... we should demand that the United States join an international treaty within the next two years that cuts global warming pollution by 90 percent in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy Earth.
...
We should aim to complete this global treaty by the end of 2009 -- and not wait until 2012 as currently planned.
...
A new treaty will still have differentiated commitments, of course; countries will be asked to meet different requirements based upon their historical share or contribution to the problem and their relative ability to carry the burden of change. This precedent is well established in international law, and there is no other way to do it.
There are some who will try to pervert this precedent and use xenophobia or nativist arguments to say that every country should be held to the same standard. But should countries with one-fifth our gross domestic product -- countries that contributed almost nothing in the past to the creation of this crisis -- really carry the same load as the United States? Are we so scared of this challenge that we cannot lead?
Al Gore's call to action
An editorial in the NYT 10
-
Posted 10:35 PM on 30 Jun 2007
by David Roberts -
Posted in
-
Read More About
David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.
Related Stories
City preps and countries posture ahead of Copenhagen talks
Climate talks timeline: From 350 to Kyoto to Copenhagen and beyond
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Threaded
JohnCaley Posted 4:24 pm
30 Jun 2007
Cannot even discuss in an open and honest manner.
IMO, anyone who knows the truth is scared, like really scared.
Shouldn't y'all be concerned ? There is well documented corporate misinformation in the climate change debate, so just what is the truth when discussion is censured.
And ask yourself why is there disinformation and misinformation and deliberate lies to hide the truth ?
Brave New World of lies and deceit, at a most critical time in history. Is this the Roman Empire on the verge of total collapse ?
Permalink
Billhook Posted 12:23 am
01 Jul 2007
and how those dues are going to be far larger than any other nations,
and how that is only both fair and also essential to get global co-operation,
I'm suprised to see him claim that "there is no other way" to allocate national GHG output entitlements
than by reference to historical outputs (liability) and to current capacity (wealth).
Such a claim is not only nonsense of course,
being written in the NYT it is also grossly dismissive of other nations' declared positions.
For instance, a very senior Indian politician, Mr Pradiptu Ghosh, recently stated that:
"This is our challenge to the West. 'You do the best you can, and we'll match it'. If the West thinks that India will subscribe to any long-term solution that is not based on per capita emissions then it is very misguided."
India's prime minister let it be known the G8 decision to deliver their final communiqué before meeting with the G5 countries - India, China, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa - had made him question the worth of even attending the summit.
Mr Ghosh said it was now up to the world to decide how big the 'carbon pie' should be at a certain point in the future - say, 2050 - and then agree that by that date all nations should have an equal entitlement relative to their size of population.
At present, the average America citizen accounts for more than 15 times the carbon emissions of the average Indian - the average Briton seven times - while in absolute terms India's emissions are predicted to surpass those of the US in 30 years time.
"This [Global warming] is a challenge for the West. Those countries have been at a tremendous party since the nineteenth century and now the party has to come to an end. It is the West that has to get serious about this problem.
"India will not accept an endgame where Western people continue to pollute the earth in perpetuity at three or four time the rate of people in this country. And my impression is that China agrees."
It seems fairly clear from this last point that India and China,
and (since their declaration some years ago) the Africa Group of Nations,
and others, such as the European Parliament,
now recognize that a progressive Contraction of annual global emissions budgets
and a Convergence of nations' shares to per capita parity of (tradeable) emissions entitlements
are the fundamental basis by which a treaty will be negotiated.
The global climate policy framework of "Contraction & Convergence"
was developed by the London based Global Commons Institute,
for presentation to the UN in '92,
since when it has been widely promoted and endorsed.
( www.gci.org.uk )
For Mr Gore to now pretend ignorance of Contraction & Convergence
is to generate future popular confusion, disillusionment and probably apathy in the US population.
While his writing may of course be just a negotiating ploy, (for all he's out of office)
if he is serious about getting a treaty by 2009 he'd surely do better to play it straight rather than devious.
Which is not to say that I lack profound respect for his efforts to waken the US from its callous delusions of safety.
Regards,
Bill
Permalink
Shakota Posted 1:43 am
01 Jul 2007
There is something wrong with a world that will believe a 90 pound Nicole Richie is pregnant just by looking at picture but denies the fact that global warming exists and is affecting us dispite years of scientific research proving it to be.
Permalink
Shakota Posted 1:43 am
01 Jul 2007
Permalink
Billhook Posted 12:07 pm
01 Jul 2007
the UK Independent has printed a full page statement by the HSBC bank,
in which it declares firmly for Contraction & Convergence.
But the statement goes quite a lot further than that.
Try reading the following,
knowing that HSBC, "the Hongkong & Shanghai Bank of China"
could not and would not make such a statement without official approval -
__________
But what about the problem of China's emissions ?
China's emissions are growing rapidly as the country develops, but the Chinese government is seriously concerned about the devastating effect climate change would have. Its measures reduced the amount of energy used to produce each unit of GDP by 47 per cent between 1990 and 2005, but is this enough? China needs to develop and believes that most of the action to tackle climate change must be taken by the rich countries that have overwhelmingly caused it. On this basis, it would only join an international deal if the United States did so too.
