What next after Kyoto? 01 November 05

We had one for an Earth Day display. It was a clothes line & some clothes pins….

Contraction and Convergence (C&C) is an inspiring policy. Global in its reach, it incorporates a process which could save the planet from excess CO2 production and, at the same time, make the planet a more equitable and therefore fairer place. It appeals to me as an egalitarian and reminds me of other big ideas which used concepts of social class and revolution in setting out the way to a better world. So Aubrey Meyer makes me think of Karl Marx!

And therein lies the problem. Big, bold, radical ideas are great. But in their purest (simplest?) form they can lead to a situation where you are always right – in that theoretical, moralistic, abstract, utopian sense – but unfortunately never successful. C&C has been around for 15 years and has been promoted with some fervour by a number of activists. It is indeed, now official Green Party policy. But we don’t have C&C adopted at an international level, instead we have Kyoto which, while it is something and has hopefully set some sort of precedent is lacking in a number of key respects.

C&C is a big, world wide, cap, reduce and trade system. The first step for C&C implementation is an international agreement on a maximum annual level of emissions the planet can take. This would reduce year by year. Countries would be allocated emissions allowances on the basis of population i.e. on a per capita basis. We all have equal claim on the commons. This is the contraction bit. But how would such an agreement be reached? How many counties would refuse to participate? How would a Bush led US be persuaded to take part? When has equity been part of US foreign policy?

Over a period of years C&C proposes that convergence would take place. In other words the aim would be to have all citizens of the planet emitting the same, sustainable, amount of CO2. So big reductions for those in developed countries but for those in poorer countries there would be a period during which the average per capita emissions could actually increase. Some come to down the graph to the convergence line and others can go up the graph to the convergence line. When looked at historically and with equity and fairness in mind this can make sense.

But let’s look at this a bit more carefully taking China as an example. China can increase its total CO2 output for a time because it is starting from a low per capita output position. But China is heading for disaster on its current path. You (Mark) covered some aspects of this in High Tide and we have yet another reminder in the Guardian of 31st October (page 22) “Satellite data reveals Beijing as air pollution capital of the world”. And the “benefits” of China’s economic “progress” are of course being enjoyed by, presumably, metropolitan elites based in a few big coastal cities around the Pacific Rim. Some of them suffer from dreadful air pollution and of course miners still die in huge numbers and peasants are displaced by desertification and floods.

The world’s population was 2.5 bn in 1950. China’s population is 1.3 bn today. We’ve seen what has happened worldwide since 1950 in terms of fossil fuel consumption and rising CO2 emissions. China will develop an increasingly unequal population over the next few decades with some consuming at greatly increased levels and most being left behind. So letting China off the hook will not benefit all Chinese citizens. I think what we will see could well replicate the past trajectory of the “developed” world and consequently produce another frightening result. Put another way, there is not, and there will not be, an equal per capita production of CO2 in China. The wealthy in China will start to emulate US citizens in their disproportionate impact on the planet. So some in China, a minority, will be massively polluting and others, the majority, will still suffer from poverty and the externalities of the rich.

So would it not be better to see development in China being as eco as possible starting now? No doubt some Chinese citizens know this – you see the odd voice in the media. And it is imperative the “developed” countries “donate” new eco-technology to China for all our sakes. I think China increasing its total CO2 output up to the C&C convergence level is not necessarily a good idea.

So wholesale success for C&C is difficult to imagine and there may be problems with some countries increasing their emissions in the interim. But maybe there is some scope for a limited version of C&C with some countries not participating. The trading element of C&C could work and there are examples of trading schemes up and running in Europe and the UK. But the effectiveness of these is determined by how tough or limiting the cap is on emissions and how steep its downward trajectory is. This capping and trading should create an incentive to develop emissions reducing technology. So if the C&C idea was implemented wholesale we would have a solution but … the reality is going to be much patchier and more confused.

And there are other questions needing addressed. If we have a shrinking world economy as a result of emissions reduction measures how will this pan out? I believe Richard Douthwaite of Feasta has some interesting things to say on this theme. Where does this leave the techno-optimists such as Amory Lovins and his Rocky Mountain colleagues? They, in developing the natural capital theme, argue with some fervour that efficiency savings and technological advances will have a dramatic effect but still allow economic growth. Lovins and colleagues say “This combination of technologies can abate, at a profit, close to two-thirds of America’s carbon-dioxide emissions … Like most of the coal and all of the uranium in the ground, oil will eventually be good mainly for holding up the ground.” “Natural Capitalism” p 37.

Overall I can’t help thinking we are in for a rocky and messy ride. All sorts of partial solutions will be thrown at the problem of global warming. They will be political and they will be technological. Individuals, all sorts of voluntary and political groups will play a part, enlightened capital and government will also be involved. We should not be posing questions which suggest one technological fix over another. We need a menu of solutions. We should not be looking around and waiting for someone else to take responsibility. If we get a Manhattan like project or a man on the moon type project then maybe progress could be tidier and more rapid.

