CONTRACTION AND CONVERGENCE - A GLOBAL SOLUTION
Under the terms of the Kyoto Protocol, the Parties to the UNFCCC are required at COP4 to devise the principles, rules and modalities that will govern any emissions trading scheme. This requires the creation of a property rights scheme for international emissions entitlements that is also consistent with the objective of the UNFCCC. At present there are attempts by actors in the industrial country group to establish property rights based on the commitments in the Kyoto protocol. This would exclude developing countries. Because this would be internationally inequitable, it would not be politically and therefore ecologically sustainable.
It is critical that these terms are both internationally equitable and ecologically sustainable. Only as such can international emissions trading become a legitimate mechanism to flexibly assist and therefore hasten the global solution to climate change.
GCI proposes that this engagement can be successfully achieved in terms of our "Contraction and Convergence" model; which has achieved widespread and growing governmental and non-governmental support both in developed and developing countries.
This pamphlet provides brief information about "Contraction and Convergence" and this support. It is a diplomatic solution combining the global imperative of ghg emissions reductions - or "Contraction" - with the international diplomatic compromise that international ghg emissions allocations in the contraction budget should be the result of a deliberate "Convergence" to equal per capita entitlements globally by an agreed date. GLOBE argues that international emissions trading can only be effective in terms of achieving the objective of the UNFCCC if it is derived from the application of the principles of "Contraction and Convergence".The objective of the UNFCCC is only achievable with an unprecedented degree of global co-operation. This requires future international allocations of greenhouse gas emissions entitlements being globally negotiated in this equity-specific manner.
The global property rights that are now being created because of emissions trading are in the global commons. It is therefore only prudent to assume that everybody - globally - is a stakeholder with an equally legitimate claim to these rights. "Contraction and Convergence" is a logical method for showing how these rights can be negotiated with the participation of everyone in a manner that is also consistent with the objective of the UNFCCC.
Tom Spencer - President GLOBE International
| Return to contents | Return to GCI home page |
Climate Change - a "Global Problem"
Atmospheric Greenhouse Gas Concentrations Rise as GHG Emissions Rise
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported for the first time in 1990. IPCC said that greenhouse gas (ghg) concentrations in the global atmosphere were rising as a result of human ghg emissions, principally from fossil fuel burning.
The historic record (440,000 years/ice-core) of ghg concentrations in the atmosphere shows between 200 and 300 per million by volume (ppmv). Since industrialization, the impact of human fossil fuel burning has raised ghg concentration in the atmosphere by 30%. This is very dramatically faster and higher than anywhere in the historical record above.
This is clearly a 'global problem'. Because ghg concentrations trap heat (infra-red), more concentrations trap more heat, this puts us on a human-caused trajectory of increasing global warming and climate changes towards potentially disastrous global damages.
GHG Emissions must Fall just to stop Concentrations Rising Further
There is another dimension to the global problem. While the global dependency on fossil energy for economic growth remains nearly 100% at this time, the IPCC also noted that cuts in ghg emissions in the order of 60 - 80% were required immediately if rising atmospheric ghg concentrations were to be stabilised just at present raised values.
There is another even more difficult dimension to this global problem. The IPCC also noted that stabilisation of atmospheric ghg concentrations at any value was contingent on cuts of this magnitude in some give time frame. Because atmospheric ghg concentrations are a function of accumulated emissions, rising ghg concentrations will only slow in proportion to the rate at which emissions actually fall (negative growth). Causing concentrations to actually fall would require extended zero emissions.
| Return to contents | Return to GCI home page |
"Global Solutions?"
The US version of a "Global Solution" Rejected as Inequitable
When the negotiations began for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1991, the US canvassed quite logically for a 'global solution' to this 'global problem'. The language used at the time was 'a comprehensive approach'. IPCC scientists had suggested that global emissions should be reduced by 1 - 2% per annum for the next 50 - 100 years. The US proposed that any modification in emissions would be uniform across the globe. In other words all countries would limit or reduce by the same amount.
This simple central organising principle was rejected. The mistake at that time was to reject the notion of central organising principles altogether just because that particular version of the principle was so obviously globally inequitable.
