Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:51:53 +0100
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: K2 / C&C - Moving forward on climate
To: [log in to unmask]
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.
Hello Fellow CRISIS FORUM Folk,
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
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/