280 ppm v

a tm o s p h e ric c o n c e n tra tio n s o f C O 2 in p a rts p e r m illio n s b y v o lu m e (p p m v )360 ppm v

450 ppm v

10GT

0 .5

0 .4
9GT
0 .3
M AL IM A L AW I

NEPAL

8GT

A F G H A N IS T A N
U G A ND A
M O ZA M B IQ U E

T A N Z A NI A
M YANM AR
S R I LA N K A
K Y RGY Z S T A N
T U N IS I A O M AN
Q A T ARZ IM B A B WE

0 .2

E T H IO P IA

T R I N. & T O B A G O
E CUA DORB A NGL A DE S H
M A C E D O N IA
S L O V E N IAT A J I KI S T ANG E O R G IAPERU
V I E T N AM
M O RO C C O
H O N G K O N GM O L D O V A
C R O AT I A
L IB Y AC U B A C H I LE

SUDAN
Z A IR E

S Y R IAI S R AE L
G H A NAI RAQ
S I NGA P ORE
P H I L IP P IN E S
T U R K M E N IS T A N
M A L AY S I A
C O L O M B IAY U G O S L A V IA

EG YPTA L G E R IA

7GT

0 .1

A R G E N T IN A
V E NE Z UE LA
KENYA

T A IW AN
S A U D I AR A B IA

IN D O N E S IA0

K O R E A D .P .R E P .

T e m p e ratu re w itb 20 Y e a r A v e rag e

6GT

S O U T H A FR IC A

M E X IC O

P A K IS T A N

K A Z AK H ST A N-0 .1

N IG E R IA

5GT
-0 .2

C H IN A
L IT H U A N IA
E S T ONSI AL O V A K IA

DegreeCelsius

gigatonnes carbon from fossil fuel burningIR AN

B R AZ IL

L A T V IA

HUNGA RY

4GT

IN D IAB E L A R US

C ZE C H R E P .
B U L G A R IA

-0 .3

P OL A N D

R O M A N IA

U KR AIN E

R U S S IA N F E D .

-0 .4

I C E LA N D
N E W Z E A L A NL DU X E M B O U RG

3GT

I R E LA N D
S W IT Z E R L A N D
P O R TU G A L

DENM ARKSW EDENN O R WA Y
F IN L AN D
A U S T R IA
G R E EC E
B E L G IU M
N E T H E R LA N D S

T U RK E Y

S P A INA U S T R A L IA

F R AN C E

IT A L Y
CANADA

-0 .5

UK

2GT

G ER M A N Y

JAPAN

1GT

-0 .6

U N IT E D S T A T E S

-0 .7

GT
1860

1870

1880

1890

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

2050

2060

2070

2080

2090

-0 .8
2100

References for "Contraction & Convergence"(August 11th 2001)
Global Commons Institute (GCI)
Technical support and information concerning "Contraction and Convergence"and the planning model itself (CCOptions) are available at: - http://www.gci.org.uk
Global Commons Network (GCN): http://www.topica.com/lists/GCN@igc.topica.com/read
If you wish to join GCN by registering your support for the precautionary logic of
C&C, you can do this is by visiting and co-signing the letter at: http://www.gci.org.uk/indlet.html

12

Gigatonnes Carbon Gross tonnes carbon per capita

GLOBAL CO "CONTRACTION" for 350 ppmv with
6 Region Linear "CONVERGENCE"
from Status Quo in 2000 to Equal Per Capita by 2020
6

USA Per Capita
Annex 1 (non-OECD) Per Capita

4OECD minus USA Per Capita
CHINA Per Capita

2

Rest of World Per Capita
INDIA Per Capita

0Rest of World
INDIA
CHINA
Annex 1 (non-OECD)
OECD minus USA
UNITED STATES

1860

1880

1900

1920

8

4

1940

1960

1980

2000

2020

2040

2060

2080

2100

2120

2140

Gigatonnes Carbon Gross tonnes carbon per capita

GLOBAL CO2 "CONTRACTION" for 450 ppmv with
6 Region Linear "CONVERGENCE"
from Status Quo in 2000 to Equal Per Capita by 2030
6

USA Per Capita
Annex 1 (non-OECD) Per Capita

4OECD minus USA Per Capita
CHINA Per Capita

2

Rest of World Per Capita
INDIA Per Capita

0Rest of World
INDIA
CHINA
Annex 1 (non-OECD)
OECD minus USA
UNITED STATES

1860

1880

1900

1920

8

4

1940

1960

1980

2000

2020

2040

2060

2080

2100

2120

2140

6

USA Per Capita
Annex 1 (non-OECD) Per Capita

4OECD minus USA Per Capita
CHINA Per Capita

2

Rest of World Per Capita
INDIA Per Capita

0Rest of World
INDIA
CHINA
Annex 1 (non-OECD)
OECD minus USA
UNITED STATES

1860

1880

1900

1920

8

4

1940

1960

1980

2 2020

2000

2040

2060

2080

2100

2120

2140

Gigatonnes Carbon Gross tonnes carbon per capita

GLOBAL CO2 "CONTRACTION" for 550 ppmv with
6 Region Linear "CONVERGENCE"
from Status Quo in 2000 to Equal Per Capita by 2040

“Contraction and Convergence” (C&C)
in the IPCC Third Policy Assessment(June 2001)
Chapter One section 3.2"A formulation that carries the rights-based approach to its logicalconclusion is that of 'contraction and convergence'.
Chapter Ten section 4.5"The concept of 'contraction and convergence' is the entitlement of ghg emissions
budget in terms of future emissions rights. Such a global future emissions budget isbased on a global upper limit to atmospheric concentration of CO2, for instance
450 ppmv (contraction). This budget is then distributed as entitlements to emit
CO2 in the future, and all countries will agree to converge on a per capita
emissions entitlement (convergence). Level of contraction and timing of
convergence are subject to negotiations with respect to the precautionary
principle." (See graphics opposite).

2

6

USA Per Capita

4OECD minus USA Per Capita
Annex 1 (non-OECD) Per Capita
2

CHINA Per Capita
INDIA Per Capita
Rest of World Per Capita

1880

1900

1920

8

4

1940

1960

1980

2000

3

2020

2040

2060

2080

2100

2120

2140

Gi gatonnes Carbon Gross0

Rest of World
INDIA
CHINA
Annex 1 (non-OECD)
OECD minus USA
UNITED STATES

1860

tonnes carbon per capi t a

GLOBAL CO "CONTRACTION" for 450 ppmv
6 Region Exponential "CONVERGENCE" to Equal Per Capita by 2060

