Oliver.  Are you prepared for the consequences of your attempts to destabilise the one, single chance we have to get an agreement in Copenhagen?  Tom
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Oliver Tickell [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 16 March 2009 15:02
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: C&C - the real deal?

Tom, if you have read my critique of C&C in Kyoto2 you will know already why I am not going to back C&C as the answer. I see the objective as sound - contraction, and convergence, to zero emissions is where we should be going. I just don't see formal C&C as a very good way of getting there.
 
It so happens that you can read about it in an article published in The Land, now on the website - see http://www.kyoto2.org/page167.pdf , effectively an extract from the book.
 
One point I maybe did not emphasise sufficiently is the importance of a multi-pronged approach, with a long term secure carbon price, spending / investment, and direct regulation. By supplementing the carbon price signal in this way, you can achieve your objective without the need for a very high carbon price, by dealing with 'recalcitrant' carbon-emitting sectors by other means, so keeping the carbon price down in sensitive areas like heating bills - until of course we decarbonise altogether.
 
Cheers, Oliver, Kyoto2.

From: Barker, Tom [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 16 March 2009 14:42
To: Oliver Tickell; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: C&C - the real deal?

Are you really saying you consider that we have time available to work out an alternative to the established Contraction and Convergence model (and let's face it Oliver, Kyoto2 is not the perfect answer, and no other proposal that I've seen is able really to compete with the simplicity and fairness of C&C). Having done that, we then have time to put it through the equivalent of 20 years of development and scrutiny, making sure it is fair to both rich and poor governments, then present it to the governments of the world, get the agreements of large numbers of national and multinational groups and governments, and then oust and replace C&C, which itself has already gone through all these steps and is on the brink of success, all before December's Copenhagen meeting?
 
Shouldn't we rather all put our shoulders to the same boulder, put aside lesser ambitions, and push C&C for the last effort?  After all, the last effort will not be the last word, and there will be enough time later for refinements.  Were you there last night?  Did you see the Age of Stupid premiere?
 
I'm not here to rubbish Kyoto2.  I happen to think it is inferior to C&C. Others don't, but it clearly is not the one true answer to getting a global agreement off the ground.  That accolade falls to Contraction and Convergence.
 
This is the worst time for internal bickering.  We need action immediately on multiple levels, from international agreements, to national policies, to corporate change (it is corporations after all, that do the damage), to regional and local governments, and to local communities and individuals.  Many of us are working on several of these levels at the same time to try to shift society towards sustainability.
 
Please join us. 
 
Tom
 
 
 
 
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Oliver Tickell [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 16 March 2009 13:05
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: C&C - the real deal?

I have to agree that everyone is agreed on contraction, and on convergence, and to that extent the formal C&C model has helped to move things forward considerably. But what is far from a done deal is how to achieve that contraction, and convergence, and the formal C&C model is by no means a done deal in that respect. On the contrary, the debate over how to proceed has never been more open, with ideas coming forward from carbon taxes to global upstream cap and trade, and I do not see that formal C&C has any advantage in this debate, indeed I see its adoption as exceedingly improbable and its support limited due to its inherent problems. The key thing at the moment is to have a creative debate of ideas and let the best emerge, rather that to try to close the debate down prematurely.
 
Cheers, Oliver, kyoto2.

From: Barker, Tom [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 14 March 2009 15:15
To: Oliver Tickell; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Eliminating international competitiveness concerns in climate policy]

Hi folks
 
The major problem with K2, apart from it's operational and strategic faults, many of which could probably be ironed out in time, is that Contraction and Convergence is the real deal. The government are basing their approach on it, the international negotiators are concentrating on it, it has the track record and the substantial benefit of being likely to work.  This makes K2 a distraction.  Someone described an analogy to me that went like: If you go fishing and get a bite on the line, you start reeling the fish in.  You don't suddenly put the rod down in order to check another line to see if the bait has been taken.  If you do, you risk losing the fish already on the hook.
 
I cannot criticise Oliver's sterling efforts to find another way that might work, but to support K2 at this time is counter-productive, and may even cost us the success in Copenhagen that all of us want so much.
 
Regards, Tom
From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Oliver Tickell [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 14 March 2009 13:17
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Eliminating international competitiveness concerns in climate policy]

Hi Jim, the K2 upstream approach does not preclude democratic accountability - it just puts in place an over-arching global mechanism within which there is enormous scope for people and governments to go above and beyond. The UK could run its own carbon rationing system if it wanted to alongside, no problem. Though it's not obvious what the benefit would be.
 
Your Brent Spar example is unfortunate. The environmental hazard it posed was pretty minor and it was a clear case of campaign priorities taking over from rationality or any real sense of environmental purpose. If that is how democratisation of climate policy would look, then it will be all about misplaced priorities, poor spending decisions, and the triumph of presentation over substance.
 
Trouble about relying on ordinary citizens is that 99% of them have priorities in their lives other than climate change. Most of them think that if climate change is so important then the government should do something about it, the same way it does about other important things like health, education and defence. In these areas we do not rely on voluntarism for the simple reason you can't run schools, hospitals and the military on volunteers.
 
Cheers, Oliver, Kyoto2.

From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Save our World
Sent: 08 March 2009 19:36
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Eliminating international competitiveness concerns in climate policy]

Sorry to be so late catching up with this correspondence.
 
You also need to give the downside of the upstream approach, Oliver, despite your enthusiasm for it!
 
Thr huge downside consideration is lack of democratic accountability.  It is all so remote from ordinary citizens, and as has become more and more apparent with carbon trading, governments simply cannot be trusted to regulate it properly.  That is why it should be in the hands of consumers, on the same principle that we can simply refuse to accept what we do not want - which worked so well over the Brent Spar platform, and could be made to work with carbon rationing or allowances.
 