Can this circle be squared ?
Absolutely. Providing the biggest polluters cooperate, a new global agreement on much deeper cuts is not just possible but likely. Time, however, is desperately short. The best evidence suggests that, if dangerous climate change is to be avoided, worldwide emissions must start to fall within a decade, which would involve making a deal in the next year or two. Over the longer term, the best and fairest solution dubbed " contraction and convergence" would entitle everyone on the planet to the same share of a safe level of emissions and would apportion them to each country appropriately.
But wouldn't such cuts bankrupt the world economy ?
Not really. Any cost of taking action will be far outweighed by that of failing to tackle climate change. A landmark report for the British Government by Sir Nicholas Stern last year calculated that 1 per cent of GDP needs to be invested each year to address climate change and that failing to spend this could lead to a fall in GDP of 20 per cent and another Great Depression. The good news is that the countries and businesses that act first are likely to prosper by developing technologies that others will then want to buy.
_____________
Full text at (PDF) http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/hsbc.pdf
_______________
If the above has official Chinese approval,
then the whole negotiation over resolving GW
has just made a major step forward.
At least it seems so to me.
And you ?
Regards,
Bill
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 5:03 am
02 Jul 2007
I've already cut my consumption.
I didn't need government to make me do it.
I reduced because I wanted to.
What we need are penalties for the energy hogs of the world...Al Gore and the rest of the 3% who own 84%.
John Bailo
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Steve Bloom Posted 10:00 am
02 Jul 2007
IMHO the most salient points from the very interesting Chinese bank statement you quoted were that a) once the U.S. agrees to a serious process, everyone else will follow and b) those who develop the technology first will be in a the best position to benefit economically. The unstated part of b is that there is only one country in the world with a vast national scientific research establishment, and it isn't China or India. We give it away to them (starting with a massive power generation program to forestall new coal plants) and to the undeveloped countries (in the form of "appropriate technology" aimed at improving quality of life while avoiding large-scale infrastructure development), sell it to the rest of the developed world, and directly benefit ourselves by being early adopters.
I think the Chinese understand very well that they already have a climate disaster going on in the western part of their country. The Indians don't have one quite yet, but the early signs are hard to miss. It's in their self-interest to sign on in a hurry so long as they don't get screwed.
Permalink
major Posted 2:35 pm
02 Jul 2007
If there really were a climate crisis, I would agree with Al Gorsky...but since there isnt one whats his real purpose...
Its clear from even a casual reading of the climatology studies, that warming and cooling of the Earths climate throughout geologic time is the norm....and like any large scale effect it varies in its severity in any given epoch....not attributable to man. Mans industrialization and domination of the Earth has only been pre-eminent during a tiny, tiny fraction of the geologic time scale...
The warming and cooling of the earths climate has been correlated with numerous factors including Sun Spot cycles, variance in the Earths orbit relative to the Sun, levels of various atmospheric IR absorbing gases, extent of cloud and snow/ice cover above and on the earths surface, major ocean current patterns, obscuring of the earths atmosphere by increased suspension of particulates and sulfur based chemicals (primarily due to increased volcanic activity), etc
The correlation of all these factors and which ones may be dominant during a given epoch is still the subject of intense research and is more of a guesstimate than firmly established scientific fact.....
With this in mind, it's highly irresponsible to present, as fact, that Man IS the primary culprit behind any current warming trend and to claim to predict with certainty the extremity or severity of any on-going warming trend...certainly the 2006 climate performance doesn't mesh with Global Warming dire predictions; one of the most benign hurricane seasons and one of the coldest/snowiest winters in many parts of North America.....
The current contribution of industrialization to the overall global emissions of C02 is still a relatively small fraction of those emissions that occur from natural phenomena....
The politicizing of Global Warming by the Gore Brown Shirts is a dangerous thing for any scientific body to support. There can be one and only one standard for scientific fact and when a hypothesis outcome is still inconclusive, the only responsible behavior is to present it as inconclusive; the jury is out, in other words.
Finally, human society has been pursuing control of emissions for over 30 years and has made tremendous strides in vehicle emissions, recycling and other environmental pollution control...........why do we need some extreme effort NOW??
In all likelihood any massive effort to reverse a global climate trend, whether caused by Man or not, would be completely futile and tragic waste of economic capital...
If the eco-Nazis want clean power, why have they opposed the use of nuclear power for over 30 years..if they had worked with industry back in the 60's instead of blindly opposing nuclear power.....we would have far fewer coal-fired and oil-fired generation plants today....
The agenda of the Gore-nics is clear... and its not concern for the climate.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:37 am
03 Jul 2007
I cut my energy consumption by $7 this billing period.
Why can't America?
John Bailo
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Aubrey Meyer Posted 4:45 pm
12 Jul 2007
Is it Al Gore espousing C&C?
http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/Gore_C&C_Live_Earth.p ... [this link has the images referred to in the comments below].