Developing countries rightly pointed out that the 20% of global population living in the industrial countries had been responsible for over 80% of the accumulated ghg output since the beginning of industrialisation and had grown rich and powerful whilst remaining unaccountable over that impact.
| Return to contents | Return to GCI home page |
The UN Global Solution - An "Equity Based" Framework Convention
After two years of negotiation the UNFCCC text was tabled at the Earth Summit in 1992. It defined the global problem and stated that it's global objective had to be guided by the principles of precaution and equity (differentiated responsibilities) with a need for efficiency.
Parties to the UNFCCC, "acknowledge that change in the Earth's climate and its adverse effects are a common concern of humankind." They are, "concerned that human activities have been substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, that these increases enhance the natural greenhouse effect, and that this will result on average in an additional warming of the Earth's surface and atmosphere and may adversely affect natural ecosystems and humankind".
| Return to contents | Return to GCI home page |
What is the Objective of the Convention? - (ghg emissions CONTRACTION)
The Parties define the ultimate objective of the Climate Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt as follows. "It is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." (Article 2)
What is the Principle of Global Equity? - (CONVERGENCE - Allocation)
The Parties adopt the principle that they, "should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on the basis of equity." (Article 3.1).
They note that, "the largest share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases has originated in developed countries and that per capita emissions in developing countries are still relatively low" (Preamble). They note therefore, "that in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities the developed country Parties must take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof" (Article 3.1), while, "the share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet their social and development needs," (Article 3.3)."
| Return to contents | Return to GCI home page |
What is the Precautionary Principle?
The Parties, "should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures . . . . . . (Article 3.3) . . .
What is the Principle of Global Efficiency? - (Global Emissions Trade)
. . . taking into account that policies and measures to deal with climate change should be cost-effective so as to ensure global benefits at lowest possible cost." (Article 3.3)
| Return to contents | Return to GCI home page |
COP1 - The "Berlin Mandate"
"Flawed Process" seeking Sub-Global Solutions
Instead of immediately engaging with the task of organising a global solution, the First Conference of the Parties (COP1) to the UNFCCC in April 1995 adopted the Berlin Mandate. This sought to extend the commitments to control greenhouse gas emissions required of the industrial country group (Annex One) in the UNFCCC.
The justification was the moral argument. Under "differentiated responsibilities" the industrialised countries had to take the lead and be seen to take the lead before the developing countries would join in.
| Return to contents | Return to GCI home page |
Indian Government essay a "Global Solution" at COP1
Already recognising the ultimate flaw in the Berlin Mandate, the Indian Government made the following statement at the end of the First Conference of the Parties (COP1).
"We face the actuality of scarce resources and the increasing potential for conflict with each other over these scarce resources. The social, financial and ecological inter- relationships of equity should guide the route to global ecological recovery. Policy Instruments such as "Tradable Emissions Quotas", "Carbon Taxes" and "Joint Implementation" may well serve to make matters worse unless they are properly referenced to targets and time-tables for equitable emissions reductions overall. This means devising and implementing a programme for convergence at equitable and sustainable par values for consumption on a per capita basis globally."
| Return to contents | Return to GCI home page |
The AOSIS Protocol
The 'sub-global' model adopted for the Berlin Mandate however, was the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) Protocol that advocated 20% cuts against 1990 emissions levels by 2005 for developed countries only. This sought to increase their existing commitments of 0% above 1990 by 2000.
A year later at COP2 in June 1996, as most governments declared acceptance of the IPCC Second Assessment Report (SAR) and the reality of the warming problem, the US declared the AOSIS Protocol "unrealistic and unachievable" and rejected it out of hand. They also focussed again on the "fatal flaw" in the UNFCCC as the 'apartheid' between Annex One and the rest of the countries. It is very significant that the US was again in effect driven to focussing its objections to conditions of 'global apartheid.'