A Global Framework that Sets a New Economic Agenda
The consequences of global climate change are ultimately incalculable. However, economic
losses from climate related natural disasters are now growing at 10% a year and will exceed thetotal value of all human production within two generations on current trends. (See chart page 4).
! The heads of the US National Ocean Atmosphere Administration and the UK
Meteorological Office have stated, "We are in a critical situation and must act soon."(The Independent 24/12/99).
! In January 2000, one thousand Corporate CEOs at the Davos World Economic Forumsaid, "Averting climate change is the greatest challenge facing the world," asking,"why has more not been done to avert its devastating trends?""Contraction & Convergence" (C&C) is an international framework for limiting thegreenhouse gas (ghg) emissions causing climate change whilst positively stimulating the growthof renewable energy technologies and their markets. But it recognises that under these dangerous
conditions, climate-efficient commerce must be politically guided, rather than solely reliant on
the market, if we are to achieve the goal of the UNFCCC expressed as sustainable development.
Such a framework would underpin and sustain: • The growth of economic opportunity• The reduction of regional inequity across the world• The orderly transition from carbon to renewable technologies• While retarding the exponential rise in catastrophic losses
All these are fundamental to a prosperous financial sector.
Recent on the record advocacy of C&C includes statements from: ♣ Michael Meacher, UK Environment Minister♣ The UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution♣ Jan Pronk, Dutch Environment Minister & Chairman of COP-6♣ Klaus Topfer, CEO UNEP
♣ Svend Auken, Danish Environment Minister♣ Sir John Houghton, Chair IPCC Working Group One♣ Raul Estrada Oyuela, former Chair Kyoto Protocol negotiations♣ The European Parliament♣ The Africa Group of Nations♣ The Non-Aligned Group of Nations♣ The governments of India and China♣ GLOBE International Parliamentarians Network♣ IPCC WG3 Latin America Equity group♣ The UK Chartered Institute of Insurers♣ The European Federal Trust
Th UK Lib l Dt
C&C has wider international support than any other global proposal. It is described in the Policy
Section of the IPCC Third Assessment Report as, “taking the rights-based approach to its
logical conclusion.” The case for the Governments and Industry to join this consensus iscompelling. By globally integrating precaution, equity and efficiency, C&C coordinates control
to reduce risk exposure at source. It thus defines the political commitment necessary to avoiding
dangerous climate change while promoting prosperity by other non-carbon energy based means.
4Widely endorsed text for "Contraction, Convergence, Allocation & Trade" (C-CAT)"Countries agree a reviewable global ghg emissions carbon 'contraction budget' resulting in aprecautionary, stable value for ghg concentrations. The internationally tradable shares in thisbudget are then agreed on the basis of simple 'convergence' from now, where shares are broadly
proportional to income, to a target date in the budget timeline after which they remain
proportional to an agreed base year of global population. Proceeds from this trade can bedirected to the deployment of zero emissions technology.
"Contraction" - On the basis of precaution, all governments collectively agree to bebound by such an atmospheric target [for example 450 ppmv – see page 9]. This makes it
possible to calculate the diminishing amount of greenhouse gases that the world canrelease for each year in the coming century. Subject to annual review, this is thecontraction part of the process.
"Convergence" - On the basis of equity, convergence means that each year's ration ofthis global emissions budget is shared out so that every country converges on the same
allocation per inhabitant by an agreed date, for example by 2020. It recognises the needfor access rights to the 'global commons' of the atmosphere with the fundamental
principle of globally equal rights per capita, to be achieved by smooth transition.
"Emissions Trade" - Countries unable to manage within their shares would, subject toagreed rules, be able to buy the unused parts of the allocations of other countries. Salesof unused allocations would give less developed countries the income to funddevelopment in zero-emission ways. Industries in developed countries would benefit fromthe export markets this restructuring would create.
"Sustainable Growth” - C&C does not place a straightjacket on growth per se by its
limitation on fossil fuels. Instead it averts catastrophic losses by promoting thedevelopment and growth of zero carbon energy technologies necessary to achieve
prosperity and make development sustainable."
C&C does not replace the Kyoto Protocol. It supersedes it in due course.
The Kyoto Protocol is an inadequate response to the climate dilemma. It may or may not be
ratified. Either way, a global C&C framework must in due course supersede it to avoid abreakdown to randomness and drift. C&C is the logical way to resolve the diplomatic impasseover global participation in the UNFCCC the Kyoto Protocol for now seeks to postpone.
As the UNEP CEO Topfer recognised in June 97, C&C does not displace the Protocol: "The review system of Kyoto mechanisms can ensure equity. Currently CO2 emissions
rights are allocated according to existing emissions patterns with a specified reduction
percentage for various countries within a certain period of five years (2008-2012). The
redistribution through the Kyoto Protocol could be continued until emissions rights are
uniformly distributed on a per capita basis. This will be a critical element to ensure thepoor also get rights to utilise the world's environment, or in this limited case, theassimilative capacity of the atmosphere, a global commons resource."
As the Chairman of COP-6 Jan Pronk stated on the 25th July in the Earth Times, C&C is,"the most equitable . . . easier and cheaper," than other options and unlike those can also keep us
within a tolerable 2 degrees Celsius rise in temperature.

5

The "devastating trends of climate change" (Davos CEOs)and ‘averting them’ with ‘Contraction & Convergence’

Damages here are the global economic losses (MunichRe) for the four decades past for all natural disasters
projected at the observed rate of increase of 10% a year incomparison to global $GDP at 3%. If the global trends
continue BAU, damages will exceed GDP by 2065! The
risks will soon rise beyond the capacity of the insurance
industry and even governments to absorb. Damages willrise for the century ahead even with emissions
contraction, but the rate can be reduced with Contraction,
Convergence, Allocation and Trading (C-CAT).
For the past four decades, the output of CO2 and GDP
from global industry have been correlated nearly 100%(known as 'lockstep'). Breaking the lockstep is essential.
Future GDP is projected here at 3% a year. Future CO2
goes to -2% with the retreat from fossil fuel dependency
shown below, that limits CO2 concentrations to 70%
above pre-industrial levels, shown above. If the tradedarea is also converted to zero-emissions supply (below),
the carbon retreat might achieve up to - 4% a year.
The red line shows BAU CO2 emissions. The solid
segments show "Contraction, Convergence, Allocation
and Trade" [C-CAT] to manage emissions down by atleast 60% within a given time frame (2100 here) with anagreed 'contraction budget' (here 680 billion tonnes ofcarbon). The internationally tradable shares of this budget(here, 100 billion tonnes) result from convergence toequal per capital emissions by an agreed date andpopulation base year (here 2020). If this is invested inzero-emissions technologies, risk and damages arelowered further as the budget is then net of theseemissions as well. The renewables opportunity is thedifference between C-CAT and BAU. It is worth trillionsof dollars per annum - the biggest market in history.

2
1

Ce lsius

3

B AU
Lowest outcom e with C&C below

0
-1
1050

C O2 C ON C E N TR ATION

850

B AU
Lowest outcom e to C&C below

650

ppm v

Recorded atmospheric CO2 concentration from 1860 until
2000 shows an increase of 34% over pre-industrial levels.
This is a rise both higher and a faster than anywhere in
the ice-core sampling back 440,000 years before now.
Concentrations are rising as the result of accumulating
emissions. In future, the worst case is the red line as
BAU. The best case sees this concentration stabilised at
70% above pre-industrial levels due to a 60% contractionin the underlying emissions by 2100.

4TE MP E R ATU R E

450
250
$200

D AMAGE S B AU
Dam ages @10% /year

trillions

Recorded surface temperature from 1860 until 2000
shows an overall rise of 0.9°C. The future projections arefollowing CO2 emissions and atmospheric ghg
concentrations (in ppmv - parts per million by volume).
The red line shows Business-as-Usual (BAU) where theunderlying emissions grow at 2%/yr. The blue line shows
the lowest possible climate sensitivity - a total rise of
1.5°C - assuming a contraction by 2100 of 60% in annual
emissions.

