About this entry

Vote for your favourite climate framework 14 December 07

Should the incremental approach of Kyoto be extended, or ditched for something more ambitious? Read the arguments for and against and vote in the New Statesman’s climate choice poll

In Bali the world’s governments have been asked to draw up a long-term plan to stabilise the global climate. Should the incremental approach of the Kyoto Protocol be extended, or ditched for something more ambitious? Deciding which climate framework to plump for might be the most important decision of these politicians’ lives – and ours. Yet most of us have had little or no opportunity to participate in the debate. The rhetoric boils down to four options, which I rate here on the key criteria of scientific rigour, political realism, fairness and simplicity.

expand all | collapse all

2 comments add a comment

Unilateral reductions

I think the 1st solution is that every nation, every person (mainly the rich, high GHG emitters) need to unilaterally reduce their GHGs AMAP (as much as they possibly can), without even looking at the other guy/nation. This isn’t like a disarmament deal.

Since people & nations can’t get it in their thick skulls that’s precisely what’s required of them as moral beings, then a negotiated agreement on C & C sounds like a good solution.

76 words from Lynn Vincentnathan. 15 December 07. 01:17AM. reply to this
7567

Another RC mention of 6 DEGREES

RealClimate.org has again mentioned 6 DEGREES in their “BOOKS 2007” post!! :)

12 words from Lynn Vincentnathan. 21 December 07. 10:38PM. reply to this
7567

Click on a comment title to show (or hide) the rest of the comment. Click on 'reply' to bring up the form for a new comment (or the login form, if you're not currently logged in).

please wait