GCI submission to theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change Working Group Three (WG3) &the First Conference of the Parties (COP1)
to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC)
Global Commons Institute (GCI),
42 Windsor Road, London NW2 5DS,
Ph +44 181 451 0778, Fx 830 2366, e-mail saveforests@gn.apc.org

This is the text of a letter re COP 1
from: - Kamal Nath Indian Environment Ministerand Head of Indian Delegation to COP 1 to his
COP counterparts prior to COP 1.
24 03 1995

Dear

With the first "Conference of the Parties" to the Climate Change Convention
approaching, I would like to share a few thoughts with you on the critical issues which
remain unresolved. We in India are very concerned that there has been no significant
progress at all towards the stabilising (leave alone the reduction) of atmosphericconcentrations of greenhouse gases, despite the lofty commitments made at Rio. On thecontrary, decisive scientific evidence continues to disturb us with serious warnings about
where the global community is now headed.
The inconclusive discussions about Joint Implementation and Adequacy ofCommitments reveal increasing differences of opinion about the resolve of developed
countries to meet even their existing commitments under the Convention. In myjudgement, the present impasse became inevitable when the alleged cost- effectiveness of
Joint Implementation was sought to be based on absurd and discriminatory Global
Cost/Benefit Analysis (G-CBA) procedures propounded by economists in the work of
IPCC Working Group III. The scale of bias which underpins the technical assessment
intended to provide the basis for policy discussions at the CoP can be gauged from the
proposed unequally valued mortality costs associated with global climate changes, and the
avoidance of using the Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) system of overall damage costs.
These are by no means the only issues about which we feel concerned, but they are
pertinently representative examples.
We unequivocally reject the theory that the monetary value of people's lives aroundthe world is different because the value imputed should be proportional to the disparate
income levels of the potential victims concerned. Developing countries have no - indeed
negative - responsibility for causing global climate change. Yet they are being blamed forpossible future impacts, although historical impacts by industrialised economies are being
regarded as water-under-the-bridge or "sunk costs" in the jargon of these biased
economists.

2

To compound the problem, global damage assessments are being expressed in US
dollar equivalent. Thus the monetary significance of damages to developing countries issubstantially under-represented. Damage to human beings, whether in developed ordeveloping countries, must be treated as equal, and cannot be translated in terms of theexisting currency exchange rate systems.
Faced with this, we feel that this level of misdirection must be purged from theprocess. The distributional issue of unequal rights-by-income versus equal-rights-percapita must be resolved to enable fruitful discussions about possible protocols to theConvention, proportionality of commitments and financial mechanisms.
This is of immediate concern to us with regard to the AOSIS proposal. We arewholly sympathetic to it and we want to support it, along with all Parties to theConvention as it is clearly aimed at the global common good. But there are attempts tomodify the AOSIS proposal to an extent where it contradicts the very essence of the Rio
consensus and nullifies the spirit in which developing countries entered into negotiations
to frame the Climate Change Convention. We strongly reject any suggestions ofencumbering developing countries with obligations under the Protocols, that they do nothave under the Convention.
The implications of faulty economic assumptions are manifold. When they arecorrected to reflect a true and just position, then, and only then would any talk of Joint
Implementation and Adequacy of Commitments become meaningful. It is impossible for
us to accept that which is not ethically justifiable, technically accurate or politicallyconducive to the interests of poor people as well as the global common good.
I am sure you appreciate these issues which are causing India and several otherdeveloping countries much concern. We do not want to be driven to a situation where
dialogue itself becomes directionless. The Rio process gave rise to several environmental
Conventions. If the logic now being propounded in relation to Climate Change, also
enters the interpretation of the other Conventions, the gains which accrued to developing
countries at the Earth Summit will have reversed all the gains of Rio - the chief one ofwhich was a universal recognition of the principle of equity, and the inalienable rights ofall human beings to the fruits of development and ‘environmental space’ on an equitablebasis.
I have instructed the officials of the Indian delegation to the CoP to further
elaborate on these issues and discuss them with the officials of your delegation. I trust thatyou too will instruct the officials of your delegation accordingly, and I look forward tohearing from you on this.
With best wishes and regards
Yours sincerely
KAMAL NATH
Minister for Environment and Forests Government of India
3

CONTENTS
1. Preliminary Points regarding CO2, Climate and Geo-Politicsa) Constant Airborne Fraction (CAF)b) Temperature Risec) Breakdown of CO2 Output, OECD & Rest Of World - 1860-1990
2. Why is CO2 such an ECONOMIC issue?
a) 90% of the World’s Formal Energy Supply comes from Fossil Fuel Burningb) 80% of global CO2 emissions come from fossil fuel burningc) GDP:CO2 correlation remains globally unbroken at this time.
3. IPCC 60% CO2 cut requirement (IPSO FACTO).
a) “Intergovernmental Panel’s Stabilisation Output For Atmospheric Concentration Threshold
Over Time” (IPSO FACTO).
4. Understanding and Responding to “The Unequal Use of the Global Commons”
A GCI paper commissioned by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Working Group Three (WG3) on "Economic and other Cross-Cutting Issues" for their Workshop on“Equity and Social Considerations of Climate Change” in Nairobi July 1995.
a) Preamble - CO2 GDP relationship unbroken sub-globally - OECD and Rest of World (ROW)b) “Equity is the Solution”c) Applying Equityd) Data used in this Assessmente) Calculations made this Assessmentf) GCI’s conceptual model - the basis of equitable Assessmentg) Regime 1 - IMPACT Carbon Usage Assessmenth) Regime 2 - US$ INCOME Assessment - based on Global Efficiencyi) Regime 3 - PPP$ INCOME Assessment - based on National Efficienciesj) Tables of Country Creditor/Debitor Ratings under the three regimesk) Conclusions - “Spotted Owls and fighting the ‘Economics of Genocide’”
5. GCI revalues the Global Cost/Benefit Analysis Global (G-CBA) done by IPCC Working Group Three
6. Protest Letter against 10:1 Life Evaluation by Economists in IPCC and international signatory list
7. GCI Climate Statement concerning equal rights on emissions and UK/EU parliamentary signatory list
8. Press Cuttings
9. Information regarding Global Commons Institute (GCI)a) What is GCI?
b) What is GCI’s current missionc) Acknowledgements regarding external support for GCI’s Operations
10. Some Recommendation for GCI
4

PRELIMINARY POINTS REGARDING CO2, CLIMATE AND GEO-POLITICSa) - Constant Airborne Fraction (CAF)
left hand axis in graphic measures gigatonnes carbon running from zero at the bottom to 280 at the top.

RISING ATMOSPHERIC CARBON 1860 - 1990
Industrial CO2 output and accumulationsin G(iga)T(onnes)C(arbon)
Increase in atmospheric CO2Cumulative global indus CO2

1860

1990

As the two curves in the above graphic demonstrate, a constant fraction of CO2 emissions to the atmosphere remained“airborne”. This was at least true during the period 1860 - 1990. This is the so-called “Constant Airborne Fraction” (CAF).
However, given the possibility of enhanced positive feedback in the future, the fraction may not remain constant. In the face ofcontinued industrial emissions and declining terrestrial sink-capacity, it will probably increase.

b) - Temperature Rise - 1850 - 1990
0.4

0.2

GLOBAL TEM PERATURE
d e g r e e p o in t s C e ls i u s1850 - 1990

-0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

1860

1990

The above graphic uses global mean temperature data published by CDIAC to demonstrate a corresponding mean rise of 0.6
degrees Celsius for the period 1860 - 1990.

5c) - Breakdown of CO2 Output, OECD & Rest Of World - 1860-1990

OECD & REST OF WORLDINDUSTRIAL CO2 EMISSIONS 1860-1990

tonnes carbon

6,000,000,000
5,000,000,000

ROW-OECD

4,000,000,000

OECD

3,000,000,000
2,000,000,000
1,000,000,000
01860/70

71/80

81/90

90/1900

1901/101911/20

1921/30

1931/40

1941/50

1951/60

1961/70

1971/80

1981/90

Before 1950, the OECD countries were responsible for more than 90% of Industrial CO2 emissions. During this period
economic and population growth rates in these countries rose sharply, unlike the rest of the world where trends remainedlargely unaffected by industrialisation.
Only within the last four decade have CO2 emissions from (what is now) the other 80% of the global population - Rest Of
World (ROW) - reached approximate gross output parity. But the OECD now represents just under 20% of world population
with nearly 70% of gross global monetary wealth purchasing power amassed in hard-currency. It also has more than 60% of
voting power within global financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

WHY IS CO2 SUCH AN ECONOMIC ISSUE?
a) - 90% of the World’s Formal Energy Supply comes from Fossil Fuel Burning
Economic activity in industrial culture is almost entirely supported by an energy supply generated by fossil-fuel burning. Thisin turn causes the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere and the enhanced greenhouse effect.

