Letter protesting against unequal life-evaluation
by climate change economists in the IPCC

 Click logo to return to 'links-page'


From the outset the challenge has been & still remains
Can we frame this so everyone is on the same page

GCI's effort to address the reality of climate change began in earnest in 1990. The defining purpose has been since then, to turn a global-problem into a global-solution. We established the non-ideological Contraction & Convergence (C&C) methodology to this end, gradually attracting much support for this.

The effort - that continues until the present day 28/09/2019 - embraces this record 1989-2010: -


Below is a sign-on letter which GCI has been circulating. Since June, many people and organisations around the world have co-signed this in protest against the actions of some economists now working in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC's Working Group Three (WG3) on "Economic and other Cross-Cutting Issues".

These (mostly OECD) economists have now established the following ideas in the drafts of the IPCC's Second
Assessment Report (SAR): -

(a) There will a huge number of deaths as a result of human-induced global climate changes.
(b) These need to be given a cash value (a "damage cost").
(c) The cash value of people's lives around the world is different.
(d) This is because of their differing abilities to pay for damage insurance.

Consequently, the lives of people in poor countries should be substantially discounted in the Global Cost/Benefit Analysis (GCBA) being conducted by IPCC.

The poorer countries have least - or indeed no - responsibility for causing the problems of climate change. They also cover the regions of the globe where most of the associated deaths will occur. They are also the countries now most blamed for "future impacts".

We do not feel that this aspect of the IPCC's analysis is ethically justifiable or politically prudent. We therefore ask you and all your colleagues please to consider becoming co-signatories to the attached letter. Signature collection will also continue until the 1st "Conference of the Parties" (COP) ie the UN Climate Change negotiations in Berlin next March.


Please co-sign THIS letter to the Conference of the Parties & the IPCC

"Protecting the world environment requires that development be sustainable.

Some time ago main-stream economists explicitly set out to capture the sustainable development agenda
for the economics profession.

In this pursuit and with much public money, they invented the technique they call "global cost/benefit
analysis" (G-CBA). Global warming and the cost and benefits of climate change are now assessed by
them in these monetary terms. And this assessment is being aggressively pushed by the economists in the
UN's Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Part of this exercise, they assert, entails giving cash values to human lives. They accept there are going
to be hundreds of thousands of deaths worldwide as a result of global climate changes.

A recent research paper from the UK-Government-funded C-SERGE, the UK's "Centre for the Social
and Economic Research of the Global Environment", (C-SERGE Director David Pearce is also the
convening lead author in IPCC on "Social Costs" and has now formally lodged this approach in the
IPCC text - and it has survived the peer review) states that the cash value of a "statistical life" in the EC
or the USA is $1,500,000 per head, but in ("poorer countries" such as) China it is only $150,000. In GCBA,
this means that, as an economist, you help capture the sustainable development agenda for your
profession by discarding a real Chinese life ten times more easily than a real life in the EC or the USA.

Ironically, these lives are now at risk as a result of damage to the global environment for which citizens
in the EC and the USA have been and are at least ten times more responsible per head than citizens in
China. There is, of course, a foreign policy cost associated with this since the population of the EC and
the USA is outnumbered 10-1 by everyone else.

The need to value human rights as equal, is prudent as well as perennial."

Aubrey Meyer
Global Commons Institute (GCI)

Tony Cooper
Global Commons Institute (GCI)

Richard Douthwaite
Global Commons Institute (GCI)

Tim Rickman
Global Commons Institute (GCI)

Joy Pagano
Global Commons Institute (GCI)

Dan Davenport
Global Commons Institute (GCI)

Dave Bradney
Global Commons Institute (GCI)

Nigel Dower
Aberdeen University Dept Philos Politics & Int. Relations

Antoine Sendama
Africa Water Network

Sadachari Singh Tomar
Agri Energy and Power Institute Bhopal India

Bruce McFarling
MA Economics (University of Tennessee)

Mustafa Pultar
Prof. Faculty of Art, Design, Architecture, Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkiye

Arthur R Barrit
Associated Labour Unions, Philippines

Peter Kiwummulo
Association of Socio Economic Progress Uganda

Nirmada Das
ASTRA Indian Institute of Science

N Ganguli
ASTRA Indian Institute of Science

S Lokras
ASTRA Indian Institute of Science

U Shrinivasa
ASTRA Indian Institute of Science, Chairman

Victor Anderson
Author Alternative Economic Indicators

Brian Grant
National Party of Canada, Pacific Region

Tom Athanasiou

Sheelagh O'Reilly
Bangor University, Centre for Arid Zone Studies Research Fellow

Dr. David T. Smernoff
Bay Area Action California

Louise Say
Bradford University Peace Studies

M C Mapako
Biomass User's Network Technical Director

Marielle Savard,
British Columbia University, Canada

Malachi O Orondo
CCDU Kenya Director

Professor Graciela Chichilnisky
Director, Project on Information and Resources Columbia University

Helle Rasmussen
Copenhagen Business School

Leif Bloch Rasmussen,
Copenhagen Business School

Neelam Sethi
Cornell University

Dora Ann Lange Canhos
Base de Dados Tropical Fundacao "Andre' Tosello" Brazil

Milind Kandlikar
Carnegie Mellon Uni, Dept of Engineering & Public Policy

D Taylor
Centre for Low Input Agriculture, South Africa, Director

Koshy Cherail
Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi, India

Dr Paul Redfern
Centre for the Study of Global Governance LSE UK

Cynog Dafis
Ceredigion & Pembroke North MP

Caree Simmons,
Drury College

John Hontelez
Chairman Friends of the Earth International

Paul Spray
Christian Aid UK

Stan Jones,
University of Oregon, USA

Dennis Berg,
Environmental Studies, CSU, Fullerton

Christine Harold
Tova Perlmutter

John Mead
Christian Ecology Link

Grace Akumu
Climate Network Africa (Kenya)

MK Pillai
Coir Board India

Art Farley
Computer and Information Science Uni Oregon USA

Per Flensburg
Copenhagen Business School

Helle Rasmussen
Copenhagen Business School

Birgitte Bush
Copenhagen Business School

Leif Bloch Rasmussen,
Copenhagen Business School

Chris Cuomo
Cornell University Science and Technology Studies

Ulrich Loenig
Edinburgh University Centre for Human Ecology - Dir.

