by 2020 to Equal Per Capita Emissions Entitlements In Tonnes Carbon

Contraction & Accelerated Convergence

China W Asia E Asia Africa

India C Asia C&S America

Canada

Oceania

E Europe

W Europe

1900

USA

1850

1850 1850

1900 1900

GrossEmissions Emissions Gross Emissions Gross InGiga GigaTonnes TonnesCarbon Carbon In Giga Tonnes Carbon In

Africa Africa

China China W Asia Asia W Asia EE Asia

Oceania Oceania India India C Asia Asia C C&S America America C&S

Europe EE Europe Canada Canada

1900

USA USA W Europe Europe W

C3 C3

1850

Gross GrossEmissions Emissions In InGiga GigaTonnes TonnesCarbon Carbon

Gtc Gtc 1800 1800

2Gtc 2Gtc

4Gtc 4Gtc

6Gtc 6Gtc

8Gtc 8Gtc

C&S America

C3 C2

Gtc 1800

2Gtc

4Gtc

6Gtc

8Gtc

E Asia Africa

C Asia

GrossEmissions Emissions Gross In Giga TonnesCarbon Carbon In Giga Tonnes

Gtc 1800

2Gtc

4Gtc

6Gtc

8Gtc

China W Asia

India

Canada

W Europe Oceania

E Europe

USA

C1 C3

1950 1950

1950

1950

2000 2000

2000

2000

0

1 400

2

3 600

4

5 800

6

2050 2050

2050

2100 2100

2150 2150

2200 2200

00

1 1400

22

6 6900 2100 2150 Convergence by by 2040 20402200 Convergence 5 to Equal Equal Per Per Capita Capita 5800 to Emissions Entitlements Entitlements 44 Emissions In Tonnes Tonnes Carbon Carbon In 3 3600

C3

0

1 400

2

6 2050 Convergence 2100 2150 by 20402200 5 to Equal Per Capita 800 Emissions Entitlements 4 In Tonnes Carbon 3 600

C2 C3

E

Convergence by 2040 to Equal Per Capita Emissions Entitlements In Tonnes Carbon

Contraction & Concentrations RISK LEVEL Contraction & Concentrations C1 Acceptable C2 Dangerous C3 Impossible

RISK LEVEL Contraction & Accelerated Convergence C1 [2020] C2 [2040] C3 [2040]

1. Summary 1. The UK budgets came from Contraction and Convergence via the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution [RCEP] 2000 report “Energy – The Changing Climate”. The report recommended C&C but applied it at rates that are too slow to keep within the 2o limit. 2. To keep within the 2 degrees Celsius temperature limit, the budgets need to be based on a global emissions contraction of 80% by 2050 and where the airborne fraction may still stay constant @ ~50% giving a 450 ppmv outcome. But with sinks failing @ ~0.5%/yr, the outcome may still be >450ppmv. 3. By not taking account of the ‘new’ Coupled-Carbon-Cycle modelling in IPCC AR4 Chapter 10 [2007], the UK Climate Change Committee models and the assumptions used by the Committee on Climate Change are not valid in setting carbon budgets. 4. There is unanimous agreement among the coupled climate carbon cycle models driven by emission scenarios run so far that future climate change would reduce the efficiency of the Earth system (land and ocean) to absorb anthropogenic CO2. There is evidence that the CO2 airborne fraction is increasing, so accelerating the rate of climate change. 5. Until about 1800 the overall climate system was at equilibrium. The very sudden rise of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and CH4 since then shows that the system is no longer in conditions of homeorhesis, it is going out of control. 6. Joke Waller Hunter, Executive Secrearty of the UNFCCCCOP-9 in Milan in 2003 said, “Achieving the goal of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change inevitably requires contraction and convergence.” 7. The basis on which the UK Committee on Climate Change arrived at the UK’s share of the global effort to cut emissions was the RCEP and their advocacy of Contraction and Convergence. 8. Convergence to equal per capita emissions entitlements globally for example by 2020, would reflect the C&C principle where, “if contraction must be accelerated for reasons of urgency, convergence must be accelerated relative to that for reasons of equity.” 9. There appears to be an emerging consensus for Contraction and Convergence as the UNFCCCcompliant global framework for climate mitigation, as evidenced in the reference material attached to this memorandum.

5

2. Question: - Where did the UK budgets come from? Are they adequate to keep within the 2o limit? 1. whether the UK’s statutory targets for greenhouse gas emissions are consistent with the Government’s objective of limiting global warming to no more than 2oC and whether they are enforceable; 2. the extent to which the Committee on Climate Change’s recommended budgets to 2020 are consistent with the UK’s target for 2050.

Answer: - They came from Contraction and Convergence [C&C], but applied at rates that are too slow to keep within 2o limit. 1. But with sinks failing @ ~0.5%/yr, the outcome may still be >450ppmv. 2. In concert with others, the UK Government’s aim is to limit overal global temperature above preindustrial to no more than two degrees Celsius. Not exceeding 450 ppmv CO2 in the atmosphere is considered a pre-requisite of keeping within that limit. 3. ‘Enforcing’ the right target will be no harder than enforcing the wrong target. Presently the budgets are a function of a global emissions contraction of 50% by 2050 with convergence to equal per capita entitlements globally by 2050. The UK budget came from IPCC’s ‘canon’ of ‘uncoupled carbon-cycle models’ assuming an airborne fraction of emissions constant @ ~50% giving <500 ppmv. But with sinks failing @ an average of ~0.5%/yr, the outcome will be >500 ppmv.

To keep within the 2 degrees Celsius temperature limit, the budgets need to be a function of ‘coupled modelling’ with a global emissions contraction of 80% by 2050 and where the airborne fraction may still stay constant @ ~50% giving a 450 ppmv outcome. But with sinks failing @ ~0.5%/yr, the outcome may still be >450ppmv. Convergence to equal per capita emissions entitlements globally for example by 2020, would reflect the C&C principle where, if contraction must be accelerated for reasons of urgency, convergence must be accelerated relative to that for reasons of equity.

Equal Per Capita by 2020

With an 80% cut globally by 2050

6

3. Question: - Were the climate models and the assumptions used by the Committee on Climate Change valid in setting carbon budgets? The suitability of the climate models and the validity of the assumptions used by the Committee on Climate Change in setting carbon budgets

Answer: - No. By not taking account of the Coupled-Carbon-Cycle modeling in IPCC AR4 Ch. 10 [2007], the Climate Change Committee was not up to date. 1. Lord Adair Turner incorrectly told the EAC that ‘feedbacks’ were in the climate models that his committee had relied on for their revision of the control figure for the UK. 2. He said, “I mean you’re absolutely right to identify that one of the things that you have to be very aware of is the process of going to two degrees or three degrees in itself produces feedback loops that which increase the chance of going to a higher level, but those feedback loops should be in the scientific models to start with. Right, so that is precisely what the scientists are attempting to get to grips with. So when the scientists say this emissions trajectory, we believe, has a 99% chance of keeping us below 4 degrees, they have embedded their best judgment of the feedback loops within it. They haven’t produced a model without feedback loops and then you have to add feedbacks loops as a separate thing; those feedback loops are in there already. I think what gets very complicated is whether there is anywhere you know what people call ‘tipping points’ or thresholds - does it become totally irreversible or do we simply have feedback loops without absolute irreversibility and I think the scientists vary on that. But we did highlight that it was possible that some of the feedback loops became very strongly reinforcing above a certain temperature and that there were some physical things which might be irreversible; you know the melting of the Greenland ice-sheets etc. So I think we have taken fairly rigorously those into account in the way that we did it, and that was . . . it was a sense of those feedback loops and that irreversibility that made us believe that the crucial thing is to limit the increase to two or slightly above two degrees and to make very likely that we don’t go above three and almost certain that we don’t go above four.” 3. The underlined section above is significantly incorrect. Indeed the opposite is true with regard to the modelling of carbon cycle feedbacks. This is the omission of feedbacks that was finally addressed in IPCC AR4, the modelled images here are unpacked on pages 12 and 13 of this document. 4. It comes from Ch 10 WG1 IPCC AR4 [2007]: http://ipccwg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_ Print_Ch10.pdf

Atmospheric CO2 450 ppmv

5. Lord Turner refers to the Hadley Centre models. It is the Hadley Centre coupled model in the image where the difference in the future weight of global carbon emissions between the ‘uncoupled’ models [‘b’ - where feedbacks are largely omitted] and the ‘coupled models’ [‘c’ where feedbacks are considerably represented] is greatest [as shown in ‘d’ - where the differences are weighed]. In a phrase, the contraction events are accelerated [or shrunk by more than 40%] when the carbon-cycle feedbacks are included. Lord Turner’s committee appeared to be unaware of this. 6. In concert with others, the UK Government’s aim is to limit overal global temperature above preindustrial to no more than 2 degrees Celsius. Not exceeding 450 ppmv CO2 in the atmosphere is considered a pre-requisite of keeping within that limit. As things stand that we will fail in that aim.

7

7. The contraction events for 450 ppmv modeled in the image on the bottom of page seven were published for the first time by IPCC AR4 in 2007. They come from the Hadley Centre and are ‘uncoupled’ [without feedbacks] compared with ‘coupled’ [with feedbacks]. 8. With the effect of ‘positive-feedbacks’ now understood as an issue of urgency, the ‘coupled’ emissions contraction event has been shrunk to only 60% of the earlier ‘uncoupled’ event. In weight terms, 2000-2100, it is the difference between around 550 and 330 Gtc. 9. In percentage terms, this is the difference between the 50% and the 80% cut in emissions globally by 2050 shown. Note the 80% cut by 2050 was called for at WEF/DAVOS [p 24 point 1]. 10. A full-term global emissions ‘contraction-and-convergence-event’ at sufficient rates is the strategic necessity to keep within the 450 ppmv limit. With a global cut of emissions by 50% by 2050 and international convergence to equal per capita by that date, these rates of contraction & convergence [C&C] are the stated basis of the UK Climate Act as things stand. For reasons of urgency and equity, these must be accelerated to for example the rates in lower graphic page 6. 11. C&C came from GCI via the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution [RCEP] report 2000. C&C requires rates sufficient to solve the problem. RCEP accepted the principle that the rate of global convergence must be accelerated relative to the rate of contraction of greenhouse gas emissions required for to achieve the 550 ppmv they advocated 550 ppmv. 12. Lord Adair Turner, Chairman of the independent Committee on Climate Change, wrote to Ed Milliband, the Minister for Energy and Climate Change [07/10/08]. He confirmed acceptance of the original RCEP C&C target of a 60% cut in UK emissions by 2050, and justified its revision to the RCEP figure of an 80% cut by 2050 inside a 50% cut globally for 450 ppmv, on the grounds of urgency: “the dangers of significant climate change are greater than previously assessed;” 13. being, on the grounds of equity, equal per capita globally by 2050, telling an enquiry by the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee (EAC), “The core [of the Act] is contract and converge. We cannot imagine a global deal which is both doable and fair which doesn’t end up by mid-century with roughly equal rights per capita to emit and that is clearly said in the report. This is strong support for what Aubrey Meyer has been saying.” 14. The House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee (ECCC) then told Lord Adair Turner that, “[your] pragmatic support for Contraction and Convergence, on the record from a meeting with the EAC [04/02/09], is very welcome.” 15. Then, referring to the call in January 2009 from World Economic Forum for an 80% cut globally by 2050 on grounds of increased urgency, [see pages 24/25] they asked him, “Would you accept that as the speed of Contraction accelerates, the speed of the acceleration of Convergence will also have to pick up? There’s always been a presumption at the International Climate Change negotiations that Developing Countries will be allowed to increase temporarily their emissions to help development. But that’s going to be a concertina’d process - is that really how you’d see it?” 16. Lord Adair Turner replied, “While this raises a complex issue of international negotiations, you are right.”

Impact of Industrial Emissions on Homeorhesis on CO2 & CH4 from long past. 1. Noting the ‘heat-trapping’ properties of carbon dioxide [CO2] and methane [CH4], they are known as ‘greenhouse gases’ [ghgs]. 2. The record of these ghgs in ice-core samples collected around the world, now extends to one million years before the present. Measurements have been made of flows between their sources and sinks. 3. The correlation between the varying temperature and atmospheric concentration of CO2 and CH4 is apparent from the data charted opposite through four ice-ages over the last 450,000 years.

8

4. What is also observable is that the overall climate-system was at equilibrium. 5. In conditions that were clearly ‘homeorhetic’, - in other words, overall self-correcting - the correlation between the varying temperature and atmospheric concentration of CO2 and CH4 was in ‘band-widths’ of [a] 180-280 parts per million by volume [ppmv] CO2 [b] 300-700 parts per billion by volume [ppbv] CH4, with [c] Temperature varying between 5-15 degrees Celsius. 6. This is fundamental to understanding the circumstances we are now in. The very sudden rise of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and CH4 since 1800, shows that while the correlation is still there, the system is no longer in conditions of homeorhesis, it is going out of control. 7. John Knaess who led the US delegation to the 2nd World Climate Conference in Geneva in November 1990, made the key points at a news conference receiving the IPCC First Assessment Report [FAR]. When he was asked if this ‘global warming stuff’ was really happening, he said: “Its simple sophomore physics; the questions are only how much change and how soon?”

Observed CO2 in today’s atmosphere [Mouna Loa; US Government] 1. Since 1974 and from Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, the US Government has coordinated a world programme making direct measurements of rising atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other gases. 2. The wavy blue line is the aggregate of measurements, going up and down on a rising average, reflecting seasonal flux in the ‘carbon-cycle’. 3. Compared with the straight line [the dotted line], the overall trend curvature [the solid as the average of the blue] shows ‘acceleration’ in the rise of the concentrations of CO2. 4. This reflects the first and probably already as well, the second of two things: [a] acceleration in the source-rise of human CO2 emissions globally and [b] declining ‘sink-capacity’ for these extra CO2 emissions in the natural sinks of CO2 5. In geological time, as shown by linking to the graphic above, this rise is very sudden. It is like ‘an explosion in slow motion’ and represents a complete loss of ‘homeorhesis’.

9

Uncoupled Climate models to assess futures with sudden loss of homeorhesis. 1. Since the 1980s ‘climate models’ have been developed to help predict the future atmospheric concentration of CO2 and CH4 under various forest and fossil-fuel burning ‘scenarios’. With that, the implications of this array of potential ‘futures’ on global temperature and climate change have been assessed. 2. A main focus of these has been on the ‘carbon-cycle’ through the oceans, atmosphere and biosphere, but as influenced by the impact of the emissions of these gases from human sources as a result of the start of burning forests and fossil fuels [coal, oil, gas] with the onset of industrialisation. 3. The principal carbon cycle model used to help answer this question was the ‘Berne Model’ and output from it was first published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] in 1994. Five ‘scenarios’ were published; these were future carbon-emissions ‘contraction-events’ or ‘budgets’ for outcomes of 350, 450, 550, 650 and 750 ppmv atmospheric CO2 concentration in the global atmosphere. 4. These reflected a judgment given in the IPCC’s ‘First Assessment Report’ [FAR] from 1990. In 1990 the atmospheric CO2 concentration was 353 parts per million by volume [ppmv] or 25% above the pre-industrial maximum value of 280 ppmv. IPCC’s judgment was that an immediate 60-80% cut in human emissions of CO2 would be needed if the upward rise in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 in that year were to be halted immediately. They didn’t say it had to be done and they didn’t say it didn’t; but two things were crucial. 5. First: - it was apparently not the 100% cessation of emissions that was required. Continuing with 40-20% of emissions was judged to be consistent with atmosphere CO2 ‘stabilisation’. This view came from observing human emissions and global concentrations of CO2 since 1800. Measurements covering those 200 years showed [a] roughly half of any year’s emissions from human sources returned to the apparently enlarging natural ‘sinks’ for CO2 and [b] the other half remained in the atmosphere - where a pattern seemed to have emerged of what became misleadingly known as the ‘Constant Airborne Fraction’ [CAF]. 6. Second: - the ‘airborne fraction’. Whether this fraction was in reality constant or not, it was cumulative because the human emissions that stayed in the atmosphere added up over time as a rising ‘stock’. That explained the rise in ppmv of atmospheric concentrations of CO2. By June 1992 the UN had agreed a Climate Convention, the objective of which was to stabilise the rise of ghg in the global atmosphere below a value that was ‘dangerous’. The probability of ‘positive-feedback’ where natural ‘sinks’ ceased to enlarge, shrank and even turned to sources, so accelerating the rates of climate change was largely ignored, as they were ‘speculative’ and difficult to model. 7. Fossil fuel dependency had become fundamental to modern economic activity and the correlation of GDP to CO2 from fossil fuel burning has been and remains at nearly 100%. The heat-trapping implications of rising CO2 had serious implications for the future. The climate change questions ‘how much how soon’ became ‘will the benefits of global growth gradually be outweighed by the damages caused by global climate changes’. 8. All the questions about UK carbon budgets in the Climate Act asked by the EAC relate to that global question. In this ‘battle-of-the-rates’ the C&C propositions offered by GCI for the last 15 years relate to feedbacks and fighting that battle by answering that question rationally.

10

9. With the 350 ppmv budget removed and one for 1,000 ppmv added due to pressure from industry lobbyists in Working Group Three of IPCC, the IPCC re-published these Berne-Model-type results from 1995 onwards. As is shown below, for the IPCC 1995 Second Assessment Report [SAR] the 2001 Third Assessment Report [TAR] and the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report [AR4], these scenarios were repeated and have remained the standard reference set for the ‘climate-policy’ community for more than ten years until the present time. 10. It is of note that over 300 years of future time with CO2 concentrations theoretically stabilising ‘safely’ at up to 1,000 ppmv, on the back of finding, extracting and combusting an inventory of up to 2 trillion tonnes of future fossil fuel resources, these scenarios all modelled contraction:concentration events that, ignoring the positive feedbacks not-too-mention the rapid depletion of reserves of oil and gas, ludicrously assumed the airborne fraction of emissions in these scenarios would all remain constant at around 50% right up to 1,000 ppmv.

11

Coupled Climate models to assess futures with sudden loss of homeorhesis. 1. However, in Chapter 10 of IPCC AR4 [2007] Working Group One [WG1] an important contribution from the ‘Models Inter-Comparison Group’ was included which addressed this feedback issue openly for the first time. All the carbon-cycle emissions scenarios were revisited comparing the past ‘Uncoupled’ model runs with the new ‘Coupled’ model runs, with IPCC saying: 2. “There is unanimous agreement among the coupled climate carbon cycle models driven by emission scenarios run so far that future climate change would reduce the efficiency of the Earth system (land and ocean) to absorb anthropogenic CO2.” 3. Published in a non-headline-grabbing manner with a complexity of graphic information that discouraged interpretation, the graphic [exactly as below] appeared on page 791 where: 4. Three models: Berne 2002, UVic 2004 and Hadley 2006 5. in two versions each: Uncoupled Coupled

and

6. for four ‘scenarios’: 450 ppmv 550 ppmv 750 ppmv 1000 ppmv were largely superimposed on each other [as shown]. 7. Because of the density of this overlay, but especially because of the significance of the acknowledgement of the positivefeedback issue being modeled and published by IPCC for the first time, GCI wrote to the Technical Support Unit [TSU] of IPCC Working Group One [WG1] to get confirmation that the information as shown in the graphics on page 13 had correctly disentangled the IPCC graphic on page 12. With thanks, TSU confirmed this saying, “we wish out authors had been this clear.” 8. The principal reason for this enquiry was the quite extraordinary discovery that in all the coupled-uncoupled comparisons and unclearly shown in the images published in the AR4, two different paths for emissions globally were being shown prior to 2000, as is shown by following the dotted lines. 9. The reason for this was finally given by the Hadley Centre who said that when ‘coupling’ to reflect feedbacks was calculated, the revision of source:sink relations in the carbon-cycle showed that sink-function in the models had certainly been over-estimated prospectively and retrospectively as well. 10. In other words, with the ‘weight-record’ of concentrations and past fossil fuel emissions well documented, the modelers concluded that the recent historic emissions from deforestation had also been overestimated, throwing their estimates of the strength of sink-function into further doubt.

