Comments on: COP15 Dispatch: Leaked “Danish Text” Exposes Developing Divide in Copenhagen http://www.cchange.net/2009/12/09/cop15-dispatch-leaked-%e2%80%9cdanish-text%e2%80%9d-exposes-developing-divide-in-copenhagen/ Covering the transformations to social, environment and economic sustainability Sun, 18 Dec 2011 00:51:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Tom Fiddaman http://www.cchange.net/2009/12/09/cop15-dispatch-leaked-%e2%80%9cdanish-text%e2%80%9d-exposes-developing-divide-in-copenhagen/comment-page-1/#comment-10593 Tom Fiddaman Wed, 09 Dec 2009 20:11:08 +0000 http://www.cchange.net/?p=2194#comment-10593 The 2050 disparity in per capita emissions cited in the Guardian simply isn't true, unless you believe that the population of the developing world will more than double by then. Using a more plausible population projection, the Danish text nearly achieves per capita emissions convergence. http://bit.ly/6xWk1l The 2050 disparity in per capita emissions cited in the Guardian simply isn’t true, unless you believe that the population of the developing world will more than double by then. Using a more plausible population projection, the Danish text nearly achieves per capita emissions convergence. http://bit.ly/6xWk1l

]]> By: Aubrey Meyer http://www.cchange.net/2009/12/09/cop15-dispatch-leaked-%e2%80%9cdanish-text%e2%80%9d-exposes-developing-divide-in-copenhagen/comment-page-1/#comment-10592 Aubrey Meyer Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:14:59 +0000 http://www.cchange.net/?p=2194#comment-10592 The 'draft-document' the Guardian reported as 'leaked' to them yesterday spoke of anger from Developing Countries. The story said this was because, "The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals . . . " - ["Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes"]. If that were true, Developing Countries with justification would be outraged. But this 'interpretation' is wrong and probably the result of [1] poor presentation by these authors and [2] a tendency for Developing Countries to remain blinded by anger as a result of the last twenty years of 'poor performance' all round . . . In fact, the words in the draft document * - when converted to numbers - mean that Developed Countries are offering Developing Countries a global-deal based on parity of emissions-limits/entitlements per capita globally by 2050. That is what a global cut of 50% by 2050 inside which an 80% cut by Developed Countries adds up to be. [Relevant text from draft below - relevant GCI material about C&C here: http://www.tangentfilms.com/GCIEAC10nov09.pdf ]. It has for years gone by the name of contraction and convergence [C&C] [contraction of emissions globally to stabilize the atmosphere concentration of ghg and convergence to the equal per capita sharing of that 'contraction-event' globally by a date to be agreed]. The UK Government's 'Climate-Act' is based on C&C and Chair of the Government's Climate Change Committee [Lord Adair Turner] told Parliament in Februrary that C&C is the "only basis that is doable and fair." He also agreed that, "if, for reasons of urgency the rate of global contraction has to be accelerated, then for reasons of equity the rate of international convergence has to be accelerated relative to that." [Global C&C examples at faster rates - scan-and-zoom pdf with numbers - can be sent on request]. This situation is a potential repeat-failure that can and must be avoided. We have repeatedly advised the UK Government to make their presentation strategy and advocacy of C&C more transparent and UNFCCC-friendly [democratic?] and to invite all Parties in by being less prescriptive of a chosen set of C&C rates. They have not yet - as this latest affair demonstrates - learned how to do this. two current links for our own networked news on this: - http://lists.topica.com/lists/GCN@igc.topica.com/read/message.html?mid=1722112256&sort=d&start=778 http://lists.topica.com/lists/GCN@igc.topica.com/read/message.html?sort=d&mid=1722112332&start=779 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ * Shared Vision for Long-Term Cooperative Action 3 bullet point two: - "Support the goal of a reduction of global annual emissions in 2050 by at least 50 percent versus 1990 annual emissions, equivalent to at least 58 percent versus 2005 annual emissions. The Parties contributions towards the goal should take into account common but different responsibility and respective capabilities and a long term convergence of per capita emissions." Shared Vision for Long-Term Cooperative Action 7 bullet point one: - "The developed country Parties support a goal to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases in aggregate by 80% or more by 2050 versus 1990." The ‘draft-document’ the Guardian reported as ‘leaked’ to them yesterday spoke of anger from Developing Countries. The story said this was because, “The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals . . . ” – ["Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes"].

If that were true, Developing Countries with justification would be outraged.

But this ‘interpretation’ is wrong and probably the result of [1] poor presentation by these authors and [2] a tendency for Developing Countries to remain blinded by anger as a result of the last twenty years of ‘poor performance’ all round . . .

In fact, the words in the draft document * – when converted to numbers – mean that Developed Countries are offering Developing Countries a global-deal based on parity of emissions-limits/entitlements per capita globally by 2050. That is what a global cut of 50% by 2050 inside which an 80% cut by Developed Countries adds up to be. [Relevant text from draft below - relevant GCI material about C&C here: http://www.tangentfilms.com/GCIEAC10nov09.pdf ].

It has for years gone by the name of contraction and convergence [C&C] [contraction of emissions globally to stabilize the atmosphere concentration of ghg and convergence to the equal per capita sharing of that 'contraction-event' globally by a date to be agreed].

The UK Government’s ‘Climate-Act’ is based on C&C and Chair of the Government’s Climate Change Committee [Lord Adair Turner] told Parliament in Februrary that C&C is the “only basis that is doable and fair.” He also agreed that, “if, for reasons of urgency the rate of global contraction has to be accelerated, then for reasons of equity the rate of international convergence has to be accelerated relative to that.” [Global C&C examples at faster rates - scan-and-zoom pdf with numbers - can be sent on request].

This situation is a potential repeat-failure that can and must be avoided. We have repeatedly advised the UK Government to make their presentation strategy and advocacy of C&C more transparent and UNFCCC-friendly [democratic?] and to invite all Parties in by being less prescriptive of a chosen set of C&C rates. They have not yet – as this latest affair demonstrates – learned how to do this.

two current links for our own networked news on this: –
http://lists.topica.com/lists/GCN@igc.topica.com/read/message.html?mid=1722112256&sort=d&start=778
http://lists.topica.com/lists/GCN@igc.topica.com/read/message.html?sort=d&mid=1722112332&start=779

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

* Shared Vision for Long-Term Cooperative Action

3 bullet point two: –

“Support the goal of a reduction of global annual emissions in 2050 by at least 50 percent versus 1990 annual emissions, equivalent to at least 58 percent versus 2005 annual emissions. The Parties contributions towards the goal should take into account common but different responsibility and respective capabilities and a long term convergence of per capita emissions.”

Shared Vision for Long-Term Cooperative Action

7 bullet point one: –

“The developed country Parties support a goal to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases in aggregate by 80% or more by 2050 versus 1990.”

]]>