BACK TO CBAT Graphic User Interface [GUI]


This horizontal slider covers the time-period 2010 to 2110: -

Within the operative time-line of 2010 to 2110, the horizontal slider has two elements: -

  1. the start-date [the left-pointing half - < - of the slider] and
  2. the end-date [the right-pointing half - > - of the slider].

Using these, a 'convergence-window' of: -

  1. any period - . . . . . . < . . . > . . . . . - within the 100 years and of
  2. any duration - < . . . . . . . . . . > . . . . - within the 100 years

can be chosen by the CBAT-user.

The only constraint is that the end-date cannot be earlier than the start date.

This integrates: -

  1. DOMAIN ONE global rates of Contraction-and-Concentrations to
  2. DOMAIN TWO Inter-national/Inter-regional/Inter-generational rates of Contraction-and-Convergence.

. . . so in Domain TWO, CBAT will show the pre-distributional effect of the different convergence rates/windows that can be chosen by the CBAT user.

The earlier and faster the Convergence-Window is set, the more of the Contraction Budget is pre-distributed to Developing Countries while the overall Buget-Integral chosen is maintained.


In the light of the IPCC AR5 WG1 result [September 2013] it is easy to see why LDCs took offence at the UKCA convergence date of 2050. If we take 616 Gt C results seriously, the world needs to achieve zero emissions by 2050!

So - remembering that Dutch UNFCCC Executive Secretary Joke Waller Hunter told COP-9 in 2003 that C&C was "inevitably required" to achieve the UNFCCC objective - Adair Turner told the UK House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Select Committee in 2009: - "if we have to accelerate the rate on contraction for reasons of urgency, we have to accelerate the rate of convergence for reasons of equity."

Here are Domain One and Domain Two, MEDIUM Budget on the left, LOW Budget on the right.

Domain Two - Contraction and Convergence - is now working for both gross and per capita emissions [below - click icon on left to screen-centre it] and looking like this: -

Content on this page requires a newer version of Adobe Flash Player.

Get Adobe Flash player

When Domain Two is fully operational, it will have a 'Table' floating on-screen reading off: -

  • values arising in Gt C for the globe divided into 6 regions as follows: -

  1. USA [grey]
  2. OECD minus the USA [green]
  3. Former Soviet Union [FSU in white]
  4. China [yellow]
  5. India [orange]
  6. Rest of World [ROW in dark blue]
  • for periods: -

  1. before convergence starts [2010 to start-date - here 2015]
  2. while convergence lasts [from start-date to end-date - here 2030]
  3. after convergence ends [from end-date to 2110]
  • from any user-choices made from Slider-use, that will look like this: -

. . . where the user-choices for any: -

  1. 'Carbon-Budget' using 'Budget Buttons' & the Vertical Slider for Domain One &
  2. 'Convergence-Window' using the Horzontal Slider 'pair' [<>] in Domain Two

. . . result in the Table of values shown in the image above for all values arising adjusting the values to read [in Gt C] any Domain One/Domain Two combination chosen by the CBAT-user.


That means that for any relevant rate of Contraction with any rate of Convergence-Window arising, CBAT will instantly calculate and display charts and table-values in Gt C from any of the: -

  1. Three Carbon Budgets, [three buttons, LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH, top right] multiplied by
  2. 80 positions each [from +40 to -40, on the VERTICAL SLIDER] multiplied by
  3. Any convergence start-date [2010-2110 - on the HORIZONTAL SLIDER] multiplied by
  4. Any convergence end-date [2010-2110 or 100 years - on the HORIZONTAL SLIDER]

. . . to give in all a 'suite' of 2.4 million 'C&C' Carbon-Budget user-options, where 'Contraction and Convergence' TOTALS in the Vertical Slider Clock on the right and in the on-screen Table bottom right [column 5 row 8] are the same value - in other words they 'commute'.

However the budget size and the regional shares in it may vary, the 'Budget-Total-Clock' on the Vertical Slider and the 'Budget-Total' in the Table will always show the same quantity of Gigatonnes of Carbon [Gt C] in the same path-integrals [shape and weight of budgets] in Gt C, no matter which user-positions the sliders are pushed to.

The essence of this is to establish that the relevant non-random 'numeraire' [unit of measurement] for UNFCCC-compliance is the '100% of: -

  1. tonnes-of-carbon per-limit ['precaution'] *before* it embraces the derivatives of
  2. tonnes-of-carbon-per-person ['equity'] and then, and only then, when the ratio of
  3. dollars-per-tonne-of-carbon ['efficiency' & marginal 'carbon-spot-pricing' & 'damage-trend-costing'] in Domains 3 & 4 have been subordinated to UNFCCC-compliance, do they become relevant [where, "the economy is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the environment"].


Noting the tears of UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres'


To those who say that carbon-budgeting in this numerate way is unacceptable as it is: -

'too logical' . . .

the answer is, how illogical would you like to be [and can you calculate it]?


To those who say that carbon-budgeting in this numerate way is unacceptable as it is: -

'too simple' . . .

the answer is, how complicated would you like it to be [and can you calculate it]?


To those who say that carbon-budgeting in this numerate way is unacceptable as it is: -

'too complicated' . . .

the answer is, how simple would you like to be [and can you calculate it]?


To those who say that carbon-budgeting in this numerate way is unacceptable as it is: -

'not fair enough' . . .

the answer is, to whom [and which particular rates of C&C we're you referrring to]?