Miles Litvinoff
Earthscan Action Handbook Author

Shelley Braithwaite
Earth Action Resource Centre

Jonathon Bevan
Earth Repair Charter

Dan Hinckley
Earthweb Project USA

Dr John Whitelegg
Ecologica Ltd Lancaster UK

Nicholas Hildyard
Ecologist Magazine

Wagaki Mwangi
EcoNews Africa

Adrian Berwert
Environmental Economist Zurich

Eugene P. Coyle
Energy Analyst San Francisco, California

Stephen Law
Environmental Monitoring Group, South Africa

MK Sharma
Educational Media Research Centre, India

K R Baskar
EMRC - MK University Madurai S India

S Rayamarihandan
EMRC - MK University Madurai S India

S Manukandan
EMRC - MK University Madurai S India

N Murthipandi
EMRC - MK University Madurai S India

M Ramkeerthi
EMRC - MK University Madurai S India

John Gowdy,
Professor of Economics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst Troy, New York

S V Bajay
Energy Planning Co-Ordinator University of Campinas Brazil

Youba Sokona
Environment and Development in the Third World,
IPCC WG3 Lead Author, Mali

Chris Chetsanga
Environment and Remote Sensing Institute, Zimbabwe

Rob Sinclair
Environment Liaison Centre International

Heinz Greijn
Environment Liaison Centre International

Jim Berreen
Environment Speaker Green Party UK

W Fred van Raaij
Erasmus University Rotterdam

Martin Hogan
Essex University

Musiliu O Ashiru
Forestry Research Institute Nigeria

AB Oguntala
Forestry Research Institute Nigeria

Charles Secrett
Friends of the Earth UK Director

John Whiting
Global Commons Trust UK
John Gordon
Global Environmental Research Centre

Iris Marion Young,
Professor Graduate School of Public & International Affairs University of Pittsburgh

Titus Alexander
Stop Global Apartheid

Mike Feinstein
Green Party California

Patrick Samphire
Green Party Colchester

Alan Francis
Green Party Euro-candidate Beds and Milton Keynes

John Morrisey
Green Party Executive UK

Penny Kemp
Green Party Executive UK

Susan Miles
Green Party Executive UK

Penny Shepherd
Green Party Executive UK

John Morris
Green Party Executive UK

Miriam Kennett
Green Party Executive UK

Alex Begg
Green Party Executive UK

Ron Bailey
Green Party Executive UK

Darren Johnson
Green Party Executive UK

Jan Clark
Green Party Executive UK

David Taylor
Green Party Executive UK

Kit Brown
Midlothian Green Party

Ian Morrice
Midlothian Green Party Treasurer Scottish Green Party

Patricia McKenna
Member European Parliament, Comhaontas Glas Eire

Richard Howitt
Member European Parliament Labour Essex South

Nel van Djik
Member European Parliament, Groen Links, Netherlands

Stan Newens
Member European Parliament, London Central

Peter Crampton
Member European Parliament, Humberside, UK

Veronica Hardstaff
Member European Parliament, Lincolnshire & Humberside South, UK

J Poehlmann
Green Party Germany

Jan Bojer Vindheim
Green Party Norway

Peter Doran
Green Party of Northern Ireland Region

Frank de Jong
Green Party of Ontario, leader

Mike Woodin
Green Party Oxford City Council

Mike Woodin
Green Party Oxford City Council

Claes Roxbergh
Green Party Sweden

Gosta Lynga
Green Party Australia

Ian McKenzie
Green Party Australia

Leeza Dobbie
Green Party Australia

Brendan Fuller
Green Party Australia

Karen Alexander
Green Party Australia

Piers Allbrook
Green Party Australia

Fran Thompson
Green Party Australia

Susie Chapman
Green Party Australia

Deb Foskey
Green Party Australia

Malcolm Lewis
Green Party Australia

Loise Crossley
Green Party Australia

Dr Richard Lawson
Health Speaker Green Party UK

Oleg Cazanov
Independent Ecology-Political Movement Russian Fed

Moha Rafi

P J Paul
Indian Institute of Science

R Prakas
Indian Institute of Science

K S Jagaduh
Indian Institute of Science

V Guyathu
Indian Institute of Science

M Girish
Indian Institute of Science

K J Dinesh
Indian Institute of Science

Mahesh Natarajan
Indian Institute of Science

Donald Winslow
Indiana University Department of Biology

Phil Ferraro
Institute for Bioregional Studies

Thomas Pattern
Institute of Education London University

Thomas Schulze
Institute for Energy Economics & the Rational Use of Energy University Stuttgart

Dennis Palmini,
Professor of Economics Uni Wisconsin-Stevens Point

Axel Dorscht
Institute for Social Research, Ottawa, Canada

Daphne Wysham
Institute for Policy Studies Washington

V Balu
International Energy Initiative Director Bangalore

M Ramachandran
IREDA New Delhi India, Manager

Andrew Samuels
Jungian Analyst

B R Jagan
Karnataka Power Corporation, India

Peter Newell
Keele University, Dept of international Relations

Atiti Okwambitsa
KENGO Protection Officer

Gilbert Arum
Kenya Energy & Environment Organisations

Dominic Walubengo
Kenya Energy & Environment Organizations

M S Ramaprashad

Sarah Hemstock
King's College London

Frank de Jong
Leader Green Party of Ontairo

Melanie Jarman
Llyods and Midland Boycott Campaign

Suchit Nanda
Live Wire BBS Bombay India

Mark Norman
Macclesfield Green Party

R S Rajan

Piers Stephens
Manchester University Philosophy Department

Mark Thorp
Manchester University Academic Affairs Officer

Harry Lesser
Manchester University Snr Lecturer Philosophy Department

Douglas McArthur
Manchester University Snr Lecturer French Department

Peter Dorman
James Madison College, Michigan State University

Blair Sandler,
Lorax Political Ecology Study Group California USA

Dr. Laura Punnett,
Dept. of Work Environment, Univ. Mass. Lowell, USA

Oduor Ong'wen
Multilateral Development Bank

Manuel Cervantes
National University of Nicargua Managua

Simon Zadek
New Economics Foundation UK

Martin Saning'o
Olkonerei Pastoralist Survival Project Tanzania

Mike Smith
Oxford University Philosophy Dept

Sharad Lele
Pacific Institute Berkeley USA, Doctor

Julio K Prime

Dr Julian E Salt
Peace Studies Dept University of Bradford

S K Arthikeyan

Jon Scott
Prof & Chairman Atmospheric Sc. Univ. at Albany New York

Ian Douglas
Prof School of Geography Manchester University

Ian Ramsey
Rainforest Action Group Scotland

Angie Zelter
Reforest the Earth

Brendan Hill
Reforesting Scotland

Andy Wightman
Reforesting Scotland

Alastair McIntosh
Reforesting Scotland Development Director

Tim Lenton
Robinson College Cambridge University

Jose Nicolas
Rural Enterprise Development Fdn Philippines

M K Raja
Samrat Engineering

Peter Lauchmonen
Sarvodaya Development Organisation, Zimbabwe

Wanda S. Ballentine
Save Our Ozone

Keekok Lee
Snr lecturer Philosophy Department Manchester Uni

N H Ravindranath
Snr Sc Officer Indian Institute of Science

R Marston
Sterling University Dept of Environmental Science Dr

Gerald Leach
Stockholm Environment Institute

Toby Champion
Sussex University

Martin Khor
Director Third World Network

Buhler Reea
Umwelt und Energie, Dorfli

Arnaldo Walter
University of Campinas Brazil

Stan Jones,
University of Oregon, USA

David Barkin
Professor of Economics Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana Unidad Xochimilco, Mexico City

Chris Tilly
Assoc Professor economist Dept of Policy and Planning University of Massachusetts

John Barkham
University of East Anglia Snr lecturer Sch of Environment Sc.

