Mark Lynas's Green Grid

17 comments from readers

Carl Jones
13 December 2007 at 15:51

Come on Mr Lynas.....where is the "none of the above" option????

Caspar Henderson
14 December 2007 at 11:14

Where does it get you one say that Kyoto has little 'scientific rigour'? That is not what it is designed for: criticising an apple for not being an orange. (bear in mind questions, too, from Myles Allen et al regarding the use of atmospheric concentration targets in the first place - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/the-certainty-of-uncertainty/)

C&C gets more points for 'simplicity'. Why should 'simplicity' be the right answer to one of the world's most complex problems? Walking around downtown Baghdad calling for peace and brotherly love may be simple, but it is unlikely to solve the challenges.

I agree with Carl Jones - where is the 'none of the above' option?

The Carbon Coach
14 December 2007 at 18:25

Caspar Henderson's comments let him down badly. In matters concerning, e.g., US international negotiators, world leaders, the media and the general public - simplicity has much merit.

I do not agree that the problem is so complex either, we simply have to start burning much less fossil fuel. Dylan, aged 6 has pointed this out to Gordon Brown - see http://www.thesolutionissimple.org/

Strictly C&C is hardly 'simple' either - a visit to the www.gci.org.uk website will reveal its hidden depth and elegance. E=mc2 was simple Mr Henderson.

As for agreeing with the "none of the above" option, isn't that endorsing further dither and delay - procrastinating and pissing about - when we could be building consensus for a solution that works.

'None of the above' is the vote of ignorance, irresponsibility or stupidity - that's probably why Mark omitted it.

It is indulgent, but more important, simply unnecessary, to quibble about any perceived failings of the C&C approach, which - if we unite behind it - gives our kids their future back.

That's why it gets my vote.

The Carbon Coach
14 December 2007 at 18:28

Contraction and Convergence

Contraction and convergence is the one. for me. It's a pollution solution that offers us justice without vengeance. It is beautiful in its simplicity elegance fairness, and most of all, its workability.

A Meyer
16 December 2007 at 16:13

It helps to resolve this question of 'which framework with reference to the actual numbers [rates of C&C] that are relevant,

As shown here, it incorporates the latest coupled modelling of the Hadley Centre as published in the IPCC AR4: -

http://www.gci.org.uk/Animations/BENN_C&C_Animation_[Tower_&_Ravens].exe

Variously described as: -

"brilliant and scary",

"awesome",

"very beautiful and very instructive"

it gives nonetheless the numerate but painful truth of our climate change dilemma.

Rates of C&C that are still relevant sadly don't provide the amount of time that is needed to conduct all the fruitless allopathic argument that academics, bureacrats and [even still] some campaigners imply is still available and still needed for the detailed arguments they still make.

Aubrey Meyer

GCI

Caspar Henderson
16 December 2007 at 18:48

Michael Grubb is reported to have been the first to advance the argument for C&C, in "The Greenhouse Effect: Negotiating Targets", International Affairs Vol. 66, No. 1, Jan., 1990, pp. 67-89]. Does anyone know of an earlier reference. If so, please post a link. Michael Grubb, of course, has long since set C&C aside.

Among the problems with C&C is that it hands money to governments. As Oliver Tickell puts it, "Why as a UK taxpayer would I want the government to pay loads of money to say Nigeria for carbon permits? I would want that money to go directly to fund adaptation, mitigation, forest and peatland conservation, climate-friendly farming and a decisive shift to a low carbon global economy."

Paul Klemperer is probably right to say this is all academic unless there is serious investment in clean energy research: http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/803

Caspar Henderson
16 December 2007 at 19:16

The science indicates that there is little time to solve the problem. If C&C is "the answer" what are the caps for allocations year on year, when does it begin operation, is there a floor and ceiling on the carbon price, who administers the scheme and who keeps a watch on them?

The Carbon Coach
16 December 2007 at 22:32

Dear Caspar

Instead of posting negative comments about C&C (as proposed by the GCI) - and then later in the day publicly posting questions about it - questions that reveal that you have plenty of prejudice but very little knowledge or understanding of it, wouldn't it be better to find out the answers first - to the questions you ask - from those that favour it and understand it?

