Since 1990 GCI has well-tempered the focus on UNFCCC-Compliance with C&C

GCI & the US Government before COP-3 Kyoto (1997).
True Story

 Click logo to return to 'links-page'

Web Hits


Dear D

I have been thinking over the way you formulated your question.
In one word the answer is 'no' . . . I do not know of any group that made a claim as to what the/a US NDC looks like.

Then you add the caveat, "even if it is not based upon C&C."

To this caveat I respond, "if it is not based on C&C it is not possible;
it'll just be picking numbers out of rows of hats in cascades of second-hand hat-shops."


Let me tell a true & revealing story about this in relation to the US Government's early attempts to deal with this.
In April 1997 there was an 'inter-sessional meeting' in Bad Godesburg, nine months prior to COP-3 Kyoto in December.

Introduced at COP-2 1996, by the early 1997 stage of the process, this image had already become very widely known indeed.

Danny Reifsnyder, a friend on the US delegation & Chair of the Ad Hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate, came over and said,
"Hey Aubrey, what do you think of this?" He produced the US presentation for their Press Conference the following day.

I looked at it a while and then said to him, "this looks like Contraction & Compulsion to me," he laughed.
Then I said, "let me look at it overnight and tell you tomorrow what I really think." He said "OK."

Next morning I said to him, "how much are you prepared to pay me not to support you."
He said, "WTF are you talking about!" (of course later I realised that Well Tempered Fifths have everything to do with it).

So I said to him, "you guys are saying that all countries (globally) must have a Quantified Limitation or Reduction Objective (QUELRO) for the US to participate.
At the same time you have left an empty pair of square brackets next to each country as to what their specific QUELRO would be."
He agreed.

So I asked him, "how will it be decided what these numbers are and who/what will decide them all?" He shrugged.
So then I said, "I dropped a C&C global number-set for all countries into your square brackets,
& (aside from picking numbers out of rows in a cascade of multiple hat-shops), there's no other way to do it."


He said, "let me talk to my guys; I'll come back." Twenty minutes later he came back & said, "Guess what? You don't get paid."
I said, "Uhu - so you want the support." He said, "Yes we do; keeping to what you said, will you speak at our press conference tomorrow?"

So I said, "there will be a bloodbath if I do, but the answer is yes" . . . He said, "that's your problem and thanks."
In what became a long & fractious press conference, I eventually did say that and yes . . . there was a bloodbath (some NGOs went ballistic).

However, afterwards Government-invitations came to visit Washington & Beijing which were accepted. The Byrd Hagel Resolution was signed on that basis.
The Africa Group produced a clear statement. More about these early years is here. With all this we nearly made history at COP-3 and the story progressed from there.

After we met at COP-4 in 1998 support for the idea became vast.

* In 2008 the UK Climate Act came to be based on C&C.
*In 2009 the Chinese advocated a perfectly logical application of C&C.

You concluded by saying, "If I find an equity calculation that is not based on C&C, I will restate my support for C&C."
Does the story above help you figure-out from a C&C perspective, what the last twenty years have really been about?

Am I really the only one who still takes the point?
I hope not but I don't think so either (FT letter).

But if at this stage that message remains unheard, I think we're probably doomed
.

However it still seems remarkable to me as a string-player that the US Capitol Hill Dome
(the great symmbol of 'freedom') is probably the most perfect architectural example of
the Pi:Ph:Phi-Curve:Harmonic-Series ever designed and built in all our civilization.

What this really shows is a two-way street - which means that while
[a] out of the many comes the one [b] out of the one comes the many.

E pluribus unum?