World Energy Supplies by Fuel - 1950-1990
100%

Hydro etc

80%

Nuclear

60%

Gas

40%

Oil

20%

Solid

0%
1950

source: IEA

1960

1970

1980

1990

b) - 80% of global CO2 emissions come from fossil fuel burning
Non-fossil sources of CO2 emissions are either from non-human or from “renewable sources”. Whilst these renewable
resources (eg biomass) are not always renewably used, fossil sources are invariably non-renewable and non-renewably used.
Moreover, the vast scale of fossil fuel usage and the commitment of transnational vested interests to this model, precludes any
meaningful scale of biomass offset activity, especially given the emerging scale of the climate change problem.

c) - GDP:CO2 correlation remains unbroken at this time globally and sub-globally.
But the most intractable aspect of the climate change problem is the close relationship between industrial CO2 output and thegeneration of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This relationship has been globally closely correlated throughout the post-war
period, as the following charts demonstrate. (See OECD & ROW CO2:GDP correlation in section hereafter).
6

WORLD ANNUAL %s GDP:CO2 1960-1990
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
%
0.00
-2.00
-4.00

WORLD TOTAL CO2

-6.00
1960

1965

WORLD TOTAL GDP

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

IPCC 60% CO2 CUT REQUIREMENT“Intergovernmental Panel’s Stabilisation Output
For Atmospheric Concentration Threshold Over Time” (IPSO FACTO).
In their First Assessment Report (pub. 1990), the IPCC Working Group One (the Science Group) stated that in order for thethen existing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere to be stabilised at that level [not reduced], the annual output of CO2
emissions from human activities would need to be immediately reduced by a minimum of 60% to 80%. We call this “IPSO
FACTO” (Intergovernmental Panel’s Stabilisation Output For Atmospheric Concentration Threshold Over Time). The IPCC
did not say this “had to be done”. On the other hand IPCC did not say it “didn’t have to be done” either. They simply
established this bench-mark (see black segment right-hand side of graphic below). A 2% reduction of global CO2 emissions
annually was initially suggested by the IPCC. It was only a proposal. There was intense pressure from vested interests in theOECD countries and their economists, not to do this. The cut was portrayed as a threat to their economic well-being. The
proposal was put aside and it has not been implemented. In the context of the INC/COP and the Climate Change Convention,industrial countries now have an “aim” merely to stabilise their CO2 emissions (not atmospheric concentrations) at 1990 levels
by year 2000. Collectively and at best this would be no more than 3% off the projected global CO2 emissions output trend (seewhite segments right-hand side of graphic below), but they are not meeting this aim. And this, in the Climate Change
Convention, is in the context of making a commitment to “sustained economic growth”.
COP meets for the first time in the context of actual gross emissions, distribution and trends linked to abatement
aims/commitments, GDP linkages , and compared with IPCC 60% cut requirement as presented in the graphic below.

818,000

INDUSTRIAL CO2 & GDP
PAST OUTPUT & FUTURE TREND

0

9,000

%
0

-8
1955

1990

2025

% growth
rate CO2% growth
rate GDP

Dev'ing
Countries

USSR/
EasternEurope1990
less 60%

OECD

excess
CO2 trend

if OECD
stabilisedby 2000

7

“THE UNEQUAL USE OF THE GLOBAL COMMONS”
A paper for the IPCC WG3 workshop on “Equity and Social Considerations”, Nairobi, 18-23 July, 1994.
Global Commons Institute (GCI), 42 Windsor Road, London NW2 5DS, UK,
Ph +44 (0)81 451 0778, Fx +44 (0)81 830 2366, e-mail: saveforests@gn.apc.org.

PREAMBLE
We take as our starting point the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) judgement in 1990 that a minimum 60%
cut in global CO2 emissions was necessary to achieve an immediate stabilisation of atmospheric CO2 levels (IPSO FACTO see above). Not to comply with this requirement as rapidly as practicable would: - (a) take unnecessary risks with the planet’s
life-support systems and (b) threaten huge numbers of people present and future who have had no part in causing the problem.
We also note (c) the “Constant Airborne Fraction” (CAF, c. 60% of any year’s CO2 output is retained in the atmosphere - see
IPCC First Assessment Report) (d) the 83% of industrial CO2 output accumulated by the industrial countries since 1860 (seeGCI “GDP:CO2=BAU:IOU”) (e) the global formal economy being still at least 90% dependent on energy from fossil fuelburning (for all of these see earlier sections) and (f) the close relationship between CO2 and GDP globally and regionally (seethe 2 charts below).
OECD - YEAR-ON-YEAR % POINTS GDP:INDUSTRIAL CO2, 1960-1990% variation of output

9.00
6.00

$
$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

3.00

$
$

$
$
$

$

$

0.00

$

$
$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$
$

$

$

$

$

OECD CO2

-3.00
$

-6.00
1960

OECD GDP
1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

REST OF WORLD YEAR-ON-YEAR % POINTS GDP:INDUSTRIAL CO2, 1960-1990
9.00% variation of output$

6.00
3.00 $

$
$

$

$

$

$

$
$
$

$

$

$

$

$
$

$

$

$

$
$

$

$

$
$

$
$

0.00

$

ROW CO2

-3.00
$

-6.00
1960

$
$

ROW GDP
1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

We next make a judgement which is both ethical and practical - and we call on other analysts working in this field to make theethical positions and values inherent in their work as explicit as we do. In our judgement, the most valid starting point inassessing how to minimise the adverse effects of global climate change is to recognise that each human individual has an equal
entitlement to such carbon usage as can safely be allowed to continue. This does not reflect the current pattern of relationships
between nations, as the assessments in this paper will show. However, we believe an unprecedented degree of co-operation will
be required to realise any package of policies and procedures capable of fending off a climate disaster.
Equal rights to carbon usage, and to the GDP income that derives from it, is a principle that embodies in practical terms theright to the local enjoyment of shared and interdependent global ecosystems - in the worst case the right to personal survival.
We know of no other guiding principle which would command the unprecedented level of agreement now required within theinternational community. This agreement will be essential if a common language is to be developed which can be used todescribe the problem of global climate change in terms of it’s socio-economic causes as well as its environmental symptoms,
and address solutions on an urgent timescale. If an approach based on this principle is not adopted, the likely scenarios for the
future range from environmental blackmail and counter-blackmail, to massive and cruel economic sanctions, through to the useof naked force. None of which preclude the possibility, or even the probability, of large-scale ecological dysfunction globally.
8

EQUITY IS THE SOLUTION
We believe that any proposed solutions to the problems [which both cause and proceed from global climate change] which are
not equitable will not work. In a very real and fundamental way, equity is the solution - ie, properly valuing each other and theplanet. A failure to understand and apply this is a failure to appreciate the double-jeopardy in which humanity is now situated.
We face the actuality of scarce resources (sink capacity etc) and the increasing potential for conflict with each other over thesescarce resources. We do not imagine the solutions that emerge will be based exclusively on the principle of rights to equal
carbon usage. However, the analytical tools that we are developing and making available are based on the principle of equal
rights to carbon usage, and the results our that our work reveal can be used as a network of reference points. Anyone who
wishes to diverge from or ignore the principle can then describe what they propose, and this can be judged against our results. It
would then be for the international community, through a reformed and better advised negotiating process, to decide whether or
not the degree of divergence proposed was socially and ecologically viable.

