Contents
Contents ............................................................................. 1
Early Day Motion 325......................................................... 2
to the UK House of Commons ............................................. 2
Signatories to EDM 325 as at 10/05/2002 ......................................................................... 3

Introduction to C&C ............................................................ 4
Essential Proposition of C&C .............................................. 5
Contraction .........................................................................................................................5
Convergence ......................................................................................................................5Emissions Permit Trading .................................................................................................5
Sustainable Growth ...........................................................................................................5Page 1

Early Day Motion 325
to the UK House of Commons“ . . . this House
1 Welcomes the Government’s commitment to resolve asymmetricconflicts such as global terrorism and climate change through the process of international coalition building;
2 Further welcomes the launch of the Energy Review and the Government’s commitment to respond to the 22nd Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP), ‘Energy-the Changing Climate’;3 Notes that terrorism is more likely to flourish in conditions of social
injustice and environmental degradation;
4 Further notes the significant disparities in energy consumption andgreenhouse gas emissions between developed and developing countries;
5 Further welcomes Recommendation 3 of the RCEP’s 22nd Reportthat ‘The Government should press for a further global climate agreement based on the Contraction and Convergence approach, combinedwith the international trading in emission permits;
6 Is seriously concerned at the vulnerability to terrorist attack of Britain’s nuclear power stations and facilities and the related transportationof radioactive materials;
7 Is encouraged by the rapid development of renewable energy technologies which offer the prospect of security and self sufficiency in energy supply to developed and developing countries;
8 And, therefore, calls on the Prime Minister to demonstrate further
global leadership at next year’s World Conference on Sustainable Development by arguing the case for a policy of Contraction and Convergence of greenhouse gas emissions as the only realistic means of managing the transition from a carbon economy in a way that allows forequitable access to safe, renewable, low-intensity, self-sufficient and decentralised forms of energy supply.
Page 2

Signatories to EDM 325 as at 10/05/2002

1. Mr David Chaytor
2. Ms Diane Abbott
3. John Austin
4. Norman Baker
5. Mr Harry Barnes
6. John Barrett
7. Mr A J Beith
8. Mr Harold Best
9. Tom Brake
10. Mr Colin Breed11. Mrs Annette Brooke
12. Malcolm Bruce
13. Mr John Burnett
14. Mrs Patsy Calton
15. Menzies Campbell
16. Alistair Carmichael
17. Mr Martin Caton
18. Mr Michael Clapham
19. Mrs Helen Clark
20. Ann Clwyd
21. Harry Cohen
22. Mr Tony Colman
23. Frank Cook
24. Jeremy Corbyn
25. Brian Cotter
26. Mr Jim Cousins
27. Mrs Ann Cryer
28. Valerie Davey
29. Mr Ian Davidson
30. Mr Terry Davis
31. Mr Hilton Dawson
32. Mrs Janet Dean33. Jim Dobbin
34. Sue Doughty
35. Mr David Drew
36. Julia Drown
37. Jeff Ennis
38. Mr Bill Etherington
39. Paul Flynn
40. Mr Don Foster
41. Andrew George
42. Mr Neil Gerrard
43. Dr Ian Gibson
44. Sandra Gidley
45. Matthew Green46. Jane Griffiths
47. Mr Win Griffiths
48. Mr Mike Hancock
49. Dr Evan Harris
50. Nick Harvey
51. Paul Holmes
52. Mr Kelvin Hopkins
53. Simon Hughes
54. Lynne Jones
55. Mr Nigel Jones
56. Mr Piara S Khabra
57. Mr Archy Kirkwood
58. Norman Lamb
59. Mr Mark Lazarowicz
60. Mr David Lepper
61. Mr Elfyn Llwyd
62. Alice Mahon
63. Mr Paul Marsden
64. Chris McCafferty

Page 365. Mr Kevin McNamara
66. Mr Tony McWalter
67. Mr Alan Meale
68. Laura Moffatt
69. Mr Michael Moore
70. Dr Doug Naysmith
71. Mr Mark Oaten
72. Lembit Opik
73. Dr Nick Palmer
74. Mr Gordon Prentice
75. Syd Rapson
76. Mr David Rendel
77. Joan Ruddock
78. Mr Adrian Sanders
79. Phil Sawford
80. Mr Alan Simpson
81. Mr Andrew Stunell
82. David Taylor
83. Matthew Taylor
84. Mr Simon Thomas
85. Mr Mark Todd
86. Dr Jenny Tonge
87. Jon Trickett
88. Mr Paul Truswell89. Dr Desmond Turner
90. Mr Paul Tyler
91. Dr Rudi Vis
92. Mr Robert N Wareing
93. Brian White
94. Hywel Williams
95. Mr Roger Williams
96. Mr R Younger-Ross
97.Chris Mole