12

It is the uncoupled and the coupled contraction events for 450 ppmv that are relevant here as they show 50% and 80% cuts by 2050 respectively. Difference by weight between Coupled and Uncoupled Emissions

Emissions Giga Tonnes

Emissions Giga Tonnes

450 ppmv

550 ppmv

Difference by weight between Coupled and Uncoupled Emissions

Emissions Giga Tonnes

Difference by weight between Coupled and Uncoupled Emissions

750 ppmv

Emissions Giga Tonnes

Difference by weight between Coupled and Uncoupled Emissions

1000 ppmv

13

4. Question: - What was the basis on which the Committee on Climate Change arrived at the UK’s share of the global effort to cut emissions? the basis on which the Committee on Climate Change arrived at the UK's share of the global effort to cut emissions

Answer: - The basis was the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution [RCEP] and their advocacy of GCI’s Contraction and Convergence [C&C] who made C&C a key recommendation of their report “Energy - the Changing Climate” [2000]. Key RCEP recommendations: • The UK should continue to play a forceful leading role in international negotiations to combat climate change, both in its own right and through the European Union. The gov-ernment should press for further reductions in the greenhouse gas emissions of devel-oped nations after 2012, and controls on the emissions of developing nations (4.68). • The government should press for a future global climate agreement based on the contraction and convergence approach, combined with international trading in emission permits. Together, these offer the best long-term prospect of securing equity, economy and international consensus (4.69). • The government should now adopt a strategy which puts the UK on a path to reducing carbon dioxide emissions by some 60% from current levels by about 2050. This would be in line with a global agreement based on contraction and convergence which set an upper limit for the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere of some 550 ppmv and a convergence date of 2050 (10.10).

“Energy - the Changing Climate RCEP” [2000] Chapter 4 - Prospects for an Effective International Response: Contraction & Convergence “The government should press for a future global climate agreement based on the Contraction & Convergence approach, combined with international trading in emission permits. Together, these offer the best long-term prospect of securing equity, economy and international consensus (4.69). 4.47 Continued, vigorous debate is needed, within and between nations, on the best basis for an agreement to follow the Kyoto Protocol. 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. There will have to be a comprehensive system of monitoring emissions to ensure the quotas are complied with. Adjustment factors could be used to compensate for differences in nations’ basic energy needs. Those countries which regularly experience very low or high temperatures might, for instance, be entitled to an extra allocation per capita for space heating or cooling. 4.48 A system of per capita quotas could not be expected to enter into force immediately. At the same time as entitling developing nations to use substantially more fossil fuels than at present (which they might not be able to afford), it would require developed nations to make drastic and immediate cuts in their use of fossil fuels, causing serious damage to their economies. 4.49 A combination of two approaches could avoid this politically and diplomatically unacceptable situation, while enabling a per capita basis to be adhered to. The first approach is to require nations emission quotas to follow a contraction and convergence trajectory. Over the coming decades each nation’s allocation would gradually shift from its current level of emissions towards a level set on a uniform per capita basis. By this means ‘grandfather rights’ would gradually be removed: the quotas of developed nations would fall, year by year, while those of the poorest developing nations would rise, until all nations had an entitlement to emit an equal quantity of greenhouse gases per head (convergence). From then on, the quotas of all nations would decline together at the same rate (contraction). The combined global total of emissions would follow a profile through the 21st and 22nd centuries that kept the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases below a specified limit. 4.50 The upper limit on the concentration of greenhouse gases would be determined by international negotiations, as would the date by which all nations would converge on a uniform per capita basis for their emission quotas, and the intermediate steps towards that. It would probably also be necessary to set a cut-off date for national populations: beyond that date, further changes in the size of a country’s population would not lead to any increase or decrease in its emission quota.

14

[The 80% cut] [The 60% cut]

4.51 In table 4.1 we have applied “Contraction & Convergence” approach to carbon dioxide emissions, and calculated what the UK’s emissions quotas would be in 2050 and 2100 for four alternative upper limits on atmospheric concentration. We have assumed for this purpose that 2050 would be both the date by which nations would converge on a uniform per capita emissions figure and the cut-off date for national populations. If 550 ppmv is selected as the upper limit, UK carbon dioxide emissions would have to be reduced by almost 60% from their current level by mid-century, and by almost 80% by 2100. Even stabilisation at a very high level of 1,000 ppmv would require the UK to cut emissions by some 40% by 2050. 4.52 The UK-based Global Commons Institute has taken the lead in promoting “Contraction & Convergence”, and has developed a computer model that specifies emission allocations under a range of scenarios. The concept has been supported by several national governments and legislators. Some developed nations are very wary of it because it implies drastic reductions in their emissions, but at least one minister in a European government has supported it. Commentators on climate diplomacy have identified contraction & convergence as a leading contender among the various proposals for allocating emission quotas to nations in the long term. 4.53 The other ingredient that would make an agreement based on per capita allocations of quotas more feasible is flexibility of the kind already provided in outline in the Kyoto Protocol. Nations most anxious to emit greenhouse gases in excess of their allocation over a given period will be able and willing to purchase unused quota at prices that incline other countries to emit less than their quota, to the benefit of both parties. The clean development mechanism, which allows developed nations to claim emission reductions by sponsoring projects that reduce emissions in developing nations to levels lower than they would otherwise have been, can also be seen as a form of trading. 4.54 In the longer term trading by companies in emission permits, drawn from national emission quotas determined on the basis of a contraction and convergence agreement, could make a valuable contribution to reducing the global costs of stabilising greenhouse gas concentrations while transferring resources from wealthy nations to poorer ones. Trading needs to be transparent, monitored and regulated, and backed by penalties on nations that emit more than they are entitled to. If it became merely a means of enabling wealthy nations to buy up the emission entitlements of poor countries on the cheap, thereby evading taking any action at home, trading would not serve the cause of climate protection. Nor would it if developing countries that had sold quota heavily went on to emit in excess of their revised entitlements.”

15

5. C&C methodology for a framework-based market - how it came into RCEP. 1. From 1990 GCI argued for the notion of the future sharing of permits to emit ghg on an equal per capita basis globally. It was seen as a general expression of ‘global equity’. When the results of the Berne Model were first published in 1994 GCI uniquely created the rational calculating model that we called “Contraction and Convergence” [C&C] that calculates any rate of achieving equal rights, subject to the limit that achieves the objective of the UNFCCC. Following the lead given by the Bern Model, in this order C&C calculates and integrates: [a] any global path-integrals of future emissions [Contraction:Stable-Concentration-events] with [b] any rate of arriving at the globally/internationally equal per capita sharing of such events [Contraction:Convergence] with linear convergence and an optional population base-year function. 2. The model includes: -

CONTRACTION & CONVERGENCE

[c] historic data for emissions of all countries 1800-2000 [CDIAC] and

[d] population projections for 50 years [UNSTAT] and the ‘base-year’ function can be invoked for CLIMATE CHANGE CRISIS OPPORTUNITY any one of those years as desired by users.: As C&C isAND integrated in spread-sheet architecture, internationally comprehensive graphic output demonstrating different rates of C&C is quite easy Alex rates Evans, Director of Communications, Global Commons Institute to generate and the trend of growth for the economy, emissions, concentrations and the ([email protected] / +44 (0)7958 229 247 / http://www.gci.org.uk) damages caused by climate changes can be compared to this, as follows for example: 4

T E M P E R AT U R E

2 1 0

contraction by 2100 of 60% of emissions against a 1990 baseline.

Damages here are the global economic losses (Munich Re) Damages here are the global losses (Munichprojected Re) for the for the four decades past foreconomic all natural disasters fourobserved decades rate past of forincrease all natural disasters projected at the at the of 10% a year in compariof increase year intrends comparison to global son observed to globalrate $GDP at 3%.ofIf10% the aglobal continue BAU, $GDP will at 3%. If theGDP global BAU, will damages exceed bytrends 2065!continue The risks willdamages soon rise exceed by 2065! risks will soon rise the beyond theGDP capacity of theThe insurance industry andbeyond even govcapacityto of the insurance industry andfor even to ernments absorb. Damages will rise thegovernments century ahead Damages will rise for the ahead evenretarded with evenabsorb. with emissions contraction, but century this rate can be contraction, but this rate& can be retardedwith withtrade early withemissions early adoption of contraction convergence (seeadoption below).of contraction & convergence with trade (see below). For the past four theoutput output of 2CO2 and from GDP global from and GDP For the past fourdecades, decades, the of CO global industry correlated nearly(referred 100% (referred industry havehave been been correlated nearly 100% to here as to here as ‘lockstep’). theislockstep essential. 'lockstep'). Breaking Breaking the lockstep essential.isFuture GDP is Future GDP ishere projected 3% a year. Future to -2%CO2 withgoes the projected at 3% a here year. at Future CO 2 goes to -2% with the retreat from fossilshown fuel dependency shown retreat from fossil fuel dependency below, that limits CO2 below, that limitstoCO2 to 70% concentrations 70%concentrations above pre-industrial levels above (shownpreabove). industrial above). If the tradedtoarea (below) is If the levels traded (shown area (below) is also converted zero-emissions also supply converted to zero-emissions supply the carbon the carbon retreat might achieve up to -4% a year. retreat might achieve up to -4% a year.

Thesolid solidsegments segments red line shows 2 emissions. The The red line shows BAUBAU CO2CO emissions. The show C&C with trading to reduce emissions by at least 60% show C&C with trading to reduce emissions by at least 60% within a given frame (here 2100)within withinananagreed agreed within a given timetime frame (here by by 2100) 'contraction budget'(here (here680 680 billion billion tonnes tonnes of of carbon). carbon). The ‘contraction budget’ The internationally tradableshares shares of 100100 billion internationally tradable of this this budget budget(here, (here, tonnes) resultresult from convergence to equal per capital per emissions by billion tonnes) from convergence to equal capital an agreed and population base year (herebase 2020).year If this is emissions by date an agreed date and population (here invested in zero-emissions technologies, risk and damages are 2020). If this is invested in zero-emissions technologies, risk further as the budget is then net budget of these is emissions as and lowered damages are lowered further as the then net well. emissions The renewables opportunity is the difference between C&C of these as well. The renewables opportunity is the with trading and BAU. is worth trillions dollars annumtrildifference between C&C Itwith trading andofBAU. It per is worth in history. lionsthe ofbiggest dollarsmarket per annum - the biggest market in history. Climate change: crisis and opportunity A Global Commons Institute briefing paper

16

-1 1050

C O 2 C ON C E N T R AT IO N

850

B AU Lowest outcom e to C& C below

650 450 250

D AM AG E S

$200

B AU

Dam ages @10% /year

trillions

Recorded atmospheric CO2 concentration from 1860 until 2000Recorded shows an increaseCO of 34% over pre-industrial levels. atmospheric 2 concentration from 1860 until 2000 Thisshows is a rise both higher and faster than anywhere icean increase of 34% over pre-industrial levels. Thisinisthe a rise coreboth sampling up to 440,000 years before now. Concentrahigher and faster than anywhere in the ice-core sampling up tionstoare risingyears as the result of Concentrations accumulating are emissions. 440,000 before now. rising as In thefuture,result the worst case is the red lineIn(BAU). Theworst bluecase lineisshows of accumulating emissions. future, the the this red concentration stabilised 70%this above pre-industrial line (BAU). The blue lineatshows concentration stabilised levels due to thepre-industrial 60% contraction in the underlying emissions at 70% above levels due to the 60% contraction in by 2100 shown below. the underlying emissions by 2100 shown below.

Ce lsius

3

B AU Lowest outcom e with C&C below

ppm v

Recorded surface temperature from 1860 until 2000 shows an overall rise of 0.9°C. The future projections are followRecorded surfaceand temperature from 1860 until 2000 ing CO2 emissions atmospheric greenhouse gasshows con- an overall rise of 0.9°C. The future projections are following CO2 centrations in parts per million by volume (ppmv). The red atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations in linesemissions here andand below, show Business-As-Usual (BAU) where parts per million by volume TheThe redblue linesline herehere and the underlying emissions grow (ppmv). at 2%/yr. below, show Business-As-Usual where- a thetotal underlying shows the lowest possible climate(BAU) sensitivity rise of emissions grow at 2%/yr. The blue line here shows lowest 1.5°C - assuming a contraction by 2100 of 60% of the emissions possible climate sensitivity - a total rise of 1.5°C - assuming a against a 1990 baseline.

$100

GDP @3% /year

$ 12%

C O2 & GD P

'L o c ks te p ' b ro ke n

8%

Annual %s change 4%

GDP CO2 C& C CO2 with trade

0% -4% 20Gtc

E fficiency Zero-CO2 Renewables CO2 Non A nnex One Traded A rea - CO2? CO2 Annex One B AU

E fficiency 15Gtc Zero-CO2 Renewables

C O 2 C O N T R AC T IO N

10Gtc 5Gtc

& C O N VER G E N C E

Gtc 1800

1900

2000

2100

2200

3. The costs of continuing to cause the problem faster than we respond to avoid it are incalculable. The key is to calculate and demonstrate futures where we understand communicate and organise to solve the climate problem faster than we cause it. C&C is a tool for that purpose. The UK Climate Act is a globally defined, national response to what it now accepts is a C&C-based engagement with that international dilemma. 4. GCI displayed large graphic output of C&C to the UN climate negotiations from 1996 onwards and C&C immediately became fundamental to the UNFCCC’s equity-debate on QELROs [Quantified Emissions Reductions Limitations Options] and it came close to being adopted at COP-3 in Kyoto in 1997: http://www.gci.org.uk/temp/COP3_Transcript.pdf [p 43]. 5. In 1999, as a result of all this, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution [RCEP] requested GCI to provide Contraction and Convergence [C&C] input to the report they were preparing based on the Berne model. GCI presented them with material resembling the three scenarios along-side. GCI’s ‘rule’ was as shown; where contraction was accelerated, convergence was accelerated relative to that.

6

USA Per Capita Annex 1 (non-OECD) Per Capita

4

OECD minus USA Per Capita CHINA Per Capita

2

Rest of World Per Capita INDIA Per Capita

0

Rest of World INDIA CHINA Annex 1 (non-OECD) OECD minus USA UNITED STATES

6. As shown on pages 14 and 15 of this document, in their report to Government “Energy - the Changing Climate” [2000], the RCEP adopted C&C at rates for 550 ppmv with convergence to per capita equality by 2050 and this gave the figure of a 60% cut in UK emissions by 2050. RCEP made C&C and minus 60% for the UK, a ‘key recommendation’ to Government. While the Government wavered on the adoption of C&C, the figure of minus 60% for UK emissions by 2050 derived from it became the initial basis of the UK ghg control.

1860

1880

1900

1920

8

4

1940

1960

1980

2000

2020

2040

2060

2080

2100

2120

Gigatonnes Carbon Gross tonnes carbon per capita

GLOBAL CO2 "CONTRACTION" for 350 ppmv with 6 Region Linear "CONVERGENCE" from Status Quo in 2000 to Equal Per Capita by 2020

2140

2

6

USA Per Capita Annex 1 (non-OECD) Per Capita

4

OECD minus USA Per Capita CHINA Per Capita

2

Rest of World Per Capita INDIA Per Capita

0

Rest of World INDIA CHINA Annex 1 (non-OECD) OECD minus USA UNITED STATES

7. Keeping scenarios for 450 and 550 ppmv, RCEP incautiously replaced the scenario for 350 ppmv with ones for 750 and 1000 ppmv adding:

1860

1880

1900

1920

8

4

1940

1960

1980

2000

2020

2040

2060

2080

2100

2120

Gigatonnes Carbon Gross tonnes carbon per capita

GLOBAL CO "CONTRACTION" for 450 ppmv with 6 Region Linear "CONVERGENCE" from Status Quo in 2000 to Equal Per Capita by 2030

2140

2

8. “Concentration of 550 ppmv represents approximately double the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere prior to industrialisation (2.7). Some environmental groups (including the Global Commons Institute, see 4.52) regard 550 ppmv as a dangerously high concentration which is incompatible with the aim of sustainable development.8 8. Global Commons Institute’s website, http:/www.gci.org.uk

6

USA Per Capita Annex 1 (non-OECD) Per Capita

4

OECD minus USA Per Capita CHINA Per Capita

2

Rest of World Per Capita INDIA Per Capita

0

Rest of World INDIA CHINA Annex 1 (non-OECD) OECD minus USA UNITED STATES

1860

1880

1900

1920

8

4

1940

1960

1980

2000

2020

2040

2060

9. The institute regards 450 ppmv as an upper limit.” 

17

2080

2100

2120

2140

Gigatonnes Carbon Gross tonnes carbon per capita

GLOBAL CO "CONTRACTION" for 550 ppmv with 6 Region Linear "CONVERGENCE" from Status Quo in 2000 to Equal Per Capita by 2040

6. Note on the methodology and politics of C&C and positive feedbacks 1. From the outset GCI had been concerned about the really problematic nature of the ‘positivefeedback issue’ because: - [a] the threat of climate change becoming ‘runaway’ was a reality proportional to the extent the effects of warming started feeding off each other, generating a global fast-breeder reaction the possibility of which was hard to discount though [b] the difficulties of numerically ‘modeling’ this were nearly insuperable. 2. There was understandably fierce resistance to allowing the questions about ‘how much change, how soon?’ and ‘at what rates will the benefits of economic growth be outweighed by the costs of the damages it causes?’ to entertain the possibility that all our efforts to organise a global contraction-and-convergence equivalent event may just become too little too late and so ultimately futile. 3. Moreover, by 1996 GCI had already generated a reputation for ‘radicalism’ because of publicly fighting and also winning a battle against ‘the economics of genocide’ in the preparation of the IPCC Second Assessment. [IPCC SAR WG3 Chapter 6]. 4. With the C&C model’s introduction in 1996, the contraction:concentrations part of calculus simply mimicked the procedures of the Berne model. These, although modeled a different way, showed a relationship between emissions and concentrations that de facto equaled and extended an airborne fraction forward over time that remained roughly constant at 50%. 5. Indeed, all the Berne-type emissions:concentration scenarios published by the IPCC 1994 to 2007, were for all practical purposes, expressions of an airborne fraction of emissions constant at 50% and these - dangerously - have held the status of ‘holy-writ’ since 1994. 6. GCI’s method was to go from mimicking the contraction:concentrations relationship as modeled in the Berne model [and the other models that were gradually appearing], to a method of simple mathematical trend-projection. Unlike the so-called carbon-cycle models, which whether ‘coupled’ or ‘uncoupled’ were opaque, GCI’s method was simple, precise and transparent. As the C&C model was designed to compute any rates of contraction with any rates of convergence, at first mimicking the convention of 450, 550 ppmv and so on, GCI computed with C&C: [a] a range of emissions contraction-events, with rates and dates and carbon weighed conventionally in gigatonnes of carbon [Gtc] as flows of carbon per unit time; but then: [b] with 1 ppmv CO2 equalling 2.13 Gigatonnes carbon, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were converted to weight, so accumulations [concentrations] were more easily computed as a fraction of emissions. The value of 280 ppmv in 1800 gave atmospheric stock of carbon in that year as 595 Gtc. and the rising atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were then projected as an accumulation of various fractions of the emissions contraction-events i.e adding to the existing atmospheric stock at constant rates of of 50%, 75% and 100% airborne fractions. As the graphics opposite show, this procedure gives a frame of reference [yellow band] against which different rates of ‘sink-failure’, e.g. at 0.5%/year, 1%/year, 2%/year, can be projected for comparison. 7. Presently the budgets are a function of a global emissions contraction of 50% by 2050 with convergence to equal per capita entitlements globally by 2050. The UK budget came from IPCC’s ‘canon’ of ‘uncoupled carbon-cycle models’ assuming an airborne fraction of emissions constant @ ~50% giving <500 ppmv. But with sinks failing @ an average of ~0.5%/yr, the outcome will be >500 ppmv. 8. To keep within the 2 degrees Celsius temperature limit, the budgets need to be a function of ‘coupled modelling’ where a global emissions contraction of 80% by 2050 and where the airborne fraction may still stay constant @ ~50% giving a 450 ppmv outcome. But with sinks failing @ ~0.5%/yr, the outcome may still be >450ppmv. 9. Convergence to equal per capita emissions entitlements globally for example by 2020 [as shown here], would apply the C&C principle where, if contraction must be accelerated for reasons of urgency, convergence should be accelerated relative to that for reasons of equity. 10. This rate-of-convergence of course is the principle means whereby correction of the past asymmetries of ‘Expansion and Divergence’ can be negotiated. 11. As noted in the Garnaut Review [2007], “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.”