Words and numbers full of wonder . . . .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Al Gore, "Moving Beyond Kyoto" - Is he simply reinventing UNFCCC?
As Satchmo told Danny Kaye about Joseph Haydn, "well let'im c'mout."
So - citing the bill of rights, Gore's international model of engagement is stated thus: - " . . . . we should demand that the United States join an international treaty within the next two years that cuts global warming pollution by 90 percent in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy Earth." So, at last - Gore catches up with UNFCCC.
He attempts to reinvent UNFCCC without acknowledging it, then jams in a couple of targets. At best, his proposition could be seen as a next-play on UNFCCC, but it is completely unjustified and way short of UNFCCC compliance. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find any reference to the UN treaty in his "An Inconvenient Truth". Kyoto is there, as is the Montreal Protocol, both prominently so.
UNFCCC established the standard for a full term international agreement in 1992. C&C met this standard over ten years ago. Gore is still nowhere near it; but, yes, he could from here attempt to reinvent C&C.
What is the `methodology' whereby the Gore treaty formulation is calculated? The Contraction and Convergence (C&C) model is in effect a bill of rights - equal under the limits that save us and using the C&C model, the graphic below plots Gore's 90% cut in the developed countries in the same period that there is a global reduction of 50% under a ppm concentration limit and source:sink ratio that might yet save us.
Is this Contraction and Convergence (C&C) or not? [Encouraging hint - you are doing better than the UK Government]. In fact Al Gore says many good and necessary things. However, when previously asked about C&C he said, "I don't buy it!" OK, so if he doesn't', does what he calls for in the international treaty mean something different and something different from what is shown in the graphic? If it is not C&C that he buys, what is it?
Gore writes fascinating polemics entitled, "The Assault on Reason." In the editorial in the New York Times [see the end] he writes, "The United States and the American people have provided moral leadership for the world. Establishing the Bill of Rights, framing democracy in the Constitution, defeating fascism in World War II, toppling Communism and landing on the moon -- all were the result of American leadership."
This is heady stuff, yet how is it that his rejection of C&C has not actually become part of the assault on reason? And this assault must have reason, yet this reason is never stated. Moreover, his `different' climate treaty formulation must have a reason but it isn't stated either. So while he condemns the assault on reason, he espouses it by remaining with the assault on C&C and without providing an alternative explanation.
Is he just selling more leadership by rhetoric without reason? Why is he hidin'? Let'im c'mout! Leadership this ain't. Life under limits but without reason is already becoming very unreasonable and it is worsening. Historic grievances are already measurably aggravated by climate change and the worsening global upstairs downstairs lessens the chances of agreement.
Mr Gore could consider that the 90% cut by the Developed Countries he calls for should be achieved sooner in the timeframe of the 50% cut globally that is the reciprocal. This would be politically more attractive to the Developing Countries now included by logic in the global carbon market that he also urges for the next treaty. Accelerating convergence would be seen to account a little more intelligently for the issue of `historic responsibilities for emissions', around which issue so much obstruction to progress has now accumulated. For example, intelligently using and citing C&C, the Greater London Authority now calls for full convergence in the same global contraction integral by 2030. In this case the arithmetic looks like this: -
C&C is a reasonable and numerate way of calculating for consensus and global agreement. To help this, numerous permutations of C&C under different stabilisation scenarios with different rates of convergence [printed images from the APPGCC DVD] are downloadable: - http://www.gci.org.uk/APGCC/test_booklet.pdf
C&C itself [as a whole] is the `numeraire' or the relevant unit of measurement. It was conceived in the defence of reason, civilization and survival. Al Gore will have matured when he goes to this beyond mere words and numbers full of wonder. He doesn't have to `buy-it' - it has been freely available to him and anyone else for well over ten years free of cost. He's said what he counts for and just needs to say what he counts with.
His contribution has improved since he monkey-wrenched the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. At that time he demanded the EC halve its commitments just to get him into the negotiating room. This was to make a deal that, because it excluded developing countries, was dead-on-departure as far as the US Senate was concerned. C&C overcame that and was live at COP-3. Gore knew all this then and kept his head down. It is still true now and I do know that the Chairman of the UK All-Party Parliamentary Group on Climate Change gave a copy of the APPGCC C&C DVD ["The Incontestable Truth"] to Al Gore when he came to `recruit trainees' at event hosted by the Cambridge Programme for Industry earlier this year. What happened? "The great man paled and changed the subject." Gore also went to the management to urge that the journalist from the Sunday Independent be removed because that journalist had been at Kyoto, had witnessed Gore's performance then and wanted to talk about it!
The constructive response to Gore's half-baked proposition would be for developing countries (with others) to call for C&C. It is the UNFCCC-compliant framework that they have asked for over the years and exceeds his aspiration by far. We need a treaty formed by North-South consensus, with Americans leading the way on emissions reduction and the rest following with heir "differentiated commitments".
Permalink