Print

---

I suppose this correspondence should be important and interesting. I find
it very difficult to come to terms with it.
What is it about?
Is it that Monbiot had a passionate view about "Contraction and
Convergence" ( I put it in quotes because I do not know really what it
means). Then over time the view became modified.?
Now the fact of having modified a view has been used to discredit the
original view.
I would like a synopsis to explain "Contraction and Convergence" Then
what is the modification.
Finally how does the modification discredit the Monbiot Thesis?

Max






Max Fordham Consulting Engineers
42/43 Gloucester Crescent
London NW1 7PE
t. 020 7267 5161
f. 020 7482 0329
http://www.maxfordham.com




Aubrey Meyer
<[log in to unmask]
k> To
George Monbiot
06/07/2008 16:15 <[log in to unmask]>,
[log in to unmask], 'Oliver Tickell'
<[log in to unmask]>, 'Crisis Forum'
Please respond to <[log in to unmask]>
[log in to unmask] cc
'Colin Challen'
<[log in to unmask]>,
'Annie' <[log in to unmask]>,
'Mark Lynas'
<[log in to unmask]>, 'George
Marshall' <[log in to unmask]>,
'Keith Baker'
<[log in to unmask]>, 'Paul
Jowitt'
<[log in to unmask]>, 'Dave
Hampton' <[log in to unmask]>,
'Adam Poole'
<[log in to unmask]>, 'Robin
Nicholson'
<[log in to unmask]>,
[log in to unmask],
[log in to unmask],
[log in to unmask],
[log in to unmask],
[log in to unmask],
[log in to unmask],
[log in to unmask],
[log in to unmask],
[log in to unmask],
[log in to unmask],
[log in to unmask],
[log in to unmask],
[log in to unmask],
[log in to unmask], 'Rynd Smith'
<[log in to unmask]>, 'Andrew
Ramsay' <[log in to unmask]>,
'Andy Ford'
<[log in to unmask]>, 'Andy
Parker'
<[log in to unmask]>,
'Bill Watts'
<[log in to unmask]>, 'Bruno
Reddy' <[log in to unmask]>,
'Chani Leahong'
<[log in to unmask]>,
'David Strong'
<[log in to unmask]>,
'Duncan McCorquodale'
<[log in to unmask]>, 'Garry
Felgate'
<[log in to unmask]>, "'Jan
Hellings \([log in to unmask]\)'"
<[log in to unmask]>,
'Janet Kidner'
<[log in to unmask]>,
'Jim Green' <[log in to unmask]>,
[log in to unmask],
[log in to unmask]
Subject
RE: Monbiot changes his mind about
contraction and convergence










Well so you did.

Your copying the last email in the exchange between you and me privately
turns out that Monbiot you made public.

So much for for the advice of Paul Jowitt Colin Challen Adam Poole et al.

Hmmmm . . . .



Well

George Monbiot <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
Actually, I posted them up, to show why this discussion has come to an
end. And there is no offence involved as a matter cannot become subjudice
until it is before a court or subject to a police investigation. Unless
you know something we don’t?

Am I being prosecuted? If so, it would be helpful to know what the crime
is.

Best wishes, George




From: Aubrey Meyer [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 06 July 2008 15:50
To: Oliver Tickell; Crisis Forum
Cc: 'Colin Challen'; 'Annie'; 'Mark Lynas'; 'George Marshall'; 'Keith
Baker'; 'George Monbiot'; [log in to unmask]; 'Paul Jowitt'; 'Dave
Hampton'; 'Adam Poole'; 'Robin Nicholson'; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; 'Rynd Smith'; 'Andrew Ramsay';
'Andy Ford'; 'Andy Parker'; 'Bill Watts'; 'Bruno Reddy'; 'Chani Leahong';
'David Strong'; 'Duncan McCorquodale'; 'Garry Felgate'; 'Jan Hellings
([log in to unmask])'; 'Janet Kidner'; 'Jim Green'; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Monbiot changes his mind about contraction and convergence

Would whoever is moderating this list please note: -

Oliver Tickell has chosen to relay to this fairly public list a private
exchange of email's between myself and George Monbiot.

I indicated to Mr Monbiot privately, considering this matter may become
sub judice, I would not repond to his belated queries. So - for the record
- Tickell's action is not just offensive it is also technically an
offence.

Aubrey

Oliver Tickell <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
I concur with George Monbiot's thoughts below, and and add a few of my
own.

1. If we were in an idealised "Coasian" situation of zero transaction
costs (referring the the Coase Theorem (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem) it would not really matter
much where GHG production was assessed, upstream, downstream of somewhere
in between. A carbon price signal no matter where applied will ripple
through the market and do its job. But we are not in that situation. The
reason to go upstream is that this is where GHG production can be done at
lowest cost, with greatest accuracy, and least possibility of cheating,
double counting, etc. The current system in KP/UNFCCC of downstream
national allocations give rise to major questions of equity (I can go into
these if anyone wants, but in short, if a product is made in China and
consumed in UK then whose are the associated emissions?) and enormous
difficulties (and costs) of measurement and accounting.