18

Equal Per Capita by 2020

With an 80% cut globally by 2050

7. Impact of feedback on ‘C&C proportionality-rule’ and the UK Climate Act 1. In a letter to the Secretary of State [07/10/08], Lord Adair Turner confirmed acceptance of RCEP’s C&C-derived target of a 60% cut in UK emissions by 2050. He then, consistent with RCEP figures for [uncoupled] C&C, [see RCEP table 4.1 row 1, page 13 of this document] justified its revision to an 80% cut by 2050 on the grounds of urgency and equity telling the Environmental Audit Committee [EAC]: “The core [of the Act] is contract and converge. We cannot imagine a global deal which is both doable and fair which doesn’t end up by mid-century with roughly equal rights per capita to emit and that is clearly said in the report. This is strong support for what Aubrey Meyer has been saying.” 2. The Energy & Climate Change Committee [ECCC] subsequently put to him that: “[your] pragmatic support for Contraction and Convergence, on the record from a meeting with the EAC, is very welcome.” 3. Then, referring to the call from WEF for an 80% cut globally by 2050, [pages 24 25] asked him: “Would you accept that as the speed of Contraction accelerates, the speed of the acceleration of Convergence will also have to pick up? There’s always been a presumption at the International Climate Change negotiations that Developing Countries will be allowed to increase temporarily their emissions to help development. But that’s going to be a concertina’d process - is that really how you’d see it?” 4. Lord Adair Turner replied: “While this raises a very complex issue of international negotiations, you are right.”

19

8. The emerging consensus for C&C 1. Since 1992 and embracing the years of the so-called ‘Kyoto-Protocol’ [1995-1997-2008], valuable time has been lost in negotiation of a genuinely UNFCCC-compliant global framework. 2. At COP9, Milan, 4th December 2003, Joke Waller Hunter Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC said publicly, “Achieving the goal of the climate treaty inevitably requires contraction and convergence.” 3. Lord Adair Turner’s evidence to the EAC in Feb 2009 was encouraging and said: “The core [of the Climate Act] is contract and converge. We cannot imagine a global deal which is both doable and fair which doesn’t end up by mid-century with roughly equal rights per capita to emit and that is clearly said in the report. This is strong support for what Aubrey Meyer has been saying.” 4. After 20 years of campaigning for C&C, this was another notable example of feeding the the emerging consensus for C&C described by Kemal Dervis Chief Administrator of the UNDP. On the 5th of April 2008, the UK Government hosted an international Conference on ‘Progressive Governance’ outside London. At this a paper by Lord Nicholas Stern (LSE) and Laurence Tubiana (Iddri/SciencesPo) entitled “A Progressive global deal on climate change” was presented to the conference. It stated that: “An international agreement is essential. It must be based on the criteria of effectiveness, efficiency and equity. Effectiveness demands a long-term global goal capping global emissions and providing a long-term trajectory for investment in low carbon technologies. This should be at least a halving of global emissions by 2050. A pragmatic principle of equity would require an equalisation of per capita emissions by then.” 5. This was immediately then endorsed by the Head of UNDP, Kemal Dervis, who was present and welcomed it as part of what he called “the emerging consensus” which the UNDP had itself described as C&C in their Human Development report for 2007/8 “Fighting Climate Change; Human Solidarity in a Divided World” in the section “Contraction and Convergence; Sustainability with Equity” [see Section 10.9 of this document]. 6. Section 10 provides some of the evidence of this ‘emerging consensus for C&C’. The eminent persons and institutions in this only partial list is long, but from it the names, Tony Blair, John Schelnhuber, Kemal Dervis, Nicholas Stern stand out because they have been conspicuously part of a version of “the emerging consensus for C&C” that advocated minus 50% globally by 2050 with equal per capita by then. 7. The 50% cut by 2050 globally coincided with the equalization of per capita emissions globally by that date too, involving an 80% cut in the emissions of Developed Countries. 8. In other words part of the C&C principle where, “for reasons of equity, convergence must be accelerated relative to the rate of contraction” was accepted in this “emerging consensus”. 9. Yet a year later these people signed the statement from the World Economic Forum in DAVOS [Jan 2009] which called for an 80% cut globally by 2050 [see Section 8.2 of this document]. 10. This new position of an 80% cut globally - i.e. by everyone - remarkably abandoning the equity part of the principle that convergence must be accelerated relative to the rate of contraction. 11. For reasons of ‘urgency’, the call for the cut of 80% by Developed Countries stood and was simply extended to everyone else in Developing Countries to do likewise. 12. The UK Climate Act applies the equity aspect of the C&C principle that “convergence must be accelerated relative to the rate of contraction”. However, it is at overall rates that are too slow to achieve the UK Government’s target of 450 ppmv/2 degrees. 13. The Stern et al WEF/DAVOS position correctly accelerates contraction for reasons of urgency to a rate that could keep us within that target, but abandons the aspect of the principle where convergence must be accelerated relative to that for reasons of equity. 14. It is notable these people on the WEF/DAVOS list didn’t pick up on the issue of feedbacks even with the arrival of the ‘coupled’ modeling published in IPCC AR4 in 2007 and that only, finally with their publication of that WEF/DAVOS statement in 2009, would it appear that they did. 15. However, to have abandoned “the emerging consensus for C&C” which they had become a significant part of generating, by failing to uphold the aspect that, if contraction must be accelerated for reasons of urgency, convergence must be accelerated relative to that for reasons of equity as well, it was provocative and counter-productive.

20

16. In the Energy and Climate Change Committee, Colin Challen MP correctly emphasized what he called the dangers of Developing Countries being ‘concertina’d’ as the rate of contraction inevitably ‘picked up’ for reasons or urgency without the rate of convergence being accelerated relative to that for reasons of equity. 17. He welcomed the acceptance by Adair Turner that the C&C principle was the core of the Climate Act. He then questioned him about the situation created by the WEF statement where accelerated contraction was called for asking that, “if contraction must be accelerated for reasons of urgency, convergence must be accelerated relative to that for reasons of equity.” 18. Lord Turner took Colin Challen’s point and responded by saying that he was right. 19. So the questions posed by EAC about the derivation of the carbon-budgets in the UK Climate Act are appropriate. The control figure as advocated and defended by Lord Adair Turner’s Climate Change Committee is a result of being unaware of, or possibly just ignoring, the coupled modeling in the AR4, the ‘debut’ of which was itself was years overdue.

9. Risk: - The Real danger of not doing enough soon enough 1. However, all this reveals another and more serious problem and it is in this risk-context that the emissions control paradigm outlined in the UK Climate Act needs to be understood. With sinks failing and feedbacks becoming more net positive as concentrations rise, a reality becomes more and not less likely that the higher concentrations are forced to go by unrestrained emissions or even by insufficiently restrained emissions, the faster the annual rate of sink failure will become. 2. The models don’t really tell us that on current trends of failure to control emissions and the momentum that is being generated by this, it is not implausible to foresee rates of net sink failure that can eventually become greater than 100% of emissions per annum. The interactive effect of positive feedbacks can accelerate and even totally overwhelm the declining of source:sink ‘balance’ we still presently have. 3. Runaway climate change can become unstoppable as we all go beyond a point of no-return, where all attempts of ‘emissions-control’ become futile as we are overtaken by the damages from the momentum of what becomes increasingly catastrophic rates of global climate change. 4. As the RCEP correctly recognised in 2000, a fully global solution is needed to this definitively global problem and that the global framework for organising the ghg emissions control to prevent this is Contraction and Convergence. 5. The key is to bring C&C to bear as an organising principle and then apply it at rates that are fast enough to head off the threat of what the eminent Australian Government economist Prof. Ross Garnaut had already called in 2007, “the diabolical problem of climate change to which humanity may well lose.” As with the UK RCEP his Climate Review for the Australian Government in 2007 was based on Contraction and Convergence, about which this year he wrote: “Over the last 20 years, Aubrey Meyer’s sustained work through the GCI with the “Contraction and Convergence” - or C&C - concept and campaign, has created a global standard that is now widely recognized as an outstanding and essential contribution to the global debate on what to do to avoid dangerous rates of climate change. This is remarkable and reflects the integrity of the argument where C&C is mathematically rooted in the science of climate change and marries the limit to future human emissions that avoids dangerous rates of climate change to the politically compelling requirement of equal shares in the use of the atmosphere subject to that limit. It embodies the economic political reality, that adjustment to equal per capita emissions entitlements will take time. It is a rational, flexible and transparent concept that holds out the best hope of all urgent proposals that might form a basis of an environmentally and economically rational global agreement on climate change mitigation. The contraction and convergence idea was at the core of the proposals for inter-national agreement that are part of the Garnaut Climate Change Review, commissioned by and presented to the Australian Prime Minister and all State Premiers (R. Garnaut, 2008, The Garnaut Climate Change Review, Cambridge University Press; www.garnautreview.org.au ). Support should be given to this campaign particularly at this time as this year - 2009 - leads to a UN event in Copenhagen in December at which it is intended that the global plan to avoid dangerous rates of climate change is agreed and established for the long-term.”

21

10. Reference materials supporting the GCI Memorandum, follow. 1. Garnaut “Climate Change Review” June 2008 [p 23]. 2. World Economic Forum 2008: “Shaping an Opportunity Out of Crisis - A message to participants in the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2009 from Members of the Global Agenda Council on Climate Change.” [pp 24/5]. 3. “Global Warming – The Complete Briefing” 3rd Edition 2004, Sir John Houghton. [pp 26/9]. 4. “Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change” CUP 2006, edited by Schelnhuber, Cramer, Nakicenovic, Wigley, Yohe. [pp 30/1]. 5. IPCC Third Assessment 2001: WGIII, Chapter 1, Page 90. [p 32]. 6. IPCC Fourth Assessment 2007: WGIII, Chapter 3, Page 214. [p 33]. 7. “Climate Protection Strategies for the 21st Century: Kyoto and beyond” 2003, German Advisory Council on Climate Change (WBGU). [p 34]. 8. “The Economics of Climate Change – The Stern Review” 2006, CUP: Part I, Climate Change, 2A Ethical frameworks and inter-temporal equity, page 47. [p 35]. 9. “Human Development Report 2007/8”, UNDP, [pp 36/9]. 10. “Breaking the Climate Deadlock – A Global Deal for our Low-Carbon Future” 2008, Tony Blair and The Climate Group. [p 40]. 11. “Energy – The Changing Climate” 2000, RCEP 22nd Report. [pp 41/2]. 12. Letter from Sir Tom Blundell to GCI, 2000. [p 43]. 13. UK Government response to RCEP 2000, Recommendation 3, RCEP para 4.69. [p 44]. 14. “The Scientific Case for Setting a Long Term Emission Reduction Target” 2003, DEFRA. [p 45]. 15. “The International Challenge of Climate Change: UK Leadership in the G8 and EU” 2005, House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, page 268. [p 46]. 16. “Beyond Stern: From the Climate Change Programme Review to the Draft Climate Change Bill” 2007, House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee. [p 47]. 17. Links to GCI materials and information. [p 48]. 18. C&C At The Climax Of The Kyoto [Cop3] UN Climate Negotiation, 10-12-1997. [p 49]. 19. “The Incontestable Truth” 2007 – DVD commissioned by the UK All Party Parliamentary Group on Climate Change. [p 50]. 20. “Carbon Countdown” 2008, Global Commons Institute, Section 10, C&C Support. [pp 51/62]. 21. Tributes and awards to GCI Director Aubrey Meyer. 22. Insurance Industry views of Contraction and Convergence.

22

Garnaut CLIMATE CHANGE REVIEW

The per capita approach is generally referred to as ‘contraction and convergence’ (Global Commons Institute 2000) and has figured in the international debate for some time. Global Commons Institute 2000, ‘GCI briefing: contraction and convergence’, available at <www.gci. org.uk/briefings/ICE.pdf>, originally published as Meyer, A. 2000, Engineering Sustainability 157(4): 189–92.

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 this approach internationally: see, for example, Stern (2008) and the Commission on Growth and Development (2008).5 Under contraction and convergence, each country would start out with emissions entitlements equal to its current emissions levels, and then over time converge to equal per capita entitlements, while the overall global budget contracts to accommodate the stabilisation objective. This means that emissions entitlements per capita decrease for countries above the global average, and increase (albeit typically at a slower rate than unconstrained emissions growth) in countries below the global average per capita level. Importantly, emissions entitlements would be tradable between countries, allowing actual emissions to differ from the contraction and convergence trajectory. The per capita approach addresses the international equity issue 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, while faster convergence gives more emissions rights to low per capita emitters. The convergence date is the main equity lever in such a scheme.



23

Shaping an Opportunity Out of Crisis A message to participants in the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2009 1 Shaping an Opportunity of Crisis from Members of the Global Agenda CouncilOut on Climate Change A message participants in the of World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 1. Few other challenges are astoserious for the future humanity as climate change. The IPCC in1 its2009 Fourth Members of the Global Agenda Council Climate Change Assessment Report hasfrom highlighted an accelerated change in average surfaceon global temperature as well as in the sea level rise since the mid-1980s. Growing scientific evidence suggests that failure to limit global warming to 1. Few other challengesabove are aspre-industrial serious for the future of make humanity as climate change. The IPCC in its Fourth 2°Celsius (3.6° Fahrenheit) levels would it impossible to avoid potentially irreversible Assessment Reportability has highlighted an accelerated change in average surface temperature as well as in the changes to the Earth’s to sustain human development. According to the mostglobal advanced climate system sea there level rise mid-1980s. Growing scientific evidenceif suggests failure to limit to by models, is a since 5 in 6 the chance of success in holding the 2°C-line worldwidethat greenhouse gas global output warming is reduced (3.6° Fahrenheit) pre-industrial wouldcuts make it impossible avoid potentially irreversible 80%2°Celsius by 2050, relative to 1990. Inabove light of this scientificlevels evidence, in emissions of to 50% by 2050 relative to 1990 changes the Earth’s abilityfor to target sustainreductions human development. to make the most system should be the to absolute minimum and the aim According should be to cutsadvanced as close climate to 80% as models, there is a 5 in 6 chance of success in holding the 2°C-line if worldwide greenhouse gas output is reduced by possible if the cost is not prohibitive. For richer countries - as per recent announcements by US and European 80%- the by 2050, relative to 1990. lightan of 80% this scientific cuts in emissions of 50% by 2050 relative to 1990 leaders aspiration should be atInleast reductionevidence, by 2050 relative to 1990 levels, along with appropriate should be the absolute target reductions and the aim should be to make cuts as close to 80% as nearer-term targets such as minimum in 2020 orfor 2025. possible if the cost is not prohibitive. For richer countries - as per recent announcements by US and European the aspiration should to beaatlow-carbon least an 80% reduction by 2050 to 1990 levels, alongWe withneed appropriate 2. The leaders need to- begin the transition global economy hasrelative become far more urgent. to targets such as in 2020 or emissions 2025. movenearer-term fast. Scientific evidence shows world must peak and decline in the next 10-15 years, to keep the door open for climate stabilization. We should be mindful that decreased emissions as a result of the economic 2. The need to not begin transition to low-carbon economy has become more to urgent. We need to slowdown should be the misinterpreted as areal progress. global Economic recession is not anfar answer climate moveWe fast. Scientific evidence shows worldand emissions must peak decline inwhich the next 10-15 years, to keep change. want the world economy to grow this growth must beand sustainable, means transitioning to a the door open for economy. climate stabilization. shouldmust be mindful that decreased emissions asthe a result of the economic low-carbon global DevelopedWe countries show leadership in driving forward low-carbon transition slowdown should notDevelopment be misinterpreted as real progress. Economic recession is not an These answer to climatewill and in leading Research & Demonstration (RD&D) for low-carbon technologies. challenges change. We want without the world to grow and this growth mustcountries be sustainable, be impossible to meet theeconomy full engagement of major developing as well.which means transitioning to a low-carbon global economy. Developed countries must show leadership in driving forward the low-carbon transition and ininnovate leading Research Development & Demonstration (RD&D) low-carbon These challenges 3. We must as we rebuild our economies during 2009. Thefor world is facingtechnologies. a lack of financial liquidity and will be impossible to meet without the full engagement major developing countries as stimulus well. confidence that require a synchronized global economicofstimulus. It is essential that this also build our capacity to solve the longer term climate crisis. Well meaning, but short-sighted economic stimulus programmes 3. We must innovate as we rebuild 2009. world This is facing a lack of the financial liquidity could lock us into a predominately fossilour fueleconomies based worldduring economy for The decades. will not bring resilience thatand confidence that require a synchronized economic stimulus. It is essential stimulus also build is needed for sustained long-term economicglobal growth. Presuming rapid growth follows that this this recession, demand for our capacity to solve the climate Well meaning, butwill short-sighted stimulus programmes energy will again grow, oillonger pricesterm will rise, andcrisis. energy security issues again comeeconomic to the forefront. If we fail to act, couldopportunity lock us intotoashift predominately fossil fuel based worldgrowth economy Thislost. willThis not bring thewe resilience a unique the world towards a sustainable pathfor willdecades. have been means must that is needed for sustained long-termthose economic growth.technologies Presuming rapid growth follows this demand forto deploy aggressively and immediately low-carbon that are market ready; werecession, must invest heavily energy will again grow, oil prices will rise,that andcan energy security issues forefront. If we fail to act, innovate potential breakthrough technologies achieve success in will the again marketcome over to thethe next two decades. a the unique opportunity to shift world towards a sustainable growth path will have been energy lost. This means we must While challenges of 2025 andthe 2050 seem distant today, the long lag times in the world’s system require deployaction. aggressively and immediately those low-carbon technologies that are market ready; we must invest heavily to immediate innovate potential breakthrough technologies that can achieve success in the market over the next two decades. While the challenges of 2025 2050economic seem distant today, the long times inis the world’s require 4. Let us shape an opportunity outand of this crisis. A large fiscallag stimulus required to energy mitigatesystem the worst immediate action. crisis. In some economies, a significant portion of the stimulus spent today could be sensibly effects of the economic deployed to lay the foundation for the long-term worldwide low-carbon economy of tomorrow. This makes sense in 4. Letrisk usmanagement shape an opportunity out aofsmall this percentage economic crisis. A large is required to mitigate simple terms: deploy of global GDP fiscal now, stimulus to help ward off the risk of muchthe worst effects of the economic larger impacts in the future. crisis. In some economies, a significant portion of the stimulus spent today could be sensibly deployed to lay the foundation for the long-term worldwide low-carbon economy of tomorrow. This makes sense in simple risk opportunities management terms: deploy ajobs small percentage of global GDP now, to help wardlow-carbon off the risk of much 5. There are real to stimulate and growth today from investments in the larger impacts in the future. economy. Clean technology is developing fast. Large-scale activities in low-emitting technologies, renewables, energy efficiency, building insulation, information and telecommunications and some low-carbon public procurement 5. There are realbe opportunities to stimulate jobs andThese growth today from investments inmarket the low-carbon programmes could swiftly mobilized around the world. activities will provide jobs and stimulus as Clean technology is they developing activities for in low-emitting technologies, renewables, well economy. as quick economic returns and will alsofast. helpLarge-scale lay the foundations a low-emissions future. Different energy buildingstrategies insulation,toinformation and low-carbon procurement countries willefficiency, choose different implement and suchtelecommunications programmes, but the netsome global impact onpublic emissions could be swiftly mobilized world. These activities will provide jobs and market stimulus as couldprogrammes be significant. If governments provide around the rightthe policy incentives, businesses operating around the world, well located as quickineconomic and they will also help laybethe foundations a low-emissions future. Different whether the OECDreturns or in developing countries, will able to respondforrapidly to these economic stimuli. countries will choose different strategies to implement such programmes, but the net global impact on emissions could be significant. If governments right incentives, operating world, 6. At the same time, a foundation for theprovide longer the term canpolicy be built, if somebusinesses of this money is also around used tothe catalyse whetherstrategies, located in including: the OECD or in developing countries, will be able to respond rapidly to these economic stimuli. longer-term • Boosting innovative public-private investment mechanisms that create a vested interest for business and society to 6. At thecapital sameflows time,around a foundation forinto thelow-carbon longer term can be built, if some of this money is also used to catalyse redirect the world and energy efficiency technologies; longer-term strategies, including: • Provoking a step change in research, development and demonstration efforts for technology innovation; • Boosting innovativedeployment public-private mechanisms that createfora the vested business and society • Stimulating widespread of investment clean and affordable technologies poorinterest to helpfor them leapfrog onto a to redirectdevelopment capital flows trajectory; around the world into low-carbon and energy efficiency technologies; low-carbon • Provoking a step change research, development demonstration efforts for technology innovation; • Realizing new investment andinfinancing mechanisms to and reduce deforestation and forest degradation, combined • Stimulating widespread deployment of clean and affordable technologies for the poor to help them with national economic development and capacity building programmes, enabling forested countries andleapfrog their onto a low-carbon development citizens to gain financially fromtrajectory; being stewards in the conservation of their ecosystems and biodiversity; • Realizing new investment and financing mechanisms to reduce deforestation and forest degradation, combined with national economic development and capacity building programmes, enabling forested countries and their 1 The views expressed herefinancially emerged from Council discussions. do not necessarily the views of the W orld Economic citizens to gain fromthe being stewards in theThey conservation of theirreflect ecosystems and biodiversity; Forum or the views of all Members of the Global Agenda Council on Climate Change or the organizations they represent. 1