This judgement was significant blow to the lobby in favour of the AOSIS Protocol. The US with 4% of world population is responsible for 25% of any year's ghg output and 33% of accumulated output is the world's biggest ghg emitter. Consequently, many reason that without the US ratifying any of the UNFCCC treaty arrangements, the whole exercise will be a dead letter.
| Return to contents | Return to GCI home page |
COP2 - Global Apartheid
Flawed Sub-Global Ethics get Flawed Sub-Global Solutions
In seeking to overcome this 'global apartheid', the US dilemma was in seeking to share public responsibility for the impacts causing climate change and the costs of mitigating them, whilst also seeking ways of not having to share the benefit of the private income derived from making these impacts. The dilemma cut hard in two ways. It put the US in a very powerful position to insist on a 'global solution' because they knew that without them there would be no solution at all. However, it also put every one else in an equally powerful position too.
If political will was there, they could define a 'globally equitable solution' in preference to merely demanding a symbolic and tactical victory with a sub-global solution on the basis of an undefined global equity.
| Return to contents | Return to GCI home page |
Global Ethics for Global Solutions
It is possible to define a more rigorous solution with the central organising principles of global sustainability and global equity or democracy. Such a solution would see emissions rights becoming proportional to people rather than remaining proportional to accumulated income and environmental impact: - in other words an agreed convergence to per capita equality of emissions rights globally under a sustainable global emissions cap.
Such an approach would be consistent with transcending the sub- global ethics of 'global apartheid' in a practical way. Moreover not only does climate change make this possible, averting human caused climate change actually makes ending global apartheid necessary. Clean energy paths cannot be achieved globally without an organised global solution for sharing resources and information effectively. As the UNFCCC requires, this means sustainably, equitably and efficiently in that order.
This is exactly what the Africa Group would propose a year later in August 1997, surprisingly assisted by the full body of Senators in the US Congress in the so-called Byrd-Hagel Resolution passed in July 1997.
| Return to contents | Return to GCI home page |
The Byrd Hagel Global Solution
In July 1997 US Senators Byrd and Hagel tabled a resolution about the US involvement with the Kyoto Protocol (KP). It rehearsed all their objections to what they felt was the 'flawed' character of the Berlin Mandate and the impending Kyoto Protocol.
Their fundamental objection was to the 'global apartheid' in the UNFCCC between the Developed Country Parties of Annex One who were to observe commitments to control their ghg emissions, and all the Developing Country Parties who were not required to observe such commitments.
The Resolution, adopted with a vote of 95 in favour and 0 against, clearly allows "Contraction and Convergence".
"Now, therefore, be it Resolved that: -
(1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period."
| Return to contents | Return to GCI home page |
Byrd Hagel is "Contraction and Convergence"
The crucial detail in the Byrd Hagel Resolution is in paragraph
1A. Two defining distinctions are maintained. The first is between the Annex One Parties and the Developing Country Parties. The second is between 'limit' ghg emissions and 'reduce' ghg emissions. Limitations of ghg emissions means controlled positive growth of ghg emissions and reductions of ghg emissions means controlled negative growth of emissions;
If we put these concepts together "within the same compliance period", the paragraph can only translate into a process of formal "Contraction and Convergence". Annex One Parties will reduce (or contract) their ghg emissions while the Developing Country Parties will limit their ghg emissions (so as to converge with Annex One Country Parties). Technically, not just rhetorically, there has to be a 'convergence factor' to do this. It won't happen by accident. The unavoidable question is "what is this convergence factor?"
[Full statement in Appendix A)
| Return to contents | Return to GCI home page |
Contraction without Convergence to per-Capita Equality Non-Viable
The essential problem is about sharing carbon entitlements between people globally, equitably and sustainably. In principle there is no other viable convergence factor than convergence on per capita equality of shares by an agreed date inside a finite contraction budget. Anything else is accident by default.
The moment more complex convergence indicators are introduced, the whole process becomes a morass of competing indicators and contradictory assumptions. In practice it means that 180 countries with 180 different arguments about equity will negotiate at COPs for the next 100 years in the hope that some kind of 'invisible hand' will aggregate all of the international rivalry, politicking and cross-talk into a controlled and consensual global ghg contraction agreement. This is obviously not going to happen.
