I support the idea of holding an event at which the various approaches
are discussed, but I would be opposed to structuring it as a debate as
that might generate more heat than light. Organising an event where
individuals insisted that they were right and that people with other
views were "barking" to use Aubrey's term would not be a good use of
anyone's time.

So I suggest that we spend a morning agreeing where the various
proposals differ and where they are essentially the same. Then, in the
afternoon, we could look at the circumstances in which one approach
might be more appropriate than another. I see the approaches as tools.
A rip saw condemning a hacksaw because it has different design
features is silly. The more types of tool we can offer, and the better
we understand them, the greater the chance that one   will be adopted,
perhaps after incorporating features from the others,  as the basis of
a global settlement.

We've all got a common aim. Anyone who has a closed mind or a tendency
to be abusive should stay away.

Richard

2008/6/20 [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>:
> I think Oliver's idea of an event where we can debate with each other is an
> excellent one.  I think we should bring in proponents of a lot of different
> schemes eg greenhouse development rights, cap and share, cap and dividend,
> as well as K2 and C&C.
>
>
>
> I am prepared to organise such an event.  Is anyone else interested?
>
>
>
> Chris Keene
>
> ----Original Message----
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Date: 20/06/2008 14:56
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Subj: Re: K2 / C&C - Moving forward on climate
>
> I'm not going to venture into detailed answers here to all the points
> raised. I don't have the time, most members of the list probably don't have
> the interest, and in any case it's all in the book. Suffice it say that:
>
> 1. Kyoto2 represents a means of delivering on the UNFCCC purpose and
> principles, which so far remain unfulfilled.
> 2. The UNFCCC is the sovereign body, not "K2".
> 3. To implement either K2 or C&C would involve telling the UNFCCC / member
> states that they have got it wrong to date and that a new approach is
> needed, which is clearly the case and we are not the only people saying it.
> Not much difference there ...
>
> But the real point here is that I asked a clear question: "do you want to
> engage, or don't you? If you do, let's try and organise an open event where
> we can discuss / debate the issues with open hearts and open minds. Are you
> up for it?"
>
> Nowhere do I see the answer "YES", so I can only presume the answer is "NO".
> That's your privilege. Let me know if you change your mind.
>
> Oliver Tickell, Kyoto2.
> ________________________________
> From: AUBREY MEYER [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 20 June 2008 13:47
> To: Oliver Tickell; [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: K2 / C&C - Moving forward on climate
>
> Dear Oliver
>
> Your response here continues to be avoidance of the key questions that arose
> with climate change. It also disingenuous about me.
>
> For the record: -
>
> [a] Please spell out on this this list what you call, "the misconception
> about Kyoto2" - simply referring people to the K-2 website, does not
> suffice, at least for me.
>
> [b] The C&C propositions have been in circulation for some years now: -
> http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/ICE.pdf
>
> referenced by numerous parties and specifically agreed and endorsed by a
> number of these.
> I asked you, when you originally approached me to engage your proposals, and
> you ignored this completely.
>
> So I ask you here again now: -
>
> [1] "Please explain [here on this list] how you quantify your emissions
> contraction event - you now say - for 350 ppmv" and then: -
>
> [2] Relate this to the UNFCCC [objective principles and process].
>
> Reading your website suggests to me that you are presumbly going to have to
> go to the UNFCCC [COP-'x'] and say: -
>
> "K-2 wishes to inform all of you Nations [Parties to the UNFCCC] that all of
> your attempts to negotiate emissions limitation and/or reductions have
> failed and will fail in future.
>
> Consequently, K-2 [which comprises the following interests] requires you to
> limit and/or reduce your fossil fuel production forthwith and to agree that:
> -
>
> [1] it will be at rates that will determined by K-2
> [2] that permits to equivalent of this will be issued and then auctioned by
> K-2 to those interests who are producing the fossil fuels
> [3] the proceeds of this aution will be redistributed to whoever K-2 judges
> to be in need of the readies.
