Comments on: Contraction and Convergence, by Aubrey Meyer

By: Aubrey Meyer

Aubrey Meyer — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 13:00:52 +0000

Yes – C&C is a principle and there is support for it: – http://www.gci.org.uk/endorsements.html

There is also support for the notion that this principle should guide the negotiations at the UNFCCC. This support is there as many see C&C as the only way to resolve the deadlock created by the various much more extreme positions either side of C&C: – http://www.gci.org.uk/public/COP_15_C&C.swf

As things stand [15 06 2011] no global climate deal is anticipated at COP-17 in December, to continue or replace the Kyoto Protocol that expires at the end of this year. Consequently, we appear to be going over an ‘event-horizon’ the other side of which is the inexorable ‘pull’ of dangerous rates of climate change.

By: Chris Huhne urged to adopt Contraction and Convergence « Make Wealth History

Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:04:21 +0000

[...] on Contraction and Convergence here Tagged: contraction and convergence Posted in: activism, climate change ← Thirsty nation: [...]

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Fri, 28 May 2010 09:02:15 +0000

Thanks, I hadn’t realised that.

By: LW

LW — Thu, 27 May 2010 14:19:25 +0000

It is my understanding that he was born in England and moved to South Africa when he was 5

By: Dale

Dale — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 00:10:49 +0000

Okay – so if it will be purely voluntary and will be subscribed to in order to play a role in global affairs, then according to Game Theory, the most likely position that competing nations will stake out will be the same one we’ve seen happen with the Kyoto and Copenhagen agreements: Declare support, while not actually doing anything to comply, while hoping at the same time that your economic/cultural/political competitors ARE complying, thus increasing your global reach and advantage at their expense. Smiling and being agreeable all the time, of course…

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:17:49 +0000

The same as it is for any kind of global cooperation – do you, or do you not want to play a role in global affairs? Do you want to trade, to participate in sports and cultural events, to sign treaties? Or do you want to be frozen out, like North Korea?

By: Dale

Dale — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 15:24:53 +0000

Okay – so if there’s no global governance, then what is the incentive for a nation to follow the contraction and convergence model?

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 09:10:56 +0000

And no, because there are zero-carbon ways of heating your home. Ask the Scandinavians, who are pushing forward with solid fuel heating and sustainable forestry.

And as I say, there is no ‘forcibly’ involved. Contraction and convergence is a principle, not a mechanism of global government.

I sense a degree of fear in your objections. Let me guess – you live in one of the countries that would need to contract?

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 09:07:10 +0000

If a country was so brutal as to consider genocide to increase its power, why on earth would it sign up to a global agreement to cut its CO2 emissions? That’s one crazy straw man you’ve set up there.

This plan couldn’t possibly be rolled out in any coercive manner. As you say, who would oversee it? It can only work through cooperation, which is what the UN is all about. No international government required, just a willingness to work together.

By: Dale

Dale — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 03:28:55 +0000

Also – the scheme is over-simplified and patently unfair. How can you possibly think that people living in cold climates should be forced to be limited to the same CO2 emission levels as those not requiring heating in the winter months. Will this scheme forcibly provide land for those people that choose to relocated to places where there is more “discretionary” CO2 emission possible? All in all, this seems like an idea that deserves to be sent to the dustbin of history.