Electo Silva Lora
University of Oriente Cuba

Alan Long

George Monbiot
Visiting lecturer Green College Oxford UK

Ann Heidenreich
World Council of Churches

Tom Wakeford
York University Biology Department UK

Ernst von Weizsacker
Wuppertal Institute President

Mechtild Schmedders
Wuppertal Institute

Christopher Manstein
Wuppertal Institute

Marcus Stewen
Wuppertal Institute/University of Mainz

Nese Yawuz
Wuppertal Institute

Meike Kolsch
Wuppertal Institute

Thomas Merten
Institut Arbeit und Technik

Lorenz Kneser
Wuppertal Institute

Hans Peter Durr
Max Planck Institut fur Physik

Annegret Falter

Ulrich Albrecht
Freie Universitat Berlin

Andreas Buro
JW Goethe Universitat Frankfurt

Johns Behrmann
Max Planck Institut

Heinrich Schiemann
Pensionene des ZDF

Constanze Eisenbart

Roland Vogl
Staatshanglenland Brandenburg

Helga Ehlers
Freie Journalisten

HE Gumlich
TU Berlin

Bernd Hamm
Universitat Trier

Olaf Joachim
Universitat Bonn
Ulrich Bartosch
Universitat Regensburg

HJ Fischbeck
EV Akademie Mulheim

Christiane Busch Luty
Universitat der Bundeswehr, Munchen

Charles Levenstein, Ph. D.
Professor of Work Environment Policy University of Massachusetts Lowell

Fotine Fahouris
Member WWF Greece

Robert Rubin
Bernhards Wiebel
Ruhr Universitat, Bochum

Zia van der Veen

Dr Warren Andrew Chang

David Carter

Odette Berger

Andrew Ridell

Peter Alcock

Ian Boote

Graham Reid

Gurinder Shahi

S Iniyan

Patrick Mann

Organic Farmer

Jacqueline Florek,
Issues Specialist, USA

George Silva

Ramona McCoy

Blair Irvine

Nancy Glass

Markku Oksanen

Heikki Patom

Kenneth Scott (USA)

Toni Vidan
Zelewa Arcia Zagreb

Andrea Ersek
Zelewa Arcia Zagreb

Marin Kiriwck
Zelewa Arcia Zagreb

Kristina Markowic
Zelewa Arcia Zagreb

Maja Bogunovic
Zelewa Arcia Zagreb

Eva Kaufmann
VIRUS Vienna

Wolfgang Rehm
VIRUS Vienna

Karl Brandnek
VIRUS Vienna

Ernst Lamar
Endery Vienna

Maria Bayer
Siemensk Vienna

Michaela Hoffman
Siemensk Vienna

Michael F Herder

Tomas Cerny

Marcus Windhaber
Gymnasium Vienna

Ivoneta Diethart
Bernhard Baumann

Evelyn Magletner

Angelica Tesak

Jet van Hailsma
ASEED Holland

Chrissa Pearson

Stephanie Howard

Erika Welge
Kulturne Socialni Centrum Prague

Hellmuth-Christian Stuven

Brian Grant

Claire Gilbert

Blazing Tattles
late arrivals

Anand Patwardhan
Department of Engineering and Public Policy Carnegie Mellon University

Ellen Schmidt
Greenpeace International Climate and Energy Campigner


"We the undersigned acknowledge with concern that climate change through enhanced global warming is
a real and growing threat and is caused by the emissions of long-lived greenhouse gases from human

"The IPCC advises that to stabilise atmospheric concentrations requires a reduction of emissions to less
than 40% of current levels.

"On average each person in the world contributes 1.65 metric tonnes of carbon and equivalents each
year. 40% of this figure ie 0.66 MTCE thus represents each individual's output threshold to forcing future
climate change.

"Currently (1990) 53% of the people in the world produce greenhouse gas emissions at or below this
threshold figure, and their emissions contribute only 90% of the non-forcing total. They therefore provide
the equivalent of a 10% "credit" (subsidy) which is taken up by the rest of the world.

"This inequity is particularly unacceptable at a time when the majority of people are struggling to meet
basic human needs. it is also unacceptable as the forcing emissions total is derived largely from
unsustainable, luxury-based activities in countries one of whose governments has still refused even the
principle of setting targets for CO2 stabilization let alone reduction.

"We believe that all people present and future, should have rights-to-life and sustainable livelihoods
which are free from the threat and the reality of human-induced climate disruption.

"We stress that the responsibility for taking corrective action and reducing bad practice lies with those
who created and who continue to exacerbate this global crisis. We demand that their response should be
immediate and without prevarication, and should take special action over this issue of social inequity."

Ann Clywd
Shadow Minister Overseas Development UK

Sir Richard Body
Conservative MP (UK)

Tony Benn
Labour MP

The Rt Hon Paddy Ashdown
leader of the Liberal Democrats UK

Simon Hughes MP
Lib/Dem Environment Speaker

Charles Kennedy
President of the Liberal Democrat Party UK

Margaret Ewing MP
Leader of the Scottish National Party

Ken Livingstone MP
UK Labour Party

Bryan Gould MP
UK Labour Party Shadow Environment Speaker

Dr David Clark
UK Labour Party Shadow Food and Agriculture Speaker

Clare Short MP
UK Labour Party

Hermann Scheer
Bundestag MP

Michael Meacher
UK Labour Party Shadow Spokesman Social Security

Jim Wallace MP
UK Lib/Dem Party Chief Whip

Sir Russell Johnson
Lib/Dem Speaker on Europe

Lord Bonham Carter
Lib/Dem Speaker on Overseas Development

Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Labour Peer) Former Lord Commissioner for the Treasury
and Front Bench Opposition spokesman on Energy in the Lords

Baroness Eward Biggs
opposition spokesman for ODA House of Lords UK

Wilfried Taelkemper
Vice President European Parliament

Dyfdd Wigley MP (Now Lord)
Plaid Cymru

Dyffd Ellis Thomas MP
Plaid Cymru

Rosie Barnes MP
Social Democratic Party

Bowen Wells
Conservative MP

Ken Collins
MEP Chair of European Parliament Environment Committee

James Glynn Ford
Member European Parliament

Kim Howells MP
UK Labour Party

Terry Lewis
UK Labour Party

Joyce Quinn MP
UK Labour Party

Tom Pendry MP
UK Labour Party

Joan Ruddock MP
UK Labour Party

Jeremy Corbyn MP
UK Labour Party

Jim Cousins MP
UK Labour Party

Hemmo Muntingh
Member European Parliament

Paul Lannoye
Member European Parliament

Jon Owen Jones
UK Labour Party

M Watson
UK Labour Party

Joan Lestor
UK Labour Party

R Waring MP
UK Labour Party

Dawn Primarolo MP
UK Labour Party

Anne Campbell
UK Labour Party

Jean Corston MP
UK Labour Party

Alice Mahon MP
UK Labour Party

Kevin Hughes MP
UK Labour Party

Mike Hall MP
UK Labour Party

Andrew Miller MP
UK Labour Party

Dale Campbell Savours MP
UK Labour Party

Ieuan Jones MP
UK Labour Party

Cynog Dafis
Plaid Cymru

South North Development Monitor - SUNS
Fri Mar 24 16:44:36 1995

'Genocidal' economic analysis on climate change
Geneva Mar 23 (Chakravarthi Raghavan) -- The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which with its expertise in an area involving some hard science helped to establish its reputation and credentials to speak for the public interest, seems in danger of losing its credentials for dialogue as a result of its incursions into the softer science of economics where theories and models and 'facts' come out to suit particular ideologies.