$100

GDP @3% /year$12%

C O2 & GD P

'Lockstep' broken

8%

Annual %s change
4%GDP
CO2 C&C
CO2 with trade

0%
-4%
20Gtc

E fficiency
Zero-CO2 Renewables
CO2 Non Annex One
Traded Area - CO2?
CO2 A nnex One
B AU

E fficiency
15Gtc

Zero-CO2
Renewables

C O 2 C O N T R AC T IO N

10Gtc

5Gtc

& C O N VER G EN C E
Gtc
1800

6

1900

2000

2100

2200

GLOBAL COMMONS NETWORK - Consensus for the principles of "Contraction and Convergence"

European Parliament - AFRICA Group of Nations - Heads of state of the Non-Aligned Movement of Nations (NAM) Governments of CHINA and INDIA - Several European Environment and Development Ministers - an extensive andgrowing international list of eminent individuals and organisations including - Global Commons Institute UK - GLOBEInternational, [the environmentally concerned parliamentarians network - include US] - Forum for the Future UK - Charter99 - the UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP) - Wuppertal Institute GERMANY - International
Rivers network California USA - International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies - ENDA SENEGAL Centre for Advanced Studies BANGLADESH - Chatham House UK - Sustainable Development Institute Wyoming USA United Nations Association UK - National Coalition for the Chemically Injured USA - Pacific Institute NZ - Project for
Ecological Recovery THAILAND - SPREP - Ozone Action USA - Institute of SA Studies, LESOTHO - Habitat International
Coalition INDIA - Christian Aid UK - New Economics Foundation UK - Earthlife Africa SOUTH AFRICA - European Society
for Environment and Development - Solar Hydrogen Energy Group UK - International Institute of Environment and Development
UK - Haribon Foundation PHILIPPINES - Pelangi INDONESIA - Friends of the Earth UK - Centre for Science and Environment
INDIA - LetsLink SCOTLAND - Corporate Watch UK - Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research INDIA - Tourism
Concern UK - Reforest the Earth UK - Foyle Basin Council Londonderry - Green Party UK - Gawan Environmental Centre
SOMALIA - Centre for Public Environmental Advocacy SLOVAK REPUBLIC - Irish Doctors Environmental Association
IRELAND - SOS Selangor MALAYSIA - Women Acting Together for Change INDIA - IDEAL MALAYSIA - World
Development Movement UK - Focus on the Global South THAILAND - Climate Action Network CENTRAL & EASTERNEUROPE - Climate Network EUROPE - Climate Network AFRICA - Clean Air Action Group HUNGARY - Foundation for the
Economics of Sustainability IRELAND - Progress On Line SIERRA LEONE - Association Quebecoise des Energies
Renouvelables CANADA - Clary Meuser Reseach Associates California USA - Fos and Associates USA - National Climate
Programme PANAMA - The AUSTRALIA Institute - Queensland Transport, AUSTRALIA - Australian Cooperative ResearchCentre for Renewable Energy, WESTERN AUSTRALIA - Asia-Pacific Network for Global Change Research, Japan Environment Conservation Society SUDAN - Counterpart International - Resource Planning & Development Commission,
TASMANIA - Forum Umwelt & Entwicklung, GERMANY - Population Action International USA - INZET Holland - C-SERGE,
UK - The Ecologist UK - Canadian Association for the Club of Rome - Environmental Dept, Chamber of Mines of SOUTH
AFRICA - National Institute of Advanced Studies Indian Institute of Science INDiA - The RainForest ReGeneration InstituteWashington, D.C. USA - Geonomics Association of BC CANADA - Association of Artists for GUATEMALA - Global Dynamics
Institute RomeITALY - International Forum "Danube -River of Cooperation" HUNGARY - Alternative Information andDevelopment Centre (AIDC) SOUTH AFRICA - President NICARAGUAN Development Association - GAIA Foundation
London - Kairos Europa - American Society of International Law USA - Wildlife Centre for Environmental Studies, Lund,
University, SWEDEN - UpStart Services Ltd - UNED Forum UK - Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, GERMANY TERI-Europe, London UK - Good HealthKeeping, UK - Corporation for the Industrial Development of Biotechnology and Clean
Technologies, COLOMBIA - North East Resistance Against Genetic Engineering USA - AAC-Asociación para la Acción
Climática, Montevideo, URUGUAY - Stuart M. Leiderman - "Environmental Refugees & Ecological Restoration"
Environmental Response/4th World Project, New Hampshire, USA - International Journal of Humanities and Peace - Tetworld
Center for Peace and Global Gaming - Metanoia Trust and REEP, London, UK - Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy,
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA - Center for Russian Environmental Policy , Moscow, RUSSIA - Pacific Biodiversity Institute,
Winthrop, WA - Agentura GAIA, Prague, CZECH REPUBLIC - Ecological NW Line, St.Petersburg, RUSSIA - Scientists andTechnicians for a Non Nuclear Future - The Source Natural Healing Centre, Vancouver, CANADA BC - Zululand Environmental
Alliance (ZEAL), Empangeni, SOUTH AFRICA - Latin American Center Social Ecology - Friends of the Earth CZECHREPUBLIC - GroundWork, SOUTH AFRICA - Sustainability Network - Solar Energy Applications for SAREP, South Asia
Renewable Energy Programme - SOUTH AFRICA Development Fund - Diatribal Press London UK - Earth Day Network, Seattle
USA - Foundation for Conservation and Development, ECUADOR - Blazing Tattles - Pacific Institute for Studies in
Development, Environment, and Security CA USA - Scientists for Global Responsibility UK - Global Exchange - Darling
Sustainable Energy and Employment Scheme SOUTH AFRICA - OILwatch EUROPE - Vuk'Afrika, Cape Town, SOUTH
AFRICA - Environmental Monitoring Group, Wynberg, SOUTH AFRICA - Association for Protection of Environment & Culture(APEC), Morang, NEPAL - Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR). AUSTRALIA - Networking for a Common Future
in Society Victoria, BC. CANADA - CHPA, London - Green Futures - Institute for Transport & Development Policy, ECUADOR- Religion Science and the Environment, GREECE - Calvert World Values Fund - Department of Philosophy, Lehman College,
Bronx, N.Y. - Innovat - Special Projects and Technology Applications, Colombus, Ohio, USA - Center for Energy &Environmental Policy, US - Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Eng. Sciences & Technology, TOPI 23460, District PAKISTAN Environment Office, Imperial College, London - Institute for Public Policy Research, London UK - Ecosoluzioni, ITALY Department of Transport Engineering Pontificia Universidad Catolica de CHILE - Mto Consulting, AUSTRALIA - Instituto Plan
Agropecuario, URUGUAY- Renewable Energy Information Network of NAMIBIA - Deutsche Energie Consult Germany ZIMPOWER Engineers Zimbabwe - Energy & Development Research Centre, University of Cape Town, SOUTH AFRICA Second Nature, Inc. Boston, MA USA - CENN, CAUCASUS Environmental NGO Network - GEORGIAN Society of Forestry,
National Parks and Conservation - Ageing Research Foundation of INDIA, Tiruchirappalli, INDIA - ECOjustice, Environmental
Consultant. SPAIN - International Association of Educators for World Peace - Wisconsin Secretary of State, Madison,
Wisconsin USA - Canadian Wind Energy Association - SOLAR AGE NAMIBIA, Windhoek, Republic of NAMIBIA - Scienceand Environmental Health Network - Environmental Systems Research - Corporate Europe Observatory, NETHERLANDS - A
SEED Europe - Energy&Development Group Noordhoek Cape Town SOUTH AFRICA - Environmental Advisory Council,
7E.Pennsboro, PA - IMSA, NETHERLANDS