Cheers from Jim Scott
 
Visit: http//:www.save-our-world.net (global) and www.save-our-world.org.uk
Registered charity no. 1111210 in England & Wales
 
 Please note new e-mail address [log in to unmask]
----- Original Message -----
From: [log in to unmask]" href="mailto:[log in to unmask]"> Oliver Tickell
To: [log in to unmask]" href="mailto:[log in to unmask]"> [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Eliminating international competitiveness concerns in climate policy]

To regulate GHG emissions in a clear and consistent way, there are two choices - to go to the original source of the emissions (upstream) such as fossil fuel production, or to the point of final consumption of the product or service embodying GHG emissions (downstream).
 
Philosophically both are essentially equivalent. Either way, the price ends up being paid by the consumer, either directly (downstream) or with the upstream cost passed on downstream via the supply chain.
 
The difference is that the upstream approach is quick cheap and simple to put into effect, principally by controlling fossil fuel production at or close to source, for example at oil refineries. The downstream approach involves a massive, expensive and fraud / error prone carbon accounting exercise. For this practical reason the upstream approach is by far the best option. It is also equally effective at eliminating concerns over international competitiveness, provided that the upstream controls are applied equally to all producers anywhere in the world. This is all explored in greater detail in my book Kyoto2.
 

Oliver Tickell
Kyoto2 - for an effective Climate Protocol
www.kyoto2.org/

 

From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of CHRIS KEENE
Sent: 27 January 2009 10:48
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [Fwd: Eliminating international competitiveness concerns in climate policy]



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Eliminating international competitiveness concerns in climate policy
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:11:56 +0100
From: Glen Peters <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Glen Peters <[log in to unmask]>
To: Climate Change Info Mailing List <[log in to unmask]>


 


Eliminating international competitiveness concerns in climate policy*

Countries introducing emissions trading or carbon tax policies typically ‘carve out’ large areas of economic activity, and provide ‘compensation’ particularly to trade-exposed and energy-intensive industries.  This is based on concerns about international competitiveness being eroded, and the resulting assumption that there’s a ‘trade-off’ between cutting greenhouse gases and cutting jobs.

Job losses imply activity shifting to other countries not applying carbon policies.  Jobs and emissions shift overseas, leading to clear economic costs and job losses for those countries applying such policies, but little or no global reduction in emissions.  This is no ‘trade-off’.  It’s just a really bad deal.

This so-called ‘trade-off’ arises because such policies target national production of emissions.  This production model only works when all countries act together.  They haven’t, and they won’t.  In fact the Kyoto Protocol itself said that they won’t.  History attests to this reality.

Even if the supporters of the UNFCCC and Kyoto did not see it then, we can see it clearly now.  The production model has failed, both within Europe and Australia (because of major policy ‘carve-outs’ and exemptions), and more generally (because countries like the USA, China, India, etc, have not adopted similar climate policies). 

This is basic economics.  When nations act at different times or to different degrees, production models undermine trade competitiveness of early movers compared with others.  Late movers don’t follow suit so they can milk trade gains out of early movers.  This ruins chances for a global deal.

But we can do better.  This ‘trade-off’ is completely avoidable.  Countries can reduce greenhouse gases without any carbon or jobs leakage by targeting their consumption of embedded emissions rather than production.

By definition, global emissions production equals global emissions consumption.  So we have two roads to get to the same goal:  reduction in global emissions.  The production road only works when all countries act together.  In contrast, the consumption road works even if countries act unilaterally.  Why?  Because it is designed to eliminate international competitiveness concerns. 

So why pursue a production-based model given its now-long history of failure?  It’s even less likely to work as the world economy slides into recession.  Countries won’t want to suffer more job losses. 

The emissions consumption model is practical.  It starts with the production information required under current policies.  It can use existing value-added tax (or similar) systems to pass carbon cost signals transparently down the supply chain to consumers; exports are zero-rated; and it imposes a trade competitiveness-neutral border tax adjustment on competing imports. This system is already applied in countries with VAT or similar taxes.  Like such systems, it is trade competitiveness neutral.

A consumption model gets us to the same global end-point as a production model.  But basic economics tells us that it’s much more likely to get us there.  Isn’t it high time for the UNFCCC to move to ‘Plan B’ – a consumption model?  ‘Plan A’ isn’t working.

*       This is a modified and shortened version of an article published in The Australian Financial Review on 15 January 2009.

For further reading:

See attachment

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=5613

http://onlineopinion.com.au/documents/articles/GCA_Policy_Note01.pdf

http://onlineopinion.com.au/documents/articles/GCA_Policy_Note02.pdf

http://onlineopinion.com.au/documents/articles/GCA_Policy_Note03.pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es072023k

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-007-9280-1

For more information contact:

Geoff Carmody, [log in to unmask]

Glen Peters, [log in to unmask]

Glen Peters

Senior Research Fellow

Center for International Climate and Environmental Research - Oslo (CICERO)

P.O. Box 1129 Blindern

N-0318 Oslo

Norway

Phone: +47 2285 8780

Cell: +47 9289 1638

Fax: +47 2285 8751

E-mail: [log in to unmask]


You are currently subscribed to climate-l as: [log in to unmask]
Go to your membership options.
To unsubscribe click here.

climate-l.org
- http://www.climate-l.org - A knowledgebase of International Climate Change Activities, provided by IISD in cooperation with the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination (CEB) Secretariat
- Subscribe to IISD Reporting Services' free newsletters and lists for environment and sustainable development policy professionals at http://www.iisd.ca/email/subscribe.htm

 


-- 
ÐÏ?ࡱ?á


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.233 / Virus Database: 270.10.15/1921 - Release Date: 01/27/09 07:26:00