The view appears to be gathering strong among Southern policy makers that it would be impossible to 'dialogue' with groups, claiming pseudo-scientific expertise, to shift the burden on the South. At issue is the report being prepared on its behalf, in a Working Group III, on the potential economic damages to nations and peoples, as a result of global warming.

Last year, at a workshop in Nairobi, Southern and Northern NGOs joined hands to denounce this working group which they said had been taken over by the OECD economists and their attempts to put "value" on lives of humans across the globe, and on the damages in non-human terms.

In a report yet to be approved by the IPCC and presented as part of its assessment to be given at the end of this year, but with some preliminary views to be conveyed to the first Conference of Parties of the Framework Convention on Climate Change, beginning next week at Berlin, the economists assumed, in terms of mortality costs, the value of one human life in North America (US and Canada) and the EU to be $1.5 million per head and that in the developing countries of the South at 150,000 per head.

In other words, ten Southern lives are equal to that of one in the North.

The UN's Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) which had been meeting to prepare for the COP meeting nor the Climate Change secretariat have so far taken note of these officially. One of the diplomats involved suggested that with the COP and the intergovernmental bodies of the COP envisaging their own
scientific panel etc, the IPCC has been trying to find a continuing role, but has allowed itself to be hijacked by these economists whose views seem to be an echo of the former World Bank Chief economist, and now US Treasury's No 2, Summers, who propounded the view about allowing the export and siting of toxic and dirty industries to the South.

The special working group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), WG3 on "Economic and other Cross- Cutting Issues", met in Paris this week to put the finishing touches on the analysis which will be submitted at next week's international talks on climate change in Berlin. According to the latest reports, the WG3 is trying to take on the purchasing power parity valuations instead of the exchange rate, but its critics say it does not change their overall criticism.

The IPCC report will be published in August or September as part of the update to the original IPCC report first published in 1990."Their analysis amounts to genocidal economics," says Aubrey Meyer of the London-based Global Commons Institute. "The implications of this are that there are too many Bangladeshis and, if they drown, who cares..." says Meyer.

Meyer has prepared, with easy graphics to catch the eye of policy-makers, an analysis of the WG3 approach, and providing a different projection based on a more equitable approach, and this is under study by several of the Environment Ministers from the South.

Meyer also faults the tradable permits approach used by UNCTAD, and faults it for avoiding the 'equity issue' of responsibility for the past and who should cut the consumption and pay. Some of the Environment ministers from the South are taking a common position to make clear that if this is the approach, it
will be difficult for them (or for the COP and the Climate Change secretariat of the future) to engage in a dialogue with the IPCC and its neo-classical economists trying to safeguard the North and its industries against environmental measures to reduce their consumption and spewing of Greenhouse gases, but attempt to shift the burden on to the South.

The GCI has mobilised a letter writing campaign by the NGOs, but has also had discussions with key environment ministers of the South on the dangers of the IPCC-WG3 approach.

The original IPCC report concluded that the planet's surface is warming as a result of the accumulation in the atmosphere of artificial gases, like carbon dioxide and methane, that trap heat from the sun. The scientists estimated that emissions of these gases would have to be cut back by at least 60 percent to reverse this "greenhouse effect".

At the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, 100 countries signed an agreement to cut back their emissions of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2000. The IPCC economic analysis was commissioned by the Centre for Social and Economic Research of the Global Environment (C-SERGE) to seven economists, including Samuel Fankhauser of Germany, William Cline of the United States and David Pearce of Britain -- who have adopted an approach conceived in terms of a Global Cost/Benefit analysis (G-CBA).

With this approach, excluding human costs, they estimate the annual global damage costs to be 1.5% to 2.5% of the Gross World Product, if the atmospheric Carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations reach twice the pre-industrial levels. It then distributes this damage in the proportion of 65% for the OECD countries and 35% for the Rest Of World (ROW).

As Indian Environment Minister Kamal Nath has pointed out, in a letter he has apparently sent to several of his colleagues from the South, the entire approach overlooks the fact that the current CO2 burdens in the atmosphere is entirely or mainly due to the activities of the industrial countries, since their industrialisation, in their reckless consumption of the 'global commons' and now trying to preserve the status quo by throwing the responsibility on the ROW and in particular the developing countries. Nath has advised his Northern and Southern colleagues that India would have nothing to do with the IPCC-WG3 approach, and that this would vitiate the entire negotiations at the COP.

Meyer points out that the WG3 approach fails to use Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) for comparative assessment of overall damage costs, excluding human life or mortality costs and its "unequally valued" mortality costs associated with global climate change. He points out that at present the total global damage assessment is an aggregate of all individual country damage assessments converted in US dollars at current market exchange rates. This he says is misleading and would only make sense if the OECD countries intend to pay for all damages -- a liability not accepted by them.

Hence, in developing countries, the monetary significance of the damage costs, and proportionately in the global account for purposes of international comparative assessment, is substantially under-represented because the amount in question is devalued through the currency exchange rate system.

Thus, damage to Vietnamese or Bangladeshi food crops are given a lower dollar amount than damages to the same crops in Canada, even though they provide the same nutritional value to human beings. The burden on the damage to the non-OECD countries, he says, would be more realistically represented if the figures were valued in PPP terms. By redoing the IPCC (non-mortality) calculations using the PPP terms, the distribution of the damage falls more heavily on the ROW. Instead of the 64% damage for the OECD, estimates on PPP terms reduces it to 44%, while that of ROW goes up from 35% to 56%.

Meyer notes that the IPCC recognises many people will die each year as a result of the global damage and that most of these deaths will be in the developing countries. In trying to put a cash value on these deaths (as the economists do for the G-CBA exercise), they value people's lives differently because of the disparate income levels of those affected directly.

Lives of people in ROW are valued at one-tenth of value of lives of people in the wealthy countries. Each life in the US or Europe is valued at $1.5 million, while that in the South is put at $150,000. This approach itself, Meyer says, is controversial and compromises the IPCC approach. The poorer nations of the South have had no responsibility for causing the CO2 and GHG overloads of the atmosphere and causing global climate change. Many argue that the poor countries of the South, with their low-energy consumption, are now providing an environmental subsidy to the energy-intensive rich countries.

But the largest number of the climate change related deaths will be in the poor countries. Recalculating the WG3 figures on the PPP basis, Meyer says that the OECD damages total fall from 65% to 38% of the total
and the ROW damages rise from 35% to 62% of the total. The global annual damages rise above the IPCC-WG3 figure by $275 billion annually -- or by 72%. The contentious nature of the unequal life-evaluation has resulted in a sign-on campaign against the IPCC and its WG3 since last June, with many professionals from the North and the South including many IPCC lead authors becoming co-signatories, says Meyer.