Statements by key Government Individuals
Europeans in Red
Jan Pronk, Chairman of COP-6, Environment Minister Netherlands - July 2000
"Contraction and Convergence" ["most equitable . . . easier & cheaper" than alternatives].
Full text at: - http://www.earthtimes.org/jul/environmentthekyotoprotocoljul25_00.htm" . . . . The debate about broadening participation of developing countries in the global
effort to stabilize greenhouse concentrations in the atmosphere at sustainable levels has
the tendency to focus first on the most advanced developing countries. Suggestions havebeen made for commitments for those developing countries in the period after 2012 interms of increased energy or greenhouse gas efficiency. In other words: not an absolute
cap, but a relative efficiency improvement in the production structure of developing
countries. This strategy would imply that developing countries gradually startparticipating, as they achieve a certain level of economic development. That is areasonable and realistic option. However, it can be argued that such gradualparticipation would only lead to a slow decline of global emissions, even if current
industrialized countries would drastically decrease their emissions. As a result global
average temperature increase would significantly exceed the 2 degrees centigrade limitthat could be seen as the maximum tolerable for our planet.
There are alternatives for this scenario. Some developing countries have argued for anallowance of equal emissions per capita. This would be the most equitable way todetermine the contribution of countries to the global effort. If we agree to equal per
capita emissions allowances for all countries by 2030 in such a way that global emissions
allow us to stay below the 2 degrees global temperature increase (equivalent to about
450 ppmv CO2), then the assigned amounts for Annex B countries would be drasticallyreduced. However, due to the fact that all countries would have assigned amounts,
maximum use of global emissions trading would strongly reduce the cost of compliance.
So, in such a scenario, industrialized countries would have to do more, but it would becheaper and easier. . . . . "[July 2000].
Klaus Topfer, Dir. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) - June 1999
"Convergence - The review system of Kyoto mechanisms can ensure equity. Currently
CO2 emissions rights are allocated according to existing emissions patters with a
specified reduction percentage for various countries within a certain period of five years(2008-2012). The redistribution through the Kyoto Protocol could be continued until
emissions rights are uniformly distributed on a per capita basis. This will be a criticalelement to ensure the poor also get rights to utilise the world's environment, or in thislimited case, the assimilative capacity of the atmosphere, a global commons resource."
Dr Song Jian - Chinese State Councilor Climate Change & Population - Oct 1997
"When we ask the opinions of people from all circles, many people, in particular thescientists think that the emissions control standard should be formulated on a per capita
basis. According to the UN Charter, everybody is born equal, and has inalienable rights
to enjoy modern technological civilization. Today the per capita consumption is just one
tenth of that of the developed countries, one eighth of that of medium developed
countries. It is estimated 30-40 years would be needed for China to catch up with thelevel of medium developed countries."
8

Svend Auken, Danish Environment Minister - April 1999
The approach of "Contraction and Convergence" is precisely such an idea. It secures aregime that would allow all nations to join efforts to protect our global commons frombeing over-exploited, without the risk that any country would be deprived of its fair longterm share of the common environmental emission space. And it allows for consistent andefficient management of the global emissions that would enable us to strive forconstraining global interference with the climate below fixed ceilings, such as the max. 2
degrees temperature rise, and the max. 550 ppmv CO2-concentration, recommended by
the European council of ministers.
Michael Meacher UK Minister of the Environment - April 1999
I do believe that contraction and convergence provides an effective, equitable marketbased framework within which Governments can co-operate to avert climate change, andagain congratulate you on your campaigning to bring this about.
Tom Spencer, Chair European Parliament Foreign Affairs Committee at COP-3.
Many of you know the Contraction and Convergence analysis. It offers a framework foran answer. It offers an envelope of equity within which we can trade and barter our way
to collective sanity in the coming decades.
John Porter, US Parliamentarian Chair GLOBE USA - Nov 1998
"Meaningful progress on confronting the challenge of climate change will only occur
when countries from the North and the South are able to collaborate in issues ofsignificant and sustainable development. The GLOBE Equity Protocol - Contraction andConvergence - and its mechanism for financing sustainable development is the only
proposal so far which is global, equitable and growth-oriented. It is precisely theseissues that were endorsed at the GLOBE International General Assembly in Cape Cod,and form the thrust of our recently released (Nov 1998) paper, "Solving Climate Changewith Equity and Prosperity." [Viewed at: - http://www.globeusa.org].
Indian Environment Minister for a "Global Solution" at COP1 - April 1995
"We face the actuality of scarce resources and the increasing potential for conflict witheach other over these scarce resources. The social, financial and ecological interrelationships of equity should guide the route to global ecological recovery. Policy
Instruments such as "Tradable Emissions Quotas", "Carbon Taxes" and "Joint
Implementation" may well serve to make matters worse unless they are properlyreferenced to targets and time-tables for equitable emissions reductions overall. Thismeans devising and implementing a programme for convergence at equitable andsustainable par values for consumption on a per capita basis globally."

9Prof Saifuddin Soz MP. Indian Environment Minister in Kyoto - Dec 1997
"In any discussion, "Contraction and Convergence", the central point is entitlements equitable per capita entitlements. At Kyoto we had stressed that any discussion onemissions trading ought to be framed in terms of per capita entitlements. Any trading cantake place only after the emissions entitlements of the trading partners is defined andlegally created - equitably of course. Historical emissions are iniquitous and cannot be
the basis of entitlements. Entitlements will define the sharing of the atmosphere on an
equitable basis which also brings together all the cooperative mechanisms in the Kyoto
Protocol in a common framework."
Kjell Larsson Swedish Minister of the Environment – September 2000
“On the issue of equity, Sweden strives for a global convergence, meaning that the longterm objective of the international community should be a per capita emissions target
equal for all countries. The work towards sustainability embraces the right for thepoorest countries to continue their development and requires that the developed worldcontribute to this. In other words the industrialised countries must reduce their emissions
in order to enable the least developed countries to develop.
Olivier Delouze Belgian Minister of the Environment – COP6 November 2000
"We are conscious that in the end, we will have to inevitably evolve towards a more
equitable partition between the north and south, of the capacity of our common
atmosphere to support green house gases, by a gradual convergence of the levels ofemissions on a per capita basis.”
Tony Blair, Prime Minister United Kingdom - October 1998
"Dear Cynog - I note what you say about the Contraction and Convergence proposal. I
agree that, in the fight against climate change, this makes an important contribution to
the debate on how we achieve long-term climate stability, taking account of the principlesof equity and sustainability."
Jaques Chirac, President of France – COP6 November 2000
“Since 1992, we have fallen too far behind in the fight against global warming. We
cannot afford any further delay. That is why, I can confirm to you here, Europe isresolved to act and has mobilized to fight the greenhouse effect. Europe calls upon theother industrialized countries to join with it in this fight. And Europe proposes to thedeveloping countries to join it in a partnership for sustainable development.
Let us start thinking about the post-Kyoto period without further ado. Tomorrow, it will
be up to us to set forth the rights and duties of each, and for a long time to come. In orderto move forward while respecting individual differences and special circumstances,
France proposes that we set as our ultimate objective the convergence of per capita
emissions. This principle would durably ensure the effectiveness, equity and solidarity of
our efforts.”