APPLYING EQUITY
The social, financial and ecological inter-relationships 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 makematters worse unless they are properly referenced to targets and time-tables for equitable emissions reductions overall. Thismeans devising and implementing a programme for convergence at equitable and sustainable par values for consumption on a
per capita basis globally. This means that rights to income are accompanied by responsibilities for the impacts associated withthe generation of that income, which effectively rewards efficiency. It has always seemed of fundamental relevance to us thatwhile the problems consequent on global climate changes will most probably affect everyone, the cause of global climatechange has been the activities of a few. This is the political issue, central to global ecological recovery. The structural andrestructuring implications of this are considerable, but the detail of this is beyond the scope of this paper. This paper simply
presents a factual retrospective assessment of the relevant data ascertaining who - in the context of “equal per capita rights” the “debitors” and “creditors” were, and the size and trends of their respective credits and debits..

DATA USED IN THIS ASSESSMENT
The data which we take as a starting point for the calculations presented here are all publicly available.
For 189 countries and for the period 1950 - 1990 we used: a) National Population Figures: are taken from UN statistics,b) GDP in US Dollars (USD): at constant 1985 prices are extrapolated from the Penn World Tables 5.5 (withguidance from the PWT5 authors). Because there was a lot of conversion involved occasionally involving hugeexchange rate fluctuations, for the quota calculations only, each country’s USD curve was exponentially smoothed
across the period. Because data was lacking for a few smaller countries for the first decade, these gaps were filledin with exponential regression. Also, because data for a few smaller countries was lacking altogether, anothersource of data (CHELEM - 1980 constant USD) was used rebased to 1985 constant dollars.
c) GDP in Purchasing Power Parity Dollars (PPP): at constant 1985 prices are taken from the Penn World Tables 5.5.
Because data was lacking for a few smaller countries for the first decade, these gaps were also filled in withexponential regression. And, because data for a few smaller countries was also lacking altogether, another sourceof data (CHELEM - 1980 constant PPP) was used appropriately rebased to 1985 constant dollars.
d) Industrial CO2 emissions: in tonnes of carbon are from Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre (CDIAC).
These data cover emissions from oil, coal and gas combustion and also from the manufacture of cement.

CALCULATIONS MADE IN THIS ASSESSMENT
The schematic diagram overleaf represents the basis of GCI conceptual thinking for the three assessments. Then, with theabove data for input, we made a series of fundamentally simple calculations, for every nation and for every year from 1950 to1990. We emphasise that these calculations are based on freely available and uncontentious data and are simple to make. If they
appear complex, it is purely because of the volume of data being handled and the use of data-management computer software togroup the results in various ways and to produce a variety of graphical “debitor/creditor” representations of consumption
trends. The actual countries listed as creditors and debitors are listed out separately as well. In this paper we present threeassessment regimes .1 The increasingly unequal consumption patterns between debitors and creditors are revealed as stark. In
that this looks at the existing data for the past against the stated criteria for equitable and sustainable consumption, we regard
this as a factual presentation of what actually happened over the last forty years. Some implications are drawn from this in thecommentary on the quota regimes which follow and in the conclusions at the end of the paper.

1

GCI’s data-management and modelling software is also available on application.

9

GCI’S CONCEPTUAL MODEL - THE BASIS OF EQUITABLE ASSESSMENT
In GCI’s basic model of the political economy of the global commons, there are 3 primary features: -These intersect with each other and the biosphere and correspond withsocial, financial and ecological equity, as follows: -giving rise to three basic variable scales of relationship, as follows: -As we demonstrate in the detailed analysis which comprises the rest of this paper,
this matrix reveals a pattern of inversality between: • high-income/high impact/inefficient individuals (“debitors”)• low-income/low-impact/efficient individuals (“creditors”)

10

REGIME 1 - CARBON USAGE (IMPACT) ASSESSMENT
How its Done and Why
This calculation allocates “globally allowable carbon usage” (ie 40% of each year's actual global usage) to each nation on thebasis of their populations, and compares this allocation with their actual usage to give a "debit" or "credit" figure.
• “Debit” means the amount by which a nation took more than its equitable share of the carbon usage which could besafely allowed to continue in any year globally.
• “Credit” means the amount by which a nation took less than its equitable share of the carbon usage which could besafely allowed to continue in any year globally.
• “Debitors” are the total number of people in the nations which took more than their equitable share of the carbon
usage than could safely be allowed to continue in any year globally.
• “Creditors” are the total number of people in the nations which took less than their equitable share of the carbon
usage than could safely be allowed to continue in any year globally.
• “Efficiency” means the ratio of GDP (in USD or PPP$) to carbon from CO2 from fossil fuel burning.
Across the period 1950 - 1990, we also then calculated and compared: ••••the total number of “creditors” and “debitors” in each year
their respective gross and per capita Incomes in both USD and PPP$ andtheir respective gross and per capita Impacts andtheir respective Efficiency trajectories in both USD and PPP$The curves for these are traced in the composite graphic below. The country’s rankings are identified two pages forward.

IMPACT QUOTAS - Creditors' and Debitors' Relative Incomes, Impacts & Efficiencies, in US$ & PPP$, 1950 - 1990
INCOME - GROSS US$

EFFICIENCY - US$/CO2

INCOME - US$ PER CAPITA

7000

15,00020,0006000

Creditors
5000

USUS$
Dollars

Debitors

15,000

total
10,000Debitors

10,0006,000

global mean

4000

Creditors

US$

Creditors
billions US$

8,000

Debitors

3000

Creditors
4,000

global mean

5,000

Debitorssust average

2000

5,000

2,000
1000

0
0
1951/55 1956/60 1961/65 1966/70 1971/75 1976/80 1981/85 1986/90

0 1951/55 1956/60 1961/65 1966/70 1971/75 1976/80 1981/85 1986/90
1961/65
1966/70
1971/75
1976/80
1981/85
1986/9001951/55 1956/60 1961/65 1966/70 1971/75 1976/80 1981/85 1986/90

IMPACT - CREDITORS & DEBITORSIMPACT - GROSS CO2

IMPACT - CO2 PER CAPITA
3

6

3.00

Creditors

Creditors

3

Debitors
1.00

total

2

tonnes carbon

2.00

4

billions of people

billions tonnes carbon

52Creditors
Debitors1

sust average

Debitors
1
0.00
01951/55 1956/60 1961/65 1966/70 1971/75 1976/80 1981/85 1986/90
1951/55