If changes for both equal life evaluation and PPP are made together, the overall level of damage costs of global warming rise substantially and the distribution of this falls much more heavily on the ROW than the original IPCC approach says Meyer. The global annual damages rise above the IPCC original figure by $339 billion or 89%. The ROW damage rises from 35% to 70% of the total while that of the OECD falls from 65% to 30% of the total. The IPCC's total damages of 2% of the Gross world product rises to 3.2% when these revaluations are performed.

Proponents like Fankhauser say the critics have misunderstood the logic of his argument. "Economists do not value lives. What they do estimate is people's appreciation of a risk-free environment. It has nothing to do with the worth of life as such," he wrote recently in a reply to the Ecologist article. But Daphne Wysham of the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies says that the 300,000-person death toll fails to take
account of possible increased starvation due to global warming- induced crop failure. A total of between 135 and 900 million people could die as a result of global warming by the year 2030, she estimates. Most of the victims will be in the Third World."(Fankhauser's) figure is an extrapolation of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data -- which apply only to the United States and tend to regard phenomena like heat-induced death and hurricane casualties as the major kinds of mortality," Wysham says in the Ecologist, a British magazine.
Fankhauser says he was criticised for using different values for goods in different countries, but the values used by him were in fact identical, in the sense that they were identical fractions of income. "But to use absolute values would completely disregard observed facts. Chinese are not willing to sacrifice ten times as much for environmental goods as Europeans," he argues.

But Meyer says that this is missing one of the most important aspects of global warming. "It is the ndustrialisation of Europe and America that has created the accumulation of greenhouse gases. But the people who will suffer are those in the poor countries." Also, it is fine for an European, after having achieved a level of living, to begin looking to improve the quality on environmental goods, while in the Third World nations the food and basic needs are the first "environmental goods" needed, if properly understood.
Meyer notes that the argument of the rich "is the most sickening form of self-fulfilling prophecy. They are saying, in effect, that since those who created the problem, gained more wealth, they have more rights to determine who dies," he said.


by Jaya Dayal

UNITED NATIONS, Mar 24 (IPS) - India's environment minister has repudiated the findings of a U.N.-convened panel of economists on climate change as biased against developing countries. In a letter made available to IPS Friday, India's Minister for Environment and Forests, Kamal Nath, faults the ''absurd and discriminatory global cost/benefit analysis procedures propounded by economists in the work of IPCC Working Group 3.''

The two-page letter was sent to environment ministers and senior government officials of more than 10 industrialised countries including Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, Sweden and the United States. In addition, the letter was sent to more than 16 developing countries including Brazil, China, Egypt, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia and Singapore.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a U.N. body responsible for co-ordinating scientific and economic efforts to stem the effects of global warming, is due to publish its Second Assessment Report (SAR) later this year.

IPCC Working Group Three has been asked to provide economic analysis for policy formulation at the first Conference of Parties (CoP) to the 1992 Climate Change convention slated for Berlin beginning next Tuesday.
The approach adopted by the economists in this group has been conceived in terms of global cost/benefit analysis (G-CBA).

Using this approach, the group estimates that if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increase to double pre-industrial levels, annual damage costs will be 1.5 to 2.5 percent of gross world product. The group estimates that the distribution of these damages between the wealthy, industrialised Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) nations and the rest of the world will be OECD, 65 percent, and the rest, 35 percent.

But according to the London-based Global Commons Institute (GCI), a non-governmental organisation monitoring the working group, the G-CBA rests on shaky and discriminatory ground. Key among the faulty assumptions used by the working group, says GCI, is the differing values applied to the lives of human
beings in the South and the North.

In his letter, Nath says ''the scale of bias which underpins the technical assessment intended to provide the basis for policy discussions at the CoP can be gauged from the proposed unequally valued mortality costs associated with global climate change.''

GCI director Aubrey Meyer explains that the working group has assigned a cash value of 1.5 million dollars per human life in the industrialised North against 150,000 dollars in the developing South.

''In global cost/benefit analysis, this means that you discard a Chinese life 10 times more easily than a life in the European Community or the United States,'' he said.

GCI figures that if the working group's numbers are recalculated using the 1.5 million dollar value for all deaths, OECD damages fall from 65 to 38 percent of the total while ROW damages rise from 35 to 62 percent.

''We unequivocally reject the theory that the monetary value of people's lives around the world is different'' Nath says in his letter. ''We feel that this level of misdirection must be purged from the negotiation process.''
So contentious is the question of unequal life-valuation that a protest against it started last June. Since then many economists, environmentalists and development professionals in the South and the North have signed on. Nath argues in the letter that any basis for dealing with the costs of climate change should not be formed along the current lines of ''unequal rights by income,'' but ''equal rights per capita.''

''Developing countries have no -- or indeed negative -- responsibility for causing global climate change,'' he states. ''The implications of faulty economic assumptions are manifold,'' Nath warns, adding, until ''they are corrected to reflect a true and just position, then and only then would any talk of joint implementation and adequacy of commitments become meaningful.''

At the final round of talks here before next week's meeting in Berlin, industrialised countries -- under pressure from their fossil-fuel and energy industries -- attempted to shift the burden of climate change by pushing joint implementation schemes.

These schemes, the European Union and United States argue, would provide cost-effective opportunities for rich countries to limit their greenhouse gas emissions by financing projects in other nations. Joint implementation projects would be financed by industrialised countries or their big businesses. In exchange, these countries would receive credits for fulfilling their commitments under the convention. But some developing countries argue that the industrialised countries' rush towards joint implementation projects is a simply a way to divert attention from politically difficult economic decisions at home.

Nath noted that the early discussions on joint implementation in February ''reveal increasing differences of opinion about the resolve of developed countries to meet even their existing commitments under the convention.''
Geneva 25 Mar (TWN/Chakravarthi Raghavan) --

India has expressed its concern over the biased and discriminatory Global Cost/Benefit Analysis procedures of the IPCC economists and its use as a basis for policy discussions at the Conference of Parties (CoP) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) opening in Berlin on Monday.

In letters to other Environment Ministers, developed and developing, the Indian Environment Minister Kamal Nath has said that the bias imported into the discussions by the WG3 approach must be "purged, and the distributional issue of unequal-rights-by-income versus equal-rights-per-capita must be resolved to enable fruitful discussions at the CoP about possible protocols to the Convention, proportionality of commitments
and financial mechanisms."

The letter to the Environment Ministers of the developed countries cautions them of a situation developing (as a result of the WG3 approach) that would make further "dialogue directionless".

His letter to the G77 Ministers has stressed the need for them to adequate co-ordinate their positions at the CoP. The Berlin meeting is the first Conference of Parties on the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and is to review the Adequacy of the Commitments under the Convention.

