E-Bay - what a wheeze - there's something to encourage.
As a friendly party wrote from Argentina . . .
"Many corrupt political leaders probably have big personal investments in the banks and oil companies that would control access to fossil fuels under K2. It's hard to see why George Monbiot of all people should back a scheme that turns the global clock of democracy back to the age when the vote was restricted to property owners, and guarantees that billions of poor people will remain dependent on hand-outs from institutions for which profit matters more than anything. Fortunately I cannot see why developing countries would want anything to do with K2 - except for those whose leaders who calculate they'd make more money out it than they would from C&C."
This K-2 'auction' is irrelevant, qua the banks, likewise my inferred assumptions.
With banks, you also appear to be out of step with 'Step-Change', or did George Monbiot not quote you accurately - see below . . . . danger of not answering direct questions yourself perhaps . . . .
K-2's Assumptions: -
I say there is no politically probably basis in K-2 Step, Change [the production-only-not-consumption proposals] etc etc for the 'carbon-aggregation' of production divorced from the politics of consumption.
Nonetheless, without providing any arithmetic, K-2 makes these assumptions: -
1. It is possible to aggregate oil coal and gas into a homogenous carbon unit resolving all factors of carbon-intensity, and production off-set differentials
2, this can be done consistent with 350 ppmv - which: -
[a] [in 1994 modelling in IPCC] was zero emissions globally by 2050 [path-integral 250/300 GTC] with indefinitely negative emissions thereafter, are removed 'for this reason' by IPCC from 95 onwards [SAR];
[b] [in 2006/7 modelling in IPCC AR-4] is, because of sink-failure and the 'coupled modelling' of this, estimated to give a 450ppmv [i.e. not a 350 ppmv] outcome . . . . note [!]
[c] if you want '350', requires something like zero fossil fuel production/consumption [path integral ~ 150 GTC] globally by ~2020/30 and negative emission thereafter . . . . . . note [!!]
3. political will is available to resolve all tensions between oil, coal and gas sectors and within sectors [i.e. aggresive producers, highly differentiated by status, geographical locale and political patronage]
4. all these can be resolved subordinate to points one and two with sub-clauses, without recourse to an international C&C framework [arithmetic provided but no arithmetic required - because it has even been attempted . . . ?] and effectively therefore the deconstruction of the UNFCCC process.
5. Drastically cutting through all known supplies of conventional crude oil and gas, never mind the exotics, etc . . . . [refer the production/consumption arithmetic of 350/450/550 - 'rising risks' I posted
http://www.gci.org.uk/images/Poster_Oil_Coal_Gas_350_450_550.pdf
These are meta-heroic assumption to say the least . . . . . there is a more blunt and brutal way of putting this . . . let's keep that in reserve, since you are now apparently wanting to actually answer questions . . . .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Step-Change doesn't mention the 'banks'
The responsibility for the initial setting of this new global upstream cap and the auctioning system for permits to extract carbon within it (as well as this system’s verification and compliance) is assigned to a new ‘rapid response’ task force – the Climate Security Task Force (CS-TF). It is to operate under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and its ‘midwife’ remit is to last three years. At the end of the three-year period the UNEP proper is to take over. The CS-TF is to operate from Geneva , Switzerland with its composition being modelled on the UN Security Council. During the initial three-year period, the CS-TF is constituted by a ‘party of seven’ consisting of the US, China, the EU, India, South Africa, Russia and Brazil, but it is envisaged that after UNEP takes over, the CS-TF will rely on rotating representation.
These are slightly less meta-heroic assumptions . . . . .
But E-Bay - what a wheeze - there's something to encourage.
As a friendly party wrote from Argentina . . .
"Many corrupt political leaders probably have big personal investments in the banks and oil companies that would control access to fossil fuels under K2. It's hard to see why George Monbiot of all people should back a scheme that turns the global clock of democracy back to the age when the vote was restricted to property owners, and guarantees that billions of poor people will remain dependent on hand-outs from institutions for which profit matters more than anything. Fortunately I cannot see why developing countries would want anything to do with K2 - except for those whose leaders who calculate they'd make more money out it than they would from C&C."
Aubrey, you seem to be making some assumptions here. Central Banks are well qualified to run the auction as they have ample experience of doing this kind of thing with the sale of Treasury Bonds, Bills, etc. This does not mean that they will own or control the funds, any more than if you sell an item on ebay, that ebay owns or controls the funds you receive. The sovereign body would be the UNFCCC. Of course it does not have to be central banks that run the auction. Maybe ebay would do a better job? If that's what is decided, no problem as far as I am concerned. This is a suggestion only, and if wiser heads than mine come up with a better idea, no problem.
Oliver Tickell, K2.
---------------------------------
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of AUBREY MEYER
Sent: 02 July 2008 12:05
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: K2: Monbiot in today's Guardian
So K-2's answer on future 'agency' for fossil fuel production permit-auction is . . . . . . . "a coalition of the world's central banks" . . . . . buy that, and the UN has clearly had its day [which may be the case].
No wonder K-2 were reluctant to answer this particular question.
Where's the constituency of support?
Are nations and their peoples just going to say that's OK [we're not really the affected consituency and we weren't really interested in all this climate stuff anyway].
Are Texan, Angolan, Indian, Chinese . . . . 'a few thousand oil/coal/gas corporations' (~) . . . . going to accept regulation in a Government/UN-free world by a coalition of the world's central banks?/! [!!]
Are Exxon BP etc http://www.oilmajors.com/ just going to decamp from Iraq the Gulf the Arctic [plus all the equivalent in Coal from the world's coalfields] because they've finally succeeded in deconstructing the UNFCCC.
Is there any evidence that the banks are willing to co-operate and accept this role?
Baron von Munchhausen fell off his horse, when the horse was left hanging from the Kremlin Spires in spring. This argument for the banks to officially run the global decarbonisation needed is like falling off my-little-pony in the middle of charge of the light brigade.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Tickell proposes setting a global limit for carbon pollution then selling permits to pollute to companies extracting or refining fossil fuels. This has the advantage of regulating a few thousand corporations - running oil refineries, coal washeries, gas pipelines and cement and fertiliser works for example - rather than a few billion citizens. These firms would buy their permits in a global auction, run by a coalition of the world's central banks."
etc
Oliver Tickell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
See http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/07/01/green-lifeline/
George Monbiot previews Kyoto2 (the book) in The Guardian and concludes that
the K2 proposals "could represent a classic Keynesian solution to economic
crisis. The $1, $2 or even $5 trillion the system would cost is used to
kick-start a green industrial revolution, a new New Deal not that different
from the original one (whose most successful component was Roosevelt's
Civilian Conservation Corps, which protected forests and farmland)."
Aubrey Meyer
GCI
37 Ravenswood Road
LONDON E17 9LY
Ph 0208 520 4742