Even implicitly continuing to work to this scenario also continues to cultivate the culture of forgetfulness regarding the increasingly dangerous relationship between ghg emissions and their accumulating concentrations in the atmosphere. Even it we succeed in achieving a gradual global ghg contraction of emissions, concentrations (all other factors remaining stable) will only stabilise at the end of the contraction budget (e.g. 100 years @ +/- 450 ppmv CO2). Consequently global temperature and damages will continue rising throughout. The risks of failing to achieve even this degree of control over ghg emissions especially in vulnerable regions such as in SADC are appalling! Significant regional damages in SADC are already apparent just at present raised concentration levels of 360ppmv.
| Return to contents | Return to GCI home page |
"Contraction & Convergence" - The Africa Group Respond
Recognising these mounting dangers the Africa Group of Nations took a clear initiative a year later at the August 1997 negotiating session of the Ad Hoc Group of the Berlin Mandate (AGBM7). The group defined and presented the global solution now formally known as "Contraction and Convergence" to the final plenary session.
"As we negotiate the reduction of GHG, the countries of Africa believe that there should be certain principles that need to be clearly defined.
1. There must be limits on all GHGs if the danger to our climate is to be averted. The IPCC scientific assessment report provides us with the basis for global consensus on such limits.
2. A globally agreed ceiling of GHG emissions can only be achieved by adopting the principle of per capita emissions rights that fully take into account the reality of population growth and the principle of differentiation.
3. Achievement of a safe limit to global GHG emissions can be achieved by reducing the emissions of Annex One while at the same time ensuring that there is controlled growth of future emissions from Non-Annex One countries, reflecting our legitimate right to sustainable economic growth. We strongly believe that this will take us along a path to responsible climate management that allows us to reach our goal of defining a mutually agreed point of convergence and sustainable development. Such a convergence Mr. Chairman must ensure that we maintain a global ceiling on emissions to prevent dangerous interference with the climate system.
4. When we look at time frames, we believe that insufficient commitment by Annex One countries will only result in delaying our influence on the climate system. If this course is maintained, then we will all suffer and the burden will be even greater for humanity in general. The burden for any future mitigation efforts on those of who have not been historically and currently responsible for creating the problem will be greater.
Mr. Chairman, we must focus our attention on the most appropriate, reasonable and acceptable time frame for action. There is an over- riding pre-requisite. The time frame can not be too far away into the future if we are to avoid at all costs the dangers that global climate change poses. The current scientific evidence indicates that Africa faces decline in water resources, agricultural production and economic performance. It is therefore for this reason that we wish to register the seriousness with which we view the effective implementation of the Convention and future agreements emanating from it."
They carried this position right through to the very end-game of COP3 in December that year, with vivid and literally dramatic results in the final session establishing the Kyoto Protocol, seeding the NAM statement in those very moments.
[Full statement in Appendix B]
| Return to contents | Return to GCI home page |
The USA: - "It's the Only Game in Town."
During mid 1997 and at the request of US government personnel, a series of private policy briefings on "Contraction and Convergence" took place in Government agencies in Washington comprising the US climate policy community (EPA, AFLCIO, State Dept. and the Energy Dept.). They were fully briefed on the flexibility of the model.
The application of the principle of graduated "Contraction" of the global ghg emissions budget over time to a pre-set goal of atmospheric ghg concentrations, enables any future carbon budget to be computed and subsequently revised to control concentrations.
The application of the principle of "Convergence" to equal per capita shares globally to a pre-set date within the budget and the budget period to a pre-set population year enables any rate of international convergence to be negotiated and revised blending control with consent.
The US were also advised that this flexibility should be read in conjunction with the flexibility sought in respect of the extent to which the resultant ghg allocations would be internationally tradable as emissions permits. Assuming such flexibility from the outset enables the "Contraction and Convergence" rates to be negotiated without having to mimic and modify baseline trend emissions as in principle the global ghg emissions budget was convertible for cash.