It has before it a proposal on behalf of the Association of Small Island States (AOSIS) for a protocol to cut back the Greenhouse Gas, and in particular Carbon di Oxide (CO2) emissions.
This proposed protocol called for Annex A parties to undertake the cutbacks, but some recent proposals or amendments to this are said to call for obligations by some of the major and more populous developing countries. In the FCCC, and at the Rio Earth Summit, the Annex A Parties to the Convention undertook to provide national assessment reports, which are to be reviewed and assessed about their adequacy. Separately, at other fora, the ICs have taken a general commitment to return their emissions in 2000 to the levels of 1990. But the national reports from these countries suggest that several would not achieve even these.
The IPCC in preliminary views and assessments provided to the Intergovernmental Negotiating Group (INC) which has been preparing for the CoP-1 show that even the return to 1990 levels would not be enough to mitigate the adverse effects of Climate Change and there has to be some sizeable cutbacks.
The Annex A Parties which accepted at Rio, and in the framing of the Convention, their major responsibility for the present situation and need to cutback have since been doing some backsliding, and under the concept of Joint Implementation and other proposals, are trying to shift some, if not a major portion of the responsibility to some of the major Third World economies, like China, India, and a few others -- with low per capita GHG and CO2 emissions, but in absolute terms would be increasing their emissions as they industrialise and develop.
The OECD dominated neo-classical economists in the IPCC-WG3 (on Economic and other Cross-Cutting Issues) have been trying to provide a scientific basis for this shifting of responsibilities, by a so-called economic assessment of the damages to the OECD economies and the Rest of the World (ROW).
Kamal Nath's letter to his fellow Ministers from the South and North is in relation to this.
In his letter referring to the crucial unresolved issues, Kamal Nath has expressed India's serious concern that no "significant progress" has been at all made towards stabilising, leave alone reduction of atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases,"despite the lofty commitments made at Rio".
"On the contrary, decisive scientific evidence continues to disturb us with serious warnings about where the global community is now headed," Kamal Nath says.

"The inconclusive discussions (at the INC) about Joint Implementation and Adequacy of Commitments reveal increasing differences of opinion about the resolve of developed countries to meet even their existing commitments under the Convention. In my judgement, the present impasse became inevitable when the alleged cost-effectiveness of Joint Implementation was sought to be based on absurd and discriminatory Global Cost/Benefit Analysis procedures propounded by economists in the work of the IPCC Working Group III (IPCC-WG3).

"The scale of bias which underpins the technical assessment intended to provide the basis for policy discussions at the CoP can be gauged from the proposed unequally valued mortality costs associated with global climate changes, and the avoidance of using the Purchasing Power Parity system of overall damage costs. These are by no means the only issues about which we feel concerned, but they are pertinently representative examples".

(According to the latest reports from Paris, the authors of the WG3 report, at their final meeting last week, appear to have accepted the need for making assessments using the PPP rather than the market exchange rates as they had done. However this is only one aspect of a bias they are now trying to correct, and does not meet the fundamental objections to the WG3 approach, namely, its ignoring the equity issues and the past historical responsibilities of the OECD economies for the damages caused by them to the global environment and their responsibility to undertake the remedial measures.)

In his letter, Kamal Nath continues:

"We unequivocally reject the theory that the monetary value of people's lives around the
world is different because the value imputed should be proportional to the disparate income levels of the potential victims concerned. Developing countries have no -- or indeed negative -- responsibility for causing global climate change. Yet they are being blamed for possible future impacts, although historical impacts by industrialised economies are being regarded as water-under- the-bridge, or 'sunk-costs' in the jargon of these biased economists.

"To compound the problem, global damage assessments are being expressed in US dollar equivalent. Thus the monetary significance of the damages to developing countries is substantially under-represented. The damages caused to human beings, whether in developed or developing countries must be treated equally and cannot be translated in terms of currency exchange rate systems.

"Faced with this,"
the Indian Minister continues, "we feel that this level of misdirection must be purged from the negotiating process. The distributional issue of unequal-rights-by-income versus equal-rights-per-capital must be resolved to enable fruitful discussions about possible protocols to the Convention, proportionality of commitments and financial mechanisms."

"This is of immediate concern to us with regard to the AOSIS proposal,"
Kamal Nath continues. "We are wholly sympathetic to it and we would like to support it, along with all Parties to the Convention, since it is clearly aimed at the global common good. But there are attempts to modify the AOSIS proposal to an extent where it contradicts the very essence of the Rio Consensus and nullifies the spirit in which developing countries entered into negotiations to frame the Climate Change Convention. We strongly reject any suggestion of encumbering developing countries with obligations under Protocols, that they do not have
under the Convention.

"The implications of faulty economic assumptions are manifold. when they are corrected to reflect a true and just position, and only then, would any talk of Joint Implementation and Adequacy of Commitments become meaningful," says Kamal Nath. "It is impossible for us to accept that which is not ethically justifiable, technically accurate or politically conducive to the interests of poor people as well as the global common good".

In an appeal to the developed country Environment Ministers, Kamal Nath says: "I am sure that you appreciate these issues which are causing India and several other developing countries much concern.
We do not want to be driven to a situation wherein dialogue itself becomes directionless. The Rio process gave rise to several environmental Conventions. If the logic now being propounded in relation to Climate Change, also enters the interpretation of the other Conventions, we will have reversed all the gains of Rio --
the chief of which was a universal recognition of the principles of equity, and the inalienable right of all human beings to the fruits of development and 'environmental space' on an equitable basis."


a) - What is GCI?

The Global Commons Institute (GCI) is an independent group of people, mostly based in the UK. GCI’s
aims are the protection of the Global Commons. The group is currently working on the economic and
political aspects of global climate change.

GCI was founded in 1990 after the Second World Climate Conference, and has been an officially
recognised and highly active participant in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and
Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a Framework Convention on Climate Change (INC-FCCC)

b) - What is GCI’s current Mission?

The pursuit of economic growth and extended private property arrangements is now global in scale and
intent and is driving the global community over thresholds of global ecological stability. GCI exists to
explore and explain this. It also seeks to assist the counter-process - namely, finding effective and
equitable arrangements for scaling down these socio-economic and industrial impacts on the global

In this general context, GCI specifically focuses attention on; -

• the risk that current economic and industrial practices, may cause an irreversible enhancement
of the greenhouse effect
• how the skewed distribution of the benefits of the practices, aggravates tensions between overdevelopment
and under-development in both North and South
• how the political consequences of this skewed distribution will themselves aggravate adverse
global environmental consequences
• what actions are necessary to reduce these risks and how they could be equitably and lastingly
shared by nations and by people.

c) - Acknowledgements regarding external support for GCI’s Operations
GCI’s contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the INC/COP has been
possible as a result of voluntary donations from several concerned private and unaffiliated individuals, to
whom we express our appreciation.
We also express our appreciation to the IPCC Bureau for their efforts to organise the IPCC’s “Second
Assessment Report (SAR) and their invitation to GCI to formally present ideas in that context.

Recommendations for GCI
African Centre for Technology Studies - Kenya
“You raise very interesting, challenging and controversial issues in the dilemma of the Framework Convention on Climate Change. The way you address “Global Benefit” is impressive. I agree with you that the concept - as understood by the financial lending institutions - is neither exhaustive nor participatory. The effort you make to generate some statistics is very appealing. With no doubt the points you raise on institutional reform and equity are important and require serious attention. Institutional frameworks of the IMF and OECD among others need to be counter-checked in order to conform to the commitments of the Convention. Will you make a presentation to ACTS in Nairobi?”

