It is in response to an invitation from NCDO to support the Tallberg
Foundation [TF] call and search for ‘Plan C’ – a Global Deal on Climate
Change.

‘Plan C’ this is prompted by James Hansen’s new call for 350 ppmv. TF
has launched as ‘an international appeal’ to support this call for a
return atmospheric CO2 concentration to 350 ppmv

As Mackey points out the three questions that C&C deals with, and that
Plan C doesn’t yet, are: -

[1] what is the atmospheric ppmv value for CO2 we’re aiming at
[2] what it the path-integral of emissions consistent with that value,
and
[3] what rate of convergence to equal per capita sharing of that
integral is achievable.

The maths are as follows: -

350 ppmv 746 GTC 1988 200? [Hansen]
353 ppmv 752 GTC 1990
359 ppmv 765 GTC 1994
385 ppmv 820 GTC 2007
450 ppmv 959 GTC 200?

[1] in 1990 atmospheric CO2 in ppmv were 354 [i.e. 752 gigatonnes
carbon];
IPCC then said that immediate 60-80% cuts in CO2 emissions globally were
needed to get there.

[2] in 1994 ppmv were 359 [i.e. 765 gigatonnes carbon];
IPCC then said zero emissions globally by 2050 with negative emissions
thereafter were needed to get there; [this was deemed ‘impossible’ by
IPCC and the scenario was thereafter dropped];

[3] in 2007 ppmv were 385 [i.e. 820 gigatonnes carbon];
IPCC said that – with feedbacks better understood - zero emissions
globally by c. 2050 would keep us at and below 450 ppmv

So Jim Hansen’s call for 350 ppmv asap is a truly big-ask as he now
recognises [correctly] that the sinks are starting to pack up. Combined
with a 350 goal, this means negative emissions globally as near
immediately as possible . . . .

. . . . which rather side-steps, or was it avoids, the global
development deficiti and the politics of the existing infra-structure .
. . . and also rather explains why he is calling for the coal-fired
power stations to be bull-dozed [that’s one whole lot of bull-dozers but
I guess its fine if he can get them and get it done . . . ] . . . .

All the numeric modelling of this on which Mackey’s stand is based is
at: -
http://www.gci.org.uk/Animations/BENN_C&C_Animation.exe

[1] In the Europe-wide edition of LEXUS magazine in all European
languages - “Its a war on Error”: -
http://www.gci.org.uk/articles/LEXUS.pdf

Born in Britain but raised and schooled in apartheid-era South Africa,
Meyer is acutely aware of the perils of inequality and of the need for a
global agreement to be truly global. ‘By definition you can’t possibly
resolve this situation on a separated basis,’ he says. ‘Separate
development is not sustainable development. Global apartheid doesn’t
work.’

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[2] In the UK Cooperative Movement’s newly formatted magazine REACT,
which goes to 2 million readers in the UK: -
http://www.gci.org.uk/articles/React.pdf

‘It’s interesting,’ he tells Re:act. ‘There are very definitely
parallels between playing a violin and what I’m doing with C&C.

When you play the violin, how do you know where to put your fingers on
the fingerboard? You can’t see anything that tells you where to go.

You can provide a teasing answer by saying, well, how long is a piece of
string? To a violinist it’s exactly twice half its length. There’s a
very real structure inside that length of string that gives you all of
the notes and the proportionality, where things are found and placed –
and you play with that.

You can only play because of it.

Contraction and convergence is sort of a 100-year-long fingerboard.

Early Day Motion EDM 1636
CROSS-PARTY CONSENSUS ON CLIMATE CHANGE22.05.2008

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=35918&SESSION=891

“That this House notes the seriousness and urgency of climate change;
calls upon the Prime Minister to convene a conference of the leaders of
all parties represented in the UK Parliament, the Scottish Parliament
and the Welsh Assembly to examine the formation of a cross-party
consensus on climate change policy; and believes that all participants
in such a conference should assent to there being no pre-conditions on
their attendance.”

Colin Challen MP
Chair All Party Parliamentary Group on Climate Change

Gordon Conway
Imperial College London and Chief Scientist,
UK Department for International Development

Tony Venables
Oxford University and Chief Economist,
UK Department for International Development.

6th May 2008.