1961/65

1951/55 1956/60 1961/65 1966/70 1971/75 1976/80 1981/85 1986/90

INCOME - PPP$ PER CAPITA
8,000

15,00020,000Creditors

Creditors
10,000global mean
PPP$

total
10,0006,000

Debitors

Debitors
PPP$

billions PPP$

0

1981/85

EFFICIENCY - PPP$/CO2

INCOME - GROSS PPP$

15,0001971/75

4,000

Debitorssust average

5,000
2,000

5,000

0
1951/55 1956/60 1961/65 1966/70 1971/75 1976/80 1981/85 1986/90

Creditors

01951/55 1956/60 1961/65 1966/70 1971/75 1976/80 1981/85 1986/90

110
1951/55 1956/60 1961/65 1966/70 1971/75 1976/80 1981/85 1986/90

Some of the Results
1. Until the early 1980s, there was a clear majority of creditors over debitors (see centre graphic page 3). However,when per capita emissions in China went above the Sustainable Equitable Global Per Capita Impact Threshold(SEGPCIMT) in 1982, the country switched from being an “Impact Creditor” to being an “Impact Debitor”. This
explains why the relative numbers of debitors and creditors changed in this quota regime.
2. The gross combined Impact (see middle graphic left hand column page 3) of debitors and creditors rose at over
2% per annum across the period split approximately 10:1 between debitors and creditors throughout.
3. The average per capita Impacts (see middle graphic right hand column page 3) of debitors and creditors rose
across the period until 1982, split approximately 10:1 throughout. China crossing SEGPCIMT caused bothaverages to fall thereafter. The average per capita Impact of the creditors was never more than half SEGPCIMT.
4. The gross combined USD Income (see graphic top left hand corner page 3) values of the debitors and the creditorsrose across the period and was split at more than 10:1 throughout.
5. The average per capita USD Income (see graphic top right hand corner page 3) of creditors rose across the period
until the early 1980’s. The average per capita USD Income of creditors remained constant across the period
overall and was never more than half the value of “sustainably derived income” (SDI - explained in regime 2).
The split between creditors and debitors was on average 10:1 throughout.
6. The average USD Efficiency of creditors and debitors, initially favouring creditors, converged over the period,
with the global average rising slightly towards the end of the period. (See centre graphic top row page 3).
7. The gross combined PPP Income values of the debitors and the creditors rose on average across the period andwas split at less than 10:1 throughout. (See graphic bottom left hand corner page 3).
8. The average per capita PPP Income (see graphic bottom right hand corner page 3) of debitors rose across theperiod until the early 1980’s. The influence of China crossing SEGPCIMT caused the average to fall thereafter.
The average per capita PPP Income of creditors rose across the period overall at the value of “sustainably
derived income” (SDI). The differential split between creditors and debitors was roughly 10:1 until the earlyeighties at which time the debitor average fell causing temporary convergence.
9. The average PPP Efficiency (see centre graphic bottom row page 3) of creditors and debitors, was always higher
with the creditors, but converged over the period until the early 1980s. The global average rose slightly
throughout the period with debitors always below this average.
The combined picture shows that the debitors’ high per capita Income goes with high per capita Impact at low Efficiency
values and that the creditors’ low per capita Income goes with low per capita Impact at high Efficiency values. This is thebasis of GCI’s contention that - in the context of “understanding and responding to the unequal use of the global commons” debitors live unsustainably and creditors live sustainably. Debitors do this by over-consuming global climate resources, both at
the expense of and subsidised by, the creditors who do the opposite. In GCI’s view the “credit” in any of these quota regimes
represents a subsidy from the “creditors” to the “debitors”.
Across the period 1950 - 1990 we also calculated and compared the curves traced in the graphic below: • the global total credit/debit curves for CO2-Impact and• the credit/debit curves of the OECD countries and the Rest Of World (ROW).
Had creditors accessed their full equitable share across the period, the debit curve would have been deeper by the amountregistered as credit. It is this credit amount which represents the subsidy from the creditors to the debitors.

OECD & Rest Of World (ROW) COMPARED TO TOTAL CO2 IMPACT CREDIT/DEBIT

1,000
C reditbillions tonnes carbon

0
RO W-1,000-2,000O ECD-3,000D ebit-4,000
1950

1960

1970

12

1980

1990

ChinaIndia
Indonesia
Bangladesh
Pakistan
Viet Nam
Nigeria
Myanmar
Egypt
Philippines
Thailand
Ethiopia
Tanzania
Nepal
Afghanistan
Sudan
Zaire
Kenya
UgandaMozambique
Sri Lanka
BurundiRwandaCambodia
Burkina Faso
Madagascar
Yemen, AR
Mali
MoroccoMalawiAngolaSomalia
Haiti
Chad
Niger
Cameroon
Ghana
GuineaZambiaSenegalBenin
Sierra Leone
Zimbabwe
Lao PDR
Togo
Yemen, PDR

1950 - 1990 GLOBAL GDP (US$)

Bolivia
Central African Rep.
Cote d'Ivoire

ACCUMULATED CO2 CREDITS AND DEBITS OF
50 GREATEST CO2 INCOME CREDITORS &50 GREATEST CO2 INCOME DEBITORS

Papua New Guinea
TurkeyOman
Singapore
Bulgaria
Hungary
Chile
Portugal
Ireland
Korea
Puerto Rico
Algeria
Hong Kong
Iraq
KuwaitIsraelTaiwanNew Zealand
Libya
GreeceCzechoslovakia
United Arab Emirates
South Africa
PolandYugoslavia
Albania
Finland
NorwayIranVenezuela
Denmark
Austria
Argentina
Romania
MexicoSaudi Arabia
BrazilBelgium
Switzerland
SwedenNetherlands
Spain
Australia
CanadaItaly
UK
FranceGermany
Japan
USSR
USA

-40,000-20,000

0

20,00040,00060,000billions of US dollar equivalence from global formal GDP

1380,000100,000

120,000

REGIME 2 - US$ INCOME ASSESSMENT (BASED ON GLOBAL EFFICIENCY).
How its Done and Why
This calculation converts each nation's allowable carbon usage into a “sustainably derived income” (SDI), on the basis of the
global annual average figure for the efficiency of carbon usage (ie units of GDP produced on average per unit of CO2 emitted).
This allocation is then compared with each nation's actual income (GDP) to give a “debit” or “credit” figure.
• Debit in this case means in any year the amount by which a nation exceeded its equitable share of SDI globally.
• Credit in this case means in any year the amount by which a nation fell short of its equitable share of SDI globally.
• “Debitor” means in any year the total number of people in the nations which took more than their equitable share of
SDI globally.
• “Creditor” means in any year the total number of people in the nations which took less than their equitable share of
SDI globally.
Because this calculation is based on the global average efficiency of carbon usage, nations capable of burning carbon at an
average efficiency greater than the global average "lose out" on sustainably derived income under this system. This point isaddressed in the PPP$ efficiency regime which follows.
Across the period 1950 1990, we also then calculated and compared: ••••the total number of “creditors” and “debitors” in each year
their respective gross and per capita Impacts
their respective gross and per capita Incomes in both USD and PPP andtheir respective Efficiency trajectories in both USD and PPP

The curves for these are traced in the composite graphic below. The country’s rankings are identified two pages forward.
USD INCOME QUOTAS - Creditors' and Debitors' Relative Incomes, Impacts & Efficiencies, in US$ & PPP$, 1950 - 1990
INCOME - GROSS US$