Some emerging issues may bring things into sharper focus. Energy security is in the news. I believe Lovins has been briefing the US government on the theme. Energy security overlaps with food security (see “Food Wars” by Tim Lang). The End of Oil is within sight. Is this the silver lining … ? If we consider the End of Oil alongside GW/CC then we have 2 problems which in part at least will be solved or ameliorated by the same solution. The oil is running out and atmospheric CO2 is increasing. Therefore developing alternative, sustainable energy sources is doubly imperative. But in our attempt to persuade we now have two strands to the argument. Banging on about CO2 and the greenhouse effect has so far had limited impact. Let’s monitor the reaction when we present the prospect of rising utility bills, rising fuel prices, diminishing energy security, empty supermarket shelves and resource wars. Maybe this will prompt more demand for alternative, sustainable energy resources and bring on a dramatic energy conservation programme. I think we need to get used to referring to the End of Oil and GW/CC in the same breath. It might help the selling/framing problem as well. I don’t know if any of this amounts to a better idea Mark but I gave it my best shot!

In the meantime let’s look forward to the big Stop Climate Chaos demo Dec 3rd.

Douglas Coker

Mayer Hillman discusses C&C in “How We Can Save the Planet” pp 119-126. Andrew Simms discusses C&C in “Ecological Debt” pp 171-179. James Bruges discusses C&C in “The Little Earth Book” pp 37-39. And of course Mark Lynas recommends C&C in “High Tide” pp 287-289.

I don’t see C&C as the answer for a couple of reasons. On the macro level C&C would allow larger GHG producers (richer countries) to “buy” GHG credits from lower producing (poorer) countries. The problem with this idea is that it in essence keeps the poorer and less developed countries from ever growing and developing. The reason is that we know GHG production is linked with economic growth and development. These poorer countries would be “selling” the GHG credits and thus their chances at actually growing in economic and development capacity rather than building in the capacity within their own infrastructure.

On the micro level, I don’t like some “entity” telling me how many GHG’s I can have to live on the earth. John Locke touted the philosophy of the free man to pursue life, liberty and happiness (US republican model). I think worrying about counting my GHG consumption yearly or paying some crazy tax to go and have a nice sirloin on the barbeque isn’t my idea of fun.

I prefer the capitalist and demand/ consumption method. By embedding an energy consuption tax (at least in the US) we could use the procedes to fund R&D into altrernative fuel sources. By tightening building codes and manufacturing codes for newly built factories we could raise the GHG efficiency level on future builds. Additionally, causing an artifical inflation of energy cost would cause a natural restriction of energy waste and reduce energy consumption. This is already happening with gasoline in the US as the prices have gone up so dramatically. It has reduced the US usage to levels below previous 12 month periods. Heck my neighbors even sold BOTH of their Hummers!! (the H1’s… miracles do happen)

The tax would likely not necessarily work in Europe, however, as energy is already at a premium and unfortunately the tax money collected from it is being used to fund the current governments and keep the status quo. I don’t think the Euro’s would stand for any higher taxes to fund further R&D. But you never know.

Aubrey Meyer, proponent of C&C puts it thus: framework or guesswork? C&C – because of its global cap – tells us where we’ll be in 50 or 100 years. You’re choosing guesswork here – just muddling through with a patchwork of taxes and regulations. Where will that get us? No-one can say. Hardly the best insurance policy for the only planet we’ve got!

I couldn’t agree more that the way forward is to embrace all options. The world is not ready for complete global commitment to climate change. The war in Iraq, the war of words with Iran and Syria are clear examples of an unstable world. The cold war is still fresh in the memory and America is still gripped by a fear of anything foreign. This is the real reason why Kyoto is only a start and as good an idea as C&C is, it is clear that unfortunately the world is not ready for that kind of global commitment.

The Menu of Options is a great phrase and when we look closer at it we have a fantastic Menu to choose from. Whether it be solar power, or low voltage lamps there are many things available to us right now. Oil is running out, American’s are buying hybrid cars, and people in China are talking about the environment. The climate, excuse the pun, has never been more vibrant than it is now with regards to climate change.

From reading the above couple of posts I think that we are in danger of becoming our own political barriers. Its not a case of deciding which option is best, it is a case of doing everything that we can to improve the situation, whether that be nuclear power or carbon trading. Everything that happens now has to be in a positive spirit, every little helps regardless of political opinion. Once we go down the political route we will be divided, right and left, nuclear verses wind, solar verses hydro. We must represent the Menu of Options the stakes are just too high if we don’t.