Introduction to C&C
The consequences of global climate change are ultimately incalculable. However, economic
losses from natural disasters (80% weather related) are now growing at 12% a year. That is fourtimes the rate of growth in the global economy. Assuming the growth rate of 3% in the global
economy continues, these losses will exceed the total value of all human production within twogenerations on current trends. (chart page 8,9).
The research compiled by IPCC also indicates that the future risks are grave and will compoundwith the underlying trends in unsustainable development. That is why in 1999, the heads of the
US National Ocean Atmosphere Administration and the UK Meteorological Office stated,“We are in a critical situation and must act soon.”
In January 2000, 1,000 Corporate CEOs at the Davos World Economic Forum said: “Averting climate change is the greatest challenge facing the world, why has more notbeen done to avert its devastating trends?”
In March 2000, the UK Prime Minister said; “The process is accelerating. For some parts of the world, particularly the poorer
parts, the effects will be catastrophic.”
To avert these devastating trends and bring the process of climate change under control as soon
as possible, GCI proposes an international framework for controlling the greenhouse gas (ghg)emissions whilst positively stimulating the growth of renewable energy technologies and theirinternational markets.
This framework is “Contraction and Convergence” (C&C) and is outlined on pages 8 and 9.
C&C recognises that to avert these trends, climate-efficient commerce must be politically guided,
rather than solely reliant on the market, if we are to achieve the objective of the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and thus enable future economic andsocial development to be sustainable. Establishing the C&C framework is at the political andconstitutional heart of the UNFCCC process so as to progress: !
!
!
!

Choice and opportunity
The reduction of regional inequity across the world
An orderly transition from carbon to renewable energy technologies
The reversal of the exponential rise in catastrophic losses

All these are fundamental to long-term prosperity and security.
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. The casefor C&C is compelling and as governments, industry and civil society conjoin global in its
enabling simplicity, C&C will become the standard by which progress at the UNFCCC is measured.
As Appendices One and Two of this document suggest, C&C has wider international support
than any other global proposal. Also in the context of creating global emissions permits as
tradable property rights, C&C is described in the Policy Section - Working Group Three - of theIPCC Third Assessment Report as,(C&C)“taking the rights-based approach to its logical conclusion.”

Page 4Essential PProposition
roposition of C&C
Countries agree a reviewable global greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions ‘contraction budget’targeted at a precautionary, stable value for atmospheric ghg concentrations. The internationallytradable shares in this budget are then agreed on the basis of ‘convergence’ from now, whereshares 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. Revenue from this trade
can be directed to the deployment of zero emissions technology.

Contraction
On the basis of precaution, all governments collectively agree to be bound by such an atmospherictarget. This makes it possible to calculate the diminishing amount of greenhouse gases that theworld can release for each year in the coming century. Subject to annual review, this ‘event’ isthe contraction part of the process. 4

Convergence
On the basis of equity, convergence means that each year’s ration of this global emissions
budget is shared out so that every country progressively converges on the same allocation per
inhabitant by an agreed date, for example by 2030. It recognises the need for access rights tothe ‘global commons’ of the atmosphere with the fundamental principle of globally equal rights
per capita, to be achieved by smooth transition. 5Emissions Permit Trading
Countries unable to manage within their shares would, subject to agreed rules, be able to buy
the unused parts of the allocations of other countries. Sales of unused allocations would giveless developed countries the income to fund development in zero-emission ways. Industries indeveloped countries would benefit from the 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 the development and growth of zero carbon energy
technologies necessary for prosperity and sustainable development.