Under an idealised cap and trade emissions trading scheme each citizen
would be endowed with a right to emit a specified quantity of CO2e (or
each country endowed with the corresponding national total) and would be
able to sell rights in excess of own emissions. Were emissions
monitorable at the level of the individual citizen or country, such a
scheme would provide incentives for reductions in CO2e.

Depending upon the allocation of emissions rights it might also create a
distinct channel for resource flows to low emission countries. In the
hypothetical extreme in which each person was endowed with the same
emission rights, the financial flows to Africa resulting from sales of
carbon rights might be of comparable size to its current aid receipts of
around $40bn pa.14 In effect, the allocation of carbon rights to Africa
would become its aid programme. The abrupt creation of such valuable
rights without reference to existing patterns of usage is, of course,
entirely implausible.

Somewhat more realistically, ‘contraction and convergence’ schemes
propose national emissions quotas that would start from current levels
and very slowly converge – over several decades — to being proportional
to population. Since, over this time frame international economic
convergence would substantially reduce disparities in usage, the
redistributive aspect of carbon trading would be correspondingly
reduced.

This list is not complete. Please send missing info to aubrey@gci.org.uk

CONTRACTION & CONVERGENCE AND UK LOCAL GOVERNMENT
LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFORMATION UNIT

The LGIU supports moves towards a contraction and convergence approach
to reducing global carbon emissions. Contraction and convergence
proposes a global agreement on amounts of carbon emission permits to be
allocated to countries on an annual basis.
The overall quantity of permits would contract from one year to the next
— hence the term contraction. Permits would be allocated on a per-capita
basis and their volume would reflect a trend towards the average per
capita emission that is consistent with arresting runaway climate
change.

The system will favour developing countries whose per capita carbon use
is low, and support low-emission routes to development.
The allocation of carbon permits between nations starts from the unequal
distribution of the status quo. However it converges to an equal per
capita distribution over an agreed timescale. Converging access to these
increasingly valuable permits supports a convergence in levels of
development.

The idea of contraction and convergence is particularly persuasive as it
addresses two key threats to humanity — climate change and unequal
development — in one framework.

Carbon Trading Councils could foreshadow a contraction and convergence
model by agreeing voluntary twinning with localities in the developing
world. For example, a town in the UK could twin with a town in — say —
Tanzania and support its low-carbon development.
The aim would be to create a visual, personal picture of what climate
change means globally and to encourage people to think outside their
immediate needs and focus.

The Fairtrade movement has achieved a similar success in showing UK
consumers that even very small changes in their behaviour can have a
notable impact on lives of people who are growing foods or making goods
in developing countries.

http://www.lgiu.gov.uk/images/uploaded/Pospectus.pdf
http://www.gci.org.uk/Councils/LGIU_C&C_Prospectus.pdf

CAMBRIDGE

In order for global action to tackle climate change to be fair, a
sustainable level of carbon dioxide emissions should be shared amongst
every person equally. This principle of apportioning carbon dioxide
emissions to countries based on their population is called ‘contraction
and convergence’, which was developed by the Global Commons Institute26
and supported by Cambridge City Council at its Annual Meeting in May
200727. It refers to the need for global greenhouse gas emissions to
‘contract’ towards an equal share per person at some specified future
‘convergence’ date.

s/Cambridge_Climate_Change_Strategy_&_Action_Plan_Consultation_Draft.pdf

HAMPSHIRE

Thinking Globally, Acting Locally 1: Contraction and Convergence

6. At an international level the broad concept of ‘Contraction and
Convergence’, referred to by the Council for the Protection for Rural
England in its March 2005 response to a consultation paper by HM
Government (submitted as part of the evidence to the County Council’s
Climate Change Commission’s first session), is the most equitable
approach to tackling climate change and poverty around the globe.

The concept, which has had the support of the Government in
international arenas, embodies reducing global emissions to
environmentally sustainable measures, based on consumption per head of
population. The ‘Contraction and Convergence’ approach allows for some
per capita increases in GHG emissions in the developing countries in
Asia, Africa and Latin America. But the essential corollary is that
there must be steady and deep cuts in emissions from the wealthier
countries.

Under the title An Incontestable Truth the All Party Parliamentary
Climate Change Group has recently issued a DVD explaining the principles
of Contraction and Convergence and demonstrating that it has serious
support. It is to be hoped that the County Council Climate Change
Commission will have an opportunity to view the ‘Contraction and
Convergence’ DVD, a copy of which can be supplied on request.

http://www.gci.org.uk/Councils/Hampshire_County_Council_robert_hutchison.pdf

MANCHESTER

Inequalities in wealth between different parts of the world determine
the different standards of living enjoyed by their residents, and the
levels of carbon emissions. For this reason, it would be unreasonable to
apply the same reduction targets to say, Bangladesh as to Europe or the
USA, and we therefore support the principle of “contraction and
convergence”.