24

The views expressed here emerged from the Council discussions. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the W orld Economic Forum or the views of all Members of the Global Agenda Council on Climate Change or the organizations they represent.

• Restructuring, expanding or creating international markets and capital flows that can stimulate and finance the demand for both public and private sector activities in low-carbon goods and services - this requires a clear price on carbon to correct a serious market failure and harness the power of markets to reduce emissions. Such a price can come inter alia from international levies, taxes or quotas, trading schemes, and the reduction and removal of subsidies for carbon based energy sources without hurting the energy poor. Other incentive structures including procurement standards and regulation can give clear signals and allow the exploitation of economies of scale. Different countries will pursue different combinations of policies but incentives to cut emissions are crucial; • Mobilizing human and financial resources for adaptation and climate preparedness; • Strengthening and creating regional or sector based institutions that can help deploy knowledge, technology and finance to help shift the major economies onto a low-carbon pathway; • Boosting global capacity for data collection, the harmonization of reporting and the enforcement of commitments. Importantly, although public subsidies may play a role, each of these initiatives can identify smart ways to use limited public funds to trigger much more private finance. 7. We believe that unprecedented multistakeholder collaboration is needed for 2009 to link the climate and economic agendas. The negotiation of international commitments and the development of multilateral institutional arrangements for the new climate framework are best addressed by governments within the UN process. If designed in synch, however, the long-term international climate change agreement to be established in 2009 and the various short-term plans for economic recovery could be mutually reinforcing. The mobilization of an unprecedented publicprivate collaboration of international business, civil society side by side with environmental economists, trade and climate experts working with governments could play a valuable role in synchronizing this design process. In concrete terms, such collaboration could: • Help design the policy instruments, market incentives and investment vehicles that will mobilize the entrepreneurialism and finance that exists around the world to focus on the low-carbon challenge; • Identify critical actions as part of the stimulus packages of major economies that can sow the seeds for both economic recovery and long-term protection of the climate; • Help key emitting countries develop project pipelines that can deliver results against the various climate change national plans developed as part of the UNFCCC process. 8. We also believe that climate change now presents a diplomatic opportunity. An international narrative of economic growth and a low-carbon future collectively presented by the governments of the major economies during 2009, in a leadership collaboration with international business, civil society and climate experts, would offer a positive, unifying and long-term multilateral agenda for both the economy and the climate, as well as a positive message for consumers and voters. This affirmative and growth-based agenda would help the global public see how the long-term economic interests of major economies such as the USA, China, India, the EU and Japan are served by coming together around a shared set of objectives to drive forward a low-carbon global economy: the shared desire to deliver climate security, energy, food and water security, economic security, equity between rich and poor through enhanced capital and technology flows, all through the creation of a package that promotes economic growth by decarbonizing the world economy. 9. We look forward to the discussions at this year’s World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos-Klosters. We hope they lay the foundations for major government-civil society-business and expert collaboration on climate change in 2009 to pursue an agenda as described above. We encourage all participants in the Annual Meeting to engage actively in the range of climate change discussions on offer to help fulfil this objective. We stand ready to support and advise such discussions. January 2009 Members of the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on Climate Change 2008-2009 are: Atul Arya, Chief Advisor, Climate and Energy Policy, BP, United Kingdom Tony Blair, Founder, Breaking the Climate Deadlock initiative and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (1997-2007) James Cameron, Vice-Chairman, Climate Change Capital, United Kingdom Yvo De Boer, Executive Secretary, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Bonn Kemal Dervis, Administrator, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), New York Harish Hande, Managing Director, SELCO Solar Light, India Connie Hedegaard, Minister of Climate and Energy of Denmark William W. Hogan, Raymond Plank Professor of Global Energy Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, USA Steve Howard, Chief Executive Officer, The Climate Group, United Kingdom Kevin S. Leahy, Managing Director, Climate Policy, Duke Energy Corporation, USA Gerd Leipold, International Executive Director, Greenpeace International, Netherlands Anthony Leiserowitz, Research Scientist and Director, Yale Project on Climate Change, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, USA

Richard C. Levin, President, Yale University, USA David MacKay, Professor of Natural Philosophy, Department of Physics, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom Dan Reicher, Director, Climate Change and Energy Initiatives, Google, USA David Sandalow, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, The Brookings Institution, USA Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Director, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Germany Robert N. Stavins, Albert Pratt Professor of Business and Government, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, USA Nicholas Stern, IG Patel Chair, London School of Economics, United Kingdom Björn Stigson, President, World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Switzerland Solomon D. Trujillo, Chief Executive Officer, Telstra Corporation, Australia David G. Victor, Professor of Law and Director, Program on Energy and Sustainable Development, Stanford University, USA Timothy E. Wirth, President, United Nations Foundation, Washington DC

For more information on the Global Agenda Council on Climate Change, please write to [email protected]

25

C&C in Houghton Climate Change Briefing CUP

0 26 242

27

28

29

C&C in Schelnhuber; ‘Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change’ CUP

 246 30

31.5 The Regional Emission Implications This section presents regional emission allowances that follow from the global emission pathways. We chose one out of many possible options, for the international regime of differentiating future (post2012) commitments: the Contraction & Convergence approach. This approach is selected here as it is a widely known and transparent approach despite concerns in regard to its political feasibility. The approach defines emission allowances on the basis of convergence of per capita emission allowances (starting after 2012) of all countries (including the USA)5 in 2050 under a contracting global emissions pathway (Meyer, 2000). Figure 31.7 gives the change in the regional emission allowances of the six Kyoto gases (excluding land use CO2) compared to the 1990 levels for 2020 and 2050 for the CPI + tech scenario. This analysis suggests that Annex I commitments need to be strongly intensified after 2012, if global emissions should follow any of the presented pathways. In 2020, Annex I Kyoto-gas emissions (excluding land use CO2) need to be reduced by about 25% in comparison with 1990 levels for 400 ppm, and about 15-20% for 450 ppm stabilization. The reductions compared to the baseline are about 1015% higher. In 2050, the reductions below 1990 levels stand at about 90% (400 ppm) and (450 ppm), respectively (see Figure 31.7).

31

C&C in IPCC Fourth Assessment CUP

C&C in IPCC Third Assessment, CUP

IPCC Third Assessment [Published Cambridge University Press] Working Group Three Chapter One Page 90 “Rights-based, that is based on equal (or otherwise defensible) rights to the global commons. A formulation that carries this insight to its logical conclusion is that of “contraction and convergence” (Meyer, 1999), whereby net aggregate emissions decline to zero, and per capita emissions of Annex I and non-Annex I countries reach precise equality.”

32 248

C&C in IPCC Fourth Assessment CUP IPCC Fourth Assessment [Published Cambridge University Press] Working Group Three Chapter Three Page 214 “A number of scenario studies have been conducted for various countries within Europe. These studies explore a wide range of emission caps, taking into account local circumstances and potentials for technology implementation. Many of these studies have used specific burden-sharing allocation schemes, such as the contraction and convergence (C&C) approach (GCI, 2005) for calculating the allocation of worldwide emissions to estimate national emissions ceilings. The UK’s Energy White Paper (DTI, 2003) examined measures to achieve a 60% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050 as compared to the current level.”

33 249

C&C in WBGU



The Council’s recommendation: Aim towards equal per-capita emission rights and linear harmonization of emissions shares The WBGU recommends that emission rights for the greenhouse gases covered by the Kyoto Protocol be allocated according to the ‘contraction and convergence’ approach, taking 2050 as convergence year. This means that global emissions would need to be reduced substantially over the long term (contraction). In a further step, it would be agreed that the per-capita emissions of all states must reach equal levels in a continuous process extending until 2050 (convergence). In particular, this means that the percapita emissions of industrialized countries, which are still comparatively high at present, must be reduced, while some developing countries can initially increase their per-capita emissions. The principle of constancy requires that there be no sudden switch to equal per-capita emissions, because of the resulting stresses on the global economy. The approach further presupposes a functioning global emissions trading scheme, in order to reduce the costs of the transformation process. Contraction and convergence The model of ‘contraction and convergence’ (C&C; Meyer, 2000) is based upon a fundamentally equal right of all individuals to emit. This can be derived from the human right to equal treatment, and corresponds to the principle of equity under the UNFCCC (Art. 3(1)), and thus corresponds to the egalitarian principle postulated by the Council. Under this approach, the global emissions budget resulting at each point in time from the target path for global emissions is broken down such that the per-capita emission rights of all countries or regions converge and are equal from a set convergence year onwards. This process can be lin ear or non-linear, at a rate that must also be set. Thus, for pragmatic reasons (principle of constancy), realization of the right to equal per-capita emissions is aimed at with a time lag of several decades (roughly up to the year 2050 or 2100). The approach does justice to the principle of economic capability by the circumstance that industrialized countries would be subject on average to substantially higher reduction commitments than the developing countries.There are contradictions, however, between taking the C&C approach or the capability principle as a basis for allocating emission rights – these conflicts become particularly clear if, instead of comparing the ‘industrialized country’ and developing country’ groups, individual countries are compared. The principle of differentiated responsibilities is complied with to the extent that the percapita reduction burden of countries is greater the higher their current per-capita share in greenhouse as emissions is. However, differences in historical responsibilities are largely not taken into account. In terms of the CO2 emissions path, the C&C approach is highly targeted, as emission budgets are fixed over the long term and are not subject to any fluctuation.

34 250



C&C in Stern Review CUP

Nicholas Stern fails to acknowledge the “Contraction and Convergence” proposals from GCI and the source for these, though these proposals were formally submitted to his enquiry - See ICE briefing on the Treasury website at: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/5/0/GCI_Briefing_C&C.pdf However, on page 47 onwards, Stern renames “C&C” as “contract and converge”, then attacks “it” as ‘as assertion and not an argument’ concluding inaccurately that ‘it is unlikely to get support’. Later in the report he compares C&C [GCI via Hohne [who does acknowledge GCI, though stern removes this] to four other references provided by Hohne. This year [2008] however he changes his assertions to saying, “the pragmatic principle of equity would require an equalisation of per capita emissions by then [2050]” whilst also informing the press, “we badly underestimated the degree of damages and the risks of climate change. All of the links in the chain are on average worse than we thought a couple of years ago.” This change of position was declared at the Progressive Governance Conference [see page 23]. This reversal in favour of C&C makes the rebuttal of it in this Report appear naive and indecisive. It is however welcome, and should now be sourced to GCI. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

NICHOLAS STERN THE ECONOMICS OF CLIMATE CHANGE [2006] PART I: Climate Change – Our Approach 2A Ethical Frameworks and Intertemporal Equity/Climate change p 47 “The of the rightright to climate protection or climate or security of future generations and of “Thenotions notions of the to climate protection climate security of future genshared responsibilities in a common world can be to assert that, collectively, we have erations and of shared responsibilities in combined a common world can be combined tothe right only to emit some very small of GHGs, for emit all, and that no-one has theamount right to assert that, collectively, we amount have the right equal only to some very small emit beyondequal that level incurring the duty has to compensate. therefore obliged pay for of GHGs, forwithout all, and that no-one the right We to are emit beyond thattolevel the right toincurring emit abovethe thatduty common level. without to compensate. We are therefore obliged to pay for the right emit above that common This can beto seen as one argument in favour oflevel. the ‘contract and converge’ proposition of Meyer, This can be seen as one argument in favour the 1990, whereby ‘large emitters’ should contract emissionsofand all‘contract individualsand in theconverge’ world should proposition, whereby ‘large emitters’ should contract emissions and all could individeither converge to a common (low) level or pay for the excess (and those below that level sell uals in the world should either converge to a common (low) level or pay for the rights).” excess (and those below that level could sell rights). There are problems with this approach, however. One is that this right, while it Source: Contraction and Convergence ™ (C&C) is the science-based, global climate policy might seem natural to some, is essentially asserted. It is not clear why a comframework proposed to the UN since 1990 by the Global Commons Institute (GCI). mon humanity in a shared world automatically implies that there are equal www.gci.org.uk/briefi rights to emit GHGsngs/ICE.pdf (however low). Equality of rights, for example to basic education and health, or to common treatment in voting, can be related to notions of capabilities, empowerment, or the ability to participate in a society. Further, they have very powerful consequences in terms of law, policy and struc35 tures of society. How does the ‘right 251 to emit’ stand in relation to these rights?

C&C in Human Development Report 2007/8

 36

achieve its prosperity. How many planets will India require for development?” We ask the same question for a world edging towards the brink of dangerous climate change. Using the annual ceiling of 14.5 Gt CO2 , if emissions were frozen at the current level of 29 Gt CO2 we would need two planets. However, some countries are running a less sustainable account than others. With 15 percent of the world population, rich countries are using 90 percent of the sustainable budget. How many planets would we need if developing countries were to follow the example of these countries? If every person living in the developing world had the same carbon footprint as the average for high income countries, global CO2 emissions would rise to 85 Gt CO2—a level that would require six planets. With a global per capita footprint at Australian levels, we would need seven planets, rising to nine for a world with Canada and United States levels of per capita emissions (table 1.2). The answer to Gandhi’s question raises some wider questions about social justice in climate change mitigation. As a global community, we are running up a large and unsustainable carbon debt, but the bulk of that debt has been accumulated by the world’s richest countries.

The 21st Century climate challenge

1

Table 1.2

Global carbon footprints at OECD levels would require more than one planet a CO2 emissions per capita (t CO2 ) 2004

Equivalent global CO2 emissions (Gt CO2 ) 2004 b

Equivalent number of sustainable carbon budgets c

4.5

29

2

Australia

16.2

104

7

Canada

20.0

129

9

World d

a. b. c. d.

France

6.0

39

3

Germany

9.8

63

4

Italy

7.8

50

3

Japan

9.9

63

4

Netherlands

8.7

56

4

Spain

7.6

49

3

United Kingdom

9.8

63

4

United States

20.6

132

9

As measured in sustainable carbon budgets. Refers to global emissions if every country in the world emitted at the same per capita level as the specified country. Based on a sustainable emissions pathway of 14.5 Gt CO 2 per year. Current global carbon footprint.

H U M A N D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T 2 0 0 7/ 2 0 0 8



37

Charting a course away from dangerous climate change We use the PIK model to identify plausible pathways for keeping within the 2°C threshold. One pathway treats the world as a single country, which for carbon accounting purposes it is, then identifies targets for rationing or ‘burden sharing’. However, the viability of any system of burden sharing depends on participants in the system perceiving the distribution of rations to be fair. The UNFCCC itself acknowledges this through an injunction to “protect the climate system…on the basis of equity and in accordance with…common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.” While interpretation of that injunction is a matter for negotiation, we have distinguished between industrialized countries and developing countries, charting separate pathways for the two groups. The results are summarized in figure 1.11. The cuts from a 1990 base-year on our sustainable emissions pathway are as follows: • The world. Emissions for the world will have to be reduced by around 50 percent by 2050, with a peak around 2020. Emissions would fall towards zero in net terms by the end of the 21st Century. • Developed countries. High-income countries would have to target an emissions peak between 2012 and 2015, with 30 percent cuts by 2020 and at least 80 percent cuts by 2050. • Developing countries. While there would be large variations, major emitters in the developing world would maintain a trajectory of rising emissions to 2020, peaking at around 80 percent above current levels, with cuts of 20 percent against 1990 levels by 2050. Contraction and convergence— sustainability with equity We emphasize that these are feasible pathways. They are not specific proposals for individual countries. Yet the pathways do serve an important purpose. Governments are embarking

Source: HDRO calculations based on Indicator Table 24.

48

The challenge is to develop a global carbon budget that charts an equitable and sustainable course away from dangerous climate change.