A bit like the Tango advert, ('Don't slag it off until you've tried it'.) except that after you have tasted C&C you won't want to slag it off.

Come on now. We all have a planet to save here. Are your objections to C&C so important as to make you want to jeopardise the emerging consensus behind something so vital?

I sincerely hope you will consider why/how it is that so many intelligent progressive leaders in all sorts of fields have fully satisfied themselves that C&C is precisely the answer. Could it possibly be because it probably is?

A Meyer
16 December 2007 at 23:19

The C&C animation answers questions about rates: -

http://www.gci.org.uk/Animations/BENN_C&C_Animation_[Tower_&_Ravens].exe

This reference answers some of the questions raised about provenance: -

http://www.gci.org.uk/Archive/Mega_Doc_1989_2004.pdf

The issue really is not, "who thought of C&C?" [its so obvious that it should be embarrassing not to have thought of it]. The issue is, having thought of it, what then got done about it?

Some of the argument and resistance and then support for it seeded over the last 20 years is here - [another huge file so only for the very interested]: -

http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/Booklet_Reduced_File_Size.pdf

Tors
17 December 2007 at 15:59

C+C but we all know what the problems would be :

Transparency and Enforcement

How on earth are we going to police countries such as Canada, the US, China and Australia with large remaining reserves of coal/oil/tar sands(!!)?

A Meyer
17 December 2007 at 17:02

Tors

These problems are real . . . for whtever proposal . . .

Aubrey

Mr
17 December 2007 at 23:40

@ Caspar Henderson.

The Africa Group at UNFCCC has supported C&C since 1997 and they are the poorest major bloc. Ecoequity means even more must be paid by wealthy nations so making it even harder to overcome US resistance. Negotiations will be hard enough as it is with compensations being demanded for avoided deforestation, winter heating requirements esp. China-Korea, developing countries without nuclear power.

You speak of C&C and payments to Nigeria. As the Ecoequity paper itself says, emissions trading is to be expected in any ambitious system. Confidence could be improved by allowing payments to be made in kind e.g. by clean water/sanitation/healthcare/clean energy/education packages.

taghioff.info
19 December 2007 at 05:20

C&C is the most realistic approach, not least because it has gained the most acceptance amongst governments already, and we have little time to lose.

But in many ways it is not ambitious enough: What you are creating with C&C is an alternative currency that is designed to let us survive. But the current currency system will confound it. Since the US can print dollars and then export them as a global currency, it can buy goods and never face having to redeem them by spending within their economy. This breaks the equity aspect of C&C.

So climate change implies C&C and C&C implies global financial reform. Whilst we are about it, perhaps we should consider engineering global financial markets to deliver food security, since we are clearly facing an upcoming political crisis there as well.

The IPCC projections on food supply do not include extreme weather events, and we know 1) there will be more of them 2) extreme weather is what farmers are most scared of. So we need to include a food supply regime in our carbon based currency system.

taghioff.info
19 December 2007 at 05:46

Here is my proposal, building on C&C:

http://taghioff.info/dant/?p=66

Pat T
25 January 2008 at 22:13

"How on earth are we going to police countries such as Canada, the US, China and Australia with large remaining reserves of coal/oil/tar sands(!!)?"

Answer - you're not. We're not your colonies anymore - haven't been for ages!

You produce and consume what you want, we'll produce and consume what we want, and none of it has anything to do with the weather.

Pat T
25 January 2008 at 22:14

I vote with the scientists - these scientists:

http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=519

A Meyer
27 January 2008 at 15:13

Well there are scientists and scientists and then again there are scientists like these ones - so who do we trust . . .

“A framework involving technology together

with social, political and economic change

with quantifiable targets is the only way forward. This is why we support the well-known concept of “Contraction and Convergence” (C&C) as proposed by the Global Commons Institute as the basis for the agreement. It satisfies developing countries’ demands for equity and US demands that major developing countries such as China and India be involved in any targets.”

Scientists for Global Responsibility