Welcome Guest!
 GC Net
 Previous Message All Messages Next Message 
Aegean C&C - Triage  Aubrey Meyer
 Sep 11, 2006 08:08 PDT 

“Contraction and Convergence” (C&C)
“Solving the Climate Problem Faster than We Create It.”

As Venice contemplates a future under water, and climate change embraces
global triage, the question posed is - "Have politicians the wit to even
face this test, let alone pass it?"

Climate Change Keynote Address
Conference by Royal Institute of British Architects [RIBA]
Teatro alle Tese
27 28 October 2006


C&C - A Considered Commitment, FINDHORN


C&C COP-12 - Advocacy from Grass-roots and NGOs, INDIA

NGOs and rural people in India launched today a Report calling for
Contraction and Convergence. The report is entitled "Post-2012 targets
and timetables for All".

It says that the, “Government of India should take a lead on a much more
hard-hitting dialogue on binding targets and timetables for all
countries including G-77 plus China, on the Contraction and Convergence

It calls on the Indian Government to, “hasten the implementation of
post-2012 commitments in the field of climate change, by adding India to
the list of countries accepting binding targets and timetables on per
capita Greenhouse Gas emission reductions in the second commitment

For more information and for the full report contact in-@cerindia.com.

Visit www.cerindia.com or write to CERI, 32/2
Kempapura Road, Hebbal, Bangalore 560024 Karnataka, India.
Phone Anandi Sharan-Meili +91 9448034562.


This true story about Raul Estrada Oyuela, the God-Father of Kyoto
reveals that Practice Without Principle is leading to Global Triage.

The ‘Berlin Mandate’ was agreed at COP-1 to the UNFCCC in Berlin April
1995, to establish a Protocol to the UNFCCC. Between 1995 and 1997, the
‘ad hoc group on Berlin Mandate’ [AGBM] was chaired to this purpose by
the distinguished career diplomat from Argentina, Raul Estrada Oyuela.

In August 1997 the AGBM met for the seventh time, a few months before
COP-3 in Kyoto [December 1997] and the creation of what would become
known as the ‘Kyoto Protocol’.

During this meeting of the AGBM, Chairman Estrada appeared at a very
large conference for the press and the NGOs to report on progress and
take questions. Emission-trading had come into play and everyone knew
that the political argument had come to centre on one question above all
others; - ‘how would the multilateral commitments on emissions control
be defined and quantified?’ A new word had resulted from the acronym of
the point at issue namely ‘Quantified Emissions Limitation Reduction
Options’ or ‘QELROS’: who got how much and why?

By this stage, GCI had established two clear bench-marks in the debate.
The first was Contraction and Convergence [C&C] as the meta-concept for
calculating QELROS in a scientific and constitutional manner. The second
- considered notorious - was that the so-called Byrd-Hagel Resolution
[BHR] of US Senate [July 1997] was in fact C&C . The BHR was all or
nothing. It embraced QELROS globally, as quantified reductions alongside
quantified limitations of emissions for all of the developed and the
developing countries all on the same account. GCI took the view that C&C
was the only way to negotiate what the resolution called for, as
anything devoid of a concentration target and more complicated than C&C
would be rich in contested assumptions and recreate the arbitrary
sub-global conditions that the US had been objecting all along.

Indeed, whether the Senate had intended it or not, BHR was tentatively
seen as C&C by definition and at a special series of meetings in
Washington in July 1997, officials of the US Government asked GCI to
raise support for this understanding, particularly in India and in
China. We did this on visits to those countries during July and when
reporting back in August we also secured a collective statement to the
UNFCCC from the Africa Group of Nations affirming the need for C&C. As
the record would show, all this would feature clearly at the end of

As he reported to the AGBM 7 press conference, Chairman Estrada was
familiar with all these developments. His news however was desultory.
The US continued objecting to the one-sided nature of the negotiations
and the commitments on offer notwithstanding from the Europeans were
hostage to that view. At the end of the session I publicly asked Estrada
if the QELROS were seen as a function of an atmospheric greenhouse gas
concentration target or whether it was the other way around, that the
concentration value was simply seen as the result of whatever haggling
had taken place in the QELRO negotiation.

To much laughter from Greenpeace and its cohorts in the Climate Action
Network he said, “Aubrey in this process what happens in practice is
what happens and you make up the principles afterwards to explain what
happened in practice.” Afterwards he apologized for the chaotic view
saying, “what else could I say?”