1

Halving emissions by 2050 could avoid dangerous climate change

Figure 1.11

1

2

The 21st Century climate challenge

+100%

3

IPCC scenarios 1 2 3 4 5 6

IPCC IPCC IPCC IPCC IPCC IPCC

s cenar io s cenar io s cenar io s cenar io s cenar io s cenar io

A1F l A2 A1B B2 A1T B1

4 5

+50%

6

Greenhouse gas emissions, CO 2e (% of 1990 emissions)

1990 = 0%

Sustainable emissions pathways

Developing countries

–50% World

50% chance <2°C Peaking 500ppm CO 2e Stabilization 450ppm CO 2e

Developed countries

–100% 1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

Note: IPCC scenarios describe plausible future pat terns of population grow th, economic grow th, technological change and associated CO 2 emissions. The A1 scenarios assume rapid economic and population grow th combined with reliance on fossil fuels ( A1FI ) , non-fossil energy ( A1T ) or a combination ( A1B ) . The A 2 scenario assumes lower economic grow th, less globalization and continued high population grow th. The B1 and B2 scenarios contain some mitigation of emissions, through increased resource ef ficiency and technology improvement ( B1) and through more localized solutions ( B2 ) . Source: Meinshausen 2007.

on negotiations for the multilateral framework to succeed the current Kyoto Protocol following the expiry of the current commitment period in 2012. The PIK simulations identify the scale of emission reductions that will be required to put the world on a pathway that avoids dangerous climate change. There are various trajectories that could be adopted to achieve the 2050 targets. What our sustainable emissions pathway does is to emphasize the importance of linking near-term and long term goals. The emissions pathways also serve to highlight the importance of early and concerted action. In theory starting points for carbon emission reductions could be pushed back.

But the corollary would be far deeper cuts required over a reduced time horizon. In our view that would be a prescription for failure because costs would rise and adjustments would become even more difficult. Another scenario could be drawn up in which some major Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries do not participate in quantitative carbon budgeting. Such an approach would all but guarantee failure. Given the magnitude of emission reductions required in the OECD countries, it is unlikely that participating countries would be able to compensate for the nonparticipation of major emitters. Even if they H U M A N D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T 2 0 0 7/ 2 0 0 8



254 38

49

The 21st Century climate challenge

1

did, it is unlikely that they would embrace an agreement that allowed ‘free riding’. Participation of the developing world in quantitative reductions is equally vital. In some respects, our ‘two-country’ model oversimplifies the issues to be addressed in negotiations. The developing world is not homogenous: the United 1. it publishes diagrams Republic of Tanzania is not in the same position from Potsdam Climate Institute [PIK] called ‘C&C’ as China, for example. Moreover, what matters is the overall volume of emission reductions. which are vague and merely “striving for a long- From a global carbon budget perspective, term convergence to equal deep reductions in sub-Saharan Africa carry per capita emissions rights” negligible weight relative to reductions in major [see p 22 paragraph 9]; emitting countries. 2. it then rehearses the However, with developing countries arguments used by Stern accounting for nearly half of worldwide emisin his Report rejecting C&C sions, their participation in any international [see footnote 62 i.e sourcagreement is increasingly important. At the ing Stern Report and specifically not sourcing GCI]. same time, even high growth developing countries have pressing human development Both Stern and UNDP needs that must be taken into account. So too changed their position in must the very large ‘carbon debt’ that the rich favour of C&C [p 22]. countries owe the world. Repayment of that UNDP have written to debt and recognition of human development apologize for the lack of imperatives demand that rich countries cut sourcing to GCI, but have yet to realize the confusion emissions more deeply and support low-carbon created. transitions in the developing world. Stern has not acknowlWe acknowledge that many other emissions’ edged any of this. pathways are possible. One school of thought The UNDP Report calls this whole section “Contraction and Convergence” [p 25] and then does two things confusing the arguments about C&C: -

Figure 1.12

Contracting and converging to a sustainable future

Emissions per capita for stabilization at 450 ppm CO 2e (t CO 2 per capita) 18

Developed and transition countries

16

Developing countries

14

World

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

2100

Note: IPCC scenarios describe plausible future pat terns of population grow th, economic grow th, technological change and associated CO 2 emissions. The A1 scenarios assume rapid economic and population grow th combined with reliance on fossil fuels ( A1FI ) , non-fossil energy ( A1T ) or a combination ( A1B ) . The A 2 scenario assumes lower economic grow th, less globalization and continued high population grow th. The B1 and B2 scenarios contain some mitigation of emissions, through increased resource ef ficiency and technology improvement ( B1) and through more localized solutions ( B2 ) . Source: Meinshausen 2007.

50

H U M A N D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T 2 0 0 7/ 2 0 0 8



39255

argues that every person in the world ought to enjoy an equivalent right to emit greenhouse gases, with countries that exceed their quota compensating those that underutilize their entitlement. Although proposals in this framework are often couched in terms of rights and equity, it is not clear that they have a rights-based foundation: the presumed ‘right to emit’ is clearly something different than the right to vote, the right to receive an education or the right to enjoy basic civil liberties.62 At a practical level, attempts to negotiate a ‘pollution rights’ approach is unlikely to gain broad support. Our pathway is rooted in a commitment to achieve a practical goal: namely, the avoidance of dangerous climate change. The route taken requires a process of overall contraction in greenhouse gas flows and convergence in per capita emissions (figure 1.12). Urgent action and delayed response—the case for adaptation Deep and early mitigation does not offer a shortcut for avoiding dangerous climate change. Our sustainable emissions pathway demonstrates the importance of the time lag between mitigation actions and outcomes. Figure 1.13 captures the lag. It compares the degree of warming above preindustrial levels associated with the IPCC’s non-mitigation scenarios, with the anticipated warming if the world stabilizes greenhouse gas stocks at 450 ppm CO2e. Temperature divergence begins between 2030 and 2040, becoming more emphatically marked after 2050, by which time all but one of the IPCC scenarios breach the 2°C dangerous climate change threshold. The timing of the temperature divergence draws attention to two important public policy issues. First, even the stringent mitigation implied by our sustainable emissions pathway will not make a difference to world temperature trends until after 2030. Until then, the world in general and the world’s poor in particular will have to live with the consequences of past emissions. Dealing with these consequences while maintaining progress towards the MDGs and building on that progress after 2015 is a matter not for mitigation but for adaptation. Second, the real benefits of mitigation will build cumulatively across the second half of the 21st Century and beyond.

bon footprints at OECD levels uire more than one planet a CO2 emissions

Equivalent number of

per capita (t CO2 )

Equivalent global CO2 emissions (Gt CO2 )

2004

2004 b

sustainable carbon budgets c

4.5

29

2

16.2

104

7

20.0

129

9

6.0

39

3

9.8

63

4

Breaking the 50 7.8 Climate Deadlock 9.9 63 A8.7Global Deal for Our 56 Low-Carbon Future 7.6 49

3 4 4

Australia

7

Canada

16.2 fall towards zero in net terms by the end of 104 20.0 129 st the 21 Century. Breaking the6.0 France • Developed countries. High-income coun- 39 Climate Deadlock Germany 63 tries wouldAhave to target an9.8for emissions Global Deal Our peak Italy 7.8 between 2012 and 2015, withFuture 30 percent cuts 50 Low-Carbon Japan 9.9 by 2020 and at least 80 percent cuts by 2050. 63 Netherlands • Developing countries. While8.7there would be 56 Spain 7.6 large variations, major emitters in the devel- 49 United Kingdom 9.8 oping world would maintain a trajectory of 63 The Office of Tony Blair United States 20.6 rising emissions to 2020, peaking at around 132 a. As measured in sustainable carbon budgets. percent current of level as the specified country. b. Refers to80 global emissions ifabove every country in the worldlevels, emitted atwith the samecuts per capita The Climate Group c. Based on a sustainable emissions pathway of 14.5 Gt CO per year. 20 percent against 1990 levels by 2050. d. Current global carbon footprint.

9 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 9

2

3

Source: HDRO calculations based on Indicator Table 24.

Contraction and convergence— sustainability with equity udgets. We emphasize that these are feasible pathways. Exhibit 2 ountry in the world emitted at the same per capita level as the specified country. 48 H U M A N D E V E L O P M E N T R E P O R T 2 0 0 7/ 2 0 0 8 The Office of Tony Blair thway of 14.5 Gt CO per year. They are not specific proposals for individual Potential pathway to GHG emissions are likely to grow to over 60 billion tonnes by 2030 Without action, global countries. Yet the pathways do serve an 29 greenhouse icator Table 24. stabilise and to 85 billion tonnes by 2050 (Exhibit ). If we are to move onto the stabilisation pathway Developing* The Climate Group World gases 200% described above, then at a global level we need to:important purpose. Governments are embarking

T REPOR T

9.8

63

4

20.6

132

9

2

Annual emissions peak before 2020 Developed** GHG annual • By 2020emissions – peak CO2e emissions. relative 1990 • Byto 2030 – cut annual180% emissions to below 35 billion tonnes. 30 2• 0 0 7/ 2 By 0 0 82050 – cut annual emissions to below 20 billion tonnes. Source: 160% Meinshausen (2007) Pathway corresponds Exhibit 4 to peaking of CO2e 10% concentration at 500ppmv towards the middle Global GHG emissions, billion Greenhouse gas of this century and declining to 50ppmv by the emissions need to fall 120% 23rd century 50% from 1990 level 85 100% Source: 1990–2004 from IPCC 80% data cut as of 50% byJune 20502008; 2005–2020 estimates; 60% 62 59 2030, 2050 from Stern 55 (2006) 0% 51 45 20% 39 1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

200

2050

2060

2070

2080 2090 2100

2050 target of below * Developing = UNFCCC Non Annex 1 ** Developed = UNFCCC Annex 1 20 billion tonnes CO2e -50% -56% -61% -64% -66% -68% -76% per year We can then translate these percentage reductions into annual emissions figures. Today, the world emits approximately 55 billion tonnes of CO2e per year (billions of tonnes are also sometimes referred to as “gigatons”).27 The power sector accounts for 1990 2000 the biggest 2005Eshare at 2008E BAUaccording 2030 BAU 2050 BAU around 262020 percent to IPCC estimates, with industry at 19 percent, forestry 17 percent, agriculture 1 percent and transport 13 percent (Exhibit 3). BAU = business as usual Exhibit 3 Another way to think about this is that in 2005 emissions were about 8 tonnes per person GHG emissions Anthropogenic CO10 emissions 100% = 9 billion tonnes 2e tonnes per year. Advanced economies ranged from per 2004, person for Japan and the EU, by sector to 23 for Canada (Exhibit 5). Developing countries range from very small amounts for the Waste and wastewater poorest countries to under 2 tonnes per person for India and 6 for China. Assuming the Source: emissions cuts above andForestry world population growth to 93% billion people, such a scenario IPCC, AR4 Synthesis implies a world average of approximately 2 tonnes per person by 2050.31 Report, 2007, p.36; 17% 26% Energy Kahn et al., 2007, Exhibit supply 5 pp.325, 333; Per capitaet emissions, Per capita emissions Bernstein al., 2007, tonnes of CO2e 2050 BAU vary greatly by country pp.461, 467 2005 29 14% 28 Agriculture Average annual Source: 26 growth rate, percent McKinsey analysis 13% Transport 23 22 19 — Aviation and shipping 5% 16 Industry 16 — Cement 3%15 — Steel 3%

Canada

US

0.6

0.4

19%

14

8%

Residential and commercial buildings

12

10 10 6 puts China as the world’s At the country level, a recent Dutch study of CO2 emissions 6 biggest emitter accounting for around 2 percent of the global total, with the US at 21 2050 target 2.2 2 percent, the EU-15 at 12 percent, India 8 percent and the Russian Federation 6 percent.28 Russia these Brazil Japanup more EU-27 China of the India Together regions make than 70 percent world’s CO2 emissions. 1.2

0.2

0.7

0.4

2.7

2.8

BAU = business as usual 18

Breaking the Climate Deadlock A Global Deal for Our Low-Carbon Future

Breaking the Climate Deadlock A Global Deal for Our Low-Carbon Future

by 2020 and at least 80 • Developing countries. large variations, major oping world would m rising emissions to 20 80 percent above curr 20 percent against 199

40 19

Contraction and con sustainability with eq We emphasize that these They are not specific pro countries. Yet the pat important purpose. Gover

C&C in RCEP 2000

41 

The TheRoyal Royal RoyalCommission Commission Commissionon on onEnvironmental Environmental EnvironmentalPollution Pollution Pollution(RCEP (RCEP (RCEP---2000) 2000) 2000) The The TheNeed Need Needfor for foran an anInternational International InternationalAgreement Agreement Agreement---Contraction Contraction Contraction& & &Convergence Convergence Convergence The “3. “3.The The Thegovernment government governmentshould should shouldpress press pressfor for foraaafuture future futureglobal global globalclimate climate climateagreement agreement agreementbased based basedon on onthe the theContraction Contraction Contraction& & &ConverConverConver“3. genceapproach, approach,combined combinedwith withinternational internationaltrading tradingin inemission emissionpermits. permits.Together, Together,these theseoffer offerthe thebest bestlonglonggence approach, combined with international trading in emission permits. Together, these offer the best longgence term termprospect prospect prospectof of ofsecuring securing securingequity, equity, equity,economy economy economyand and andinternational international internationalconsensus consensus consensus(4.69). (4.69). (4.69). term 4.47 Continued, vigorous debate is needed, within and between nations, on the best basis for an agreement 4.47Continued, Continued,vigorous vigorousdebate debateis isneeded, needed,within withinand andbetween betweennations, nations,on onthe thebest bestbasis basisfor foran anagreement agreement 4.47 to follow the Kyoto Protocol. Our view is that an effective, enduring and equitable climate protocol will eventutofollow followthe theKyoto KyotoProtocol. Protocol.Our Ourview viewis isthat thatan aneffective, effective,enduring enduringand andequitable equitableclimate climateprotocol protocolwill willeventueventuto ally require emission quotas to be allocated to nations on simple and equal per capita basis. There will have allyrequire requireemission emissionquotas quotasto tobe beallocated allocatedto tonations nationson onaaasimple simpleand andequal equalper percapita capitabasis. basis.There Therewill willhave have ally to be comprehensive system of monitoring emissions to ensure the quotas are complied with. Adjustment tobe beaaacomprehensive comprehensivesystem systemof ofmonitoring monitoringemissions emissionsto toensure ensurethe thequotas quotasare arecomplied compliedwith. with.Adjustment Adjustment to factors could be used to compensate for differences in nations’ basic energy needs. Those countries which factorscould couldbe beused usedto tocompensate compensatefor fordifferences differencesin innations’ nations’basic basicenergy energyneeds. needs.Those Thosecountries countrieswhich which factors regularly experience very low or high temperatures might, for instance, be entitled to an extra allocation per regularlyexperience experiencevery verylow lowor orhigh hightemperatures temperaturesmight, might,for forinstance, instance,be beentitled entitledto toan anextra extraallocation allocationper per regularly capita for space heating or cooling. capitafor forspace spaceheating heatingor orcooling. cooling. capita 4.48 system of per capita quotas could not be expected to enter into force immediately. At the same time 4.48AA Asystem systemof ofper percapita capitaquotas quotascould couldnot notbe beexpected expectedto toenter enterinto intoforce forceimmediately. immediately.At Atthe thesame sametime time 4.48 as asentitling entitling entitlingdeveloping developing developingnations nations nationsto to touse use usesubstantially substantially substantiallymore more morefossil fossil fossilfuels fuels fuelsthan than thanat at atpresent present present(which (which (whichthey they theymight might mightnot not notbe be be as able to afford), would require developed nations to make drastic and immediate cuts in their use of fossil ableto toafford), afford),itititwould wouldrequire requiredeveloped developednations nationsto tomake makedrastic drasticand andimmediate immediatecuts cutsin intheir theiruse useof offossil fossil able fuels, fuels,causing causing causingserious serious seriousdamage damage damageto to totheir their theireconomies. economies. economies. fuels, 4.49 4.49AA Acombination combination combinationof of oftwo two twoapproaches approaches approachescould could couldavoid avoid avoidthis this thispolitically politically politicallyand and anddiplomatically diplomatically diplomaticallyunacceptable unacceptable unacceptablesituation, situation, situation, 4.49 while whileenabling enabling enablingaaaper per percapita capita capitabasis basis basisto to tobe be beadhered adhered adheredto. to. to.The The Thefirst first firstapproach approach approachis is isto to torequire require requirenations nations nationsemission emission emissionquotas quotas quotas while to follow contraction and convergence trajectory. Over the coming decades each nation’s allocation would tofollow followaaacontraction contractionand andconvergence convergencetrajectory. trajectory.Over Overthe thecoming comingdecades decadeseach eachnation’s nation’sallocation allocationwould would to gradually graduallyshift shift shiftfrom from fromits its itscurrent current currentlevel level levelof of ofemissions emissions emissionstowards towards towardsaaalevel level levelset set seton on onaaauniform uniform uniformper per percapita capita capitabasis. basis. basis.By By Bythis this this gradually means ‘grandfather rights’ would gradually be removed: the quotas of developed nations would fall, year by means‘grandfather ‘grandfatherrights’ rights’would wouldgradually graduallybe beremoved: removed:the thequotas quotasof ofdeveloped developednations nationswould wouldfall, fall,year yearby by means year, while those of the poorest developing nations would rise, until all nations had an entitlement to emit an year,while whilethose thoseof ofthe thepoorest poorestdeveloping developingnations nationswould wouldrise, rise,until untilall allnations nationshad hadan anentitlement entitlementto toemit emitan an year, equal quantity of greenhouse gases per head (convergence). From then on, the quotas of all nations would equalquantity quantityof ofgreenhouse greenhousegases gasesper perhead head(convergence). (convergence).From Fromthen thenon, on,the thequotas quotasof ofall allnations nationswould would equal decline together at the same rate (contraction). The combined global total of emissions would follow profile declinetogether togetherat atthe thesame samerate rate(contraction). (contraction).The Thecombined combinedglobal globaltotal totalof ofemissions emissionswould wouldfollow followaaaprofile profile decline through the 21st and 22nd centuries that kept the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases below throughthe the21st 21stand and22nd 22ndcenturies centuriesthat thatkept keptthe theatmospheric atmosphericconcentration concentrationof ofgreenhouse greenhousegases gasesbelow belowaaa through specified limit. specifiedlimit. limit. specified 4.50 The upper limit on the concentration of greenhouse gases would be determined by international negotia4.50The Theupper upperlimit limiton onthe theconcentration concentrationof ofgreenhouse greenhousegases gaseswould wouldbe bedetermined determinedby byinternational internationalnegotianegotia4.50 tions, as would the date by which all nations would converge on uniform per capita basis for their emission tions,as aswould wouldthe thedate dateby bywhich whichall allnations nationswould wouldconverge convergeon onaaauniform uniformper percapita capitabasis basisfor fortheir theiremission emission tions, quotas, and the intermediate steps towards that. It would probably also be necessary to set cut-off date for quotas,and andthe theintermediate intermediatesteps stepstowards towardsthat. that.It Itwould wouldprobably probablyalso alsobe benecessary necessaryto toset setaaacut-off cut-offdate datefor for quotas, national populations: beyond that date, further changes in the size of country’s population would not lead to nationalpopulations: populations:beyond beyondthat thatdate, date,further furtherchanges changesin inthe thesize sizeof ofaaacountry’s country’spopulation populationwould wouldnot notlead leadto to national any increase or decrease in its emission quota. anyincrease increaseor ordecrease decreasein inits itsemission emissionquota. quota. any 4.51 In table 4.1 17 we have applied “Contraction & Convergence” approach to carbon dioxide emissions, 4.51In Intable table4.1 4.117 17we wehave haveapplied applied“Contraction “Contraction& &Convergence” Convergence”approach approachto tocarbon carbondioxide dioxideemissions, emissions, 4.51 and calculated what the UK’s emissions quotas would be in 2050 and 2100 for four alternative upper limits andcalculated calculatedwhat whatthe theUK’s UK’semissions emissionsquotas quotaswould wouldbe bein in2050 2050and and2100 2100for forfour fouralternative alternativeupper upperlimits limits and on atmospheric concentration. We have assumed for this purpose that 2050 would be both the date by which onatmospheric atmosphericconcentration. concentration.We Wehave haveassumed assumedfor forthis thispurpose purposethat that2050 2050would wouldbe beboth boththe thedate dateby bywhich which on nations nationswould would wouldconverge converge convergeon on onaaauniform uniform uniformper per percapita capita capitaemissions emissions emissionsfigure figure figureand and andthe the thecut-off cut-off cut-offdate date datefor for fornational national nationalpopulations. populations. populations. nations If If550 550 550ppmv ppmv ppmvis is isselected selected selectedas as asthe the theupper upper upperlimit, limit, limit,UK UK UKcarbon carbon carbondioxide dioxide dioxideemissions emissions emissionswould would wouldhave have haveto to tobe be bereduced reduced reducedby by byalmost almost almost If 60%from fromtheir theircurrent currentlevel levelby bymid-century, mid-century,and andby byalmost almost80% 80%by by2100. 2100.Even Evenstabilisation stabilisationat ataaavery veryhigh high 60% from their current level by mid-century, and by almost 80% by 2100. Even stabilisation at very high 60% level levelof of of1,000 1,000 1,000ppmv ppmv ppmvwould would wouldrequire require requirethe the theUK UK UKto to tocut cut cutemissions emissions emissionsby by bysome some some40% 40% 40%by by by2050. 2050. 2050. level 4.52 4.52The The TheUK-based UK-based UK-basedGlobal Global GlobalCommons Commons CommonsInstitute Institute Institutehas has hastaken taken takenthe the thelead lead leadin in inpromoting promoting promoting“Contraction “Contraction “Contraction& & &Convergence”, Convergence”, Convergence”, 4.52 and andhas has hasdeveloped developed developedaaacomputer computer computermodel model modelthat that thatspecifies specifies specifiesemission emission emissionallocations allocations allocationsunder under underaaarange range rangeof of ofscenarios. scenarios. scenarios.The The Theconconconand cept cepthas has hasbeen been beensupported supported supportedby by byseveral several severalnational national nationalgovernments governments governmentsand and andlegislators. legislators. legislators.Some Some Somedeveloped developed developednations nations nationsare are arevery very very cept waryof ofitititbecause becauseitititimplies impliesdrastic drasticreductions reductionsin intheir theiremissions, emissions,but butat atleast leastone oneminister ministerin inaaaEuropean Europeangovgovwary of because implies drastic reductions in their emissions, but at least one minister in European govwary ernmenthas hassupported supportedit. it.Commentators Commentatorson onclimate climatediplomacy diplomacyhave haveidentified identifiedcontraction contraction& &convergence convergenceas as ernment has supported it. Commentators on climate diplomacy have identified contraction & convergence as ernment leading leadingcontender contender contenderamong among amongthe the thevarious various variousproposals proposals proposalsfor for forallocating allocating allocatingemission emission emissionquotas quotas quotasto to tonations nations nationsin in inthe the thelong long longterm. term. term. aaaleading 4.53 4.53The The Theother other otheringredient ingredient ingredientthat that thatwould would wouldmake make makean an anagreement agreement agreementbased based basedon on onper per percapita capita capitaallocations allocations allocationsof of ofquotas quotas quotasmore more more 4.53 feasible feasibleis is isflexibility flexibility flexibilityof of ofthe the thekind kind kindalready already alreadyprovided provided providedin in inoutline outline outlinein in inthe the theKyoto Kyoto KyotoProtocol. Protocol. Protocol.Nations Nations Nationsmost most mostanxious anxious anxiousto to toemit emit emit feasible greenhousegases gasesin inexcess excessof oftheir theirallocation allocationover overaaagiven givenperiod periodwill willbe beable ableand andwilling willingto topurchase purchaseunused unused greenhouse gases in excess of their allocation over given period will be able and willing to purchase unused greenhouse quota quotaat at atprices prices pricesthat that thatincline incline inclineother other othercountries countries countriesto to toemit emit emitless less lessthan than thantheir their theirquota, quota, quota,to to tothe the thebenefit benefit benefitof of ofboth both bothparties. parties. parties.The The The quota cleandevelopment developmentmechanism, mechanism,which whichallows allowsdeveloped developednations nationsto toclaim claimemission emissionreductions reductionsby bysponsoring sponsoring clean development mechanism, which allows developed nations to claim emission reductions by sponsoring clean projects projectsthat that thatreduce reduce reduceemissions emissions emissionsin in indeveloping developing developingnations nations nationsto to tolevels levels levelslower lower lowerthan than thanthey they theywould would wouldotherwise otherwise otherwisehave have havebeen, been, been, projects can canalso also alsobe be beseen seen seenas as asaaaform form formof of oftrading. trading. trading. can 4.54 4.54In In Inthe the thelonger longer longerterm term termtrading trading tradingby by bycompanies companies companiesin in inemission emission emissionpermits, permits, permits,drawn drawn drawnfrom from fromnational national nationalemission emission emissionquotas quotas quotasdedede4.54 terminedon onthe thebasis basisof ofaaacontraction contractionand andconvergence convergenceagreement, agreement,could couldmake makeaaavaluable valuablecontribution contributionto toreretermined on the basis of contraction and convergence agreement, could make valuable contribution to retermined ducing ducingthe the theglobal global globalcosts costs costsof of ofstabilising stabilising stabilisinggreenhouse greenhouse greenhousegas gas gasconcentrations concentrations concentrationswhile while whiletransferring transferring transferringresources resources resourcesfrom from fromwealthy wealthy wealthy ducing nationsto topoorer poorerones. ones.Trading Tradingneeds needsto tobe betransparent, transparent,monitored monitoredand andregulated, regulated,and andbacked backedby bypenalties penalties nations to poorer ones. Trading needs to be transparent, monitored and regulated, and backed by penalties nations on onnations nations nationsthat that thatemit emit emitmore more morethan than thanthey they theyare are areentitled entitled entitledto. to. to.If If Ifitititbecame became becamemerely merely merelyaaameans means meansof of ofenabling enabling enablingwealthy wealthy wealthynations nations nations on to tobuy buy buyup up upthe the theemission emission emissionentitlements entitlements entitlementsof of ofpoor poor poorcountries countries countrieson on onthe the thecheap, cheap, cheap,thereby thereby therebyevading evading evadingtaking taking takingany any anyaction action actionat at at to home,trading tradingwould wouldnot notserve servethe thecause causeof ofclimate climateprotection. protection.Nor Norwould woulditititifififdeveloping developingcountries countriesthat thathad had home, trading would not serve the cause of climate protection. Nor would developing countries that had home, soldquota quotaheavily heavilywent wenton onto toemit emitin inexcess excessof oftheir theirrevised revisedentitlements.” entitlements.” sold quota heavily went on to emit in excess of their revised entitlements.” sold