2 In the current situation of very high oil prices, determined by scarcity
rather than production cost, a modest carbon price will make no difference
to the end price. But where the price is set by production cost with no
real scarcity (more like coal though I would dispute that there is no
scarcity - a good article in New Scientist on this a few months ago), then
the price will go up.

3 I have already responded to several of Aubrey's points in earlier
emails:

3A. Aubrey > "Its effect is handing an amount of de-institutionalized and
unmediated political power to the financial and the corporate power
sector, that would make even Milton Friedman, Patrick Minford, Mrs
Thatcher Ronald Reagan blush.
OT >>> I would argue that it is the opposite. K2 would represent the
global community of citizens reclaiming its atmospheric commons,
re-appropriating the corporate wealth derived from corporate and
governmental over exploitation of the atmospheric commons, and using that
wealth to solve the problems that have been created and try to undo the
damage.

3B. Aubrey > what K-2 proposes, whether it is understood and accepted or
not, amounts to deconstructing not C&C, but the UNFCCC and perhaps the UN
itself.
OT >>> K2 adheres strongly to the Principles and Objective of the UNFCCC
but proposes a new Protocol under it (that would work in very different
way to the existing Kyoto Protocol, which is a failure, and a very
expensive one at that) that would deliver on the Principles and Objective.
It does not propose deconstructing the UNFCCC or the UN, on the contrary
it wants to strengthen both and make them work effectively.
4. I would add that it does not seem helpful to the open discussion of
ideas to imply any threat of involving m'learned friends as Aubrey appears
to have done to George Monbiot (see below). The idea that contributions to
this dialogue could come "sub judice" is frankly chilling. I therefore ask
Aubrey to unequivocally withdraw any threat, or semblance of threat, of
taking legal action in this connection. If not I too will be forced to
withdraw as I am not prepared to continue so long as this threat remains,
against myself or any colleague.
Oliver Tickell.

From: George Monbiot [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 06 July 2008 13:43
Subject: RE: Monbiot changes his mind about contraction and convergence
Well, I’m sorry the discussion has ended this way.

George


From: Aubrey Meyer [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 06 July 2008 13:32
To: George Monbiot
Subject: RE: Monbiot changes his mind about contraction and convergence

George

This is the last response you will get from for now: -

You have a well estabished record of misinterpreting me so I am going to
leave it to you figure out the answer to your latest questions.

Now - to be clear - over and out.

Aubrey

George Monbiot <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
Are you threatening to take legal action, or have I misinterpreted you?

G


From: Aubrey Meyer [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 06 July 2008 13:19
To: George Monbiot
Subject: RE: Monbiot changes his mind about contraction and convergence

no

George Monbiot <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
Could you explain? How would it become subjudice? And what do you mean by
“if necessary”?

G


From: Aubrey Meyer [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 06 July 2008 12:50
To: George Monbiot
Subject: RE: Monbiot changes his mind about contraction and convergence

George

Forgive me if I decline this invitation to discuss this further as, if
necessary the matter will become sub judice.

Aubrey

George Monbiot <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
Dear Aubrey,

Thank you for this more temperate message.

You write:

“Also, through scarcity/competition etc prices heading for $200/bl. i.e.
many consumers buy oil from these few producers who bank the revenues so
the effect of this on K-2's proposed 'auction' may aggravate existing and
worsening asymmetry . . .”


Is this not a strength of K2? That it needs be targeted at a small handful
of producers, rather than everyone. As they make themselves ever more
unpopular, the momentum for regulating them can only grow. Not sure what
you mean by aggravating the asymmetry. The point of K2 is to bring them to
heel and eventually get them out of fossil fuels (without CCS) altogether.
This would have the effect of reducing the asymmetry of wealth and power.

We all appear to agree about 350, though it would be helpful whenever the
figure is cited to specify eq or CO2-only, as a result of the formidable
confusion this causes everywhere. But I fail to see why this causes any
more difficulties for K2 than it does for C&C. In both cases the cap and
the paths are tailored to the target. Are you not confusing principle and
execution?

It is inaccurate to describe K2 as Friedmanite. Friedman would have been
fiercely opposed, as “the state” (in this case the UN) is setting an
extremely rigorous regulatory framework within which the market operates.
The opposite of Friedmanism, in other words.

You write:

“but what K-2 proposes, whether it is understood and accepted or not,
amounts to deconstructing not C&C, but the UNFCCC and perhaps the UN
itself.”

How do you substantiate this claim? The book is very clear in proposing
the opposite: that the UNFCC remains the oversight body, just as it is
under C&C.