Senior bureaucrats conceded that if the Chinese could be persuaded to play "Contraction and Convergence" the US would have to play. It was the only game in town.
| Return to contents | Return to GCI home page |
China - "Emissions Control Standard on a per-Capita Basis"
During August 1990 Chinese policy makers were given the equivalent briefing and by October 1997 the Chinese appeared to have been persuaded to signal a tentative readiness to play C&C. In doing this they spelled out more specifically their views for the mid- term than had previously occurred. They in effect declared potential pathways for "Contraction and Convergence".
Dr Song Jian (the State Councilor with responsibility for Climate Change and Population) made the following statement at the closing ceremony of the China Council for International Co-operation on Environment and Development.
"When we ask the opinions of people from all circles, many people, in particular the scientists think that the emissions control standard should be formulated on a per capita basis.
According to the UN Charter, everybody is born equal, and has inalienable rights to enjoy modern technological civilization. Today the per capita consumption is just one tenth of that of the developed countries, one eighth of that of medium developed countries. It is estimated 30-40 years would be needed for China to catch up with the level of medium developed countries."
[Full statement in Appendix C]
| Return to contents | Return to GCI home page |
COP3 - The "Kyoto Protocol" (Article 17) - Global or Sub-global?
The Kyoto Protocol (KP) was tabled at Third Conference of the Parties (COP3) in Japan in December 1997. It attempted to fulfil the Berlin Mandate for a "sub-global" solution, the main tension over 'globality' unanswered.
Emissions reduction commitments were attached to the industrial country group only. In spite of the Africa Group position many developing countries continued to resist any talk of parallel (voluntary) commitments from them because of the history of deep inequity and mistrust.
However, the flaws in this "sub-global" strategy were revealed. The developing country group was persuaded by the northern environmental lobby to project an aggressively one-sided and unrealistic long-term scenario for global arrangements on emissions restraint. In exchange for nothing, the developing country group would prescribe ever-deeper ghg emissions reductions for the developed country group only for the next fifty years or more. In their growing frustration with the US and the US insistence on 'globality ', the NGOs argued that this would be seen as "developing countries taking the lead".
The sub-global strategy also complicated the position of those developing countries that had been taking climate friendly measures including some control of ghg emissions. Their complaint became that these actions were not even being recognised let alone 'credited'. This was true but transactional credit required the finite accounts of globality.
Moreover, as the issue of the international tradability of ghg emissions entitlements progressed, an increasing number of countries recognised the logic of the Africa Group proposals for "Contraction and Convergence". Not only did the principles answer the US demand for a global solution, they did so in a manner that enabled revenues from international emissions trading to accrue to developing countries for sustainable development in potentially significant amounts.
While the US appeared not to have won their insistence on 'globality' they had won their case for tradability. This led directly to what the US called a "near-death experience" at the very end of the negotiations; major G-77 players suddenly turned the tables at the last minute.
Global Equity Dawns at Kyoto's Darkest Hour - G-77 goes global At the end of the Kyoto negotiations, the entire debate came to centre on the issues of trade and the assigning of property rights in the future carbon budget. By definition, emissions trading cannot occur until the principle of property rights has been agreed and the entitlements have been assigned and ratified.
At 3.00am when the negotiations were already into injury time, the paragraph in the draft Kyoto Protocol relating to trade came up for acceptance. The US re-iterated their insistence on everyone's acceptance of emissions trading. The governments of China and India, contrary to people's expectations, did not rebut the idea. Instead they responded by saying that acceptance of trade depended on the issue of "equitable allocations" of emissions entitlements on a per capita basis. Moreover the Africa Group of Nations intervened, re-iterating that this was why they had advocated "Contraction and Convergence". The US replied by saying that they heard the call for "Contraction and Convergence" but suggested this wasn't the moment to try and integrate such a comprehensive structural methodology.
However, that US response underlined the remarks made in Washington in July 1997 and reaffirmed at the GLOBE International workshop in Bonn in October 1997 by US Ambassador Mark Hambley to an international gathering of Parliamentarians, that the idea is being taken seriously in Washington. Like many others since, they have said it is the only game in town. The global equity argument was finally being won on the floor of the COP.
