There is certainly some interesting debate on this site and forum that I would welcome your input to.

I am a fan of Contraction and Convergence and have been for some time. However, I think limits and caps are problematic. There are myriad examples to show how people are responding to this problem - which is essentially one of energy efficiency, or common sense - and reducing carbon emissions without legislative intereference.

For example, the UKGBC recently studied a bunch of homes built to the 2002 building regs. They found that the efficiency had decreased by some 40% within two years, predominantly as a result of settling. Perhaps there are better ways of spending the money than meeting rules and regulations imposed from above. Creativity is essential to respond to this problem.

In other words doing enough soon enough is key, because doing too little too late is not good enough.

A global C&C carbon countdown is needed now urgently as these animations show: -

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

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

Well this is where I think we can actually make a difference. First we need to through tax reductions provide research and development incentives in each Industry we wish to effect.

Example we could allow a tax credit contribution to a industry specific technology fund, this fund’s R&D developments would be common property for all contributors. The goal would then be to sell the tech as an export, development and distribution of which could be financed through creation of public entities getting financing from the investment community. This would be volunatary but encouraged. Very much like is proposed through carbon taxes.

Tax rates on new technology investment should be reduced and concessions on site selections increased in direct proportion to the level of emissions to be generated. Prime locations would be available for low carbon developments.

We should also increase education systems and financial support, we need to graduate more engineers and scientists with streamlined industry focuses. Companies would be encouraged to offer more tax-free scholarships with job placements in the industry.

This take sgovernment’s hand off the wheel, except for the following legislation.

Any new electrical generation must Zero Emissions in generation regardless of source.

Any new factories or refineries must show a 50% reduction in GHG emissions over existing plants and require the retirement of the old plant.

All manufactured goods must be clearly labelled with a emissions statement.

All new eletrical devices must consume zero power in an off or unused mode, they must meet current energy star guidelines. Older models production must be stopped as soon as a replacement product that is equivilent and compliant is released.

I have many more, far too many to list here.

I fully agree with you, but would ask the question: how do you incentivise this when existing technologies are largely cheaper, more reliable and well proven??

Thanks again!
Mark.

Thanks for this information. My frustration of late is not so much the issue of AGW it is the actions being taken without any real overall plan.

Global politics and International Agreements are a huge restrictive legal monstrousity or are completely useless, that is just the way things are. I am aware of the format and the policies, concessions and background deals that official representatives and legal councils use to draft these agreements, my questions were more about aimed at getting people to see the underlayer of International Politics and what an involuntary vs voluntary agreement would mean.

People need to understand the ramifications and limitations of International agreements.

My frustation comes from, of late that is, the question; is this the “greatest threat to humanity” or a “green lifestyle experiment”?

I am going to Blog the “Contraction and Convergence” review later this week. So far I can say that as soon as something contains Population Caps I kinda get turned off, but I will review fairly, I downloaded the excel workbook and I am playing with the data a little to make sure I understand the methodology. Thanks for the link.

That does not stop the powers that be addressing the questions and thus changing the world as we know it. It is important to ensure public awareness of what is going on; even more important is not resisting for the sake of resisting, which is the source of much of my frustration with “Green-ism”. It is so easy to get scared by the statistics that people often forget to examine and learn the processes and politics, enabling chancers (e.g. extreme socialists) to take advantage of the hysteria. You also end up with things like “Earth Hour” that do bugger all apart from making people feel happier about themselves. (Which is not a bad thing, just frustrating because it doesn’t address the issues.)

To go some way to actually answering your questions, overall all I would say “one case at a time”, e.g. the ICC and the ICT of the FRY. One good thing about climate change is, the exposure it has will hopefully open up some of the other processes of global governance.

Some relevant links below that you might be interested in:

An excellent (if quite academic) examination of world politics:
http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521405785

A more accessible, positive and practical look at the issues:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Future-Positive-International-Co-operation-Century/dp/1844071022

PS You didn’t comment on Contraction and Convergence.

The WTO is a toothless body that provides a forum for dispute resolution based on the agreement in dispute, they simple provide a forum, participation in which is strictly voluntary.

So how do you craft an International Agreement on Climate change that does not include a provision for the voluntary withdrawl from the agreement?

What is considered a measured and legitimate response to violations?

How do you handle changes in governments due to political changes in the population or revolutionary coups of member states?

How do you handle complete failure of governmental heirarchy due to civil unrest or war?

How to resolve these disputes in a timely manner instead of being bogged down in legislative quicksand and endless court decisions?

The UNFCCC has the Montreal Accords to use as a template but they were much easier to implement. They were limited in scope and specific to certain industries where a technological alternative that was no more costly was available.

The agreement will either emerge as a monsterous and restrictive involuntary legal nightmare with severe non-compliance penalties complete with a carbon costing system, or it will be a Kyoto style completely useless waste of time.

Depending on your team, both are equally frightening.

