Sorry to be so late replying. My email went down and I have also been
away a lot recently so got way behind with emails.
I'm still considering organising a meeting, but I think it would be good
to have all the NGOs there, and to look at a number of systems - at the
very least C&C, Cap and Share, Cap and Dividend, Kyoto2 and Greenhouse
Development Rights. I shall write to people whom I know in the NGOs to
canvass their opinions about a consensus building conference.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to invite politicians along as well.
What do others think?
Chris
Richard Douthwaite wrote:
> Dear All:
>
>
> Can anyone tell me why Aubrey Meyer persistently misrepresents Cap and
> Share? Here's the latest example:
>
> 1. "Hansen, 350, K2 C&S et al who argue the “Charybdis Position” -
> '350 ppmv', which is fast enough, but they say without C&C as
> all you need is to tax upstream production and [I kid you not]
> “freedom” . . . . . [Hansen!] "
>
> Cap and Share does indeed think that 350 ppmv is the right target but
> we think this should be achieved through a special case of C&C in
> which there is immediate convergence on equal per capita entitlements
> and that these entitlements should go to each individual rather than
> to their governments. We certainly do not support a carbon tax to get
> emissions down.
>
> Chris Keene did offer on this list to arrange a meeting at which the
> common points and those of difference between the various proposals
> could be explored. Are you still planning to go ahead with this, Chris?
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
> Riohard.
|