This means that Manchester City Council would support an allocation or
carbon budget based on the total carbon reductions required on a country
by country per capita basis. This would allow the poorest countries to
initially grow their emissions whilst the richest countries reduced
theirs. Allowing the poorest countries to initially grow their emissions
would enable them to adapt for the effects of climate change.

http://www.gci.org.uk/Councils/Manchester_8a_Climate_change_1_.pdf

NORWICH

10. Motion – Contraction and Convergence
Councillor Read to move:-

‘Council notes:

a) that carbon emissions (using Government figures) have risen by 2.5%
in the first half of 2005 to 162.4 Megatonnes per annum, and that the UK
is now in very real danger of missing its target under the Kyoto
Protocol, which requires emissions to be 12.5% below 1990 levels by
2012;

b) that the Intergovernmental Panel on climate change has warned that
climate change could have potentially catastrophic effects worldwide -
including in the UK - and that the Government’s Chief Scientific Advisor
has described climate change as ‘a greater threat than global
terrorism’;

c) that Norwich City Council is committed, through its support for the
CRed (Carbon Reduction) initiative, to taking and supporting action to
reduce carbon emissions in Norwich, and hence to reduce climate change.

Council believes:

a) that climate change is a very serious threat, both globally and to
the Norwich community, as demonstrated by the risk of flooding in
Norwich and other parts of Norfolk. Under current conditions, according
to environment agency data, flooding can be ‘expected’ more than once a
century in some houses in Mancroft, Thorpe Hamlet, Lakenham and Wensum
Wards as well as Carrow Road football ground. There is also a flood risk
in Mile Cross, Eaton, University and Bowthorpe. This risk, according to
most climate scientists, has potential to increase dramatically;

b) that the Government must commit itself to a method which allows the
international community to reduce carbon emissions in a socially just
way;

c) that the Contraction and Convergence Framework, promoted by the
Global Commons Institute and supported by many MPs from across the Party
spectrum, the all-party House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee
and some local councils such as Oxford and Camden, is the best way of
doing this.

Council therefore resolves:-

1) to call on Norwich’s MPs to support the Climate Change (Contraction
and Convergence) Bill, that has just been introduced into the House of
Commons by Colin Challen MP, as the best overall framework and vehicle
available for achieving the CRed targets that Norwich City Council has
committed itself.

2) to write to the Secretary of State for the Environment to ask the
Government to commit the UK to supporting Contraction and Convergence
and to write to the Global Commons Institute, declaring that Norwich
City Council supports Contraction and Convergence.

http://www.gci.org.uk/Councils/Norwich_AGD_Council_2005_11_29.pdf

BRIGHTON & HOVE CITY COUNCIL
10 MARCH 2005

NOTICE OF MOTION
CONTRACTION & CONVERGENCE

“This Council notes:

The Government’s recent announcements recognising the serious threat
posed to all life on this planet by climate change as a result of
increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

That despite last month’s enactment of the Kyoto Protocol on Climate
Change, scientific consensus now agrees that greater global reductions
in carbon emission are urgent and vital.

Early Day Motion 538 has been tabled in the House of Commons,
recognising the need for a new global policy to tackle climate change
beyond Kyoto.

EDM 538 advocates a policy of contraction and convergence, where all
nations seek to reduce their levels of greenhouse gas emissions, and
converge emissions levels towards a point where all citizens of the
world are entitled to emit equal amounts of pollutants.

That continued and increasing extreme weather events promoted by Climate
Change will cause significant harm to the city and its inhabitants.
Being a coastal community we are particularly vulnerable to increases in
sea level.

In furtherance of this Council’s duty to care for the environmental,
social and economic wellbeing of the city, we therefore resolve:

1. To instruct the Chief Executive to request the support of the city’s
Members of Parliament for this Early Day Motion, and to report back on
progress in this regard.