The COP meeting was arrested for half an hour. On resumption, Chairman Estrada read out a prepared text (now known as Article 17). In effect the COP issued instructions to SBI and SBSTA to elucidate during 1998 the rules, principles, modalities etc relating to trade, in time for COP4 in Buenos Aires in November 1998.
These events led directly to the subsequent formation of the NAM Statement on emissions trading supported by the GLOBE International Parliamentarians General Assembly, the newly formed GLOBE Southern Africa Network and subsequently the European Parliament.
| Return to contents | Return to GCI home page |
Support for C&C Since Kyoto
In May 1998 immediately prior to the G-8 Conference in Birmingham, the UK Minister with responsibility for climate change, the Rt Hon Michael Meacher MP, made a statement in support of "Contraction and Convergence" the House of Commons including the following: -
"As I have said it is our view that the time has come for a serious review under the Convention of the commitments of all countries, that reflects the economic and development needs of developing countries. "Contraction and Convergence" should be clearly one of the ideas on the table in such a review. It has the attraction of equity and logic - but equally raises huge political and practical issues which need to be considered carefully."
In response to a subsequent enquiry by the President of GLOBE UK, the UK Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Tony Blair, endorsed this view in a personal letter to the GLOBE President.
[Full statement in Appendix D]
| Return to contents | Return to GCI home page |
GLOBE International
A few days before (24-26 August, 1998) the NAM, the GIGA in Cape Cod, adopted a statement on the global management of climate change which embedded "Contraction and Convergence" and urged the NAM to persist in calling for equity at COP4 in the following terms: -
"Support the adoption of a mandate at Buenos Aires to redefine the way in which greenhouse emission cuts are currently shared between countries, following the principle of equity enshrined in the Contraction and Convergence analysis, and urge the summit of the Non-Aligned Movement countries meeting in Durban, RSA, to persist in demanding an equitable approach as a precondition for their participation in COP4 at Buenos Aires."
It is significant that a number of both Democratic and Republican Senators signed on to this statement.
[Full statement in Appendix E]
| Return to contents | Return to GCI home page |
Non-Aligned Movement
In September 1998 the NAM declared that: -
"Emission trading for implementation of (ghg reduction/limitation) commitments can only commence after issues relating to the principles, modalities, etc of such trading, including the initial allocations of emissions entitlements on an equitable basis to all countries has been agreed upon by the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change."
This formulation is intended to resolve the challenge contained in Article 17 of the Kyoto Protocol (KP). It is not as some have portrayed an attempt to block out emissions trading. It seeks to ensure the long-term effectiveness of the emissions trading process. Consequently, it recognises that emissions trading, if it is to achieve the objective of the UNFCCC, can only be an efficient mechanism for that aim if it is structured in the prior recognition of international equity and order in the allocation methodology adopted within the terms of Article 17.
Put the other way around, inequitable allocations are obviously not consistent with getting the full international cooperation needed to achieve the objective of the UNFCCC.
Consequently, the hoped for efficiency of emissions trading will not pass its reality test if emissions trading is set up based on globally inequitable allocations. It will simply be seen as a mechanism for sustaining sub-global inequity with a green veneer of pseudo-sustainability of business-as-usual, in other words sustaining conditions of global apartheid.
In this sense the NAM statement seeks an effective global solution to a global problem exactly as the US has argued, but where global efficiency is legitimate only as a derivative of global equity.
This does not have to prevent emissions trading in the short-tem. The point is to ensure that the chaos of the disorderly sub-global and inequitable precedent of the Berlin Mandate/Kyoto Protocol allocation chaos does not become the precedent of default for all future process on ghg emissions allocations. The task must be to ensure that at the appropriate moment the Kyoto Protocol is superceded by global equity based arrangements.
| Return to contents | Return to GCI home page |
Environmental Justice Network Forum (EJNF)
On the 18th of October 1998 EJNF adopted the following resolution.