>
> If K-2 is/n't this and/or does/n't require this, please do indicate here on
> this list, K-2's MO [modus operandi].
>
> There is no debate that I yet recognise as you apparently do not recognize
> [or is it wish to recognize?] these obviously fundamental questions are
> there and require answers.
>
> Idealism is fine; anxiety is justifed; frustration with the process is more
> than warrated; and so by all means, do [please] say whatever you like,
> free-speech is permitted.
>
> But there are consequences for misleading people. What I mean by that is: -
> do expect me to respond as you now present K-2 as an improvement on or a
> replacement for C&C.
>
> Moreover, by all means claim here and now that you [finally] do want to talk
> and debate. However, do not behave and declare here that you are 'puzzled
> by' the points I am making back to you, since they are the essentially the
> same points that were made to you when you originally asked me to endorse
> what you were doing starting in October 2006, points indeed communications,
> which you simply [as was your right] ignored.
>
> I say that if K-2 was more robust, you could carry on ignoring these
> questions. But please note that flogging your book and your website is not
> an argument, it is a marketing strategy; it is not a climate strategy.
>
> With kind regards
>
> Aubrey
>
> Oliver Tickell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> .hmmessage P { PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px;
> MARGIN: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px } BODY.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
> FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma }
> I began this strand by suggesting that it might be constructive to identify
> points of agreement. The responses so far have been to raise supposed points
> of disagreement. Many of the points raised as points of disagreement are in
> fact no such thing, and seem to be based on misconceptions about Kyoto2. To
> put those right I can only suggest, look at the website (www.kyoto2.org/)
> and read the book (due out in late July but you can pre-order on Amazon).
>
> There is just one point which it does seem necessary to address right now.
> Aubrey Meyer writes: "I have tried over nearly three years to engage the
> author[s] of K-2 on the problems of this. All that I was offered was
> avoidance with the odd we-love-you, get-well cards."
>
> This statement is puzzling. Consider my suggestion, below, that "Maybe we
> should try to organise some kind of event at which the benefits and problems
> of the two approaches can be assessed and explored, and maybe ultimately
> reconciled?" This invitation to engage has been ignored by the C&C'ers. This
> is disappointing, but consistent with past experience.
>
> But let me say it again - do you want to engage, or don't you? If you do,
> let's try and organise an open event where we can discuss / debate the
> issues with open hearts and open minds. Are you up for it?
>
> Oliver Tickell, Kyoto2.
> ________________________________
> From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of jo abbess
> Sent: 20 June 2008 10:55
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: K2 / C&C - Moving forward on climate
>
> Hello Fellow CRISIS FORUM Folk,
>
> Let us take just a brief look at the brief and troubled history of national,
> regional and international Carbon Policy, to determine on which horse we
> should place our bets for a saner, safer world : corporate management of the
> problem or regulatory management of the problem.
>
> Let us consider the fuzzy logic of the European Union Emissions Trading
> Scheme : continuously assailed and compromised by the corporate lobbies and
> the government (acting in the interests of their national corporates)
> delegations.
>
> What we end up with is a framework that is ineffectually implemented, with
> financial outcomes that are deleterious to economic stability and a sum
> total of not very far along the road to a Low Carbon future.
>
> The interests of corporate entities are antithetical to the interests of
> continued life on the Planet, and therefore, no corporate entities should be
> permitted to govern the policy.
>
> Belief in the power of marketised, privatised economies to deliver on Carbon
> Cuts is touchingly naive and criminally insane, in my view. Faith in the
> corporates to do the business is akin, I think, to a religion.
>
> For evidence of continued entanglement of "church" and state :-
>
> =x=x=x=x=x=x=
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7464517.stm
>
> Business chiefs urge carbon curbs
> By Richard Black
> Environment correspondent, BBC News website
>
> A coalition of 99 companies is asking political leaders to set targets for
> cutting greenhouse gas emissions and to establish a global carbon market.