2. For this Council to pursue urgent consideration of how city carbon
emissions may be reduced.”

Proposed by: Councillor Georgia Wrighton Seconded by: Councillor Sue
Paskins

http://www.gci.org.uk/Councils/Brighton_and_Hove_(ClimateChange-GreenGrp).pdf

Encouraging action through a regional carbon budget

In March 2007, with support from the Partnership and Innovation fund,
Sustainability South West launched Fair Shares, Fair Choice, a major new
project aimed at promoting positive action on climate change from
individuals and organisations. The initiative aims to help residents of
the South West live and work within a ‘fair carbon
share’ and organisations and businesses to develop carbon action plans.

Fair Shares, Fair Choice is underpinned by the contraction and
convergence carbon reduction model and as part of the initiative
Sustainability South West has produced a ten-year carbon budget for the
region. This calculates personal carbon budgets for everyone in the
South West and an overall budget for the region as a whole. The figures
show that in broad terms the region’s current CO2 emissions are
approximately 10 per cent above its Fair Share carbon budget for 2007
and that carbon emissions would need to be reduced by approximately 30
per cent on today’s levels by 2016.

http://www.gci.org.uk/Councils/DEF-SDU-RegSupp-20pp.pdf

SSW also notes in Section 1 Background and Goals, the proposed
development of an agreed set of regional accounts and accounting
systems. As per our previous discussion and correspondence with Assembly
representatives, SSW has already developed an overarching regional
carbon budget that could be used to form the basis of these carbon
accounts.

Annex 1 contains further details of the methodology and the United
Nations endorsed Contraction and Convergence model, on which the data
sets are based. As previously outlined SSW supports this internally
recognised global framework for reducing CO2 emissions to safe levels in
a socially just way.

We recommend these data sets are applied in the development of the
regional climate change action plan and are used to form the carbon
accounts and targets developed. It is essential that as part of the
regional carbon accounts, climate change mitigation targets are
developed alongside those concentrating on adaptation activity.

http://www.gci.org.uk/Councils/ssw_response_to_ccap_document.pdf

Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs), Domestic tradable quotas (DTQs) or
Personal carbon allowances (PCAs) These are all systems that have been
proposed for rationing fuel/carbon under the ‘Contraction and
Convergence’ regime.

They would include everyone – individuals, industry and the Government –
and would enable users to sell any rations they do not use. They would
bring citizens, industry and Government together in a single scheme and
supply the incentive needed to transform the way energy/carbon is taken
into account in everyday life. See http://www.teqs.net/

http://www.gci.org.uk/Councils/Westminster_Carbon_Counting_Manual.pdf

Colin Challen MP chairs the UK’s All Party Group Parliamentary Group on
Climate Change [APPGCC]. The group advocates C&C. The current APPGCC
news letter goes to the whole of the UK parliament with this timely and
critical challenge: -

*C’mon Hillary - now’s the time to take the lead*

“Now is the time for Environment Secretary Hillary Benn to cut the
binding ties of precedent, and firmly back Contraction and Convergence.

Rumours have it that he privately admires the framework. Indeed, lots of
people will confess to that privately. It’s time to come out or miss the
boat.”

http://gci.org.uk/articles/C-MON_Hillary.pdf

“Maybe to overcome their traditional cultural reserve, the British
public needs to know there is a solution and that all hope is not lost.
If so, the best global deal in town is called ‘Contraction &
Convergence’; a global deal which is the real deal. Here is an idea the
UK could get behind and take to the world.”

Brendan Mackey is a professor of environmental science and policy at the
Australian National University. He is currently on sabbatical al the
Center for Humans & Nature, New York, USA.

http://www.gci.org.uk/articles/MACKEY.pdf

This article appears in the current edition of Carbon2Share, the
newsletter of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Climate Change
(APPGCC) Chaired by Colin Challen MP.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The founder of the ‘contraction and convergence’ campaign for allocating
emission entitlements among nations, Aubrey Meyer, has told Australia’s
“Carbon Environment Daily” claims by a conference speaker that the
approach is inadequate are unfounded.

Contraction and convergence would involve reducing overall emissions of
greenhouse gases and allocating equal per capita entitlements to every
country.