When our social conerns committee does church programs, we make them positive, rather than negative: “Anti-Drugs” becomes “High on Life”; “Anti-Violence” becomes “Peace in the Valley (or Family).”

“Anti-GW” could become Emancipation & Expansion>

We need to EMANCIPATE our brains, delaterialize them (men’s brains are more laterialized than women’s, so they have further to go on this blissful journey) through meditation or other techniques, to free ourselves from being stuck in beta consciousness, and get on to the liberating alpha, delta, and theta stages of consciousness, and come into holitic bliss and communion with the world.

We should promote EXPANSION of our human potential to be loving & caring & happy beings, to appreciate the beauties of the world & of agape relationships, to stop & smell the flowers along the way and sunbathe in human smiles. Desire the good, little people (we overlook) as our companions, rather than striving to keep up with the Joneses.

Then we will come to an understanding that more and more yatchs & private planes, and powerful cars & bigger houses, and fancy vacations are not nearly so attractive as blissful happiness in the tiniest of things. GHGs would shoot way down, when we realize our happiness & well-being do not essentially come from emitting more & more of them.

We could sort of do a “bad cop/good cop” thing. Give people a choice between C&C and E&E? Either way, we solve the problem. And there’s no reason we can’t do both. E&E could be the heart & mind of the C&C body.

White House Style: “Don’t tell me what to do! I’ll invade Iraq if I want to. Sure, I might have to fast talk and bully my way to get others to go along, and if I have to, I can manipulate the intelligence and the press to scare people into going along with me.”

No thanks.

I agreem with Mark: I cannot see any workable global agreement other than contraction and convergence either. At a country level, I think there may be alternatives to contraction and convergence – if New Zealand succeed in getting their emissions down fast through a carbon tax, for example, that’s great. But internationally – what else could an agreement be based on if not an overall cap with some global equity?!

However, I am increasingly concerned that any agreement which solely covers greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels (plus some other chemicals) will never be enough to stabilise the atmosphere. From what I have read over the past year, other factors are also threatening massive releases of carbon into the atmosphere, and are under human control:

1) the peat and forest fires in Indonesia and Malaysia, particularly in Borneo. Scientists have estimated that all the carbon contained in those vast peat swamps will have entered the atmosphere by 2040 unless the fires are stopped and the swamps are re-flooded. This is already a vast contributor to CO2 rises in the atmosphere, in some years possibly more than all US emissions;

2) deforestation in rain forests and temperate forests. There was a frightening article in the Guardian yesterday: www.guardian.co.uk/international/ story/0,3604,1582355,00.html It suggests that, unless deforestation is halted in the Amazon, the whole region is likely to very soon enter into a destructive positive feedback loop (since loss of dense canopy increases evaporation of water and destroys the hydrological cycle on which the region depends);

Furthermore, I understand that there is a lot of concern about VASTLY increased CO2 emissions as peat bogs in the temperate northern hemisphere are drained and disturbed. I know somebody doing a PhD about this who says that damaging about 10% of a peat bog can get the entire peat to break down and release their CO2. I haven’t read any article about this yet, but it may be another important factor.

None of this was in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report, but then all those studies only came out after 2001.

I really think that we need to get deforestation, tropical peat fires and, possibly, destruction of temperate peatlands right at the top of the political agenda. Otherwise, I fear that the best agreement about C&C will not be enough to stop a runaway greenhouse effect.

Almuth

I’ve been dismayed at the U.S. tack on the GW issue – as if we’re negotiating a bilateral or multilateral nuclear arms reduction treaty re GW. And our excuse has been (like a stubborn little child), “Well, China & India aren’t agreeing to do it.”

The focus then has been shifted away from the real issue—that it behooves us to unilaterally reduce our GHGs for our own sake, if not for the world, both to reduce the harm from GW AND realize savings & efficiencies from conservation & energy/resource efficiency.

So it’s okay for America to be a loner unilateralist for now. We can go at it & reduce more than any other nation (both because of our large population & because of our high level of inefficiency, wastefulness, and profligacy). Maybe we can even inpire our fellow countrymen by making this a contest – “Yeah, we can kick their butts in winning the ‘reduce GHGs competition.’”

Then later, once we’ve stabilized the climate, we might realize that we are happier converging with and embracing the rest of the world.

Yes Almuth

I’ve also seen these reports and they are very scary indeed. It seems that wherever you turn there is a new threat to our atmosphere and life as we know it on this planet.

Douglas Coker

It goes to show that the world climate is very, very complex and can’t be boiled down to a model or equation. C&C agreements would be limited to what is known and would not take into account what is not known and what is yet to be known about the climate and GHG causes beyond that of man and fossil fuels.

Arrogance led to a failed biodome project in AZ… what makes us think we can control the world’s atmosphere when we couldn’t even handle a couple of football fields of atmosphere under “controlled” conditions!

