Perhaps you want to compare achieving the objective of the UNFCCC [safe and stable ghg Concentrations in the atmosphere *] with a wider range of proposals, procedures and ‘process’ [e.g. COPs 1-15] so as then to then take a view of how complicated or simple C&C may or not be.

Many think it is simple and to the point and some think it is too simple . . . . there are those who think its too complicated . . . and then there is ‘real life’ . . .

One of the world’s most active, independent and intelligent ‘climate-contrarians’ [Dick Lindzen] said to me once [at a nice pasta-supper next to the Leaning Tower of Pisa in 2004] “Aubrey – its obvious if you want * [above] you have to have emissions contraction – if you to have that you have to have convergence – *I don’t just think humanity has the wit to organize that!*” [He may well be right, but its worth a shot . . . ].

Cheers

A

Try here for some C&C background and support [at the back]: – http://www.tangentfilms.com/GCIEAC10nov09.pdf

Really, my reason for questioning C & C is quite crude: if it’s the ideal solution, why don’t more countries buy it?

In my researches, I came accross this website: http://www.greenhealth.org.uk/CCSimpol.htm

It seems, from this, that what is required is a system that is:
“i Realistic (relevant to countries with different national circumstances);
ii. Robust (capable of being adjusted in the light of experience), and;
iii. Durable (will not become irrelevant after a few years)

But for any such framework to be effective, it would be necessary for it to achieve a wide global acceptance and to deliver results in terms of significant emissions reductions. The Government is committed to finding a solution to the issue of climate change that meets these criteria.”

Humour me whilst i play Devil’s Advocate, but wouldn’t the implementing of C & C be incredibly complicated? It would require masses of global education, for a start. Secondly, how would individuals sell their entitlements if they live in the middle of the countryside and have no access to the internet?

Thirdly, those of us living in cold countries need heating. It is not our faults. I know that such considerations are thought of in the C & C scheme, but i feel that this implication immediately undermines the concept of per capital emissions rights. Equally, we use more energy at different times in our life cycle. This isn’t reflected in the per capita concept either. There may even be justifiable gender differences in the way we use energy – again the blanket per capita idea does not illustrate this. Moreover, the type of job we do may determine how much energy we need. Thus adjustments to the original per capita idea might again mean the system falls foul of the governments requirement for the system to be realistic, durable and robust.

Also, isn’t mixing aid with carbon entitlements a little moralistic and presumptious? I would conjecture that this built-in political weighting is likely to put certain countries’ backs up.

So, i am very much in favour of reducing emissions, but i just wonder if C & C is the most valid and elegant way of going about it? Forgive me for my considerable ignorance on this matter.

It’s mind-blowing how many amazing people are fully signed up to C&C, and how many have been for years. (eg Archbishop of Canterbury!) The more you look into who is supporting it, who has endorsed it, and who is campaigning for it, the more you find its an utterly irresitible force for good. And the immovable objectors are falling aside. Because you can’t really argue with fair air shares.

There is a Facebook group called ‘C&C is beautiful’ where some high profile backers of C&C can congregate and chat if that is of any interest. Just search for the title and join.

I wouldn’t underestimate the power that individuals like Bono have, both in mobilising other high profile names to pitch the same message and to get the same message to the public in ways politicians can only dream of.

Our own atmosphere has a safe upper limit of CO2, many think this to be around 350ppm. We are at 388ppm now.

So we need to cut back on emissions, and it could be regarded as a bit of an invisible air-fill (a la land-fill) situation. What everyone expects is a fair share of the air.

So Bono, and C&C are surely precisely RIGHT.

As one citizen of this planet, I don’t expect to be told that i have any more or any less right to air-space than anyone else. Not here on in…

And as a parent, I’d expect my children, when they are adult, to have the same air share and pollution rights as anyone else on this planet, no more no less.

No other solution is fair, from the perspective of one global citizen.

But more important, no other solution is practical, or ultimately agreeable – not without force.

Hence for me it’s C&C or bust.

i dont see that your point and my point are totally exclusive. i simply was developing your point, as is my right as a commenter (?). i agree that the per capita allocation of emissions could have unintended consequences. i think your concern is countries raising their birth rates to get more emissions rights. My concern is similar, if not identical. i don’t believe that countries should be rewarded simply by having a large population. The only way you can measure a large population is by comparing population to a country’s land area. But also, surely you can only allocate emissions rights according to land area, not according to head counts? Or am i missing something?

With respect, dont quite understand argument about Palestine or Canada. If the Palestinians have a low carbon footprint, then i cant see that they would be excessively penalised. Canada has a large area with a relatively low population. Canada may get more emissions rights because of their large land area (using the hypothetical land area allocation system), but it may be that they fairly quickly squander these because of the tar sands etc..