10

Sir John Houghton, Chair IPCC WG1 - 2000
"Three widely accepted principles will govern the international agreements needed tomeet the threat of climate change. The first is the Precautionary Principle, alreadyclearly embedded in the UNFCCC agreed at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992. This statesthat the existence of uncertainty should not preclude the taking an appropriate action.
The reason for such action is simply stated as the stabilisation of the concentrations ofgreenhouse gases (such as CO2) in the atmosphere in ways that allow for necessary
economic development. The second principle is the Polluter Pays Principle, which
implies the imposition of measures such as carbon taxes or carbon trading arrangements.
The third is the principle of Equity, both intergenerational and international which is themost difficult to apply. However a proposal by the Global Commons Institute that isbeing widely discussed applies these principles by allowing eventually for the allocationof carbon emissions to nations on an equal per capita basis while also allowing foremissions trading."
Sir Robert May, UK Government Chief Scientist - Oct 1998
"Thank you for your letter of the 23rd April and for the information on "Contraction andConvergence" policy and the efforts by GCI and GLOBE to build up global support for it.
These matters are clearly of great importance and I would agree that this approach
merits full consideration, including at the senior international political level, along withother ideas contributing to the development of a workable global climate strategy."
Ambassador Raul Estrada Oyuela, Fmr. Chair Kyoto Negotiations - Feb 2000
CONTRACTION AND CONVERGENCE"Long before the end of the Framework Convention negotiation, the Global Commons
Institute has presented a proposal on contraction and convergence, aimed to reachequality in emissions per capita. We all in this room know the GCI model wherecontraction is achieved after all governments, for precautionary reasons, collectively
agree to be bound by a target of global GHG emissions, making it possible to calculate
the diminishing amount of greenhouse gases that the world can release each year in the
coming century, subject to annual scientific and political review. The convergence partof the proposal means that each year's global emissions budget gets shared out among
the nations of the world so that every country converges on the same allocation per
inhabitant by an agreed date. Countries unable to manage within their shares would, be
able to buy the unused parts of the allocations of other countries. The entitlement ofrights transferred in this trading is legitimised by the per inhabitant criteria.
Level of contraction and timing of convergence should be negotiated on the basis of the
precautionary principle. Suggestions for emission reductions are well known andconvergence should be achieved at medium term to satisfy legitimacy. I have read that
the Chairman of IPCC’s WGI, Sir John Houghton, has said that this is the “logicalapproach”. Analysis of Contraction and Convergence in TAR is a must if equity is going
to be taken into account in the report.

11

Statements by key Institutions
UK Chartered Insurance Institute (CII)
CII’s report on the impending devastation of global climate change was published in March
2001. In it government and industry stakeholders and decision takers at the United Nations
negotiations are bluntly told to,“show some leadership by coming out in support of the principle of Contraction andConvergence.” (C&C)
With a clear signal to the commercial sector, the report also states that,“ . . . as the insurance companies own the oil companies (through equity ownership),insurers form the only industry that has the collateral and the need to adopt the C&C
logic.”The report describes C&C as,“The most realistic way to bring about the required reduction in ghg emissions (which
will have the combined effect of reducing the damage imposed on the insurance industry
and encouraging the transition to renewable energy) is that proposed in the concept ofContraction and Convergence (C&C). This concept was created by the Global Commons
Institute (GCI) and is incredibly simple in its detail. Essentially, everyone has the right toemit an equal amount of pollution (in this case CO2) to the Global Commons(atmosphere).”“This would operate in much the same way as the envisaged emissions trading scheme tobe set up within the Kyoto Protocol. Figure 10.9 illustrates this process, showing that by
the year 2100 emissions will have fallen to well below today’s levels, and will emanatefrom what are, today, developing countries. Since economic progress is dependent onenergy, the shortfall from ‘Business as usual’ energy consumption will need to be met
from two directions: efficiency gains, and a rapid growth in renewable energy sources. It
is clear from this that emissions trading can only be an intermediate stage, since the total
volume of emissions must fall.”“The only blockage to this simple system is the absence of political will to ‘step outside
the box’ instead of conducting a tortuous round of negotiations of the Kyoto Protocol.
One way to unblock this impasse is to amass a large enough consensus of stakeholders
behind the concept of contraction and convergence, persuading governments tosupersede the Kyoto Protocol. The insurance industry is an obvious place to start such a
campaign as it has so much to lose and so much to gain. If society continues down thefossil/Kyoto route, future economic losses are likely to become unsustainable: the current
rate of increase in damage from natural hazards is 12% pa and the rate is accelerating.
Given that the global sum of such losses was $100bn in 1999 (Munich Re, 2000), it would
outstrip global GDP (growing at 3% pa) by 2065, if the trends persist. If the insurance
industry rallies behind C&C, it not only reduces that risk, but it is well placed to invest in
the future renewables market. In fact one could argue that as the insurance companies
own the oil companies (through equity ownership), insurers form the only industry thathas the collateral and the need to adopt the C&C logic.”

12

The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP) - June 2000
Chapter Four, "The Need for an International Agreement","Contraction and Convergence" Chapter 4 [http://www.rcep.org.uk/pdf/chp4.pdf]"3. The government should press for a future global climate agreement based on thecontraction and convergence approach, combined with international trading in emission
permits. Together, these offer the best long-term prospect of securing equity, economy
and international consensus (4.69)."
4.47 Continued, vigorous debate is needed, within and between nations, on the best basis
for an agreement to follow the Kyoto Protocol. Our view is that an effective, enduring
and equitable climate protocol will eventually require emission quotas to be allocated tonations on a simple and equal per capita basis. There will have to be a comprehensive
system of monitoring emissions to ensure the quotas are complied with. Adjustment
factors could be used to compensate for differences in nations’ basic energy needs.
Those countries which regularly experience very low or high temperatures might, forinstance, be entitled to an extra allocation per capita for space heating or cooling.
4.48 A system of per capita quotas could not be expected to enter into force immediately.
At the same time as entitling developing nations to use substantially more fossil fuels thanat present (which they might not be able to afford), it would require developed nations tomake drastic and immediate cuts in their use of fossil fuels, causing serious damage totheir economies.
4.49 A combination of two approaches could avoid this politically and diplomaticallyunacceptable situation, while enabling a per capita basis to be adhered to. The first
approach is to require nations’ emission quotas to follow a contraction and convergence
trajectory. Over the coming decades each nation’s allocation would gradually shift fromits current level of emissions towards a level set on a uniform per capita basis. By thismeans ‘grandfather rights’ would gradually be removed: the quotas of developed nations
would fall, year by year, while those of the poorest developing nations would rise, until
all nations had an entitlement to emit an equal quantity of greenhouse gases per head
(convergence). From then on, the quotas of all nations would decline together at thesame rate (contraction). The combined global total of emissions would follow a profile
through the 21st and 22nd centuries which kept the atmospheric concentration ofgreenhouse gases below a specified limit.
4.50 The upper limit on the concentration of greenhouse gases would be deter-mined byinternational negotiations, as would the date by which all nations would converge on a
uniform per capita basis for their emission quotas, and the inter-mediate steps towards
that. It would probably also be necessary to set a cut-off date for national populations:beyond that date, further changes in the size of a country’s population would not lead toany increase or decrease in its emission quota.
4.51 In table 4.1 17 we have applied the contraction and convergence approach tocarbon dioxide emissions, and calculated what the UK’s emissions quotas would be in
2050 and 2100 for four alternative upper limits on atmospheric concentration. We haveassumed for this purpose that 2050 would be both the date by which nations would
converge on a uniform per capita emissions figure and the cut-off date for national
populations.18 If 550 ppmv is selected as the upper limit, UK carbon dioxide emissions
would have to be reduced by almost 60% from their current level by mid-century, and byalmost 80% by 2100. Even stabilisation at a very high level of 1,000 ppmv would require
the UK to cut emissions by some 40% by 2050.
4.52 The UK-based Global Commons Institute has taken the lead in promoting
contraction and convergence, and has developed a computer model which specifies
13