But I guess the C&C equations/formulas/models are better…

Jimbo states

“It goes to show that the world climate is very, very complex and can’t be boiled down to a model or equation.”

It was not my intention to try and complicate the issue! The need to stop burning vast amounts of fossil fuels is beyond doubt. Scientist have proven that more CO2 in the atmosphere means higher global temperatures. Even if they hadn’t, we would still know without any doubt that burning vast amounts of fossil fuels acidifies the oceans and will destroy whole marine food chains if we don’t stop now (climate modelling may sound complicated, which is why scientists with decades of experience are the ones doing it, but ocean acidification is straightforward and I have never heard of any argument against it).

Like Mark, I cannot think of a better option than C&C.

It is equally clear that burning down peat swamps and forests, and destroying ancient forests, particularly in the tropics, is releasing vast amounts of CO2. Hence it seems quite straightforward to call for international action which deals with those combined threats.

The only really complicated thing is finding a good slogan (“We call for Contraction and Convergence Plus an International Plan of Action to Re-flood Tropical Peat Swamps and Save Ancient Forests” is not a slogan you can put on a banner, but I am absolutely convinced this is the action needed).

Almuth Ernsting

Douglas,

That was a thoughtful piece. I’ve been pondering this blog entry for the last few days and cannot help think that we need ongoing new thinking (as well as honest commitment) to make sure that we develop treaties that work.

This blog was initiated by Tony Blair’s comments at a conference last week about the need for new thinking beyond Kyoto. Some reports indicated that he was selling-out on Kyoto, but I am not sure that is really the case (see Margaret Beckett’s letter to the Guardian of 4 November 2005). It seems to me that Tony Blair is now a fundamentally flawed “brand” as many British people just do not trust him. Very few of us actually know Tony Blair, but a resonant myth/story we have about him is that he is not to be trusted, anti-democratic (making up policy behind closed doors and treating the British public as children to be told stories) and allied to American/big business interests – and hence we should treat anything he says with a great deal of suspicion.

This is a very unproductive situation to be in! Indeed, the politicizing of this issue is something we really must avoid.

For myself, although I strongly support the efforts of Kyoto, I think it is at best a partial solution – and only a part of the jigsaw.

The C&C framework sounds utopian to me. I cannot see how an international system of national states would support that vision; certainly not within the current political climate. I also instinctively reject claims that “this is the only way”.

I think we need a much more academic and objective approach to understanding how treaties succeed and fail; and understand the different situations behind each situation. There were around 300 multilateral treaties in force in the year 2000 (see Scott Barrett, Environment and Statecraft, p.135, 2003) and the numbers are growing rapidly.

I would strongly recommend the book by Scott Barrett, mentioned above, as a way of considering what we should do after Kyoto. As he writes, in an international system of national states (which makes all the difference compared to regulating the environment on a domestic level with an effective executive and legal structure to enforce decisions), a successful treaty needs to be:

1. Individually rational 2. Collectively rational 3. Fair

He uses game theory to work through different approaches. A fantastic book!

It makes me think that whilst we do need “Kyoto-style” targets, we need many more mechanisms to encourage technologically-friendly products to be adopted – something which seems to be in it’s infancy at the moment. Such adoptions should be on the minds of everyone in the decisions we make (whereas, currently, the opposite is usually true – if you say you are taking the train on business rather than flying to help stop Global Warming, people still think you are a bit of a wacko).

Best,

Peter

Peter,

Blair is indeed flawed and I find it increasingly difficult to fathom his position on GW/CC. A trawl through the cuttings shows Blair and other Labour government members have made some very strong statements – but where is the serious policy implementation and action? The recent request from “enlightened capital” for a legislative framework which would allow them to forge ahead with eco-measures seems to have been completely ignored. Blair should have grasped this opportunity surely.

As for politicising the issue, this is well established. I’m inclined to point the finger at right wing Republican doubt sowers and lobbyists. I’ve been shocked at the extent they will go to, as evidenced by Mooney and Kennedy (refs below somewhere). If, however, there can be some sort of cross party consensus here in the UK to move things forward then all to the good.

I’ve ordered the Barratt book. The extracts on the web look inviting and your recommendation is fulsome. The closest I’ve got to the international policy making process is to start Joyeeta Gupta’s Our Simmering Planet.

I’m still pursuing this framing thing and in addition to following Chris Rose’s work I’ve come across James Humphreys. A v interesting character. In contrast to Blair etc he has joined the Green Party and stood as a candidate in May. Much more at http://www.jameshumphreys.co.uk/ See especially details of his masters course at Kingston.

Another site I’ve come across is the Pew Centre at http://www.pewclimate.org/ Good to see a US site of this nature as opposed to all the doubt sowing, contrarian, business-as-usual nonsense.

Cheers

Douglas Coker