Patrick Karani, -
Climate and Africa Project
African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS) Nairobi

African National Congress - South Africa
“We thank you for your information about the GCI campaign. We are eagerly following your work and find the information very useful. A new democratic South Africa will be keenly interested in environmental issues and we are confident that your institute will play an important role in assisting us to deal with environmental issues in South Africa and internationally. Please continue to keep us informed about your activities.”
Aziz Pahad, - Deputy Head ANC Department of International Affairs.
Air and Waste Management Association - USA

“On behalf of the Conference Organising Committee, we are pleased to inform you that your abstract has been accepted for platform presentation at the Global Climate Change Conference - Science and Policy Implications - in Phoenix April 1994. In response to the ‘call for papers’ we received over 200 very good abstracts which made the selection process very difficult which in turn, has enabled us to arrange an exciting technical conference programme.”

C V Mathai, -
Air and Waste Management Association Conference Committee.

Bariloche Foundation - Argentina
“I would like to congratulate you for the (Benefit/Disbenefit) research done and for its wide distribution. I would ask you to send us, as soon as possible, the complete version of your work.”
Carlos E Suarez
Institute of Energy Economics, Lead Author on IPCC WG3 Second Assessment Report.

Biomass User’s Network - King's College UK
"I recommend the Global Commons Institute as lead authors in the IPCC working group 3. I have been very
impressed by the quality of GCI's work in developing comprehensive methodologies for conducting "benefit/disbenefit analysis”, which seems the most appropriate first step in the development of genuinely sustainable solutions and policy formulation."

Dr Frank Rosillo Calle, - Biomass User's Network, King's College.
"GCI hi-jacked the conference. As result of their interventions, we ended up discussing things we otherwise would not have had to discuss."
David Pearce, - Director C-SERGE about GCI impact on first meeting of IPCC Working Group Three in Montreal."

Canadian Club of Rome
"Congratulations on your excellent letter to Guardian weekly. I wish you well as you urge global action."
Dr J Rennie Whitehead, - Canadian Club of Rome.

Climate Network Africa - Kenya
"Your intervention made it worth my coming here (UN climate negotiations). Thank God someone is calling a spade a spade."
Grace Akumu, - Co-Ordinator Climate Network Africa.

Commonwealth Human Ecology Council - UK
Zena Daysh, Executive Vice Chairman of Commonwealth Human Ecology Council (CHEC), acknowledging the influence of the GCI analysis and the success of the GCI strategy at the Partnerships for Change Conference Manchester. (The UK Government's conference had just supported a call for the GCI crafted CHEC statement to be adopted by the main conference).

Earth Council - Costa Rica
"I sincerely hope that we can stay in close contact and explore avenues of co-operation. The three documents you sent are particularly relevant for us in the design of the Earth Report. The information of "global benefit and disbenefit" and related themes for eg offers a very useful analytical approach as well as the trends of global industrial CO2 impact, GDP income and efficiency. The GCI abstract for the US Global Climate Conference offers a very interesting methodological framework for a systematic analysis. We would very much appreciate if you could continue providing these very useful documents and information on the trends of sustainable development."
Alicia Barcena - Executive Director Earth Council, Costa Rica.

Embassy of Western Samoa - Belgium
"Congratulations on your success co-organising the Commonwealth Partnerships Conference. I am truly stunned by the extent to which GCI's ideas were incorporated into the conference statements.
Your analysis is clear, rigorous and very useful to us. We want to keep in touch with you."

H E Ambassador Afamasaga Toleafoa, - Ambassador of W Samoa to the EC.

Environment Ministry - India
"I had occasion to discuss with the Global Commons Institute, various important issues related to Climate Change and the Montreal Protocol during my visits abroad. Their outspoken views and in-depth knowledge in economic nalysis of the issues relating to equity, costs, benefits, disbenefits would go a long way in bringing out these important aspects in clear terms. Such analysis projected in the IPCC reports would certainly help the conference of the parties in arriving at an objective decision. I strongly recommend their names as lead authors for working group 3."
Mr. Kamal Nath, - Chairman, Montreal Protocol Treaty negotiations, Indian Environment Minister.

Environment Ministry of Hungary
"You GCI people are very brave."

Tibor Farago Ministry of Environment Hungary, - at the IPCC, Working Group 3 European School - Belgium
"I feel that it is worth a concerted effort to finance the Global Commons Institute. GCI makes an important
contribution balancing the key players from business, industry and government."

Jane Knott, - European School Brussels
Indira Gandhi Institute - India
“Thank you very much for keeping me informed about your work.
Its nice to have your support in this battle.”

Dr (Mrs) Jyoti Parikh, -
Lead Author on IPCC WG3 Second Assessment Report - Indira Gandhi Institute.

IPCC Bureau - Geneva
“We would like to invite you (to the IPCC Workshop on Equity and Social Considerations - Nairobi, 18/23 7 94) to make a presentation entitled ‘Unequal Use of the Global Commons: Consumption Patterns as Causal Factors in Global Change’. We know that with your widely recognised expertise in this field, you would make an important contribution to the work of the IPCC. It is very much hoped that you will respond positively to this invitation”
Bert Bolin, Chair - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

James P Bruce and Hoesung Lee Co-Chairs - IPCC Working Group Three (WG3)
IPCC Working Group Three - Geneva
“While it is our normal practice is to encourage authors of relevant articles to contact lead authors directly, I have asked the IPCC WG3 Technical Support Unit to send the GCI “Global Benefit/Disbenefit” paper to the WG3 lead authors. It does present the data on CO2 emissions, in relation to economic and demographic factors in an interesting way, that further reinforces the work of WG3 lead authors Parikh, Goldemburg Reddy and Mintzer.”
James P Bruce: -
Co-Chair IPCC Working Group Three (WG3).

Joint International Monetary Fund/World Bank Library - USA
“Please may we order the full ‘Equity and Survival’ series of GCI publications.”

Korea Institute for Human Settlements - Korea
“It was a great pleasure to receive your paper - 'Equity and Survival - Who provides global benefit; who causes global disbenefit?' This paper will be very useful for my section.”
Sung Woong Hong, - Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements.
Lead Author on IPCC WG3 Second Assessment Report.

Malaysian Embassy - UK
"We intend to disseminate the information in your booklet as widely as possible."
Riza Selahettin, - Malaysian High Commissioner’s Office, London.

Movement for Compassionate Living - UK
"I feel your work could make a significant difference to our chances of survival, in view of the environmental crisis."
Kathleen Jannaway, - Movement for Compassionate Living, Surrey UK

Network Foundation for Social Change - UK
"We're very pleased your organisation is around doing what it is doing. Its a very interesting approach you are taking. We are very pleased to support you financially."
Network Foundation for Social Change.

OECD Environment Directorate - Paris
"Your intervention here was brave and not the sort of thing we are used to hearing here.
I agreed with everything you said."