"Noting that global warming and climate changes are having growing and adverse impacts on South Africa and her peoples, such as flash flooding, increasing aridity, increasing crop insecurity and spread of tropical diseases such as malaria,
and recognising that there has been a history of a profound imbalance within the country and between all the countries of the world in the consumption of the resources which have triggered these global changes,
EJNF resolves to promote corrective actions within and between nations that deal both with the unequal consumption and the overconsumption of the resources in question particularly those which lead directly to the release of greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions such as fossil fuels
EJNF commits itself to campaign in support of the "Contraction and Convergence" proposals that specifically embody the principles of global equity and sustainability.
This means that EJNF will advocate that the apportionment of future international greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions entitlements shall be the result of a deliberate convergence process to a point of equal per capita shares globally by a date to be negotiated by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change."
| Return to contents | Return to GCI home page |
GLOBE Southern Africa Network
GSAN with members from nine of the fourteen SADC countries, convened in Cape Town in early September 1998 and affirmed support for the NAM and the "Contraction and Convergence" principles espoused by GLOBE and the Africa Group in the following terms: -
We the Members of Parliament and Members of the GLOBE Southern Africa Network;
Support the adoption of a mandate at Buenos Aires to redefine the way in which greenhouse emission cuts are shared between countries under the Kyoto Protocol, following instead the principle of global equity enshrined in the Contraction and Convergence analysis,
Specifically work to ensure that all future development of the UNFCCC and its related instruments will be consistent with these interdependent principles of global equity and sustainability;
And rebut any recourse to "flexibility mechanisms" that are not derived from the interdependent application of these principles of sustainability and global equity;
[Full statement in Appendix F]
| Return to contents | Return to GCI home page |
European Parliament
A few days after the NAM and GLOBE Southern Africa statements were adopted, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on climate change that clearly embedded the global constitutional principles for the long-term management of global climate change using
"Contraction and Convergence". The resolution, led by the Environment Committee, was intensely debated and finally adopted with a 90 percent majority in favour.
". . . . . calls on the Commission and the Member States to take the lead in brokering an agreement on a set of common principles and a negotiating framework beyond Buenos Aires;
. . . . . . . re-iterates and re-emphasises once again its view that a set of commonprinciples will have to be based on, inter alia:
1. agreement to have a worldwide binding limit on global emissions consistent with a maximum atmospheric concentration of 550 ppmv CO2 equivalent,
2. initial distribution of emissions rights according to the Kyoto targets,
3. progressive convergence towards an equitable distribution of emissions rights on a per capita basis by an agreed date in the next century,
4. across-the-board reductions in emissions rights thereafter in order to achieve the reduction recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
5. an agreement to have a quantitative ceiling on the use of flexibility mechanisms that will ensure that the majority of emission reductions are met domestically in accordance with the spirit of articles 6, 12 and 17 of the Kyoto protocol; in this context trading must be subject to proper monitoring, reporting and enforcement;
6. an adequately financed mechanism for promoting technology transfer from Annex 1 to non-Annex 1 countries;"
[Full statement in Appendix G]
| Return to contents | Return to GCI home page |
Wrong Road, Right Road
Will the US Ratify the Kyoto Protocol?
There are four answers to this question; - 'yes', 'no', 'maybe' and 'it depends on when you want the answer by.'
If everybody were on board before 2002, with 'maximum flexibility' in the amount of emissions trading that can occur, we would have achieved 'globality' so the answer is 'yes'. If only Annex One is on board with quantitative caps on the amount of emissions trading, the answer is 'no'. (See Byrd Hagel Resolution - it is the US Senate which ratifies International Treaties). If the conditions that gave rise to the answer 'no' were modified to the extent that 'qualitative' caps on trade were applied and major developing countries accepted voluntary commitments, the answer is a tentative maybe. But the key countries listed in the BH resolution shows this is as good as impossible.
The point about the date relates to the next presidential election. The answers above are probably accurate before that election but less so after especially in the event of a Republican victory.
'US Ratification' is the Wrong Question
'Will the US ratify the KP?' is the wrong question. The US has demanded 'globality' and its ill-defined counterpart 'meaningful participation by key developing countries'.
Looking for the answer 'yes' to this question assumes the power lies in the 'sub-global' US more than it lies in the danger of the global problem and the equity-logic of the global solution. The global argument recognises that the US has so far proposed everything necessary to solve the global climate crisis except international equity.