EFFICIENCY - US$/CO2

20,000

INCOME - US$ PER CAPITA

15,0009,000
Creditors
Debitors

Creditors
10,000total

Debitors
US$

10,0006,000

global meanUS$billions US$

15,0005,000

Creditors

01951/55 1956/60 1961/65 1966/70 1971/75 1976/80 1981/85 1986/90

0
1951/55 1956/60 1961/65 1966/70 1971/75 1976/80 1981/85 1986/90

Debitors

3,000

5,000

sust average0
1951/55 1956/60 1961/65 1966/70 1971/75 1976/80 1981/85 1986/90

IMPACT - CREDITORS & DEBITORSIMPACT - GROSS CO2

IMPACT - CO2 PER CAPITA
4.00

3

6
3.00

4

Creditors

2.00

Creditors

3

Debitors
1.00

total

2

Debitors1

sust average

0.00

01951/55 1956/60 1961/65 1966/70 1971/75 1976/80 1981/85 1986/90

1961/65

1971/75

1981/8501951/55 1956/60 1961/65 1966/70 1971/75 1976/80 1981/85 1986/90

1951/55

INCOME - GROSS PPP$
20,000

INCOME - PPP$ PER CAPITAEFFICIENCY - PPP$/CO2
9,000

15,000Creditors

Creditors

Debitors

10,000Debitors
10,0006,000

global mean
PPP$

total

PPP$

billions PPP$

Creditors

Debitors

1

15,0002

tonnes carbon

billions tonnes carbon

5

Creditors
Debitors
3,000

5,000

sust average

5,000

0
1951/55 1956/60 1961/65 1966/70 1971/75 1976/80 1981/85 1986/90

0
1951/55 1956/60 1961/65 1966/70 1971/75 1976/80 1981/85 1986/90

140
1951/55 1956/60 1961/65 1966/70 1971/75 1976/80 1981/85 1986/90

Some of the Results
1. There was an increasing majority of USD Income creditors over debitors. reaching 2:1 by 1990.
2. The gross combined CO2 Impact (USD) (see middle graphic in left hand column on page 5) of debitors andcreditors rose at over 2% per annum split approximately 10:1 overall.
3. The average per capita Impacts (see middle graphic in right hand column page 5) of debitors and creditors rosethroughout the period split on average 10:1 throughout. The average per capita Impact of the creditors wasdecreasingly less than SEGPCIMT.
4. The gross combined USD Income (see graphic in top left hand corner page 5) of the debitors and the creditorsrose across the period split at increasingly more than 10:1 throughout.
5. The average per capita USD Income (see graphic top right hand corner page 5) of debitors rose across the entire
period. The average per capita USD Income of creditors remained constant overall at increasingly less than half
the value of “sustainably derived income” (SDI). The maldistribution between creditors’ and debitors’ Income
seriously increased throughout.
6. The average USD Efficiency (see top graphic in middle column page 5) of creditors and debitors, initiallyfavouring creditors, reversed over the period, with debitors following the slightly rising global average towards theend of the period and creditors declining below the global average.
7. The gross combined PPP Income (see graphic in bottom left hand corner page 5) values of the debitors and thecreditors rose on average and the less than 10:1 initial split continued throughout.
8. The average per capita PPP Income (see graphic bottom right hand corner page 5) of debitors rose while theaverage per capita PPP Income of creditors rose only to the threshold value of SDI. The split between creditors’
and debitors’ Income was less than 10:1.
9. The average PPP Efficiency (see bottom graphic in middle column page 5) of creditors was always higher than the
debitors. The global average rose slightly throughout the period with debitors always just below this average.
The combined picture - at least in PPP$ - shows that the debitors’ high per capita Income goes with high per capita Impact at
low Efficiency values and that the creditors’ low per capita Income goes with low per capita Impact at high Efficiency values.
The most striking point about this regime is that by the end of the period, two thirds of global population are creditors sharing
6% of global USD GDP, whilst the other one third are debitors sharing 94% of global USD GDP. It is in this context that
“CO2 emissions trading” and “Joint Implementation” have been proposed in the name of “cost-effectiveness”. However,while the US dollar remains the dominant currency in the enforced “global” market, the adverse systemic influence of thisincreasing maldistribution of global purchasing power and globally unequal consumption patterns would appear to invite
conflict rather than the co-operation required by the suggested trading arrangements. Moreover, it cannot plausibly be argued in
the context of ecological economics that such trade will be “cost-effective”. In cash terms, the magnitude of the exiting debit
outweighs the available credit by a factor of 4:1. A failure to re-establish ecological credit proportional to this overhang, simply
commits the global system to a process of adapting to increasing risks and rising costs. As such, “cost-effective” (as used by the
economists) in reality means not “benefit-effective”; - ie, it is not delivering “global benefit”, it is delivering increased global
cost or disbenefit (violating the requirements of the climate convention).
Across the period 1950 - 1990 we also calculated and compared the curves traced in the graphic below: • the global total credit/debit curves for USD Income and• the credit/debit curves of the OECD countries and the Rest Of World (ROW).
OECD countries, with 19% of global population, were responsible for 99% of the accumulated USD Income debit.

OECD & Rest Of World (ROW) COMPARED WITH TOTAL US$ INCOME CREDIT/DEBIT
4,000
Credit

ROW

0
bill
io
ns
U
S$

-4,000OECD-8,000Debit-12,000-16,000
1950

1960

1970

15

1980

1990

ChinaIndia
Indonesia
Bangladesh
Pakistan
Viet Nam
Nigeria
Myanmar
Egypt
Philippines
Thailand
Ethiopia
Tanzania
Nepal
Afghanistan
Sudan
Zaire
Kenya
UgandaMozambique
Sri Lanka
BurundiRwandaCambodia
Burkina Faso
Madagascar
Yemen, AR
Mali
MoroccoMalawiAngolaSomalia
Haiti
Chad
Niger
Cameroon
Ghana
GuineaZambiaSenegalBenin
Sierra Leone
Zimbabwe
Lao PDR
Togo
Yemen, PDR

1950 - 1990 GLOBAL GDP (US$)

Bolivia
Central African Rep.
Cote d'Ivoire

ACCUMULATED CO2 CREDITS AND DEBITS OF
50 GREATEST CO2 INCOME CREDITORS &50 GREATEST CO2 INCOME DEBITORS

Papua New Guinea
TurkeyOman
Singapore
Bulgaria
Hungary
Chile
Portugal
Ireland
Korea
Puerto Rico
Algeria
Hong Kong
Iraq
KuwaitIsraelTaiwanNew Zealand
Libya
GreeceCzechoslovakia
United Arab Emirates
South Africa
PolandYugoslavia
Albania
Finland
NorwayIranVenezuela
Denmark
Austria
Argentina
Romania
MexicoSaudi Arabia
BrazilBelgium
Switzerland
SwedenNetherlands
Spain
Australia
CanadaItaly
UK
FranceGermany
Japan
USSR
USA

-40,000-20,000

0

20,00040,00060,000billions of US dollar equivalence from global formal GDP

16

80,000100,000

120,000

REGIME 3 - PPP$ INCOME ASSESSMENT (BASED ON NATIONAL EFFICIENCY).
How its Done and Why
This calculation shows income (GDP) data expressed in “Purchasing Power Parity" (PPP) dollars. PPP$ delink national
currencies from their US$ exchange rates, and value them instead for domestic purchasing power. This is more realistic basis
for comparing economies internationally. [It is accepted as such by the IMF and other such institutions].
This calculation converts each nation's allowable carbon usage into a sustainably derived income (SDI), on the basis of thenational (not global) figure for the efficiency of carbon usage (ie units of GDP produced on average per unit of CO2 emitted).
This allocation is then compared with each nation's actual income (GDP) to give a “debit” or “credit” figure.
Because this calculation is based on the national efficiency averages of carbon usage, nations currently burning carbon at an
average efficiency greater or less than the global average are respectively rewarded or penalised. The league table of countries
is different from the league table arising out of the earlier impact and US$:CO2 income allocation regime (compare columns 1,
2 and 3 on pages 9 and 10).
Across the period 1950-1990, we also then calculated and compared: ••••the total number of “creditors” and “debitors” in each year
their respective gross and per capita Impacts
their respective gross and per capita Incomes in both USD and PPP andtheir respective Efficiency trajectories in both USD and PPP

The curves for these are traced in the composite graphic below. The country’s rankings are identified two pages forward.

PPP EFFICIENCY QUOTAS - Creditors' and Debitors' Relative Incomes, Impacts & Efficiencies, in US$ & PPP$, 1950 - 1990
20,000

INCOME - GROSS US$

EFFICIENCY - US$/CO2

INCOME - US$ PER CAPITA

15,0008,000
Creditors
Debitors

Creditors
10,000total

US$

10,0006,000

Debitors
global meanUS$billions US$

15,0004,000

Creditors

5,000

Debitorssust average

2,000

5,000
0
1951/55 1956/60 1961/65 1966/70 1971/75 1976/80 1981/85 1986/90

0
1951/55 1956/60 1961/65 1966/70 1971/75 1976/80 1981/85 1986/90

0
1951/55 1956/60 1961/65 1966/70 1971/75 1976/80 1981/85 1986/90

IMPACT - CREDITORS & DEBITORSIMPACT - GROSS CO2

6IMPACT - CO2 PER CAPITA
3

3

4
3
Creditors
Debitors22

Creditors

tonnes carbon

billions of people

billions tonnes carbon

5

1

Debitors

total

2
Creditors
Debitors1

sust average

10

1951/55

INCOME - GROSS PPP$INCOME - PPP$ PER CAPITAEFFICIENCY - PPP$/CO2
8,000

15,000Creditors

Creditors

Debitors

Debitors

10,0006,000

global mean
PPP$

10,000total
PPP$billions PPP$

0
1951/55 1956/60 1961/65 1966/70 1971/75 1976/80 1981/85 1986/90

1961/65

20,00015,0001981/85
1971/7501951/55 1956/60 1961/65 1966/70 1971/75 1976/80 1981/85 1986/90