259 42



43 

UK Government Response to C&C in RCEP 2000

 44 261

C&C in DEFRA Briefing on Climate Change

THE SCIENTIFIC CASE FOR SETTING A LONG-TERM EMISSION REDUCTION TARGET [2003]

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/pubs/pdf/ewp_targetscience.pdf

Introduction 1. This paper sets out the scientific background against which a decision on setting now a long-term emission reduction target will need to be taken. It focuses on 2050. It considers the likely course of emissions over the next 100 years and the constraints on global emissions if the world is to meet a particular target for stabilising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations, noting that such a target would not be reached until well into the next century and possibly even beyond.

Methodology The framework of this study builds on the RCEP work which uses a convergence and contraction methodology. Whilst prescribed per capita emissions are retained, the flexibility is such that these are only a tool to constrain total emissions and this should not be considered a typical contraction and convergence (C&C)1 approach (although any mechanism which brings all emissions to a level lower than today’s will have an element of C&C). The RCEP restricted itself to UK emissions whereas this study addresses global emissions but only subdivides into Annex 1 parties (A1) and non-Annex 1 parties (NA1) and so cuts are assumed to be equal across each group. This study also differs from RCEP in that it takes into account emissions out to 2300. There are considerable cumulative emissions post 2100 in the WRE stabilisation profiles and this study allows the redistribution of these far future emissions into this century. As with RCEP, population is held constant after 2050 although the results are not found to be sensitive to population numbers. The methodology is best illustrated by presenting the steps taken: 1. Assume the level of cumulative carbon emissions allowed to reach chosen stabilisation level. To the first order, stabilisation is determined by the cumulative emissions. Depending on the level of carbon uptake by the natural system this is between 1150 and 1750 GtC for stabilising at 550 ppm. No other stabilisation level has been considered in this study. 2. Assume an economic and population projection. Here, SRES B2 is used as the lower bound and SRES A1FI as the upper bound. 3. Set A1 emissions reductions to start at 2000, at 2050 to be 60% of that at 1990 and by 2150 at a level consistent with world emissions of 2 GtC if high carbon uptake is assumed and 1 GtC if low uptake. One of the primary objectives of this study is to explore the consequences of the RCEP recommendations. 4. Set dates for NA1 start of emission controls, first emission target and second target. A range of start dates is explored with the first target constant at 2100 and the second constant at 2150. 5. Once a start date for NA1 emission control is chosen the emission level for the 1st target is adjusted until the cumulative emissions equal the chosen level in step 1. The second target is chosen to be, like for A1, consistent with world emissions of 2 GtC if high carbon uptake is assumed and 1 GtC for low uptake. 1 Contraction and convergence is an international policy framework for dealing with global climate change developed by the London-based Global Commons Institute.

45 262 

f n

ars nto nce

C

cur ng in n age

C&C in Environmental Audit Committee Briefing

Contraction and Convergence

House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee

The International Challenge of Climate Change: UK Leadership in the G8 & EU Fourth Report of Session 2004–05

83. Such calculations provide an interesting and important perspective on the context in which negotiations on a post-2012 framework should take place. The Global Commons Institute (GCI) has been promoting the concept of equal per capita emission allocationssince its foundation in 1990, and it has coined the term “Contraction and Convergence” (C&C) to describe its approach. C&C involves two distinct stages—firstly defining the level to which global emissions need to be reduced to avoid dangerous climate change, and secondly allocating this level of emissions to countries on an equal per capita basis.

84. The C&C model put forward by the GCIdoes not in itself define the mechReport, together with formal minutes, oral and anisms bywhich emission reductions written evidence are to be achievedwhether through emissions trading,international taxes, Ordered by The House of Commons or regulatory approaches. Nor does to be printed Wednesday 16 March 2005 HC 105 it stipulate the actual level at whichPublished on Sunday 27 March 2005 by authority of the House of Commons emissions should be stabilised, or London: The Stationery Office Limited indeed the timescales over which the £26.00 targets should beset. It does, however, graphically illustrate the consequences of varying these parameters,and provides a useful framework within which to set targets and frame policy responses. The real strength of the model, however, arises from the manner in which the concept of equity underpins it. 85. Given the scale of the reductions which are needed, there is now a growing awarness of the need for a ‘full-term’ framework such as the one C&C provides. Indeed, it is difficult to argue with the fundamental principle of equal per capita allocations, and variouswitnesses—including the Under-Secretary of State of the Foreign Office and the Director-General of the CBI—acknowledged the viability of the model.68 This is also reflected in thejoint memorandum submitted by DEFRA and the FCO, 69 and in the recent report fromthe International Climate Change Taskforce which explicitly accepted that equal per capitaemissions allowances should form the basis for a long-term solution. While, in their memorandum to us, Barclays Capital set out a vision of an all-embracing international ETSinvolving 60 year targets determined by a C&C approach. 86. Any framework which involves radical emission reductions would in practiceresemble the Contraction and Convergence approach advocated by the Global Commons Institute. Indeed, in terms of domestic policy aims, the UK Government has already implicitly accepted this approach in adopting the 60% carbon reduction target for 2050; and it is therefore inconsistent not to adopt such an approach internationally. We do not see any credible alternative and none was suggested in evidence to our inquiry. We therefore recommend that the UK Government should formally adopt and promote Contraction and Convergence as the basis for future international agreements to reduce emissions.

46 268

0 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm000/cmselect/cmenvaud/0/0.pdf

C&C in Environmental Audit Committee Briefing

“The Government’s policy towards the UK’s 2050 target is clearly incoherent.”

House of Commons

“The Government remains committed to limiting global warming to a rise of 2oC; but it also acknowledges that, according to recent scientific research, a cut in UK emissions of 60% by 2050 is now very unlikely to be consistent with delivering this goal.

Environmental Audit Committee

Beyond Stern: From the Climate Change Programme Review to the Draft Climate Change Bill Seventh Report of Session 2006–07 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed Tuesday 10 July 2007

HC 460

Published on Monday 30 July 2007 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00

It is true that where the Stern Review talks about the required distribution of emissions cuts between developed and developing countries, it does (just about) correspond to the Government’s existing line on its 2050 target. Referring to research which analyses four different mooted ways of apportioning emissions cuts including Contraction and Convergence - Stern concludes that “for all developed countries, action to meet a 450ppm CO2e goal would require quotas to be set in line with a reduction in emissions of 70-90% on 1990 levels by 2050, and for a 550ppm CO2e goal the reduction would be at least 60%.” But while the Office of Climate Change was justified in telling us that the “at least 60%” target in the draft Bill is within the range discussed in the Stern Review,94 this is clearly the minimum in emissions reductions which the Stern Review sets out. In fact, Stern states that this would correspond to a 63%99% chance of exceeding a warming of 2oC, and describes this level of global warming as “a dangerous place to be, with substantial risks of very unpleasant outcomes”.

We recommend that the 2050 be strengthened to reflect current scientific understanding of the emission cuts required for a strong probability at stabilising warming at 2oC.

We recommend that the Government publishes the rationale for its 2020 and 2050 targets, preferably including the central formula upon which they are based, in the Climate Change Bill. This rationale should make clear the size of complementary caps on annual emissions required of other blocs of nations, the stabilisation target for global atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, and the resulting projected temperature rises, which are implied by the Bill’s targets for annual emissions from the UK, as well as the central assumptions used by the Government in making these correlations. The Bill should state that if the Secretary of State proposes to revise these targets, he must publish the rationale for the new target in like manner. Above all, the Government must draw attention, at home and abroad, not just to percentage targets for the annual emissions in a certain year, but even more to the absolutely crucial issue of the cumulative total budget of greenhouse gases that the world can afford to emit by 2050 if it is to have a reasonable chance of holding global warming to 2oC. In terms of the way in which this cumulative global budget is divided up among individual nations, we recommend the Government explicitly endorses, and promotes internationally, the Contraction and Convergence method, or a method similar to it.” Under this method, emissions budgets allocated to each nation would beprogressively amended until all would arrive at an equal per capita level, consistent with an internationally agreed stabilisation level. As we have previously noted, the Government has implicitly accepted this principle by endorsing the RCEP’s recommendation for a 60% cut in UK CO2 which was based on Contraction and Convergence. We have also concluded that any framework which involves radical emissions reductions would in practice resemble Contraction and Convergence, given the current imbalance in per capita emissions between the developed and developing world, and the resultant necessity for the bulk of emissions cuts to come from developed nations in order to meet a global stabilisation target. But this only underlines the inconsistency in the Government’s framing of a target to reduce UK emissions without advocating an international agreement based on Contraction and Convergence, or something very similar.

47269



Some C&C GCI Links

Publications http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/zew.pdf [Springer Verlag] http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/UNFCCC&C_A_Brief_History_to1998.pdf [GLOBE] http://www.gci.org.uk/Book/Surviving_Climate_Change.pdf [PLUTO] http://www.schumacher.org.uk/schumacher_b5_climate_change.htm [Schumacher] Briefings http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/ICE.pdf http://www.gci.org.uk/Endorsements/UNEPFI5f.pdf http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/CPI.pdf www.gci.org.uk/briefings/RSA_Occasional_Paper.pdf Articles/Interviews http://www.gci.org.uk/articles/LEXUS.pdf http://www.gci.org.uk/articles/React.pdf http://www.gci.org.uk/articles/New_Scientist_Interview.pdf http://www.gci.org.uk/articles/Green_Futures_CandC.pdf http://www.gci.org.uk/articles/BMJ_Stott.pdf http://www.gci.org.uk/articles/Actuary_McGuire.pdf http://www.gci.org.uk/articles/British_Medical_Journal_22_December_2007.pdf http://www.gci.org.uk/articles/Argus_C&C_Interview.pdf COP-3 1997 UNFCCC [Transcript] - C&C nearly agreed in 1997 http://www.gci.org.uk/temp/COP3_Transcript.pdf http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/AFRICA_GROUP.pdf The UNFCCC administration has said since 2003, “Contraction and Convergence is inevitably required to achieve the objective of the convention”: http://www.gci.org.uk/UNFCCC/C&C_Janos_Pasztor_UNFCCC.pdf A C&C Booklet 13 languages from COP-11 12/2005: http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/MONTREAL.pdf Archives covering twenty year history of this campaign: http://www.gci.org.uk/Archive/Mega_Doc_1989_2004.pdf http://www.gci.org.uk/Archive/All_2000_2007_reduced_file_size.pdf The C&C framework is supported by manifesto commitments from the Welsh Nationalists, the Scottish Nationalists, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and the Respect Party. www.gci.org.uk/presentations/RSA_C&C_G-8_Quotes.pdf Many individual UK Labour Party MPs advocate C&C, some Conservative MPs do too. http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=29500&SESSION=875 http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=27350&SESSION=873 http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=27080&SESSION=873 An issue to some is that C&C merely describes generically an ‘outcome’ of many future aspirational phases of the Kyoto Protocol. This is what the corporations collectively call ‘an inadequate patchwork’, see slides 20/1 here: http://www.gci.org.uk/presentations/RSA_C&C_G-8_Quotes.pdf To cure this very randomness, C&C formally means the structure a of full-term, concentrationtarget-based framework endowed by GCI from the outset, as accepted for example by DEFRA: http://www.gci.org.uk/correspondence/Meacher_15_11_02.pdf and in 2004 by the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee and result: http://www.gci.org.uk/correspondence/EAC_response_GCI_300904.pdf House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee and result 2004: http://www.gci.org.uk/correspondence/EAC_response_GCI_300904.pdf http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/EAC_Final_C&C.pdf C&C briefing to All-Party enquiry into climate-consensus and result May 2006: http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/APGCCC_Evidence_single_A4_pages.pdf http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/Consensus_Report.pdf The UK House of Commons All Party Parliamentary Group on Climate Change [APPGCC] adopted C&C. A DVD commissioned by the Group presenting Contraction & Convergence was distributed to all UK MPs and Peers. Eminent spokespersons interviewed on the DVD. http://www.gci.org.uk/images/Contraction_and_Convergence_Challen_et_al.mpg APPGCC Tribute here: http://www.martin-caton.co.uk/news?PageId=4ec8ff91-07dd-e3d4-5d47-57362266c35c C&C Promotional material is here: http://www.gci.org.uk/Movies/Contraction_and_Convergence_Promo.mpg Key C&C Animation with coupled models/sink-failure here: http://www.gci.org.uk/Animations/BENN_C&C_Animation.exe Meyer CV here: http://www.gci.org.uk/AubreyMeyer/CV_Aubrey_Meyer_1.pdf

48

C&C at climax of COP-3 Kyoto

C&C AT THE CLIMAX OF THE KYOTO [COP3] UN CLIMATE NEGOTIATION, 10 12 1997 For full transcript of final COP-3 Kyoto negotiation, see: http://www.gci.org.uk/temp/COP3_Transcript.pdf

THE AFRICA GROUP [Rungano Karimanzira]: “ . . . . . we do support the amendment that is proposed by the distinguished delegation from India, and just to emphasise the point of the issues that still need a lot of clarification, would like to propose in that paragraph the inclusion, after “entitlements” that is the proposal by the delegation of India, the following wording. After “entitlements, the global ceiling date and time for Contraction and Convergence of global emissions because we do think that you cannot talk about trading if there are not entitlements, also there is a question of Contraction and Convergence of global emissions that comes into play when you talk about the issue of equity . . . . . “

CHAIRMAN [Raul Estrada Oyuela]: “I thank you very much. …… May I ask again the distinguished delegate of the USA if they have another suggestion to propose in connection with the proposals made by the distinguished delegate of India . . . . . he does . . . . ”

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [Jonathon Pershing]: “ . . . . It does seem to us that the proposals by for example India and perhaps by others who speak to Contraction and Convergence are elements for the future, elements perhaps for a next agreement that we may ultimately all seek to engage in . . . .”