Do you have any evidence of this? The EU ETS came under heavy fire last year for not achieving any reductions, if memory serves.
[/quote]

I forgot to add the word “theoretically / if implemented correctly” - which pretty much applies to all statements.

Re (3), there are a lot of reforms underway - of the UN, IBRD (World Bank) and IMF. Gordon Brown is calling for the IBRD to take the lead on climate change. I imagine the fines/ penalties will be administered by the IBRD similarly to the dispute process of the WTO.

I agree re: adaptation, but it’s very much in the realm of development, and no-one really knows how to do that.

Slight aside, the Global Commons Institute’s “Contraction and Convergence” model seems to be gaining some favour. I wonder what you make of it.
http://www.gci.org.uk/contconv/cc.html

Cap and Trade is interesting but there are serious problems.

1) What is the CAP? As I mentioned before in another post the annual global carbon sink potential is about 500kgC per Capita.(a family of 4 in the west produces on average 50KgC a day, not including Industry, transportation, public infastructure or agriculture [40 days], even China at 25% consumption only makes it 160 days) The CAP must address the issue of AGW, but anything over the 3.3GtC available will add to atmospheric CO2 and would be counter-productive unless of course reducing GHG to pre-industrial levels or even stabilization is not your plan.

2) No matter how tightly you regulate the trading and monitor it Individuals, Industries, Countries will game the system. See the trading scandal in France, Enron in the US, etc.

3) Global fines and penalties are paid to who? By Who? We are talking about an incredible amount of money, that still does not address AGW and emissions, that will need to be administrated. What if a country refuses to pay? What are the penalties for non-compliance or cheating? Who will enforce them? What form will the enforcment take?

4) The only way I would support Fines and Penalties on a Global Scale is if countries could option out of all our foreign aid programs including the financing of the UN. Especially if the fines are used to distribute wealth to under-developed countries and the UN will undoubtably take an administration cut of proceeds.

5) Before any action is taken I just want to see a plan that does not offer a false hope of stabilization at the doubling or tripling of atmospheric CO2 over the “concensus” baseline of 280ppm and in direct contridiction of the 2C “tipping point”. I also want to see a statement that if this is done there will be guaranteed real limitations for costs associated with adaptation to a changing climate, backed by the UN, with a portion of the fines put aside to rebate to countries who experience adaptation costs over a CAP amount based on a common baseline just like temperature.

The answer is there is no solution that does not require adaptation to Climate Change. So lets develop alternate energy, just like we were, lets replace older infrastructure and growth with new technology, just like we always have, lets increase production and energy use efficiency, like we always have. We will arrive at the exact same point, a low carbon civilization trying to meet the needs of its populations while dealing with climate issues, just like we always have, with the exact same climate either way and we will not have had 1/4 of the global anxiety, economic hardship, political infighting, oppressive local and Global Regulations,massive inflation and taxation,trade sanctions or the forced transfer of wealth.

I am not as pessimistic as environmentalists, I think our global conscience was driving us already, forcing the issue will only lead to more mistakes like ethanol and other bio-fuels. Any technology is implemented, even ill-concieved ones, to appear that you are doing something pro-active. Even the EU will not back down from its bio-fuel plans even when there is not enough available bio-mass to meet the 10% bio-fuel demand and the technology creates more CO2 then what it is replacing and puts demands on land use and food production globally.

Do you have any evidence of this? The EU ETS came under heavy fire last year for not achieving any reductions, if memory serves.

The downsides with taxes are:
1. Taxes are passed directly to the consumer, so there is no incentive for technology investment

2. Taxes don’t limit total emissions - a cap & trade system does

Conversely, the higher price of goods which are taxed does tend to do something to alter consumption behaviour.

I think that the mechanism you describe where penalties / bonuses are awarded for being under / over a certain limit is pretty much what an emissions trading system is.??

We did not abolish slavery by establishing a slave market.

The correct approach is to have the world aim for certain per capita emissions. Each country would then pay taxes/fines into a common fund for whatever amount they were over it, or receive subsidies from that fund if they were under it, subsidies for renewable energy, forestation and the like.

This would encourage high emissions countries to reduce emissions, and low emissions countries (who are mostly just impoverished countries) would get a huge boost for development.

The plan is bold, decisive and fair. Unfortunately it does nothing for real CO2 reductions to prevent a global catastrophe, if you believe in such.

Only 3 Euros per week per person is a deal? Just for the UK that equates to (60 Million x 52 x 3) = $9.3 Billion Euros a year, and climate change will cost 10 times that or 93 Billion Euros just for the UK, who knew?

BTW IPCC puts the cost of adaptation in the Business as Usual Scenario for the UK to be 6-7 Billion Euros per year (0.5% GDP).

Oddly enough that is nowhere near 93 Billion Euros. Perhaps someone was “inflating” the costs of inaction for justification.

I would like to take this opportunity to show my appreciation for the EU and all the member nations on their bold and decisive actions and look forward to resuming trade with them in 50 years.