4,000

sust average
2,000

5,000

0
1951/55 1956/60 1961/65 1966/70 1971/75 1976/80 1981/85 1986/90

Creditors
Debitors

5,000

0
1951/55 1956/60 1961/65 1966/70 1971/75 1976/80 1981/85 1986/90

170
1951/55 1956/60 1961/65 1966/70 1971/75 1976/80 1981/85 1986/90

Some of the Results
1. As with the Impact, until the early 1980s, there was a 2:1 majority of creditors over debitors (see centre graphic
page 7). However, with reference to the comparative country rankings pages 9 and 10, it will be seen that the orderof countries in the league tables varies considerably between these three allocation regimes.
2. As before, the gross combined Impact (see middle graphic in left hand column page 7) of debitors and creditorsrose at over 2% per annum across the period. The initial differential was approximately 10:1 and this split
increased over the period.
3. The average per capita Impacts (see middle graphic in right hand column page 7) of debitors and creditors rosethroughout the period until about 1980 and was split approximately 10:1 throughout. Thereafter both these
averages fell. At the end of the period the average per capita Impact of the creditors was decreasingly less thanhalf the value of SEGPCIMT.
4. The gross combined USD Income (see graphic in top left hand corner page 7) of the debitors and the creditorsrose across the period and was split at increasingly more than 10:1 throughout.
5. The average per capita USD Income (see graphic in top right hand corner page 7) of debitors rose across theperiod until the early 1980’s. The average per capita USD Income of creditors remained constant at less than half
the value of SDI. The split between creditors’ and debitors’ Income widened overall.
6. The average USD Efficiency (see top graphic in middle column page 7) of creditors and debitors, initiallyfavouring creditors, reversed over the period, with debitors following the slightly rising global average andcreditors recovering slightly towards the end of the period.
7. The gross combined PPP Income (see graphic in bottom left hand corner page 7) of the debitors and the creditorsrose on average for most of the period. But the initial split widened throughout.
8. The average per capita PPP Income (see graphic bottom right hand corner page 7) of debitors rose until the 1980s
at which point it fell as the number of debitors increased. The average per capita PPP Income of creditors rose
across the period at the SDI threshold value. The differential split between creditors’ and debitors’ Income
diverged overall with temporary convergence towards the end.
9. The average PPP Efficiency (see bottom graphic in middle column page 7) of creditors and debitors, was always
higher with the creditors, but converged and then diverged over the period. The global average rose slightly
throughout the period with debitors always slightly below this average.
The combined picture shows that the debitors’ high per capita Income goes with high per capita Impact at low Efficiency
values and that the creditors’ low per capita Income goes with low per capita Impact at high Efficiency values. The point
about this quota regime is that using the domestic purchasing power (PPP$) of the countries is a more realistic way ofmeasuring their relative wealth and their provision of global benefit or disbenefit. Using PPP$ from the outset of thecalculations is a more realistic way of measuring their relative socio-ecological efficiencies (PPP$:CO2) and it is these
efficiencies which should be rewarded.
Across the period 1950 - 1990 we also calculated and compared the curves in the graphic below.: • the global total credit/debit curves for PPP$ Efficiency and• the credit/debit curves of the OECD countries and the Rest Of World (ROW).
OECD countries, representing 19% of global population, were responsible for 1635% % of accumulated USD Income debit.
The ROW provided an accumulated 1735% of accumulated credit.
OECD & Rest Of World (ROW) COMPARED TO TOTAL PPP$ EFFICIENCY CREDIT/DEBIT

9,000
C redit
6,000

RO W

billions PPP$3,000
0-3,000O ECD-6,000-9,000D ebit-12,000-15,000
1950

1960

1970

18

1980

1990

Bangladesh
India
Nepal
China
Indonesia
Ethiopia
RwandaAfghanistan
Pakistan
UgandaBurundiNigeria
Sudan
ThailandLao PDR
Burkina Faso
Sri Lanka
Zaire
Somalia
BrazilPhilippines
Madagascar
Tanzania
Mali
Niger
Mozambique
Chad
Cameroon
Oman
Haiti
United Arab Emirates
Kenya
Equatorial Guinea
Ghana
Benin
MoroccoMalawiSenegalGuatemala
Egypt
Papua New Guinea
AngolaSierra Leone
Paraguay
Cote d'Ivoire
El Salvador
Togo
Peru
GuineaBolivia
Qatar
Yemen, AR
Trinidad and Tobago

1950 - 1990 GLOBAL EFFICIENCY (PPP$)

Cuba
Portugal

ACCUMULATED CO2 CREDITS AND DEBITS OF
50 GREATEST CO2 EFFICIENCY CREDITORS &50 GREATEST CO2 EFFICIENCY DEBITORSSingapore
Malaysia
Libya
Chile
Puerto Rico
Hong Kong
Myanmar
Ireland
KuwaitIraq
IsraelKorea
GreeceNew Zealand
Bulgaria
NorwayIran
Finland
Hungary
Denmark
Yugoslavia
Austria
Romania
Argentina
Czechoslovakia
Switzerland
TaiwanSouth Africa
SwedenBelgium
Venezuela
Saudi Arabia
Netherlands
PolandMexicoSpain
Australia
CanadaItaly
FranceUK
Germany
Japan
USSR
USA

-80,000-60,000-40,000-20,000-

20,00040,00060,000billions of PPP dollar equivalence from global formal GDP

1980,000100,000

120,000

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95

IMPACT
DEBIT/ORS & CREDIT/ORS
CO2 - millions tonnes
USA39,495
USSR
22,672German
8,996
UK
5,700
Japan
5,056
France3,233
Canada3,078
Poland
2,879
Italy
1,866
Czechoslovakia
1,78South Africa
1,459
Australia
1,423
Belgium
1,039
Romania
1,033
Netherlands
979
Spain
787
Mexico768
Bulgaria
592
Sweden558
Hungary
531
Iran
462
Argentina
457
Yugoslavia
450
Denmark
443
Austria
370
Korea
307
Finland296
Switzerland
254
Norway215
Greece200
Kuwait193
United Arab Emirates
190
Ireland15
Singapore
143
Libya
135
New Zealand
129
Israel126
Luxembourg
11
Iraq
11
Netherlands Antilles
11
Cuba
98
Puerto Rico89
Trinidad and Tobago
86
Qatar
77
Chile
72
Malaysia60
US Virgin Islands
48
Portugal
47
Bahrain44
Hong Kong
44
Algeria
36
Brunei
31
Oman
27
Bahama26
Mongolia
21
Gabon
19
Jamaic18
Lebanon
15
Albania14
Syria
14
New Caledonia
13
Iceland13
Turkey13
Cyprus
12
Guam
10
Surinam
9
Uruguay
7
Greenland3
Malta3
Bermuda3
Martinique2
Antigua & Barbuda
2
Panam
2
Barbados1
Western
1
Guyana1
French1
Falkland Islands
1
Nauru
1
Cayman1
Christmas Island
1
French0
Leeward Islands
0
St Pierre and Miquelon
0
Br Virgin Islands
0Western0
Gibraltar
0
Korea, DPR
St
Montserrat
0
Niue
0.1
Seychelle
0.3
Kiribati
0.6
St Kitts Nevis Anguilla
0.6
Belize0.6

USD INCOME
DEBIT/ORS & CREDIT/ORS
Income - billions
USA
102,440
USSR
37,978Japan
29,468German19,002
France16,296
UK
13,75
Italy
11,26
Canada9,179
Australia
4,543
Spain
4,156
Netherlands
3,806
Sweden3,357
Switzerland
2,796
Belgium
2,703
Brazil
2,504
Saudi Arabia
2,463
Mexico2,176
Romania
1,974
Argentina
1,892
Austria
1,81
Denmark
1,756
Venezuela
1,740
Iran
1,642
Norway1,51Finland
1,436
Albania
1,323
Yugoslavia
1,11Poland1,096South Africa
1,045
United Arab Emirates
819
Czechoslovakia
794
Greece
786
Libya
719
New Zealand
697
Taiwan688
Israel635
Kuwait600
Iraq
542
Hong Kong
538
Algeria
499
Puerto Rico
490
Korea
473
Ireland427
Portugal
371
Chile
361
Hungary285
Bulgaria
277
Singapore
271
Oman
268
Turkey240
Malaysia
207
Qatar
186
Uruguay
11
Colombia
11
Luxembourg
11
Bahrain10
Trinidad and Tobago
100
Lebanon90
Iceland
84
Peru
83
Cuba
80
Gabon
64
Brunei
61
Syria
51
Panam
48
Cyprus46
Bahama46
Martinique41
Costa Rica
39
Netherlands Antilles
39
Jamaic38
Reunion37
New Caledonia
35
Guadeloupe
33
Mongolia
29
Barbados18
Bermuda18
Malta
17
Surinam
14
Fiji
7
Mauritius
5
Western5
Gibraltar
5
Western
4
Tunisia3
Dominica
2
Antigua & Barbuda
2
Seychelle
1
Belize1
St Lucia
1
Christmas Island
0
Korea, DPR
0
Leeward Islands
0St0
St Vincent & Gr.
020

