Mark Lynas's Green Grid

Should the incremental approach of Kyoto be extended, or ditched for something more ambitious? Read

By Mark Lynas Published 13 December 2007

In Bali the world's governments have been asked to draw up a long-term plan to stabilise the global climate. Should the incremental approach of the Kyoto Protocol be extended, or ditched for something more ambitious? Deciding which climate framework to plump for might be the most important decision of these politicians' lives - and ours. Yet most of us have had little or no opportunity to participate in the debate. The rhetoric boils down to four options, which I rate here on the key criteria of scientific rigour, political realism, fairness and simplicity. Tell us your choice.

The frameworks

Kyoto Protocol
Contraction and Convergence
Kyoto2
Greenhouse Development Rights
Cap and Share, a variant combining C&C and Kyoto2 approaches

{insert name="NSDynamicContent" template='poll_special.tpl' poll=1003 caching=1 cache_lifetime=60 cache_id='dynamic|poll_special_1003' show_poll_name=1 poll_title="Vote!"}
{insert name="NSDynamicContent" template='poll_special_results.tpl' poll=1003 caching=1 cache_lifetime=60 cache_id='dynamic|poll_special_results_1003' show_poll_name="" poll_title="Results so far . . ."}

The Green Grid

Click on the green grid below to compare the climate frameworks side by side (opens in new window)

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Bali Green Politics Global Warming

View the discussion thread.

17 comments

Sun, 2008-01-27 16:13 — AubreyMeyer

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

Sun, 2007-12-16 17:13 — AubreyMeyer

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

Sun, 2007-12-16 19:48 — Caspar Henderson1

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

Sun, 2007-12-16 20:16 — Caspar Henderson1

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?

Sun, 2007-12-16 23:32 — The Carbon Coach

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?

Mon, 2007-12-17 00:19 — AubreyMeyer

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

Thu, 2007-12-13 16:51 — VC

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

Mon, 2007-12-17 16:59 — Tors

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(!!)?

Mon, 2007-12-17 18:02 — AubreyMeyer

Tors

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

Aubrey

Tue, 2007-12-18 00:40 — Mr

@ 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.