Expecting the US to resolve the equity question in a one-sided manner is by definition impossible precisely because the US by itself is 'sub-global'. Any such result will inevitably be a one- sided continuation of inequity and therefore non-viable.
Moreover, expecting to solve the global climate crisis with a 'one sided anything' is doomed to be ineffective, which ironically has been the US point all along. The irony for the US is realizing too slowly that what they were arguing for all along was by definition 'global equity'.
| Return to contents | Return to GCI home page |
Right Answers are Global Principles for Global Practice
The Principles are Global Precaution and Sustainability and Global Equity and Democracy.
The practice is using these principles for the process of "Contraction, Convergence, Allocation and Trade." (C-CAT). This will manage global climate change effectively on the basis of equity through the efficiency of making the available permits internationally tradable.
Principles, no Practice - Useless. Practice, no Principles - Dangerous.
Article 17 of the Kyoto Protocol is all about, putting principles before practice.
"The Conference of the Parties shall define the relevant principles, modalities, rules and guidelines, in particular for verification, reporting and accountability for emissions trading. The Parties included in Annex B may participate in emissions trading for the purposes of fulfilling their commitments under Article 3. Any such trading shall be supplemental to domestic actions for the purpose of meeting quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments under that Article."
The emissions trading is not intended to occur for its own sake. It is intended to achieve the objective of the UNFCCC more efficiently than if emissions trading did not occur.
Moreover, although practice is sequential, principles are perennial and exist in parallel. This crucial distinction relates to the Millenium Paradigm shift now occurring. This is the 'Third Way' where the global equity principle covers third parties (the environment and all its stakeholders) by definition and efficiency is the derivative of that interdependent combination.
| Return to contents | Return to GCI home page |
COP4 - The "Buenos Aires Mandate" - Beginning the End of Global Apartheid'.
The right answer is a multi-lateral agreement for Global Sustainability and Global Equity that by definition will begin the ending of Global Apartheid. Global Sustainability depends on Global Equity; - we all get global sustainability when the US gets the global efficiency of emissions trading and globality in exchange for global equity and democracy.
South Africa's Historic Opportunity at COP4
The US will not propose a globally equitable solution. However the White House and the Department of State have now (during this week gone by) indicated to us (GLOBE) that they are ready to respond positively to such a proposition. In principle they have accepted the per capita equality argument because they accept there isn't really any other way and its a little difficult to resist that it is in their declaration of independence. They want the political space opened up for this. South Africa can do this.
This equitable global solution will not emerge by accident. It must be designed and delivered. As is clear from the Africa Group Statement it has been designed. As is clear from the NAM statement, there is now the call for it to be delivered just as South Africa assumes the presidency of the NAM. As is clear both from the logic of the situation and the politics of the predicament and the opportunity of the moment there is a need for it to be done.
The South African President can use his global authority and take this message of global equity to the Ministerial Section of the COP4 in Buenos Aires. The strategy would not be to displace or disparage the bureaucratic struggle underway at the level of existing debates about details relating to the Kyoto Protocol. Rather, it would be to raise at the level of the highest diplomacy, the obvious need for a process to begin now to address the long-term global problem and the need for this to be rigorously guided by the principles of global justice and sustainability.
The initiative would be seeking a long-term mandate from Buenos Aires to carry future negotiation forward in these terms. This is in preference to continuing only with short-term mandates for mayhem at the COPs. Without such a mandate, disintegration will be the increasingly visionless future where many people will perish.
"Contraction, Convergence, Allocation and Trade" structures the principles of global precaution and sustainability, in the social and environmental efficiency of global equity and democracy. This interdependence achieves global desegregation and enables a degree of control. It captures the two themes of global equity and efficiency within a context of controlled rates of using resources linking democracy and the markets to global sustainability.
Without this there seems little prospect of avoiding a climate tragedy and ensuring the future for those from whom we have borrowed it. Time was when it was normal to plan for seven generations. The next seven need a champion for this purpose now.
| Return to contents | Return to GCI home page |