PPP EFFICIENCYDEBIT/ORS & CREDIT/ORS
Efficiency - billions
USA
102,272
USSR
30,178
Japan
24,385German
19,51
UK
16,497
France
15,02
Italy
11,10
Canada8,941
Australia
4,921
Spain
4,740
Mexico4,305
Poland4,028
Netherlands
3,885
Saudi Arabia
3,289
Venezuela
3,114
Belgium
2,874
Sweden2,681South Africa
2,255
Taiwan2,209
Switzerland
2,194
Czechoslovakia
2,130
Argentina
2,072
Romania
2,029
Austria
1,779
Yugoslavia
1,734
Denmark
1,593
Hungary
1,259
Finland
1,241
Iran
1,234
Norway1,12Bulgaria
892
New Zealand
798
Greece
784
Korea
758
Israel550
Iraq
536
Kuwait512
Ireland504
Myanmar470
Hong Kong
414
Puerto Rico
406
Chile
404
Libya
352
Malaysia
322
Singapore
320
Portugal
303
Cuba
277
Trinidad and Tobago
237
Yemen, AR
209
Qatar
166
Luxembourg
137
Bahrain11
Lebanon77
Brunei61
Iceland
57
Cyprus52
Central African Rep.
52
Bahama49
Uruguay48
Guadeloupe
46
Netherlands Antilles
41
Jamaic36
New Caledonia
30
Gabon
30
Surinam22
US Virgin Islands
19
Bermuda16
Mongolia
16
Malta
15
St
9
Martinique
9
St Vincent & Gr.
7
Barbados
6
French5Western4
French4
Antigua & Barbuda
3
Gibraltar
1
Seychelle
1
Guyana0
Panam
0Albania
Br Virgin Islands
Cambodia
CaymanChristmas Island
Cook Islands
Falkland Islands
Faroe Islands
Greenland
Guam
Korea, DPR
Leeward Islands
Macau
Montserrat
-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95

96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189

Faroe Islands
Dominica
Sao Tome & Principe
GrenadaSt Lucia
Tonga
Vanuatu
St Vincent & Gr.
Maldives
Solomon Islands
Macau
Djibouti
ReunionCook Islands
Cape Verde
JordanEquatorial Guinea
Fiji
Swaziland
Zimbabwe
Comoros
Guadeloupe
Botswana
Gambia
Mauritius
Guinea Bissau
Colombia
Congo
Costa Rica
Mauritania
BhutanLiberia
Nicaragua
EcuadorTunisia
Central African Rep.
Yemen, PDR
Dominican Republic
Togo
Paraguay
Honduras
Papua New Guinea
ZambiaSierra Leone
El Salvador
Benin
Lao PDR
Bolivia
SenegalChad
GuineaPeru
Guatemala
Haiti
Niger
Cote d'Ivoire
AngolaSomalia
MalawiMali
Cameroon
Burkina Faso
Cambodia
Yemen, AR
Madagascar
RwandaBurundiGhana
Mozambique
Saudi Arabia
MoroccoSri Lanka
Kenya
UgandaVenezuela
Nepal
Egypt
Afghanistan
TaiwanSudan
Tanzania
Ethiopia
Zaire
ThailandPhilippines
BrazilMyanmarViet Nam
Nigeria
Pakistan
BangladeshIndonesia
China
India

-

0.6
0.9
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
6
7
8
9
12
12
12
15
16
19
20
25
25
28
28
30
30
31
33
35
38
38
42
43
44
46
58
59
61
61
63
64
65
68
69
71
72
86
89
99
99
102
109
113
120
122
126
129
152
166
169
176
182
192
197
204
214
221
222
251
301
331
377
384
457
530
639
826
1,117
1,352
2,331
6,161

Niue
St Pierre and Miquelon
Nauru
GrenadaBr Virgin Islands
Montserrat
St Kitts Nevis Anguilla
Kiribati
Falkland Islands
Cayman Islands
Djibouti
Vanuatu
Faroe Islands
Greenland
Tonga
Sao Tome & Principe
Swaziland
French Guiana
Solomon Islands
Nicaragua
US Virgin Islands
Guam
Maldives
French Polynesia
Congo
Cape Verde
GuyanaJordanEquatorial Guinea
Paraguay
Comoros
Cook Islands
Dominican Republic
Botswana
GuatemalaEcuadorMacau
GambiaGuinea Bissau
Mauritania
El Salvador
Liberia
BhutanHonduras
Papua New Guinea
Cote d'Ivoire
Central African Rep.
Bolivia
Yemen, PDR
Togo
Lao PDR
Zimbabwe
Sierra Leone
Benin
SenegalZambiaGuineaGhana
Cameroon
Niger
Chad
Haiti
Somalia
AngolaMalawi
MoroccoMali
Yemen, AR
Madagascar
Burkina Faso
Cambodia
RwandaBurundiSri Lanka
Mozambique
Uganda
Kenya
Zaire
Sudan
Afghanistan
Nepal
Tanzania
Ethiopia
ThailandPhilippines
Egypt
MyanmarNigeria
Viet Nam
Pakistan
BangladeshIndonesia
India
China

21

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-3
-4
-4
-4
-5
-5
-6
-6
-6
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
-10
-12
-14
-15
-15
-18
-30
-31
-35
-39
-41
-46
-47
-50
-54
-55
-57
-67
-76
-78
-81
-81
-86
-101
-103
-107
-107
-126
-128
-148
-149
-167
-172
-189
-189
-196
-207
-258
-269
-288
-296
-300
-362
-371
-391
-394
-424
-425
-489
-512
-593
-642
-716
-922
-1,048-1,829-2,036-2,513-3,337-17,030-25,044

Nauru
Niue
St Pierre and Miquelon
Viet Nam
Western Sahara
Yemen, PDR
Sao Tome & Principe
St Kitts Nevis Anguilla
Kiribati
BelizeSt Lucia
Maldives
GrenadaTonga
Vanuatu
Zimbabwe
Dominica
Solomon Islands
Djibouti
Botswana
ReunionSwaziland
Cape Verde
Fiji
Comoros
Colombia
JordanGambiaGuinea Bissau
Algeria
Syria
Costa Rica
Congo
Mauritius
TurkeyTunisia
ZambiaNicaragua
Liberia
Dominican Republic
BhutanHonduras
Ecuador
Mauritania
Bolivia
GuineaPeru
Togo
El Salvador
Cote d'Ivoire
Paraguay
Sierra Leone
AngolaPapua New Guinea
Egypt
GuatemalaSenegalMalawi
MoroccoBenin
Ghana
Equatorial Guinea
Kenya
United Arab Emirates
Haiti
Oman
Cameroon
Chad
Mozambique
Niger
Mali
Tanzania
Madagascar
Philippines
BrazilSomalia
Zaire
Sri Lanka
Burkina Faso
Lao PDR
Thailand
Sudan
Nigeria
BurundiUgandaPakistan
Afghanistan
RwandaEthiopiaIndonesia
China
Nepal
India
Bangladesh

-

2
3
5
7
8
8
8
9
11
16
22
25
29
40
41
44
54
57
74
76
76
99
119
130
139
174
179
183
185
213
227
233
239
302
330
361
382
417
509
514
515
544
652
732
769
858
880
988
1,025
1,076
1,171
1,416
1,460
1,554
1,616
1,822
1,870
2,166
2,202
2,288
2,396
2,580
3,002
3,109
3,392
3,459
3,810
3,823
3,902
3,940
4,044
4,123
4,213
5,100
5,146
5,554
6,967
7,827
7,845
8,508
9,321
9,348
9,579
12,016
12,782
27,95840,635
63,145