 &$++$('+ *(++ ' !* )$, 0(',*,$('0 "(*  ))&.  0('.!*#!'!0 /  





(''!+ *(' !* )$,

 %!++   !+, (" (*% 





$#,(''!+ *(' *(++



!+, (" (*%  

  %!++ 

(-*!  



 





 





For details of widespread support for C&C, see: http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/EAC_document_3.pdf http://www.gci.org.uk/events/City_of_London_Award_Sheet_03.pdf http://www.gci.org.uk/Archive/Mega_Doc_1989_2004.pdf

49271



C&C DVD from UK All Party Parliamentary Group

A DVD - The Incontestable Truth - commissioned by the UK All Party Parliamentary Group on Climate A DVD - The Incontestable Truth - commissioned by the UK All Party Parliamentary Group on Climate Change presenting Contraction and Convergence has been distributed to all UK MPs and Peers. Change presenting Contraction and Convergence has been distributed to all UK MPs and Peers. It is endorsed by numerous eminent spokespersons who are interviewed at length on the DVD. It is endorsed by numerous eminent spokespersons who are interviewed at length on the DVD.

Copies of the DVD can be obtained by written request to GCI aubrey.meyer [at] btinternet.com Copies of the DVD can be obtained by written request to GCI aubrey.meyer [at] btinternet.com

Alternatively, as a large file [overnight download] interview material is retrievable at this link: Alternatively, as a large file [overnight download] interview material is retrievable at this link: http://www.gci.org.uk/images/Contraction_and_Convergence_Challen_et_al.mpg http://www.gci.org.uk/images/Contraction_and_Convergence_Challen_et_al.mpg The DVD also includes a heuristic animation of Contraction and Convergence for a risk analysis of The DVD also includes a heuristic animation of Contraction and Convergence for a risk analysis of different rates of sink-failure endorsed by prominent industry persons. This is a large file [overnight different rates of sink-failure endorsed by prominent industry persons. This is a large file [overnight download] and is retrievable at this link: download] and is retrievable at this link: http://www.gci.org.uk/images/Contraction_and_Convergence_Risk_Analysis_Sink_Failure.mpg http://www.gci.org.uk/images/Contraction_and_Convergence_Risk_Analysis_Sink_Failure.mpg A context animation the arguments, presented at the Royal Institute of British Architects [RIBA] interA context animation the arguments, presented at the Royal Institute of British Architects [RIBA] international conference in Venice last October, is here: national conference in Venice last October, is here: http://www.gci.org.uk/images/Final_presentation.exe or http://www.gci.org.uk/images/Final_presentation.exe or http://www.gci.org.uk/images/CandC_model_context_animation.swf http://www.gci.org.uk/images/CandC_model_context_animation.swf [Note: - touch buttons to advances *within* scenes and touch logos to advance *between* scenes]. [Note: - touch buttons to advances *within* scenes and touch logos to advance *between* scenes]. GCI’s definition statement for C&C is here: GCI’s definition statement for C&C is here: http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/ICE.pdf http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/ICE.pdf General referencing for the C&C provenance is here: General referencing for the C&C provenance is here: http://www.gci.org.uk/links/detail.pdf http://www.gci.org.uk/links/detail.pdf A concept/context map of C&C comparing three rates of change for A concept/context map of C&C comparing three rates of change for [a] Contraction and Concentrations [a] Contraction and Concentrations [b] Contraction and Convergence [b] Contraction and Convergence [c] Benefits of Growth versus Damages from Climate [c] Benefits of Growth versus Damages from Climate [d] Contraction and Conversion [d] Contraction and Conversion

is here: - http://www.gci.org.uk/images/Deepat_Bonn.pdf is here: - http://www.gci.org.uk/images/Deepat_Bonn.pdf Some promotional material is here: Some promotional material is here: http://www.gci.org.uk/Movies/Contraction_and_Convergence_Promo.mpg http://www.gci.org.uk/Movies/Contraction_and_Convergence_Promo.mpg

50 272 

10

“Long before the end of the UNFCCC negotiation, GCI presented a proposal on Contraction & Convergence. We all in this room know the model. Level of contraction and timing of convergence should be negotiated on the basis of the precautionary principle. Suggestions for emission reductions are well known and convergence should be achieved at medium term to satisfy legitimacy.” RAUL ESTRADA – CHAIRMAN KYOTO PROTOCOL NEGOTIATIONS “Achieving the goal of the climate treaty [stabilize GHG concentrations] inevitably requires Contraction & Convergence.” JOKE WALLER HUNTER - UNFCCC EXECUTIVE SECRETARY “Success in the Climate Change negotiations requires a deal between the ‘Quad’, the USA, China, India and the EU. This is possible around the principle of “Contraction & Convergence”. The US insistence on India and China accepting targets was not always merely a negotiating tactic. The idea of per capita equity in the Contraction & Convergence analysis of the Global Commons Institute was seriously discussed in all four capitals in the mid-nineties and the Byrd-Hagel Resolution of the US Senate before Kyoto and the 94 – 0 vote was a statement that such a deal with India and China meant progress.” TOM SPENCER - FORMER PRESIDENT GLOBE INTERNATIONAL “Equity guides the route to global ecological recovery. Tradable Emissions Quotas will make matters worse unless set as targets and timetables for equitable emissions reductions overall. This means convergence at sustainable parity values for consumption on a per capita basis globally.” INDIAN GOVERNMENT - COP 1 1995 “When we ask the opinions of people from all circles, many people, in particular the scientists, think the emissions control standard should be formulated on a per capita basis. According to the UN Charter, everybody is born equal, and has inalienable rights to enjoy modern technological civilization.” CHINA STATE COUNSELLOR DR SONG JIAN - COP 3 1997 “We support India and propose Contraction & Convergence of global emissions. You cannot talk about trading if there are not entitlements; Contraction & Convergence comes into play when we talk about issues of equity“ THE AFRICA GROUP KYOTO - COP 3 1997 “It does seem to us that the proposals by India and others who speak to Contraction & Convergence are elements for the future, elements perhaps for a next agreement we may ultimately all seek to engage in.” UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - COP 3 1997 “A set of common principles must be based on a worldwide binding limit on global emissions consistent with a maximum atmospheric concentration [contraction] with progressive convergence towards an equitable distribution of emissions rights on a per capita basis by an agreed date with across-the-board reductions in emissions rights thereafter.“ EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION 1998 Per capita CO2 emissions meet in the middle. “In the final analysis the per capita emissions in emerging economies will meet those of industrialised countries. I cannot imagine the emerging economies will one day be permitted to emit more CO2 per capita than we in the industrialised countries. With this proposal, emerging nations with rapidly expanding economies could be on board the global climate negotiations scheduled for 2009.” ANGELA MERKEL - PRESIDENT OF GERMANY 2008 “The international climate regime should be based on legitimate principles of equity, such as long-term convergence of emission levels per capita in the various countries.” NICHOLAS SARKOZY - PRESIDENT OF FRANCE 2008

Attempts to deny C&C’s pure logic - ecological, political, social and human - are ultimately futile. Nature won’t be fooled. Acceptance of C&C brings not imprisonment, but new unfound freedom; ‘Justice without Retribution,’ as Nelson Mandela once demanded. DAVE HAMPTON - CARBON COACH ©2008 THE GLOBAL COMMONS INSTITUTE

24

51

“Sweden strives for global emissions converging to equal per capita for all. KJELL LARSSON - ENVIRONMENT MINISTER 2000

“Emissions should converge towards equal emissions per inhabitant.” 3RD NATIONAL CLIMATE COMMUNICATION 2001

“Contraction & Convergence secures a regime where all nations join efforts to protect our global commons without the risk that any country is deprived of its fair share of the common environmental emission space.” SVEND AUKEN - DANISH ENVIRONMENT MINISTER 1999 “We are conscious that in the end, we will have inevitably to evolve towards a more equitable partition between the North and the South of the capacity of our common atmosphere to support greenhouse gases by a gradual convergence of levels of emissions on a per capita basis.” OLIVIER DELOUZE - BELGIAN ENVIRONMENT MINISTER 2000 “If we agree to per capita allowances for all by 2030 [so that global emissions stay below 450 ppm 2o global temperature rise] then assigned amounts for Annex One countries would be drastically reduced. However, because all countries would have assigned amounts, maximum use of global emissions trading would strongly reduce the cost of compliance. In such a scenario Industrial Countries would have to do more, but it would be cheaper and easier.” JAN PRONK COP6 2000 - DUTCH ENVIRONMENT MINISTER

“We do not believe that the ethos of democracy can support any norm other than equal per capita rights to global environmental resources.” PRIME MINISTER INDIA - COP 8 2002 “To forestall further damage deeper cuts in greenhouse gas emissions than as presently contained in the Kyoto Protocol are urgently required and these must be organised as universal equal entitlements as engraved in the principles of the Contraction & Convergence Framework.” KENYA GOVERNMENT - COP 11 2005 “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 - LEADER SCOTTISH NATIONAL PARTY Liberal Democrats argue for the principle of contraction and convergence with the long-term goal of equalising per capita emissions globally. CHRIS HUHNE - LIBERAL DEMOCRATS

“I urge the UK Government to provide leadership on climate change by committing itself to Contraction & Convergence as the framework within which future international agreements to tackle climate change are negotiated. I confirm that the party also supports this pledge.” SIMON THOMAS - POLICY DIRECTOR PLAID CYMRU “The Kyoto Protocol says nothing about the future beyond 2012. To address that timescale the Green Party advocates the adoption by the UNFCCC of a framework of Contraction & Convergence (C&C) as the key ingredient in the global political solution to the problem of Climate Change mitigation, and urges the UK and other governments use it as the basis for negotiations in the international fora.” GREEN PARTY REAL PROGRESS - CLIMATE POLICY STATEMENT 25

52

©2008 THE GLOBAL COMMONS INSTITUTE

“To make provision for the adoption of a policy of combating climate change in accordance with the principles of . . . “Contraction & Convergence” and for connected purposes.” COLIN CHALLEN - CHAIR ALL-PARTY GROUP CLIMATE CHANGE

Any framework which involves radical emission reductions would in practice resemble the Contraction & Convergence approach advocated by the Global Commons Institute. Indeed, in terms of domestic policy aims, the UK Government has already implicitly accepted this approach in adopting the 60% carbon reduction target for 2050; and it is therefore inconsistent not to adopt such an approach internationally. We do not see any credible alternative and none was suggested in evidence to our inquiry. We therefore recommend that the UK Government should formally adopt and promote Contraction & Convergence as the basis for future international agreements to reduce emissions. ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT COMMITTEE HOUSE OF COMMONS “The Government should press for a future global climate agreement based on the Global Commons Institute’s “Contraction & Convergence” approach as the international framework within which future international agreements to tackle climate change are negotiated.These offer the best long-term prospect of securing equity, economy and international consensus.” ROYAL COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION

“Contraction & Convergence helps greatly. It is inclusive and makes clear what needs to be achieved. Without such a shared model, there will not be the necessary relationships that create the new and exciting possibilities and the trust for shared action.” CHRIS MOTTERSHEAD - DISTINGUISHED ADVISOR ENERGY&ENVIRONMENT BRITISH PETROLEUM PLC

“Almost any conceivable long-term solution to the climate problem will embody 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.” JOHN ASHTON - UK CLIMATE AMBASSADOR PEW REPORT

“The solution to climate change requires a globally equitable model of emissions reductions. The Contraction & Convergence model calls for already large polluting countries to cut their emissions, while newly industrialising countries increase theirs, up to the point that we converge at a sustainable level. That, I hope, will be the ethos that will guide cities around the world.” KEN LIVINGSTONE - MAYOR OF LONDON

“I admire GCI’s Contraction & Convergence model and their now nearly twenty year crusade by to get it established as the international basis of policy to meet the objective of the UN Climate Treaty. Their presentation of it is a dauntingly hard act to follow.” NICK BUTLER - DIRECTOR CAMBRIDGE ENERGY STUDIES

“I support the concept of Contraction & Convergence as does the Environment Agency” SIR JOHN HARMAN - CHAIRMAN UK ENVIRONMENT AGENCY

“ . . . there is an emerging proposal here that is important and helpful - a broad long-term commitment to equal per capita emissions. It’s a tough proposal. If we take it as part of the progressive agenda to move to that it will be helpful in bringing the world together as it brings the developing countries as part of this effort with an ethical and political commitment, not immediate, but towards convergence in terms of per capita emissions.” KEMAL DERVIS - CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR UNDP

53 ©2008 THE GLOBAL COMMONS INSTITUTE

“Business and government cannot solve the problem alone. Solutions must be global and participation of all major emitters is essential. Companies cannot determine the scale of needed investment without a stabilization threshold for greenhouse gas concentrations. The short-term “patchwork” of the Kyoto Protocol is not cost-effective. A global long term, market-based policy framework in a new partnership with China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Mexico is needed. Emissions rights with common metrics that can be adjusted over time to reflect evolving developments will ensure that a truly global solution to the problem is achieved.” G8 CLIMATE CHANGE 2005 BUSINESS LEADERS

“A formulation that takes the rights-based approach to its logical conclusion is that of Contraction & Convergence” [GCI] IPCC WG3 THIRD ASSESSMENT REPORT

“The global framework develops so that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is held at or below 400 ppmv. This long-term climate objective is met by ensuring that shortterm targets are linked to and consistent with it, with a gradual transition towards a system of equal per capita rights to use the absorptive capacity of the atmosphere.” STEPHEN BYERS - MP INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE TASK FORCE

“The Byers report refers to a new basis of equity and common, but differentiated, responsibilities. We need environmental equity with a cap and trade programme. Contraction & Convergence is the name that we must give to it. We must link that battle with the battle against poverty.” UK ALL-PARTY PARLIAMENTARY GROUP CLIMATE CHANGE

“Policy-makers need consensus on a global framework for climate stability based on principles of precaution and equity such as Contraction & Convergence.” UNEP FINANCIAL INITIATIVE

There is no other method of rationally and ethically guiding global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.” ROYAL INSTITUTE OF BRITISH ARCHITECTS 2006 “The UIA commits itself to campaigning for the most effective outcome possible at COP15 through advocacy of an emission limitation agreement based on the principle of contraction and convergence.” INTERNATIONAL UNION ARCHITECTS TURIN CONFERENCE 2008 There is a desperate need to create an effective policy for preserving healthy ecosystems by providing incentives and the resources to do so. The Contraction & Convergence approach promoted by UN is a well thought through and potentially powerful approach which also addresses fair distribution. PETER HEAD - DIRECTOR ARUP “The per capita approach is generally referred to as ‘contraction and convergence’ (Global Commons Institute 2000) and 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 this approach internationally: see, for example, Stern (2008) and the Commission on Growth and Development (2008). ROSS GARNAUT - AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT ECONOMIST “An international agreement is essential. It must be based on the criteria of effectiveness, efficiency and equity. Effectiveness demands a long-term global goal capping global emissions and providing a long-term trajectory for investment in low carbon technologies. This should be at least a halving of global emissions by 2050. A pragmatic principle of equity would require an equalisation of per capita emissions by then. This will require developed countries to cut by around 80%.” NICHOLAS STERN - UK 54 GOVERNMENT ECONOMIST 27

©2008 THE GLOBAL COMMONS INSTITUTE

“Contraction & Convergence - The logic is compelling. It is a formula for future global emissions that could, without exaggeration, save the world. Some environment groups such as Greenpeace see the formula as a dead-end. They are profoundly wrong.” Vote for New Statesman best climate framework Results January 2008 . . . 2% are saying Kyoto Protocol 81% are saying Contraction & Convergence 12% are saying Kyoto2 5% are saying Greenhouse Development Rights “A framework involving technology together with social, political and economic change with quantifiable targets is the only way forward. This is why we support the well-known concept of “Contraction & Convergence” (C&C) as proposed by the Global Commons Institute as the basis for the agreement. It satisfies developing countries’ demands for equity and US demands that major developing countries such as China and India be involved in any targets.” SCIENTISTS FOR GLOBAL RESPONSIBILITY “The WBGU recommends emissions rights be allocated according to the “Contraction & Convergence” approach.” GERMAN ADVISORY COUNCIL “I note what you say about Aubrey Meyer’s Contraction & Convergence proposal and I agree that in the fight against climate change C&C makes an important contribution to the debate on how we achieve long-term climate stability taking account of the principles of equity and sustainability.” TONY BLAIR - UK PRIME MINISTER

“The Churches can give their backing to Contraction & Convergence publicly and unanimously because at its core, it is just. It appears Utopian only if we refuse to contemplate the alternatives honestly.” DR ROWAN WILLIAMS - ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

“Climate change is likely to impose massive economic costs. The case for being prepared to spend huge resources to limit it is clear as the cost will be repaid many times over by the avoidance of disaster. The developed world does not have the moral right to increase the risk of flooding in Bangladesh. 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 OF CLIMATE COMMITTEE “We believe contraction and convergence is the best way forward because it recognises that growth in energy use in developing countries will happen. Even if we could achieve a reverse in trends of energy use in developed countries, there is not yet anywhere enough alternative and renewable energy available to get us off of fossil fuels fast enough. For the developing world the situation is even more urgent because that is where most energy intensive industrial and manufacting activity is heading.” TIM SMIT - CEO THE EDEN PROJECT “An approach receiving significant attention is Contraction & Convergence, the science-based global climate-policy framework proposed by the Global Commons Institute with the objective of realizing safe 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.” BOB WATSON - FORMER CHAIRMAN IPCCC

55 ©2008 THE GLOBAL COMMONS INSTITUTE

28

“Contraction & Convergence - and its mechanism for financing sustainable development is the only proposal so far which is global, equitable and growth-oriented.” CONGRESSMAN JOHN PORTER CHAIR, GLOBE USA “The idea of ‘Contraction & Convergence’ is destined to be one of the most important principles governing international relations in the 21st century. It is a powerful ethic that incorporates global justice and sustainability and thereby bridges the dominant concerns of the last century and this one. It is the only way to accommodate the interests, ethical and economic, of developing countries and rich countries in the struggle to find a solution to the most important environmental problem facing the world.” DR CLIVE HAMILTON - THE AUSTRALIA INSTITUTE

“The approach of contraction and convergence presents a new economic development paradigm for the twenty first century and beyond.” MRS. RUNGANO KARIMANZIRA - CHAIR, AFRICA GROUP

