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/
---------------------------------
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of AUBREY MEYER
Sent: 18 June 2008 15:34
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: FW: Moving forward on climate
For those tracking the quantitative issues arising for the avoidance of dangerous rates of climate change, here is an overview chart of the three scenarios [acceptable 350ppmv, Dangerous 450 ppmv and Imposssible 550 ppmv] as in the first chapter of Mark Levene and David Cromwell's book "Surviving Climate Change". But here they are repeated in two forms: -
[a] as a 'consumers' protocol i.e. UNFC&C and
[b] as a 'producer's protocol i.e. after Colin Campbell's 'depletion' data [embracing the idea of the depletion-protocol thereto] but extended to include coal [which isn't depleting] and gas and oil which are but different pressure-dynamics.
http://www.gci.org.uk/images/Poster_Oil_Coal_Gas_350_450_550.pdf
As you can quickly see, we do need to cut through known reserves of fossil fuel to keep the risk level to 'acceptable', though zero emissions globally by 2050 for 350 ppmv, must be read in the light of the coupled model results from the GCM proxies. These show that even with that rate of contraction for what was orignially 350 ppmv now gives us nearer a 450 ppmv: -
http://www.gci.org.uk/Animations/BENN_C&C_Animation.exe
Dealing with both consumption and production in some overall rational and international structure of consent and reconciliation is simply unavoidable if dangerous rates of climate change are yet to be avoided.
Those who argue otherwise, focusing on production/producers and eschewing the arithmetic, are looking without rationale or realism at a fight they perhaps easily can pick but certainly not win.
Just picking on 'bad-guys' [players - whether as a few countries or corporations] divorced the Kyoto Protocol from the UNFCCC. Doing it again, going just for producers and calling it 'Kyoto 2', continues, and in reality worsens this toy-story; it is even more confrontational than the story so far and for these reasons the recent developments to this end are not persuasive.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aubrey Meyer
GCI
37 Ravenswood Road
LONDON E17 9LY
Ph 0208 520 4742