emission allocations under a range of scenarios. The concept has been supported byseveral national governments and legislators. Some developed nations are very wary of it
because it implies drastic reductions in their emissions, but at least one minister in a
European government has supported it.20 Commentators on climate diplomacy haveidentified contraction and convergence as a leading contender among the various
proposals for allocating emission quotas to nations in the long term.21
4.53 The other ingredient that would make an agreement based on per capita allocationsof quotas more feasible is flexibility of the kind already provided in outline in the Kyoto
Protocol. Nations most anxious to emit greenhouse gases in excess of their allocation
over a given period will be able and willing to purchase unused quota at prices that
incline other countries to emit less than their quota, to the benefit of both parties. The
clean development mechanism, which allows developed nations to claim emission
reductions by sponsoring projects that reduce emissions in developing nations to levels
lower than they would otherwise have been, can also be seen as a form of trading.
4.54 In the longer term trading by companies in emission permits, drawn from nationalemission quotas determined on the basis of a contraction and convergence agreement,
could make a valuable contribution to reducing the global costs of stabilising greenhousegas concentrations while transferring resources from wealthy nations to poorer ones.
Trading needs to be transparent, monitored and regulated, and backed by penalties onnations which emit more than they are entitled to. If it became merely a means ofenabling wealthy nations to buy up the emission entitlements of poor countries on thecheap, thereby evading taking any action at home, trading would not serve the cause ofclimate protection. Nor would it if developing countries which had sold quota heavily
went on to emit in excess of their revised entitlements.
Environmental Justice Network Forum (EJNF) South Africa - August 1998
"EJNF commits itself to campaign in support of the "Contraction and Convergence"
proposals that specifically embody the principles of global equity and sustainability. Thismeans that EJNF will advocate that the apportionment of future international greenhousegas (ghg) emissions entitlements shall be the result of a deliberate convergence process
to a point of equal per capita shares globally by a date to be negotiated by the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)."
European Parliament - 1998". . . calls on the Commission & Member States to take the lead in brokering anagreement on a set of common principles & negotiating framework beyond BA based on:
1. agreement to have a worldwide binding limit on global emissions consistent with amaximum atmospheric concentration of 550 ppmv CO2 equivalent,
2. initial distribution of emissions rights according to the Kyoto targets,
3. progressive convergence towards an equitable distribution of emissions rights on a
per capita basis by an agreed date in the next century,
4. across-the-board reductions in emissions rights thereafter in order to achieve thereduction recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
5. an agreement to have a quantitative ceiling on the use of flexibility mechanisms thatwill ensure that the majority of emission reductions are met domestically inaccordance with the spirit of articles 6, 12 and 17 of the Kyoto protocol; in thiscontext trading must be subject to proper monitoring, reporting and enforcement;
6. an adequately financed mechanism for promoting technology transfer from Annex 1
to non-Annex 1 countries;"
14

Federal Trust, 2001
A Climate Community - A European Initiative with the South1
Equity and Contraction and Convergence“The first embraces equity. It is the notion that on a planet where the most precious ofcommodities, a stable climate, is under threat, and where, in consequence, emissions
must be rationed - every citizen should in the long run have an equal emission quota.
There could hardly be a more obvious application of the notion of Universal Human
Rights enshrined in the United Nations Charter. Equally obviously, that ration should bebased on a total level of emissions which scientists agree will be essential to avoid theworst effects of climate change. Clearly, given the huge disparity at present between thewealth and emissions of nations, there must be a significant transition period - say 30
years - to the time when quotas are equalised. The length of that transition will be a key
issue of negotiations. From the start all emission quotas would be marketable, like thosein the Kyoto protocol, ensuring maximum efficiency and flexibility in energy saving andnew technologies. Such a concept binds all countries to the goal, but allows huge
flexibility in applying it. If a rich country goes slower in reducing emissions or adeveloping one grows faster it can buy others’ emission quotas. If the opposite happens
an energy-lean country can sell emission quotas. Marketable emission quotas are fine in
the context of stringent targets.
This concept, known as Contraction and Convergence, is familiar enough to cognoscentiof global climate negotiations. It was developed by the Global Commons Institute andexpanded in a recent book.2 It has been adopted as a policy goal by the major developing
regions - India, China and much of Africa - and approved by a resolution of theEuropean Parliament. It has been urged by the Royal Commission on Environmental
Pollution. In March 2001 the Chartered Insurance Institute in a research report on thegrim effects of climate change bluntly told Government and industry stakeholders ‘toshow some leadership by coming out in support of the principle of Contraction andConvergence.’ It urged that global emissions be cut from the present 1 tonne of carbon
equivalent per person of the world’s 6 billion population, unequally shared, to one thirdof that amount, equitably shared, by 2040. It added that ‘as the insurance companies own
the oil companies (through equity ownership)’ they have ‘both the collateral and the needto adopt Contraction and Convergence.3’ The concept is not yet the official policy of theEuropean Union but many Ministers are in sympathy and the decision to adopt it would
open a new and hopeful perspective for the planet. The European Community itself was
founded by committing to an ambitious goal (a common market) with a precise transition
period (twelve years) in which to adapt and reach it. The greater goal of arrestingclimate change deserves no less commitment and a well-planned transition.”
European Commission Responds, 15th May 01
Enviro. Director James Currie for General Director Romano Prodi.
“It is crucial that support is built in developed and developing countries for the necessityof ambitious targets going far beyond Kyoto. This (Climate Community Initiative) ishighly commended for raising these essential issues and to initiate a wide dialogue within
civil society and among political leaders.”
1

European Essay No 15 by Chris Layton; ISBN 1-903403-29-4“Contraction & Convergence, The Global Solution to Global Climate Change” Aubrey Meyer, Greenbooks 2000
3
The Chart on the cover of this references booklet gives one example of Contraction and Convergence for all
countries - in this case to equal emission rights in 2030.
2