Professor Garnaut has said the concept of equal per capita entitlements
is likely to be a cornerstone of an effective international agreement: -
www.cedaily.com.au/nl06_news_selected.php?act=2&stream=1&selkey=35938

. . . . as has climate economist Sir Nicholas Stern: -
www.cedaily.com.au/nl06_news_selected.php?act=2&stream=1&selkey=36514

However, the Minerals Council (see related article) and the Australian
Industry Greenhouse Network have expressed concern that such an approach
would overlook important and relevant national differences and the
Australian Conservation Foundation has said an equal per capita approach
“does not address all equity issues”: -
www.cedaily.com.au/nl06_news_selected.php?act=2&stream=1&selkey=36454

Last week, CE Daily reported comments by Sivan Kartha of the Stockholm
Environment Institute that it won’t be sufficient to ensure we avoid
dangerous climate change “in the midst of a development crisis”. Kartha
instead proposed a “greenhouse development rights” approach which would
define national obligations on the basis of per capita income and
cumulative historical emissions.

Kartha’s comments prompted a response to CE Daily from Meyer, director
of the UK-based Global Commons Institute, who said the Greenhouse
Development Rights approach advocated by Kartha, “projects error”.

“On the one hand it stresses [correctly] the ‘urgency’ of climate change
and on the other the need for un-quantified access to energy/emissions
of the poor.”

“This primarily verbal formulation is presented as ‘more than’
contraction and convergence as contraction is ‘not enough’. This
assertion has acquired ‘mantra’ status though what the rates of
contraction and convergence is not addressed.”

Meyer’s comment - now linked to CE Daily’s CANA conference article
www.cedaily.com.au/nl06_news_selected.php?act=2&stream=1&selkey=36499
includes an animation of different rates of contraction and convergence:
-
http://www.gci.org.uk/Animations/BENN_C&C_Animation.exe

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The CE Daily goes on to “Six steps to avoiding greenwash”: -

Examples of greenwash noted in a new guide to greenwash include a poster
depicting an oil refinery with flowers emerging from the stacks.

The guide, produced by UK-based corporate responsibility communications
agency Futerra, compares anti-greenwash measures in Australia, the UK,
the U.S., France and Norway and offers six steps for avoiding greenwash:

• Know thyself – “before even starting to think about a green marketing
campaign work out if you’re green or not”;

• Be green by design, not luck – “the easiest products and services to
promote responsibly are those specifically designed to be green or
re-designed to be so, not those where you have searched for a green
aspect”;

• Check and check again – “search out both … internal and external
experts and ask their opinion before embarking on green promotions”;

• Choose your friends wisely – “inviting third parties to endorse your
product (in the form of labels and respected organisations’ logos) is a
powerful indicator to customers of your integrity. Don’t be tempted by
easy options or half-hearted initiatives. The big labels are hard to
reach and that’s exactly why they are trusted”;

• Remember words can hurt you – “long gone are the days when
‘eco-friendly’ or ‘non-toxic’ would cut it”. Take care to justify what
you mean if using terms like carbon neutral, energy efficient, low
carbon or zero waste;

• And carry out a greenwash ‘health check’ – “although your campaign
might be rigorous in its claims, don’t forget that greenwash can pop up
across your communications, from advertising, via CEO speeches or PR, to
your product packaging. It’s a good idea to health-check all channels
for greenwash infestation.”

Signs of greenwash include “fluffy language”, “declaring you are
slightly greener than the rest, even if the rest are pretty terrible”
and “emphasising one tiny green attribute when everything else is
un-green”, the guide says.

It tracks the explosion in the use of the term and says the rapidly
evolving market for greener products carries risks for business.

“A product that looks ‘pretty green’ in 2008 might just look like
greenwash by 2009.”

In his proposal he says, “the simplicity of the argument is that
everything flows from the figures where everyone converges of two tonnes
of pollution per head per year.”

http://www.theage.com.au/news/environment/stern-gets-sterner-on-emissions/2008/05/01/1209235059204.html

http://www.britainusa.com/sections/articles_show_nt1.asp?a=48132&i=41065&L1=41012&L2=41065&d=-1

http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/climateNetwork/publications/KeyElementsOfAGlobalDeal_30Apr08.pdf

Is the same Nicholas Stern? What happened on the road from attrition to
contrition? On publication of his original report two years ago he told
LSE students that, “C&C is too difficult to get your head around,”
spreading confusion and dismay.

GCI’s Director of Corporate Affairs Terry O’Connell said, “This is a
tipping point in the debate and is welcome. Having struggled for the
last eighteen years, we now have only the next eighteen months in which
to embed the C&C principle on which an effective post-Kyoto Global
Climate Deal so urgently depends.”