[And also] to those who say that carbon-budgeting in this numerate way is unacceptable as it is: -

'too fair' . . .

the answer [again] is, to whom [and which particular rates of C&C we're you referrring to]?


To those who say that carbon-budgeting in this numerate way is unacceptable as it is: -

'too unlike the 'real world which is full of 'differences'' . . .
[I mean how do you work out the weather in Malawi in 2050!]

the answer is, which 'differences' & whose 'real world' [& do they relate to any rates of C&C at all]?


The first task for achieving UNFCCC-Compliance is figure out the rate of Contraction and Concentrations [needed by definition for UNFCCC-compliance] that has a better that 50:50 chance of avoiding 2 degrees. This rate may well be much faster than we think. In other words, the budget may well be much smaller than we think [as this IPCC AR5 result clearly shows].

The next task is to come to an agreement on the rate of Contraction and Convergence that is consistent with that Contraction and Concentrations rate. These rates of C&C are an internationally negotiated agreement and not some academic 'policy-makers' prescription [like the UK Climate Act for example, where 'Convergence by 2050' was just prescribed].

In the light of all that, we quickly come to realize that trying to invent an arrangement where all these 'complications, differences, prescriptions and inequity-protests' are catered for within the available limit, is like trying to make room for more and more special-case angels on the head of a rapidly shrinking pin.


To those who say that carbon-budgeting in this numerate way is unacceptable as it is . . . .

'but . . . . for heaven's sake, its still too unlike the 'real world' . . .

. . . the answer is, aha, yes, good, a turning point appears . . . without a C&C-based deal for UNFCCC-compliance, at realistic rates for less than two degrees, we may believe we are living in the real world but are certainly no longer thinking in a 'real-world', and before long our descendants may come to be thinking like this in the real world related to UNFCCC-compliance, but they won't be living in one where that and avoiding dangerous rates of climate change is any longer a real possibility [Cue Christiana's tears].


To those who say that carbon-budgeting in this numerate way is unacceptable: -

' . . . its a zero-sum-game - a C&C based carbon-budget is a zero-sum game' [!] - don't you get that? . . .

[Again cue Christiana's tears].

The answer again is, 'yes of course, precisely! A zero-sum-tonnes budget by a given date has a chance of being 100% effective for envisioning UNFCCC-compliance [!!]' . . .

Consequently: -

  1. this is exactly the reason to *agree a budget* [it can revised every COP+x] and
  2. this is exactly the reason to *agree rates of C&C* [these can revised every COP+x] and
  3. this is exactly the reason to *agree* to *implementation governed and guided by that* and
  4. this is exactly *not the reason* to *avoid the above* for the simple reason that
  5. continuing to pick numbers out of a hat just doesn't cut it and never will.

Once this crucial point is recognized, the political tipping point is very close - it is realizing that 'urgency' drives 'equity' for all, while 'equity' doesn't drive 'urgency' for anyone.

Beyond that, one other thing to say is that because of urgency, some perhaps haven't yet recognized it can be - and now even may well have to be - be a 'negative-sum-game' [as this IPCC AR5 result clearly shows].

But, see Gaming the Zero Sum Game


Trying to trade Domains One and Two off Domain Three is a recipe for failure.

The 'positive-sum-game' [getting more than 100%] we all desire, if it is possible, is in the 'wholly anthropic' Domain Three [Contraction and Conversion]. However, Domain Three, or 'Green Growth', embraces implementation issues which are vitally important. However, these alone do not constitute a strategy.

This implementation can effectively be part of [and needs to be an essentail part of] that, precisely because Domains One and Two show strategically the zero-[to even negative]-sum-game for emissions needed and that by definition is required for UNFCCC-compliance.

That very UNFCCC-compliance is what UNFCCC-negotiators attending COPs 1-19 are there to negotiate. If COP's are reduced to just being 'trade-fairs' for green-technology, we will fail for lack of a goal and a strategy to meet it.


In the light of his recent statement, this is what Todd Stern, US Lead negotiator from the US State Department, most urgently needs to reflect on and set an example with. His advocacy of implementation measures is good. Leading by example on these is better. However, neither of these [however exemplary] constitute a global climate strategy for UNFCCC-compliance.

It is of fundamental importance to recognize this and that implementation is a Domain Three issue, governed by the stragically agreed rates of UNFCCC-compliance determined in Domain One [Contraction] and Domain Two [Convergence]. In other words, doing too-little too-late with unguided-implementation is just as hopeless as not bothering to do anything at all.

However, turning the Kyoto Protocol's 'market-based-framework' into C&C's 'framework-based-market' in this way, gives us all a say in the 'limit' [e.g. 350 ppmv or 2 degrees or a trillion tonnes etc] and a chance to rationalize, realize and deliver this at rates which achieve enough soon enough to achieve UNFCCC-compliance.

Bluntly, without a basic Domain One times Domain Two agreement - i.e. a 'C&C timetable' - COPs at the UNFCCC just become the increasingly fruitless ramblings of some kind of public-relations for affinity-group-avoidance, actually expressing an increasingly incoherent, collective death-wish.

For these very reasons, former US negotiator Don Brown says: - "CBAT gives international climate negotiators, governments and NGOs a tool of great value."

Without this, some like UNFCC Executive Secretary Christina Figueres just end up in tears [rightly] saying that, "condemning future generations before they are even born . . . is completely unfair and immoral".

BACK TO CBAT Graphic User Interface [GUI]


Some Responses to CBAT so far

Some Support for the Classic C&C Concept over the years.