15

The Africa Group - August 1997
"As we negotiate the reduction of GHG, the countries of Africa believe that there shouldbe certain principles that need to be clearly defined.
1. There must be limits on all GHGs if the danger to our climate is to be averted. The
IPCC scientific assessment report provides us with the basis for global consensus onsuch limits.
2. A globally agreed ceiling of GHG emissions can only be achieved by adopting theprinciple of per capita emissions rights that fully take into account the reality of
population growth and the principle of differentiation.
3. Achievement of a safe limit to global GHG emissions can be achieved by reducing theemissions of Annex One while at the same time ensuring that there is controlled
growth of future emissions from Non-Annex One countries, reflecting our legitimate
right to sustainable economic growth. We strongly believe that this will take us along
a path to responsible climate management that allows us to reach our goal ofdefining a mutually agreed point of convergence and sustainable development. Such a
convergence Mr. Chairman must ensure that we maintain a global ceiling on
emissions to prevent dangerous interference with the climate system.
4. When we look at time frames, we believe that insufficient commitment by Annex One
countries will only result in delaying our influence on the climate system. If thiscourse is maintained, then we will all suffer and the burden will be even greater forhumanity in general. The burden for any future mitigation efforts on those of who
have not been historically and currently responsible for creating the problem will begreater.
Mr. Chairman, we must focus our attention on the most appropriate, reasonable andacceptable time frame for action. There is an over-riding pre-requisite. The time frame
cannot be too far away into the future if we are to avoid at all costs the dangers that
global climate change poses. The current scientific evidence indicates that Africa faces
decline in water resources, agricultural production and economic performance. It istherefore for this reason that we wish to register the seriousness with which we view theeffective implementation of the Convention and future agreements emanating from it."
GLOBE International General Assembly (GIGA) - August 1998
In August the GIGA adopted a statement that included the following wording: "Support the adoption of a mandate at Buenos Aires to redefine the way in whichgreenhouse emission cuts are currently shared between countries, following the principleof equity enshrined in the Contraction and Convergence analysis, and urge the summit of
the Non-Aligned Movement countries meeting in Durban, RSA, to persist in demanding
an equitable approach as a precondition for their participation in COP4 at Buenos
Aires."
Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) - September 1998
In August and September the NAM held a heads of Government conference in South Africa.
Combining the logic of "Contraction and Convergence" with the trade Article 17 of the Kyoto
Protocol (KP), the NAM agreed the following statement: "Emission trading for implementation of (ghg reduction/limitation) commitments canonly commence after issues relating to the principles, modalities, etc of such trading,including the initial allocations of emissions entitlements on an equitable basis to all
countries has been agreed upon by the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate
Change."16

The GLOBE Southern Africa Network - August 1998
1. Members of Parliament and Members of the GLOBE Southern Africa Network . . .
Support the adoption of a mandate at Buenos Aires to redefine the way in whichgreenhouse emission cuts are shared between countries under the Kyoto Protocol,
following instead the principle of global equity enshrined in the Contraction andConvergence analysis,
2. Specifically work to ensure that all future development of the UNFCCC and its
related instruments will be consistent with these interdependent principles of global
equity and sustainability;
3. And rebut any recourse to "flexibility mechanisms" that are not derived from theinterdependent application of these principles of sustainability and global equity;
International Federation of Red Cross & Red Crescent Societies - June 2000
World Disasters Report 2000 Box 7.2 A Climate of Debt" http://www.ifrc.org/“No one owns the atmosphere, yet we all need it. So we can assume that we all have an
equal right to its services – an equal right to pollute. On the basis of the minimum cuts intotal carbon dioxide pollution needed to stabilize the climate, estimated by theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to be between 60 to 80 per cent of thepollution levels reached in 1990, and assuming that we all have an equal right to pollute,rich countries are running up a massive climate or ‘carbon’ debt. By using fossil fuels at
a level far above a threshold for sustainable consumption, year after year the carbon
debts of rich countries get bigger.
Ironically, poor people in poor countries suffer whatever the debt – whether from thesmaller, conventional debts their nations owe, or from the larger, more threatening
carbon debts being amassed by industrialized nations. There is a direct link between
fossil-fuel use and the economic output gained from over utilizing these non-renewable
reserves. Because of this, the carbon debt can be given illustrative estimates in economic
efficiency terms. Such sums show heavily indebted poor countries in carbon credit up to
three times the value of their conventional debts. G7 nations, however, fall US$ 13
trillion into debt. Given the policy conditions associated with conventional debt, logic
suggests that poor countries should now, in the face of climate change, be able to impose
a reverse form of structural adjustment on those most responsible. In ‘Caring for the
Future: Report of the Independent Commission on Population and Quality of Life’, M.S.
Swaminathan comments that “what we really need is adjustment to sustainable life
styles”. The onus is on industrialized countries. Instead of old-style structural adjustment
programmes for poor, indebted countries, a far more critical challenge will be devisingsustainability adjustment programmes for the rich. Klaus Töpfer, executive director of
the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), has called for a 90 per cent cut in
consumption in rich countries to meet the challenge. Töpfer, in UNEP’s latest report,‘Global Environmental Outlook 2000’, pointed to global warming as one of the mainthreats to the human race, and added that “a series of looming crises and ultimate
catastrophe can only be averted by a massive increase in political will”.
Any political solution to climate change will need to be based on reductions in emissions,otherwise known as contraction. As the climate is owned by no one and needed byeveryone, we will also have to move towards equally sharing the atmosphere, known as
convergence. Our collective survival could depend on addressing both.

17

From Speech by the Rt Hon Charles Kennedy MP Leader UK Liberal Democrats.
At Green Alliance 20th March 2001
"4 . . . So I think we have to think differently on climate change. And I want to flag up twoareas, that I think we must consider ways of taking more effective action on climatechange. The first area embraces the principle of equity. On a planet where the mostprecious of commodities, a stable climate, is under threat, emissions could be rationed,
through contraction of emissions, and convergence of national use of energy. That meansthat every citizen could in the long run have an equal emission quota. There could hardly
be a more obvious application of the notion of Universal Human Rights enshrined in the
United Nations Charter. There are many different options for implementing a scheme.
Quotas could be introduced gradually, and they could be tradeable. But whatever options
are adopted, it is a proposal that may well offer the way forward. The second area I want
to flag up, is the role of Europe in climate change. Europe has shown the way before. In
1945, European nations realised that to revive yet also contain Germany there must be acommunity of equals.
Half a century later the key problem for the planet is climate change and Europe mustagain lead in the co-operative game. Europe should take the initiative to invite all the
major nations and regions to form a Global Climate Community on the basis ofcommitments to reducing emissions and then ensuring that the emissions of different
countries reach a happy medium: - Contraction and Convergence. To be useful such an
initiative must include from the start, not only Europe but major developing nations such
as India. America and some others may not join at first. But they will have a major
incentive to join or they will be excluded from the massive emissions market which willdevelop. Britain is in a unique position to ensure that the
project gets off the ground. Britain’s own experience and Atlantic and worldwide links
could make it a valuable initiator of such a scheme."
Adair Turner, former Director General of Confederation of British Industry),in the UK New Statesman (7 May 2001):"Since the only equitable and politically feasible long-term vision would give eachcountry a roughly equal right to emissions per capita, the emissions of the developed
world will ultimately have to fall not by the 5-10 per cent agreed in the Kyoto protocol,
but by 70 per cent or more." http://www.newstatesman.co.uk/thisweek_index.htm