Yours Sincerely,

George



From: Aubrey Meyer [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 05 July 2008 10:38
To: Paul Jowitt; 'George Monbiot'; [log in to unmask]; 'Dave Hampton';
'Adam Poole'; 'Robin Nicholson'; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask];
[log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]; 'Rynd
Smith'; 'Andrew Ramsay'; 'Andy Ford'; 'Andy Parker'; 'Bill Watts'; 'Bruno
Reddy'; 'Chani Leahong'; 'David Strong'; 'Duncan McCorquodale'; 'Garry
Felgate'; 'Jan Hellings ([log in to unmask])'; 'Janet Kidner'; 'Jim
Green'; [log in to unmask]
Cc: 'Colin Challen'; 'oliver tickell'; 'Annie'; 'Mark Lynas'; 'George
Marshall'; 'Keith Baker'
Subject: RE: Monbiot changes his mind about contraction and convergence

The restraining order from Paul Jowitt and Colin Challen and endorsed by
Adam Poole with an instruction to "cool it" is noted and accepted to the
extent it was intended for me.

That said, I have experienced nearly twenty years of the 'heat' of the
politics of global warming especially at the UN with the climate treaty -
the UNFCCC. It was quickly apparent that dealing with this heat was easier
with *facts*, i.e. real data and trend-analysis and proportionate
reasoning.

Perhaps passe in the larger scheme of things, below is evidence of some of
that [numerate] effort over that period to do precisely that in that forum
in order more easily to deconstruct resistance to and construct support
for C&C.

For example: -

Here's a very detailed image that shows the enormous mis-match between
[just] oil producers on the one hand and consumers on the others; the
projections of production/depletion, are as per Colin Campbell's depletion
model.

You can 'zoom' a long into this to get the country specific detail: -
http://www.gci.org.uk/images/OIL_with_Depletion_Producers_and_Consumers_Compared.pdf


The geographical mis-match is vast and as we know, casus belli.

I am concerned that those who now argue a return to the tactics of
pick-a-villain [the fossil-fuel-producers - this was tried by Greenpeace]
are not attentive to the implications or the precedent. A minority, mainly
situated in the Gulf, produces it and so far, the OECD mostly [though this
is now changing rapidly] buy it and consume it.

Also, through scarcity/competition etc prices heading for $200/bl. i.e.
many consumers buy oil from these few producers who bank the revenues so
the effect of this on K-2's proposed 'auction' may aggravate existing and
worsening asymmetry . . .

Next, here is context for the overall [global/international] integral of
consumption/production with oil at the identical rates of oil
depletion/production. In other words, gas depletion [as per Campbell] and
coal are added.

Rounding off coal [which isn't depleting] the whole path-integral shown in
this image is what [a few years back] was considered to be the overall
amount [by weight with the oil converted to weight] of production that
would result in 450 atmospheric ppmv CO2. This too has reasonable zoomable
detail: - http://www.gci.org.uk/images/Oil_Depletion_and_CandC.pdf

The next poster-chart, gives the over-view of 350/450/550 ppmv
[atmospheric CO2] all production and consumption, in the context of
'Rising Risks at a Glance' - the headline risk is runaway rates of climate
change; some simple maths of sink-failure is shown. A more advanced
version is in the animation below.

There is real cause for concern. This is easier to understand if we note
that for the last 15 years, the political debate has been positioned
between 550 and 450 [and certainly not 350 ppmv] and without sink failure
being recognised.

This [450/550] zone of 'risk' in the view of an increasing number of
people, is 'curtains' ["ze Katastrophe is inevitable" etc].
http://www.gci.org.uk/images/Poster_Oil_Coal_Gas_350_450_550.pdf

This poster-chart is less zoomable, because of more data and lower
resolution.
However, you can see the global asymmetry regarding where the coal is
produced. To see the detail you can do this at higher resolution in this
next poster-chart and it is a much clearer indication of the [NB] few
countries that are major coal producers: -
http://www.gci.org.uk/images/C%26C%20O%26G%20Depl.pdf

[For amusement and the record, here's an image of GCI defending 350 ppmv
at COP-2 1996. GCI was roundly trashed for this even then, especially by
the Greenpeace-led Climate Action Network - such is life]: -
http://www.gci.org.uk/images/COP2_C&C_350.pdf

Anyway, a primary issue for '350' now is noting that, because of
progressive sink-failure, all the arithmetic of path-integrals has changed
for the worse. It really is bad i.e. against our chances for success for
350 ppmv. See: - www.gci.org.uk/Animations/BENN_C&C_Animation.exe

[1] to achieve 350 ppmv, even on GCM's/IPCC's old arithmetic - as above
with sinks holding - you have to cut down sharply through all known oil,
gas and coal reserves. Now we know sinks are failing, it is even worse. In
other words the zero fossil fuel production/consumption globally by 2050
shown in the 350/450/550 graphs above is actually not fast enough.

[2] Assuming the K-2 is supporting 350 ppmv, they have not only to deal
with point [1] (the revised path-integral), they have also to deal with

=== message truncated ===