Dear CRISIS FORUM and Oliver Tickell,
 
The reason why I cannot engage with Kyoto2 is that your fundamental premise, your foundation, is weak, crumbling, and is soon to disappear beneath the waves.
 
Trusting in profit-making organisations to solve the Climate Crisis ON THEIR OWN and ON THEIR OWN TERMS using trading paradigms is naive to the point of senselessness.
 
BUSINESS AS USUAL got us into the current mess. BAU stands on the premise of the right of corporate entities to exploit both the natural world and human labour and privately owned assets (including land) for the profit and wealth of the business entities.
 
BUSINESS AS USUAL uses currencies that are vapourware, created on the basis of virtual debt, setting in stone obligations, not incentives, to pay back, and pay back in full with interest.

BUSINESS AS USUAL uses the trading paradigm to climb up the ladder, treading on the both the commodity suppliers and the consumers to reserve the wealth and power for the business entities.
 
BUSINESS AS USUAL is rapacious, systems of working that destroy everything around them without strong regulation.
 
Would the Oil Majors sign up to Kyoto2 in the way that you formulate ? They may well use words, and forms of words, to appear to go along with your ideas, but when push comes to shove they will compromise, they will bully, they will lobby, they will renege, because BUSINESS AS USUAL will need to undergo contraction in order to live under an Auction of Carbon Rights. So, no, they won't really sign up to Kyoto2.
 
We cannot solve the problem by trusting in the systems that currently operate.
 
Even if we can put a price on Carbon that is effective without crippling the money Economy, it will still put paid to spending on investment in Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energies, so it will not solve the problem long-term.
 
Corporations/companies exist to further their own aims and to keep themselves in business. Those are the facts. By slapping them down with a Carbon Tax, or a Carbon Auction, they will not thrive in the way that they used to, so they will resist, strongly.
 
You need to re-direct funds from all trading and business activities into Energy Efficiency/Cuts and Renewable Energy.
 
Funds are basically obligations (money is the same as debt). Let's cut out the level of CASH and strip down to the core of the solution : OBLIGATION. We need the strongest, most appropriate legislation to cut Carbon and implement sustainable Energy resources. Anything else is tinkering, and will end in bickering shambles. History backs me up.

jo.
+44 77 17 22 13 96
http://www.changecollege.org.uk



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.

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/
 

Get 5GB of online storage for free! Get it Now!