International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association‘IPIECA’ GLOSSARY 2001 - “Contraction and Convergence” (C&C).
Some have promoted the idea of “Contraction and Convergence” as a long-term strategy
for managing greenhouse gas emissions. Contraction refers to a global cap which would
be set on worldwide emissions, together with an overall strategy for the century ahead.
Emissions entitlements would be allocated on a per capita basis under the global cap andtrading would be permitted. Emissions entitlements would converge over time towards
equal per capita emission rights for all countries, so that the total emissions allowances
to countries are proportional to population. Proponents of the system of “Contraction
and Convergence” argue that it is equitable and that it would be truly global, involving
the participation of all countries.”4

full speech at http://www.gci.org.uk/speeches/Kennedy.pdf
18

USS - Universities Superannuation Scheme – July 2001
Climate Change, Risk Management Challenge for Institutional Investors“Beyond Kyoto - Contraction & Convergence” (pp 28 29)“It is important to recognise that any agreement can be only the first step in what will bea major journey. It is clear that even if the Kyoto targets are met, global emissions willcontinue to rise because of rapidly rising emissions in the developing world. Substantial
further steps will have to be taken to curb emissions globally. Such cuts will inevitably
begin to involve poor countries and at the same time rich countries are likely to have tocommit too much more serious emission reductions themselves. As a result further
emission reduction agreements are likely covering the period 2012-20 and beyond.
Indeed, the IPCC in its first assessment reports in 1990 recommended emissions cuts ofat least 60% to stabilise C02 concentrations at 1990 levels and thereby be likely to avoid
serious climate disruption. Its subsequent reports have not altered this position.
In the longer term, 'Contraction and Convergence' (C&C) is likely to become
increasingly supported as a policy option. C&C was initially advocated by a small UK
think tank, the Global Commons Institute (www.gci.org.uk), but has since gainedwidespread and authoritative support, including that of some poor country governments
and also the recent Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution report which
recommended that, 'the government should press for a future global climate agreement
based on the contraction and convergence approach'.
Under C&C, the right to emit greenhouse gases would be apportioned on a per capita
basis from a given date. The total amount of emissions would be constrained and would
fall steeply until it reached a level considered safe. Since the majority of the world's
population lives in the developing world, while per capita emissions are much higher in
the industrialised world, rich countries would need to find ways to reduce their emissions- contraction - by finding efficiencies or renewable energy sources in the next few
decades, or pay handsomely for the privilege of continuing to use fossil fuels. In this way
they could approach equal per capita emissions to those in other countries convergence.
Ironically, while C&C offers a more robust framework than that outlined by Kyoto, andaddresses the issue of equity, it also meets the fundamental objection of the US in that it
also requires commitments from the developing world. As a global operationalframework it also avoids many of the technical problems of Kyoto (such as defining
baselines for emissions trading in countries not subject to an overall target, or the extent
of international emissions trading that is permissible). However, much will depend on thedetail. Done well, C&C could provide a framework for a genuine, equitable, long-term
solution to climate change, which reduces political risks and provides businesses andinvestors with the sort of predictable framework they prefer. But if agreement is hard toreach, C&C might serve to highlight injustices and end up exacerbating tensions. For
example, some campaigners have argued for a third 'C': 'compensation' from the richworld for using up the climate's absorptive capacity. Whilst this claim is understandable,
such a development could well become an emotive issue that could make agreement far
harder to reach.”

19

The Insurance & Financial Services Industry Initiative of UNEP (UNEPIII)On July 19th 2001, the UNEPIII held a public meeting and a press conference at the United
Nations climate negotiations in Bonn.
Their message was to promote ‘sustainability’ by trying to implement the ‘small step of Kyoto’
along with climate friendly ‘policies and measures at national level’ and ‘the need to establish along-term framework such as “Contraction and Convergence” (C&C).’
They said this is so ‘because we do all need to know where we are going’ and that ‘C&C is sucha framework as it is consistent with the principles of the UNFCCC’ and quite ‘possibly theframework to take the whole process forward.’
The demonstrated these points with the use of this graphic: Source: GCI 2000

Efficiency
Net Zero-CO2 Renewables
CO2 Non Annex One
Traded Area - CO2?
CO2 Annex One
BAU

20Gtc

Efficiency
15Gtc

Net Zero-CO2
Renewables

CO2 CONTRACTION &CONVERGENCE

10Gtc

5Gtc

1800

1900

2000

2100

Gtc
2200

The yellow segment is the difference between convergence to equl per capita by 2020 and 2100

20

International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Assoc. (IPIECA)“Symposium on The Economics of Climate Change” (1997)
Richard Richels and Alan Manne of EPRI
Richard Richels has made the point that no economist can come up with sensible
numbers for the international distribution of the costs of climate change policy “until the
economists had been given the rules of distribution.” At the IPIECA event, Messrs
Manne and Richels presented a study based on: - “ . . . a widely discussed proposal: atransition to equal per capita emissions rights (globally) by 2030.”
Robert Stavins
Albert Pratt Professor of Business and Government
Director, Environmental Economics Program
John F Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University“This (Contraction and Convergence) is a long-term standard that is difficult to findfault with, and has much to recommend it on ethical grounds and in terms of parsimony.
I think it's quite reasonable that the ultimate greenhouse-gas emission standard (i.e.
allocation mechanism of targets among countries) toward which the entire community ofnations might work over the long term would be one linked with equal per capita
emissions assuming that cost-effectiveness could still be achieved through simultaneous
provision for international trading or some other mechanism that would facilitate theequating of marginal abatement costs.”

The BYRD HAGEL Resolution, June 1997
In July 1997 US Senators Byrd and Hagel tabled a resolution about the US involvementwith the Kyoto Protocol. It rehearsed all their objections to what they felt was the 'flawed'
character of the Berlin Mandate and the impending Kyoto Protocol.
"Now, therefore, be it Resolved that: The US should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the
UNFCCC of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which
would mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the
Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specificscheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing
Country Parties within the same compliance period."
The crucial detail in the Byrd Hagel Resolution is in paragraph 1A. Two defining
distinctions are maintained. The first is between the Annex One Parties and theDeveloping Country Parties. The second is between 'limit' ghg emissions and 'reduce' ghg
emissions. Limitation of ghg emissions is controlled positive growth of ghg emissions
and reductions of ghg emissions is controlled negative growth of emissions. If we put
these concepts together "within the same compliance period", the paragraph can onlytranslate into a process of formal "Contraction and Convergence". Annex One Parties
will reduce (or contract) their ghg emissions while the Developing Country Parties will
limit their ghg emissions (so as to converge with Annex One Country Parties).
Technically, not just rhetorically, there has to be a 'convergence factor' to do this.
This can only emerge by design and consent and not by accident. The authors andsupporters of this resolution have to face this unavoidable question.
21

THE USA, Byrd Hagel Resolution & "CONTRACTION & CONVERGENCE"

The US has affirmed:
1. That 'a global solution' to the 'global problem' of climate change is needed.
2. The objective of the UNFCCC [stabilisation of ghg concentration in the global
atmosphere] is ghg emissions 'contraction' by definition [here 2000 - 2100].
3. That all countries must be involved in emissions control [here 2000 - 2200].
4. That a 'central organising principle' is applied to distribution (initially this was 'allcountries will reduce ghg emissions by x% pro rata' [here 2050 - 2200]
5. The 'Byrd Hagel Resolution', where this central organising principle was modified to
combine 'Reductions' [controlled negative growth] with 'Limitations' [controlled positive
growth] giving 'convergence' [here 2000 - 2050].
6. That the 'commitments/entitlements' arising from this controlled 'contraction andconvergence' must be 100% tradable.
7. That inter-emissions-budget-period borrowing must be allowed.
CONCLUSIONAs there is no other way to combine all their requirements, other than with antiprecautionary guess-work, it is logical minima to observe that the US proposals are not in
conflict with "Contraction and Convergence" to equal per capita tradable entitlements
globally by an agreed date under a predefined global cap. It is also logical to ask whatelse is intended if not this?

22