Years later Estrada published a paper in which he recalled the exchange
thus: “In a meeting with NGOs during the Kyoto Protocol negotiations,
Aubrey Meyer asked me which differentiation criteria were being used in
the process. As negotiations were very flexible, I answered that at the
end of negotiations I would explain those criteria, and that allowed me
to get out of the situation among the laughs of the audience. When the
negotiation ended and the Protocol was adopted, Aubrey Meyer asked me
again which were the criteria, and since I didn’t know the answer, I
simply said that with QELROS agreed criteria were no longer relevant.”

Candid as he was, this blunt truth is the ‘make-it-up-as-you-go-along
approach’. It is aleatoric and more farcial than gesture politics. It is
as if someone who waved their arms around believed this made them the
equal of Jascha Heifitz. This simile is harmless but what it illustrates
is not. The UN climate negotiations are fundamentally flawed by the
evolutionist folly that just plucking ‘promising’ numbers for QELROS out
of a hat will do. The hope is everyone will fail to notice the
difference between the signal of what is required and the noise of what
is actually happening. In the final hours of COP-3 the global allocation
of tradable emission permits was debated. The US accepted in principle
the C&C signal led by the Africa Group, India and China. But when the
UK remained silent, Estrada suspended the meeting saying that all the
work done was in danger of being lost and the remnant noise became the
Kyoto Protocol.

Even evolutionists could see by the end of 1997 that dangerous rates of
climate change would not be averted by this aleatoric approach and would
collectively lead us to triage and leave us increasingly unfit to

Indeed, as matters now unfold, a process of global triage has begun. An
architect of Kyoto and emissions trading was the UK Government advisor
turned ‘carbon-trader’ James Cameron. In 1990 his ‘Centre for
International Environmental Law’ [CIEL] with Greenpeace, encouraged the
vulnerable Small Island States of the South Pacific and the Caribbean to
form a group and the ‘Association of Small Island States’ [AOSIS] was
born. As the islands are mostly low-lying and very vulnerable to
sea-level-rise, the group had the status of ‘canary-in-the-mine’ as a
memento mori for all, if dangerous rates of climate change are not

By 1995 Greenpeace and CIEL had persuaded their clients that salvation
lay in them presenting what became known as the ‘AOSIS Protocol’ to
COP-1. Refuting the need for ‘globality’ defined by common sense and the
US Government, this stated the developed countries only should tighten
their emission eduction ‘commitments’, as in the UNFCCC, in exchange for
no control of emissions by anyone else. At COP-2 in 1996 the US rejected
this as ‘unrealistic’. When the US presented their Byrd Hagel Resolution
a year later, Greenpeace attacked it as ‘Byrd-brained’ whilst also
arguing that global emissions must be reduced to zero by 2050 to avert a
global climate disaster. This was the same as the C1 scenario of
‘Acceptable Risk’ as defined at: -
http://www.gci.org.uk/presentations/Helsinki.pdf [slides 14 -25], a
position GCI had argued since introducing C&C at COP-2 in 1996. As
anyone could see that C&C was obviously required to achieve this, from
that day to this it remains a mystery why Greenpeace and Mr Cameron
routinely denounce all calls for C&C.

Describing the paltry outcome of the COP-3 as ‘a farce’ Greenpeace and
others recognized that AOSIS went from being an endangered species to
being a certain discard in the triage that had begun. Since then
Greenpeace has repositioned itself and the NGOs at the margins of the
triage in a process now nearer the C3 scenario of ‘Impossible Risk’ with
Mr Cameron now operating as ‘Carbon Capitalist’ and trader par
excellence at these lucrative margins.
In his recent words quoted below, having abandoned the islands, Cameron
adds Africa to the growing pile of discards that the C3 scenario
inevitably causes and the economics of genocide inevitably requires.

“The Africans are in a perilous position. They will not be rescued by 20
years of debate about C&C. Nor will they be rescued by the Carbon Market
[or] beneficiaries of [it]. They’re going to have really look to the
possibilities that do exist in altering their economies to cope with
very high fossil fuel prices and Climate Change at the same time . . .
some combination of looking at land use and land use change issues; of
coping more effectively with the water resources which are there; of
growing biocrops; of ensuring that renewable energy technology is made
available at low cost.”
 Previous Message All Messages Next Message 
  Check It Out!

  Topica Channels
 Best of Topica
 Art & Design
 Books, Movies & TV
 Food & Drink
 Health & Fitness
 News & Information
 Personal Finance
 Personal Technology
 Small Business
 Travel & Leisure
 Women & Family

  Start Your Own List!
Email lists are great for debating issues or publishing your views.
Start a List Today!

© 2001 Topica Inc. TFMB
Concerned about privacy? Topica is TrustE certified.
See our Privacy Policy.