Gerard Dorin, - Head Administrator of the OECD Environment Directorate,
at the OECD "Economics of Global Climate Change Conference"
OECD Resources Allocation - Paris

"GCI should be very pleased with the influence they have already had on the economists at IPCC's Working Group 3."
Peter Sturm, - OECD Economist, Head of Division "Resource Allocation"

Organization for Latin American Energy Users - Ecuador
"Your texts are excellent reference sources for orienting the Latin American and Caribbean region's policies and strategies. We would appreciate you keeping us informed about your publications, database and other important initiatives in this area of mutual interest, and wish you continuing success in your work"
Gabriel Sierra, - Executive Secretary, Organization Latin American Energy Users.

Oyani Christian Rural Services - Kenya
“We formally request a copy of your publication “Equity and Survival - Climate Change, Population and the
Paradox of Growth.” This document is vital to this agency as a resource material on our awareness education on climate change and population growth - matters which globally affect mankind. Please will you inform us on all your priority areas and provide any relevant documentation. May God bless you in your service to his people.”
Rev Peter A Indalo, - Programme Director, Oyani Christian Rural Services, Kenya.

Peace Studies - University of Bradford UK
"A quite excellent analysis and superb graphics. I'm impressed yet again by the concise way in which you tackle the subject in hand. I only hope it has the same impact on the UN Climate negotiations!"
Dr Julian Salt, - Department of Peace Studies. University of Bradford.

Saudi Arabian Delegation for IPCC WG3
"With regard to the intervention by the Global Commons Institute,
my delegation wishes to support every word of what they have just said."

Mohammed S al Sabban, - Head of Saudi Arabian Delegation to the IPCC - concerning the GCI rebuttal of the case made by the World Bank representative for measuring the incremental costs for protecting the global environment.

Scientists for Global Responsibility - Cambridge UK
“Thank you for the GCI materials. They are both useful and interesting. I am hoping you can speak at the Second “Science for the Earth” forum in Cambridge. Your perspective on the role played by economists in addressing global environmental problems would be interesting. We like the questions you pose.”
Tim Lenton, - Scientists for Global Responsibility.

“GCI are the best campaigners for non-industrialised people that we know.”
Tom Wakeford, - Scientists for Global Responsibility.

South Centre - Geneva
“The paper on climate change, population and growth is most interesting. It will be very useful for our future work on post-UNCED strategies for the South.”
Branislav Gosovic, - Director, the South Centre

TATA Energy Research Institute - India
“I did hear from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group Three secretariat about your paper on “Global Benefit”. I think you should be very pleased at the response, because you have very effectively made the point that you intended.”
Dr R K Pachauri, - Director TATA Energy Research Institute, India.
Lead Author on IPCC WG3 Second Assessment Report.

"We strongly recommend to you the Global Commons Institute as lead authors for your report on the socio-economic framework for decision-taking concerning the economics of climate change. GCI includes a network of authors who are both literate and numerate in this debate. They have been involved with these matters at the UN and beyond over several years. They have built up a considerable reputation doing cross-cutting socio economic analysis. This has had a clear focus on benefits and disbenefits and who it is who provide these and who suffer these. This effort has been successfully challenging short-sighted economic theory still typical of the pro-growth lobby in the industrial countries. GCI has successfully been providing a focus for those who express a more globally responsible view. Support for their work is considerable and widespread."
Nicholas Hildyard and Larry Lohman, - the Ecologist Magazine.

UNESCO Catalunya - Spain
"We are very pleased to endorse the Global Commons Institute as lead authors for the IPCC working group 3 workplan."
Dr Felix Marti and Dr Josep Puig
UNESCO Catalunya and Grace Akumu, Co-Ordinator Climate Network Africa.

University of East Anglia - UK
"Your papers are a real treasure. I enjoyed the graphs enormously."
Prof. Tim O'Riordan, - University of East Anglia Environmental Sciences Department and Associate Director CSERGE.
University of Nigeria
"You are so well-informed, so coherent, so intellectually challenging, so honest and so effective; - if only we had more people like you doing what you are doing."
Chris Ugwu, - University of Nigeria
at the UK Partnerships for Change Conference, Manchester.
Wuppertal Institute - Germany
"The Global Commons Institute is one of the few places in the world giving the necessary emphasis to a radical questioning of short-sighted economic theory. GCI's approach is rational and compassionate. Their voice must be heard & should be further elaborated in the international debate on global warming & other global ecological challenges. Their papers are stimulating. The characterisation of countries' socio-economic efficiencies particularly, is quite original. It would be highly desirable to have them on board for future work on equity in the IPCC context."
Dr Ernst von Weizacker
Director Wuppertal Institute for Energy, Climate and Transport, Germany.

"The principles of international equity that are embodied in sustainable development require that the industrialised countries recognise the global impact of their consumption patterns, and provide development opportunities for poorer countries. Recent papers provided new perspectives on the importance of the international dimension. The Global Commons Institute have highlighted the accumulated debt in terms of over-use of the atmosphere, and calculated an estimated debt value that vastly exceeds the financial debt owed by the South."
Barry Coates, - Policy Development
WWF-UK - to UK Climate Action Network Conference on Transport & Global Warming

"I have read several times GCI’s submission to IPCC WG3. I have always been sympathetic to per-capita emissions allocation, but have never seen such a clear and persuasive explanation of why such an allocation is needed both for ethical and practical reasons. Also, I liked very much your point that climate policy analysts should make explicit the ethical positions and values inherent in their work. So much of the debate on tradable emissions quotas and JI avoids the crucial issue of allocation. I also agree with you that the Climate Action Network should discuss this issue more. My group is participating in a newly formed network of East Asian NGOs (Atmosphere Action Network for East Asia (AANEA)) working on atmospheric issues. I want everyone in this network to read your paper, because we as a network need to develop a common position on the issue of equity, and your paper is the best base for discussions I know."
Dwight Van Winkle,
Citizens Alliance for Saving the Atmosphere (CASA),Osaka, Japan
Atmosphere Action Network for East Asia (AANEA)
A new network for regional cooperation
Current AANEA member organisations:
China: Friends of Nature
Hong Kong: The Conservancy Association
Hong Kong Environment Centre
Japan: Citizens Alliance for Saving the Atmosphere and the
Earth (CASA)
Japan Acid Rain Monitoring Network
The Japan Air Pollution Victims Association
Peoples Forum 2001, Global Warming Study Group
Mongolia: Mongolian Association for Conservation of Nature
and Environment (MANCE)
Russia: Geographical Society
The Wildlife Foundation
South Korea: Center for Environment and Development, Citizens
Coalition for Economic Justice (CCEJ)
Green Korea
Korean Federation of Environmental Movements
Taiwan: Climate Action Network Taiwan
Taiwan Environmental Protection Union
“We offer great thanks for coming to the Fourth IRNES (Interdisciplinary Research Network on Environment and Society) Conference and delivering such a stimulating and powerful talk. Your presentation was the highlight of the whole conference in terms of its clarity, directness and passionate delivery. I really think you made people think that evening. GCI could not have a more eloquent and dedicated advocate than yourself.”
Peter Newell
Co-Organiser IRNES conference 1995.