Source: GCI

6USA Per Capita

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

2CHINA Per Capita
INDIA Per Capita
Rest of World Per Capita

842000Page 52140

Gigatonnes Carbon Gross0

Rest of WorldINDIACHINA
Annex 1 (non-OECD)
OECD minus USA
UNITED STATES

1860

tonnes carbon per capita

GLOBAL CO2 "CONTRACTION" for 450 ppmv with6 Region linear "CONVERGENCE" to Equal Per Capita by 2030
and population projections frozen from 2030

Overview of trends with and without C&C

Damages here are the global economic losses (Munich Re) for the four decades past for all natural
disasters projected at the observed rate of increaseof 12% a year in comparison 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 evengovernments to absorb. Damages will rise for thecentury 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 andGDP from global industry have been correlated
nearly 100% (known as ‘lockstep’). Breaking thelockstep 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, thatlimits CO2 concentrations to 70% above pre-industrial levels, shown above. If the traded area 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
Contraction, Convergencesegments show “Contraction,Convergence, Allocation and Trade” [C-CAT] to manage emissionsdown by at least 60% within a given time frame (2100here) with an agreed ‘contraction budget’ (here 680
billion tonnes of carbon). The internationally tradable shares of this budget (here, 100 billion tonnes)
result from convergence to equal per capital emissions by an agreed date and population base year
(here 2020). If this is invested in zero-emissions technologies, risk and damages are lowered further as
the budget is then net of these emissions as well.
The renewables opportunity is the difference between
C-CAT and BAU. It is worth trillions of dollars perannum - the biggest market in history.

21Ce lsius

3BAU
Lowes t outc om e with C& C below

0-11050

C O2 C ON C EN TR ATION

850

BAU
Lowes t outc om e to C& C below

ppm v

Recorded atmospheric CO 2 concentration from1860 until 2000 shows an increase of 34% overpre-industrial levels. This is a rise both higher and afaster 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 bestcase sees this concentration stabilised at 70% above
pre-industrial levels due to a 60% contraction in theunderlying emissions by 2100.

4TEMPER ATU R E

650
450
250

$200

D AMAGES B AU
Dam ages @ 12% /y eartrillions

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
the underlying emissions grow at 2%/yr. The blueline shows the lowest possible climate sensitivity - arise of 1.5°C - assuming a contraction by 2100 of60% in annual emissions.

$100

G DP @ 3% /y ear$12%

C O2 & GD P

'Lockstep' broken

8%

Ann ual % s cha nge
4%

G DP
CO 2 C& C
CO 2 with trade0%-4%

E ffic ienc y
Net Zero-CO 2 Renewables
CO 2 Non A nnex O ne
Traded A rea - CO 2?
CO 2 A nnex O ne
BAU

CO 2 CO NT RACT IO N
& CO NVERG ENCE
1800

Page 61900

20G tcE ffic ienc y
15G tcNet Zero-CO 2Renewables10G tc
5G tc

2000

2100

G tc
2200

UNFCCC, C&C and the K
yoto PProtocolrotocol
Kyoto
UNFCCC states,“ . . . must achieve stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphereat a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate
system 6 . . . should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future
generations of humankind, on the basis of equity 7 . . . developed country Parties
must take the lead in combating climate change 8 . . . (while) the share of global
emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet their social and development needs.” 9The Kyoto Protocol is an incomplete response to the UNFCCC because Developing Countries
are excluded from emissions control. Nor will its targets meaningfully begin to achieve stabilizationof greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. A global C&C framework is the logical and probably
the only way to secure global participation in the process that does achieve this.
As theUNEP CEO Topfer recognised in June 97, C&C the logical extension of 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 (20082012). 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.”

UNFCCC, C&C and Byrd Hagel Resolution
Resolution
In July 1997 US Senators Byrd and Hagel tabled a resolution about the US involvement with theKyoto Protocol. It rehearsed all their objections to what they felt was the ‘flawed’ character of theBerlin 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 inKyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would mandate new commitments tolimit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol
or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit orreduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same
compliance period.”
The crucial detail here is that two defining distinctions are maintained between: - Annex One
Parties (Developed Country Parties) and Developing Country Parties and ‘limit’ ghg emissionsand ‘reduce’ ghg emissions. Limitation means controlled positive growth of emissions andreductions means controlled negative growth. Putting these concepts together in the same
compliance period, translates into a formal process of “Contraction and Convergence”. Annex
One Parties will reduce (or contract) their ghg emissions while the Developing Country Parties
will limit their ghg emissions and thus converge with Annex One Country Parties. This will not
emerge by accident but by design and consent. “Contraction and Convergence” provides thelogical modus operandi for the resolution.

Page 7