Tthe high-minded Lords-of-Aid have never had it so good. OXFAM et al dispose of around $1,000,000,000/year pushing this kind of material while drawing 'charitably excited' salaries for their CEOs at 100s of thousands of pounds a year and using vast armies of volunteers for their mission. "It is essential that decisions on climate change financing be made on a fair and equitable basis, using clear principles, and that national contributions should vary to reflect responsibility and capacity to pay. One of the recognised systems by which to assess which developed countries ought to shoulder what proportion of financial responsibility, in respect of both mitigation and adaptation, is the Greenhouse Development Rights (GDR) framework. Fundamental to the GDR approach is firstly the need for emergency measures to reduce global carbon emissions rapidly to avoid global temperature rise of 2°C; and secondly the overriding need for poverty reduction in developing countries." That 'Development' NGO's have taken some 'Climate-Action' NGOs into this army of advocacy is continuing evidence of just how counter-productive their performance at the UNFCCC for over 20 years is now in danger of becoming. OXFAM/NEF 'Assessing the Alternatives' The New Economics Foundation [NEF] originally produced this full Report for Stamp Out Poverty [SOP]. Assessing The Alternatives NEF's report makes three comments about Contraction and Convergence [C&C]. They said: - "C&C is clearly dynamic in nature, moving from the status quo to what could be considered an equitable international allocation However, the proposal does not stipulate the speed with which this process should take place which is clearly the central question to be answered." Comments [1] and [3] are correct. Comment [2] however, which as the report says, "is clearly the central question", is not correct and is completely contrary to the record. GCI has arguably over the last twenty years made more effort than any other agency in the entire UNFCCC-process to elucidate, answer and communicate answers to this point about the rates of C&C that are required for UNFCCC-compliance and thus to show how negotiators at the UNFCCC can be assisted to come to an effective global agreement. Why NEF - who have made little effort at all - have chosen to ignore this record, remains an unanswered question. The letter to them with listed evidence of this effort about this does as well: - A few examples of GCI's effort ranging over the last fifteen years: - http://www.gci.org.uk/animations/C&C_COP_15.swf http://www.gci.org.uk/animations/C1_C2_C3_animations.exe http://www.gci.org.uk/animations/C1,C2,C3.swf http://www.gci.org.uk/C&C_Animation.exe http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/C&CSlideshow_notes.pdf http://www.gci.org.uk/movies/Contraction_and_Convergence_Challen_et_al.flv http://www.gci.org.uk/movies/Contraction_and_Convergence_Risk_Analysis_Sink_Failure.flv http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/CPI.pdf http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/C&C_Chapter_Levene_Book_.pdf http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/RSA_Occasional_Paper.pdf http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/ASEF_.pdf http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/Korea_C&C_Notes_for_Jeju_.pdf http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/PIU.pdf http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/UNEPFI_a.pdf http://www.gci.org.uk/animations/BENN_C&C_Animation.exe http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/Benn_DEFRA_15_11_07_.pdf http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/ASEF_.pdf http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/Korea_C&C_Notes_for_Jeju_.pdf http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/PIU.pdf http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/UNEPFI_a.pdf This record is variously recognized: - http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/NefEdC&C.pdf http://www.gci.org.uk/endorsements.html http://www.gci.org.uk/endorsements_UN_Bodies.html http://www.gci.org.uk/endorsements_UK_Climate_Act.html http://www.gci.org.uk/endorsements_institutions.html http://www.gci.org.uk/endorsements_medics.html http://www.gci.org.uk/endorsements_religious.html http://www.gci.org.uk/endorsements_population.html http://www.gci.org.uk/endorsements_ethics.html http://www.gci.org.uk/endorsements_equity_fairness.html http://www.gci.org.uk/endorsements_sustainability.html http://www.gci.org.uk/endorsements_sceptics.html http://www.gci.org.uk/endorsements_campaigns.html http://www.gci.org.uk/endorsements_sociology.html http://www.gci.org.uk/endorsements_academia.html http://www.gci.org.uk/endorsements_capitalist_socialist.html http://www.gci.org.uk/endorsements_law.html http://www.gci.org.uk/endorsements_economists.html http://www.gci.org.uk/endorsements_politics.html http://www.gci.org.uk/endorsements_justice_eco_debt.html http://www.gci.org.uk/endorsements_publications.html After months of requesting the authors of this report to correct the inaccuray about GCI and C&C, Stamp Out Poverty obliged to the extent reflected in this revised report published in December 2011. "Contraction and Convergence is clearly dynamic in nature, moving from the status quo to what could be considered an equitable international allocation. Over the last twenty years, in an effort to help negotiators at the UNFCCC on how they might agree an effective and equal global deal, GCI has developed detailed proposals for contraction and convergence rates." 17 GCI 18 Further details on these studies for contraction and convergence rates can be found at Apparently the "central question" no longer exists.

As with the 'Berlin Wall', the 'Climate-Firewall' can yet come down. 'Climate-detente' possible at COP-17 with negotiated rates of C&C.
Why not Follow @aubreygci
Why not Tweet