“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 & Convergence.” UK CHARTERED INSURANCE INSTITUTE “Any political solution to climate change will need to be based on reductions in emissions, otherwise known as contraction. As the climate is owned by no one and needed by everyone, we will also have to move towards equally sharing the atmosphere, known as convergence. Collective survival depends on addressing both.” WORLD DISASTERS REPORT 2000 INTERNATIONAL RED CROSS/CRESCENT “The vision of “Contraction & Convergence” combines ecology and equity most elegantly.” HEINRICH BOELL FOUNDATION “The assiduous campaigning over the last decade by the Global Commons Institute based on its idea of’ ‘contract and converge’ - under which the rich nations undertake to reduce emissions even as developing nations are permitted to grow their emissions until such time as per capita emissions converge at the same level, has given this kind of approach some real credibility. So, too, has the readiness of developing countries such as China, Brazil, Indonesia and Argentina to accept emissions targets for their own counties - not least because they are already beginning to feel the impacts of climate change. The real strength of this approach is that it is based upon a trading system, with rich nations needing to purchase additional carbon credits from poorer nations.” JONATHON PORRITT - FORUM FOR THE FUTURE “There are a number of measures (of varying scale) that can be used to reduce the amount of CO2 that is being emitted, these include: - Contraction & Convergence conceived by the Global Commons Institute (GCI) in the early 1990s consists of reducing overall emissions of GHGs 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’.” BMA 2008 - “HOW CAN THE IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE BE REDUCED?” “CHC advocates a global framework for action with ‘contraction and convergence’ a favoured option, and seek the means to influence key decision makers.” CLIMATE AND HEALTH COUNCIL

56 29

©2008 THE GLOBAL COMMONS INSTITUTE

“Admiration is frequently expressed, regarding the elegance and simple logic of Contraction & Convergence and it has been widely supported by policy makers as a basis that should underlie the next stage of policy formulation.” SIR JOHN HOUGHTON - FORMER CHAIR IPCC WORKING GROUP ONE

“Many governments around the world have accepted the concept of Contraction & Convergence as the only equitable response mechanism to the threat of climate change.” GRACE AKUMU - DIRECTOR, CLIMATE NETWORK AFRICA In the end, they will need to give much weight to equal per capita rights of emissions. They will need to allow long periods for adjustment towards such positions-within the over-riding requirement to stay within an environmentally responsible global emissions budget. One possible way of bringing these two elements together would be the “contraction and convergence” approach that has been discussed favourably in Germany and India. ROSS GARNAULT - CLIMATE STRATEGIST AUSTRALIAN GOVERMENT “I not only support the C&C concept, I find it inconceivable that we will avert climate catastrophe without a regime built on some variation of this approach. In the debate about climate change, an impression has been created that the problem is too daunting and complex to prevent. Contraction & Convergence provides a way forward that is both fair and feasible.” JOHN RITCH - WORLD NUCLEAR ASSOCIATION

“It is absolutely remarkable that the idea of Contraction & Convergence has taken such a firm hold worldwide in such a short space of time.” TESSATENNANT - CHAIR ASSOCIATION FOR SUSTAINABLE& RESPONSIBLE INVESTMENT IN ASIA

“Contraction & Convergence is an extermely powerful idea and we are moving remorselessly towards it.” MICHAEL MEACHER - FORMER UK ENVIRONMENT MINISTER

“. . . an approach receiving significant attention is Contraction & Convergence [C&C] - a science-based global framework whereby total global emissions are reduced (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. It applies principles of precaution and equity; principles identified as important in the UNFCCC but not defined.” WORLD BANK ON CONTRACTION & CONVERGENCE “A brilliant, imaginative and simple means of reaching a just global agreement on emission reductions is called Contraction & Convergence (C&C). It was first proposed by the Global Commons Institute (GCI) in 1990. Recognition of its unique qualities as a framework for combating climate change has grown at an astonishing rate since that date.” MAYER HILLMAN - AUTHOR OF HOW WE CAN SAVE THE PLANET “In the light of the long-term perspective two basic requirements must be met: Stabilisation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a level in accordance with the overall objective of the Climate Change Convention. A fair distribution of rights and obligations, by establishing the concept of percapita emission rights for all countries, as proposed in the ‘Contraction & Convergence’ scheme.” DAVID HALLMAN - WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES

57 ©2008 THE GLOBAL COMMONS INSTITUTE

30

“The Scientific Case for Setting a Long-Term Emission Reduction Target. The framework of this study builds on the RCEP work which uses a contraction and convergence methodology. Contraction & Convergence is an international policy framework for dealing with global climate change developed by the London-based Global Commons Institute.” DEFRA ON C&C UK building industry leaders wrote to Mr Blair saying this framework-based market is contraction and convergence. “We highlight the point made by the Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change that getting the right global climate change framework in place is the most urgent action. The Contraction & Convergence Framework, accepted by the UN and by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (amongst others) could well provide a fair structure for the engagement of all nations.” CIBSE AND ICE ON C&C “The leading model advocating equal per capita emissions rights globally is ‘Contraction & Convergence’, to which all equity frameworks and proposals owe their existence.” CHRISTIAN AID Tearfund wrote to Mr Blair saying this framework-based market is contraction and convergence. “The C&C framework is global, long-term, effective, and, importantly, equitable, without which it would stand no chance of being agreed. From the outset developing countries have a guarantee of equitable allocations and assurance as to when this would happen.” TEARFUND ON C&C Contraction & Convergence (C&C) provides a simple framework for globally allocating the right to emit carbon in a way that is consistent with the physical constraints of the biosphere. The approach rests on two simple principles contraction: reducing humanity’s emissions to a rate that the biosphere can absorb convergence: distributing total emissions so that each person ultimately gets the same portion of the ‘global budget’. The extension of C&C to all demands on the biosphere is referred to as Shrink & Share. JONATHON LOH GFN - WWF ON C&C “To minimise the danger of global temperature rises exceeding 2°C, a level considered dangerous, a concentration of no more than 400ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is recommended [Byers Report] . . . . and the EU’s burden of responsibility to meet this science-based cap should be apportioned on the basis of equal global rights to carbon consumption.” GREENPEACE ON BYERS REPORT “A recommendation in the Byers report is to build on the global climate change framework of both the UN Framework convention on climate change. It refers to a new basis of equity and common, but differentiated, responsibilities. We need environmental equity with a cap and trade programme. Contraction & Convergence is the name that we must give to it. We must link that battle with the battle against poverty.” COLIN CHALLEN MP - BYERS REPORT IS C&C “Thanks very much for passing on the very nice animation of C&C and risk. One of the things we will be looking at in my newly formed group here at Victoria University in Wellington is burden sharing issues, so the new work on C&C in the UK is of interest to me.” MARTIN MANNING - IPCC TECHNICAL SUPPORT UNIT WG1 The idea of contraction and convergence is particularly persuasive as it addresses two key threats to humanity, climate change and unequal development, in one framework. LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFORMATION UNIT UK

58 31

©2008 THE GLOBAL COMMONS INSTITUTE

“The commission might have added that contraction and convergence is comprehensive, scientifically based and equitable, unlike the Kyoto Protocol, and that contraction and convergence meets every single objection raised by the United States to Kyoto.” LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORD Aubrey Meyer has done an amazing job and has shown extraordinary persistence and ingenuity in working out a scheme of this kind, and I very much admire him for it. Above all he’s laid out a kind of intellectual and legal framework which is what you need if you’re going to se global arrangements in place, and these global arrangements should I believe be fully reflected in the Bill that is now before UK Parliament to regulate Climate Change SIR CRISPIN TICKELL - DIRECTOR OF THE POLICY FORESIGHT PROGRAMME JAMES MARTIN INSTITUTE OXFORD Contraction & Convergence includes the identification of a fixed level for stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations, and comprehensive global participation. Any framework that incorporates long term targets can offer countries greater certainty about their national targets and provide a clear signal to allow business to plan ahead and help drive investment in new and better technologies. NUMBER 10 DOWNING STREET WEBSITE

“To make sense of our own actions we need to have an overall direction; contraction and convergence provides that direction.” SUNAND PRASAD - PRESIDENT OF RIBA

“Long-term convergence of per capita emission rates is an important principle that should be seriously considered in international climate change negotiations.” PRIME MINISTER GORDON BROWN AND INDIAN GOVERNMENT ON C&C

Any framework which involves radical emission reductions would in practice resemble the Contraction & Convergence approach advocated by the Global Commons Institute. Indeed, in terms of domestic policy aims, the UK Government has already implicitly accepted this approach in adopting the 60% carbon reduction target for 2050; and it is therefore inconsistent not to adopt such an approach internationally. We do not see any credible alternative and none was suggested in evidence to our inquiry. We therefore recommend that the UK Government should formally adopt and promote Contraction & Convergence as the basis for future international agreements to reduce emissions. ENVIRONMENTALAUDITCOMMITTEE,“THEINTERNATIONALCHALLENGEOFCLIMATECHANGE” “My colleagues and I at the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution would like to express our thanks to you and GCI for your remarkable pioneering work in establishing Contraction & Convergence as it is the basis upon which so much of our own work has been established.” SIR TOM BLUNDELL - CHAIRMAN, RCEP

“Contraction & Convergence is the approach with the most merits. It is the buzz phrase now on the negotiator’s lips.” SIR DAVID KING - “THE HOT TOPIC”

“One approach on the table is contraction and convergence - rich countries contracting their emissions quickly, while developing countries are given some room to grow on condition they make cuts later.” THE AGE REPORTING ON THE G8 2008 IN TOYAKO JAPAN “The British government has modelling under way in the most favoured method - contraction and convergence - but there is no diplomatic agreement that this is the best way to proceed.” 59 THE GUARDIAN REPORTING ON THE G8 2008 ©2008 THE GLOBAL COMMONS INSTITUTE

32

C&C represents a far greater departure from business as usual than does Kyoto. It is strong medicine for a dire malaise, and as with all strong medicine there are potential side effects. One is that the scheme might eventually do away with world poverty and the north-south divide. Not all aspects of the proposal should displease the conservatives, for by including every human being in existence under its umbrella it obliterates concern about ‘free riders’ in the developing world that exists under Kyoto. TIM FLANNERY - AUTHOR OF THE WEATHER MAKERS When I was RIBA President we looked at Kyoto and saving 60% by 2050 looked a reasonable start. But the thing that attracted about Contraction & Convergence or C&C was that it looked at the global dimension and what is a ‘fair share’ of carbon emissions for your country C&C gives a framework within which to address that. We’re comfortable supporting C&C and Aubrey Meyer. JACK PRINGLE - FORMER PRESIDENT OF RIBA The fundamental attraction of Contraction & Convergence to me is that it’s logically based. It’s not based on essentially market issues and arbitrary decisions about how many tons of CO2 permits are going to be allowed. It also doesn’t have the risk in my view of one of the real issues with trading that some of the poorer nations and poorer peoples of the world will mortgage their future on a futures market of trading permits. PROF PAUL JOWITT - PRESIDENT ELECT ICE

“We need to go to the United Nations and need to say both to our own citizens, our own communities and global communities through the United Nations, C&C is the only real way forward to ensure a healthy future.” ANGELA MAWLE - CEO PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION

“C&C is an excellent virtuous cycle policy tool. There are many benefits to our wellbeing of adopting it. Articulating these benefits, health and other professional groups will offer the hope and inspiration necessary to counter global warming, and so act in accordance with our obligations.” ROBIN STOTT - CHAIR CLIMATE AND HEALTH COUNCIL “The C&C framework is very powerful as it addresses two main issues; one is the scientific basis and the rigour, and the other is our intuitive feeling about the moral needs of our community. Scientifically and in terms of equity it gives us targets, timescale and a transparent fairness that through the convergence enables us to leave our children something better than we have now.” LORNA WALKER - CABE COMMISSIONER We can empower the UN to deliver C&C as a global policy. As climate change is the greatest threat to mankind, what better vehicle through which to get the UN pulling together again. We need to get our own politicians to press our own governments to do this. We need to get our own government to press Europe to do this. We need to use our formidable clout as Europe to get it delivered by the UN. The great thing about C&C is that it offers the prospect that if you’re clever and if you really get to it, you can make this work for you, not just for the world, but for you individually and as a country. JON SNOW - CHANNEL FOUR TV NEWS The benefits of the C&C approach in three words are simplicity, economics and international. With a simple international structure, C&C makes economics kick in which is absolutely fundamental to getting the biggest infrastructural change in human history. PROFESSOR MICHAEL MAINELLI - DIRECTOR Z/YEN

60 33

©2008 THE GLOBAL COMMONS INSTITUTE

FIFTEENTH SUMMIT South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Colombo, Sri Lanka - August 2-3, 2008 “The Heads of State or Government affirmed that every citizen of this planet must have an equal share of the planetary atmospheric space. In this context, they endorsed the convergence of per capita emissions of developing and developed countries on an equitable basis for tackling climate change.”

His Excellency Mr. Hamid Karzai President of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan

His Excellency Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed Chief Adviser of the Government. The People’s Republic of Bangladesh

His Excellency Lyonchhen Jigmi Y. Thinley Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Bhutan

His Excellency Dr. Manmohan Singh Prime Minister of the Republic of India

His Excellency Mr. Maumoon Abdul Gayoom President of the Republic of Maldives

The Rt. Hon’ble Girija Prasad Koirala Prime Minister of the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal

His Excellency Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani Prime Minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan

His Excellency Mr. Mahinda Rajapaksa President of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka

©2008 THE GLOBAL COMMONS INSTITUTE

61

34

COMMENTS 2002 Michael Meacher, the UK Environment Minister

“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 tireless individual.”

2003 The UN Climate Convention Secretariat

“Achieving the goal of the climate treaty, inevitably requires contraction and convergence”.

2003 The Archbishop of Canterbury

“C&C appears utopian only if we refuse to contemplate the alternatives honestly.”

2003 Sir John Houghton, Royal Commission Environmental Pollution

“Since the formulation of ‘Contraction and Convergence’, Aubrey Meyer has tirelessly and selflessly argued for and promoted it with great energy and tenacity in scientific, economic and political fora. Admiration is frequently expressed regarding its elegance and simple logic and it has been widely accepted by policy makers and by NGOs as a basis that should underlie the next stage of policy formulation. There is no other proposal in play that meets so many of the required principles and criteria or that has any real chance of succeeding. It is bound to be strongly influential in the crucial round of international negotiations in the FCCC that is about to begin. The personal dedication of Aubrey Meyer, born of a deep concern for global humanity and its future, is what has brought the Contraction and Convergence proposal to the influential position it holds today.”

Independent on Sunday, a UK broadsheet

“Meyer is one of the three most important people in the world.”

The New Statesman, a UK Journal

“Meyer is one of the ten people in the world most likely to change it.”

UNITAR Seminar

“Meyer is arguably the world’s leading carbon strategist” and “the Mandela of Climate Change” for demonstrating the end of global apartheid.

Sir Crispin Tickell, former UK Ambassador to the UN

“Aubrey Meyer has done an amazing job and shown extraordinary persistence and ingenuity in working out a scheme of this kind, and I very much admire him for it. Above all he’s laid out a kind of intellectual and legal framework which is what you need if you’re going to set global arrangements in place.”

Dr. Julian Salt Director of Climate Solutions

“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 indestructible 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 funding 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 nuance 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.”

Nobel Nomination by UK All Party Parliamentary Climate Change Group

“We have nominated Aubrey Meyer for the Noble Peace Prize 2008 because 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. He realised that we need a comprehensive climate change framework if we are to protect our planet and founded the Global Commons Institute in 1990 to 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.”

62

AWARDS Andrew Lees Memorial Award - 1998

“Aubrey Meyer, almost single-handedly and with minimal resources, has made an extraordinary impact on the negotiations on the Climate Change Treaty, one of the most important of our time, through his campaign for a goal of equal per capita emissions, which is now official negotiating position of many governments, and is gaining acceptance in developed and developing countries alike.”

The Schumacher Award - 2000

“Aubrey Meyer set up his Global Commons Institute (GCI) in 1990, with minimal resources, to campaign to bring the threat of global warming to the attention of the public and to policy makers. For over ten years, with great determination and meticulous attention to scientific detail, he has presented his case counteracting the arguments put forward by corporate interests. Of special significance is his formulation of ‘contraction and convergence’, a strategy for fairly sharing the rights to emit carbon dioxide worldwide. This is increasingly recognised as the most logical and effective way of preventing climatic catastrophe while promoting justice and equity. It has made an extraordinary impact on the Climate Change Treaty negotiations.”

A Findhorn Fellowship 2004

“Aubrey Meyer is a professional violinist who has largely bracketed his music career to address the global challenge of climate change. Having attended the first UN meetings on the subject in the early 90’s, he has since fully engaged with the issue and developed the ‘Contraction and Convergence’ model as an antidote to it. He created and directs the Global Commons Institute in London as a vehicle to advance his formula to virtually all who will listen. He presented it here at the Restore the Earth conference in 2002. Its genius lies in its capacity prospectively to reduce greenhouse emissions by the 60-80% that the UN IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) say is required to minimise the likely devastating effects of global warming. His views are increasingly endorsed by prominent members of the British establishment. I hope you join me in welcoming Aubrey to the Fellowship and in supporting his remarkable, indeed heroic, initiative. Aubrey Meyer is arguably the world’s foremost carbon strategist and to global warming what Michael Moore is to the US electoral saga - a delightful maverick who just might ‘save the day’.”

City of London Life-Time’s Achievement Award - 2005

“From the worlds of business, academia, politics and activism, Aubrey Meyer has made the greatest contribution to the understanding and combating of climate change having led strategic debate or policy formation. In recognition of an outstanding personal contribution to combating climate change at an international level through his efforts to enhance the understanding and adoption of the principle of Contraction and Convergence.”

Honorary Fellow of Royal Institute of British Architects - 2007

For his challenging and inspirational promotion of environmental issues, in particular his development of the concept of Contraction and Convergence. Architects adopted C&C at RIBA Council in 2006 and asked Aubrey to present C&C at their annual conference in October. There, RIBA’s Chairman declared climate change as the dominant agenda for the 21st Century, called for C&C targets and committed RIBA to campaigning for C&C.” He was an inspirational speaker at the RIBA’s 2006 Annual Conference in Venice and reported the event as follows; “Meyer, formerly a professional musician, started with a virtuoso performance that was simultaneously moving, terrifying and informative. He played the violin theme to Schindler’s List to images of the environmental holocaust he went on to argue that we face.”

The UNEP FI Global Roundtable Financial Leadership Award - 2007

UNEP FI for the first time recognized executives within the financial services who have contributed in a significant manner to the development of financial ideas, innovative products, institutional change and or the carbon markets themselves through the UNEP FI Carbon Leadership Award. Four executive awards were given for each category of financial services: Banking, Insurance/ Reinsurance, Asset Management/Private Banking and Pension Funds. In addition, an award was given for a representative from civil society who had worked towards the same end. Award winners were selected from a large number of entries by a small group of UNEP FI’s long term climate change advisors. The civil society category award for the most impressive commitment and innovative thinking around climate change and the financial sector with the UNEP FI Carbon Leadership Award went to Aubrey Meyer of the Global Commons Institute.

63

11

INSURANCE INDUSTRY VIEWS OF C&C

http://www.gci.org.uk/Animations/BENN_C&C_Animation.exe

“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.”

BILL MCGUIRE, DIRECTOR - BENFIELD HAZARD CENTRE, UCL “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 timescales. 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 modeling. 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.”

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 irresistible 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 climatefriendly 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

CONTACT DETAILS GLOBAL COMMONS INSTITUTE Aubrey Meyer, Director GCI 37 Ravenswood Road, LONDON E17 9LY

64