>
> Their blueprint for tackling climate change is being handed to Japanese
> Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda ahead of next month's G8 summit in Japan.
>
> Companies involved include Alcoa, British Airways (BA), Deutsche Bank, EDF,
> Petrobras, Shell and Vattenfall.
>
> They argue that cutting emissions must be made to carry economic advantages.
>
> =x=x=x=x=x=x=x=
>
> Who do we trust ? The man who says "No !" to Carbon or the man who says
> "Well, we can probably leverage it out of the economy with the right
> incentives, but it might be patchy and might take some time."
>
> We need someone with the necessary reproductive equipment to draw the real
> line in the sand : ZERO CARBON is the aim, therefore ZERO CARBON is the
> game. Don't shilly-shally around with measures that only tinker with
> emissions.
>
> You can't put a PRICE on Carbon. The value of money derives from the value
> of Carbon since we are so highly dependent on Carbon. You can't price Carbon
> out of economic systems. You have to ban it.
>
>
> jo.
> +44 77 17 22 13 96
> http://www.changecollege.org.uk
>
>
> ________________________________
> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:33:58 +0100
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: K2 / C&C - Moving forward on climate
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> What Kyoto 2 needs to present is a clear plan of how 'it' [they/whoever is
> involved] is going to: -
>
> [1] take charge of fossil fuel production globally [!]
> [2] calculate the permitted production to zero globally by 2050
> [3] resolve arguments by and between oil, coal and gas producers on this [!]
> [3] take ownership of the production-permits that arise [!!]
> [5] administrate the auction of these issue
> [6] bank the proceeds [est. by k-2 in the order of "trillions of dollars"]
> [!!!]
> [7] administrate the re-distribution of these $s in an appropriate manner
> [!!!!]
>
> This means that, having persuaded Parties to UNFCCC that: -
>
> [a] "asymmetric global consumptions are no longer relevant",
> [b] the Treaty [objective and principles] is 'kerplunk'
> [c] the politics of "asymmetric *sub-global* fossil fuel production, will
> now be brought into line and down by the K-2 Treaty that replaces the
> UNFCCC.
>
> In a word, how K-2 is going to make, bake and then brake this
> pie-in-the-sky. It is a gift to the bad guys [that is the one relevant point
> in Tony Junioper's Guardian letter] and makes even the dreaded global
> governance a mere mwah of a first-date-kiss.
>
> I have tried over nearly three years to engage the author[s] of K-2 on the
> problems of this. All that I was offered was avoidance with the
> odd we-love-you, get-well cards.
>
> True; - time is running out and we do seem to be going over the edge, so for
> the record, give it your best shot [james Hansen says bulldoze the
> coal-fired power-stations . . . and he's big in China with this argument]
> but please stop presenting this K-2 as an 'alternative to', a 'replacement
> for', an 'improvement on' [etc etc] C&C.
>
> Maybe I'll debate this when answers to these questions have been at least
> attempted.
>
> Aubrey
> Oliver Tickell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Re the "debate" between C&C and Kyoto2, I would prefer to try to
> identify points of agreement and build on them.
>
> It has recently occurred to me that Kyoto2 does in fact propose, precisely,
> contraction and convergence at effectively zero per capita emissions by
> mid-century, in order to stabilise at 350ppm CO2eq before (probably) moving
> down further. As such, we appear to be after the same thing.
>
> The question then is how to get there. I have proposed Kyoto2 because it is,
> simply, the best way I can think of to do that.
>
> Maybe we should try to organise some kind of event at which the benefits and
> problems of the two approaches can be assessed and explored, and maybe
> ultimately reconciled?
>
> Oliver Tickell, www.kyoto2.org/
>
>
>
> Aubrey Meyer
> GCI
> 37 Ravenswood Road
> LONDON E17 9LY
> Ph 0208 520 4742
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Tiscali Recycles - Get paid to recycle old mobile phones
>
> _______________________________________________