Time to finish unfinished business . . . ?
http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/Stern_Cleanup.pdf

“Is the “contraction and convergence” model the only approach?”
Some, including Angela Merkel, suggest the world should aim for
international parity in per capita emissions of greenhouse gases. How
could this be done? What would it look like?”

http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/IIASA_C&C.pdf

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The Way Forward”

Science can help address the problems raised, especially of the
integrated analysis approach as performed by IIASA over the past thirty
five years. For example, agendas for improving human and social capital
and for maintaining natural capital were laid out.
But there was a lack of integration between the two—suggesting an
important focus for future systems research. Likewise the competing
threats of over-consumption and over-population were often discussed
rhetorically rather than analytically.

Many questions arose in the discussions that could be addressed by
imaginative and ambitious systems analysts. These included:
Can we better understand the key drivers and synergies in economic and
human development?

Are the poorest getting poorer, absolutely or relatively or not at all?
Or is it true (as at least one speaker said) that it is the middle
income people who have, relatively, done worst from globalization—and if
so why?

How far can “good governance” solve the world’s problems?

Can neo-liberal economics help the “bottom billion”?

Why are they “trapped in a downward spiral”?

African conflicts in Darfur, Rwanda, and elsewhere are often described
as being essentially either political or environmental in nature. But
which is it? Clearly both contribute, but can researchers disentangle
them in a way that would be useful for peace‑makers?

Can we define a term like “global apartheid” and test whether it
describes the relationship between the rich and poor worlds?

To what extent do rich-and poor-world definitions of development differ?

Does the phrase “global carrying capacity” have any meaning in a world
of fast technological change? And if so, have we passed it?

Are there meaningful “limits to growth”?

Which indicators of educational progress best correlate with
development?

Which is worse: over-population or over-consumption? And what determines
this?

Would a declining world population in the second half of the century
create more problems than it solves?

How can international agreements on greenhouse gas emissions better
target the individuals with the largest carbon footprints?

Some, including Angela Merkel, suggest the world should aim for
international parity in per capita emissions of greenhouse gases. How
could this be done? What would it look like?

Is the “contraction and convergence” model the only approach?

What other “equitable” solutions to climate change are possible?

Under what circumstances are the resource and pollution benefits of
efficiency gains in technology wiped out by increased usage?

What are the key “no regrets” solutions to climate change, and what
barriers are there to implementing them?

How far can induced technological change cut the costs of fighting
climate change?

What are the potential knock-on effects of growing commercial biofuels
for land use, conservation, water supplies, food security and prices and
the natural carbon cycle (draining peat bogs; clearing rainforests)?

How much rainforest can the world afford to save—or afford to lose, come
to that?

What are the constraints on improving global agricultural productivity?
Why are yield increases faltering in many regions?
Is national aggregation of social and environmental data outdated? What
could replace it?

Further Information
The information contained in this brief is drawn from IIASA’s
Conference, Global Development: Science and Policies for the Future,
held at Vienna from 14–15 November 2007. Here, scientists, policymakers,
diplomats, and business people met to rethink the current trends in
global development. More information, including speeches and videos of
presentations, at www.iiasa.ac.at/iiasa35.
The brief was written by award winning environmental journalist Fred
Pearce.

IIASA wishes to thank the generous support for the conference from the
Austrian Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs, the
Austrian Federal Ministry of Science and Research, the Austrian
Chancellery and the City of Vienna.

Article by Brendan Bateman
Key Point

“Garnaut’s Interim Report contends that it is in Australia’s interest to
agree to a per capita emission rights [or] contraction and convergence -
that is, setting budgets initially equal to each country’s current
emissions and then, moving over time, to equal per capita emission
budgets while at the same time driving down the overall global emissions
budget.

This is intended to address both the necessity to start from the status
quo with recognition of developing countries’ claims to equitable
allocation of rights to the atmosphere.”
http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=59346

“Contraction and Convergence is a science-based global framework whereby
total global emissions are reduced (i.e., contraction) to meet a
specific agreed target, and the per capita emissions of industrialized
and the developing countries converge over a suitably long time period,
with the rate and magnitude of contraction and convergence being
determined through the UNFCCC negotiating process.

It applies principles of precaution and equity; principles identified as
important in the UNFCCC but not defined.  ”

Full article can be found here:
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/ENVIRONMENT/0,,contentMDK:20357008~menuPK:242151~pagePK:64020865~piPK:149114~theSitePK:244381,00.html