96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189

CONCLUSION - Spotted Owls and Fighting the Economics of Genocide
These allocation exercises show the scale of worsening maldistribution of resources globally since
the war. The trend was increasingly inequitable and unsustainable. OECD countries - although they do not
yet admit to it officially - are now on the defensive about this state of affairs. Their principal tactic has
been to blame developing countries for future impacts, rather than accept responsibility for the past andpresent impacts of the industrial countries. No-one is advocating hair-shirt politics. However, it isunrealistic for the industrial countries to promote the future as an extension of the present unless thisincludes a willingness to become accountable over the massive structural advantage which they havedeveloped globally whilst running up this global environmental debt on everyone’s account.
Overall, this is not a complicated debate. The resources in question are global common property
and vital to survival. The well-being of all people now and into the future depend on the integrity of theseresources being maintained. There is a simple choice to be made; - either we accept that everyone has anequal right to be here and to share the benefits of these resources or we reject that everyone has equal
rights in this. This is choosing for equity and survival or for increasing inequity and loss of sustainability.
It is that simple.
As a matter of principle and of prudence, GCI accepts and affirms that everyone has an equal rightto be here. We base our modelling and analysis on that acceptance, and present our analysis as anaffirmation of that right. We note that rights to income should be accompanied by responsibilities for its
impacts, which effectively rewards efficiencies. Contrarily, the Global Cost/Benefit Analysts (now in the
IPCC Working Group Three (WG3)) do no affirm the equal right to be here. They appear not even to
accept it either. Certainly - at least by default - they are rejecting this right, as the analysis presented bythem so far, suggests that rights increase proportional to income. Advised by these very people, the WorldBank has openly promoted the idea that the right to emit carbon dioxide should be proportional to income
for example.2 The policy measures for the mitigation of emissions proposed by many of these economists
preparing material for WG33 are based on this formula of “rights-by-income”. Mitigating emissions ispresented by these analysts as a cost, and the “damages-avoided” by mitigating emissions are presented bythem as the benefit.
As intended, all this sounds professional and innocent. But it is conceptually skewed, factuallyinaccurate and politically devious. In reality it is a velvet glove for the iron fisted insistence on businessas-usual. At worst it is the economics of genocide. Faced with this fist, we should recognise how its grip
is exerted; - the exercise fundamentally depends on the analysts converting all the costs and all thebenefits associated with climate changes to cash values. One immediate example of this is the need togive cash values to the human lives which are going to be lost (a “damage cost”). In their analysis, if theoverall damage costs are calculated as high (and higher than the cost of mitigating emissions), this makes
the costs of mitigation bearable, and wins the case for mitigating the emissions. If, on the other hand, thedamage costs are low (and below the costs of mitigating emissions), the case has been made for businessas-usual, and the damage costs (including the loss of life) become bearable. Clearly the damage cost (cashvaluation) that is put on a human life in this context is crucial.
The key question which now also arises is this: - are all human lives equally valuable or not?
Moreover, should economists employed by the nations responsible for causing the problems of climatechange, have the job of valuing the lives which are going to be lost? And even more to the point, should
they value the lives of the people who are not responsible for creating the climate changes, as lessvaluable than the lives of those responsible? Surely we all have a fundamentally equal right to be here:
surely each person is equally valuable in this fundamental way? So far the global cost/benefit analysts say
no, this is not the case.
2
3World Development Report 1992, page 165
measures such as carbon taxes, tradable-emissions-permits and joint-implementation

22

Take for example the (UK-government-funded) Centre for the Social and Economic Research of
the Global Environment (C-SERGE) based in the UK. David Pearce is one of its directors and he is also
the IPCC’s convening lead author on “Social Costs”. C-SERGE has already published a valuation of the
lives to be lost. In a recent research paper it stated that the cash value of a “statistical life” in the EC or the
USA is $1,500,000 per head, but in “poor” countries such as China, it is only $150,000.4 [The disparate
figures are derived from peoples’ ability-to-pay for damage insurance]. In global cost/benefit analysis, thismeans therefore these economists discard a real Chinese life ten times more easily than a real life in the
EC or the USA. This an example of how you keep the damage costs below the emissions mitigation costs.
You just quietly devalue the lives of the people who aren’t in the EC and the USA and hope nobody
questions “business-as-usual” with genocide written into the bottom-line. This approach is now formallyembedded in the text of IPCC’s Second Assessment Report (SAR) in the section prepared by the Western
economists dominant in Working Group Three (WG3) on "Economic and other Cross-Cutting Issues".
This approach is one of the great scandals of our times. It has now been dubbed “the Economics of
Genocide” in some of the world’s major media and an international protest campaign over this has been
growing since it was launched by GCI in June 1994. (See overleaf)
The Godfather of these economists, William Nordhaus, has stated that “the economic perspectivein global cost/benefit analysis attempts to condense the complex set of impacts over, space, time andsectors by summarising them in a scalar measure of value . . . the fact that the scalar is in monetary units
is not really crucial: it could be in spotted-owl equivalents.” 5 For GCI this is evidence of confusion in
the reasoning of these economists at this fundamental level. On the one hand they say that monetary units
are not crucial [spotted-owl equivalents will do just as well as money] and on the other hand they say thatmonetary units are crucial [peoples varied ability-to-pay - in money - determines their rights and theirrelative worth].
The question that haunts their confusion is this: why if one spotted owl equals one spotted owl,
doesn’t one human equal one human? In the twisted logic of global cost/benefit analysis, it turns out thatpeople do not have an equal right to survive even though spotted owls do. This is another way of sayingthat people do not have an equal right to be here in the first place; your rights are proportional to yourincome. In terms of achieving sustainable development globally, this is nonsense. For practical as well as
ethical purposes, each human being is - and must be recognised as - the fundamentally equal unit formeasuring sustainability and this is the irreducible level of decision-taking.
At sub-global levels of ‘economic’ debate, this kind of wrangle is of a familiar vintage. It is thesubstance of the traditional left/right arguments where those without the money make “equity-for-equity’ssake” (principle) arguments, whilst those with the money make “efficiency-for efficiency’s sake”(practicality) arguments. Whatever the rights and wrongs of this approach, equity and efficiency are seen
as being traded off against each other between the left and the right. Much of the history of our political
economy is a story about this false dichotomy.
At a global level this kind of economic discrimination is simply suicidal. It is discriminatory on agreater scale than before. But it is also dangerous and different in a manner which is without precedent.
First there is nowhere else to go. There isn’t a global carpet under which the waste, the pollution and the“poor” can be swept and then ignored. The causes and the influence of these things in the system needs tofundamentally inform the analysis under-taken. This is true because large numbers of people are not goingto accept being made the discards of a sub-system which values itself 10:1 over everyone else, let alone a
system which hasn’t demonstrated sustainable consumption patterns since industrialisation began.
The "Conference of the Parties to the Climate Convention" cannot succeed in its task if theseissues are not faced head on. The ‘Economics of Genocide’ must be rejected now and for always.

4“Global Warming Damage Costs: Some Monetary Estimates” by Samuel Fankhauser (with input from Pearce and Nordhaus). Working
Paper GEC 92-29 from C-SERGE, the UK’s Centre for the Social and Economic Research of the Global Environment.
5Prof William D Nordhaus in a letter to GCI dated 28 2 94.

23

The Results of Changing Two Bases of Valuationin the Global Cost/Benefit Analysis (G-CBA)
done by IPCC Working Group Three (WG3)
GCI was contacted by the Chair of WG3 during the final lead authors meeting in Paris (22-24/3/95) to say that the
PPP point raised here had been won as a result of this paper being submitted and would be assimilated (whateverthat means. However, the equal versus unequal life evaluation controversy remained unresolved within the group.
***********************The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is due to publish its Second Assessment Report (SAR) later
this year. IPCC Working Group Three (WG3) now deals with "Economic and other Cross-Cutting Issues". Its contribution to
the Report is intended to assist policy formulation at the "Conference of the Parties" (COP) in Berlin 27/3/95 - 8/3/95.
The approach adopted by the economists in this Group has been conceived in terms of a Global Cost/Benefit Analysis(G-CBA). Using this approach, the Group estimates that annual global damage costs will be 1.5% - 2.5% of Gross World
Product (GWP), if atmospheric CO2 concentrations go to twice pre-industrial levels.
The Group also estimates that the distribution of these damages between the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) and the Rest of World (ROW) will be OECD 65% and ROW 35%.

IPCC GLOBAL DAMAGES FOR 2xCO2
800
700

billions $

600
500
400
300
200
100
0
OECD

ROW

WORLD

ORIGINAL IPCC DAMAGES (billions$)

Two separate but related features of this G-CBA invite re-appraisal. These are: 1. IPCC’s failure to use Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) for comparative assessments of overall damage costs(excluding loss of human life ie mortality costs) and
2. IPCC’s unequally valued mortality costs associated with global climate change.

24

1. Purchasing Power Parity (PPP)At present, the total global damage assessment is as an aggregate of all individual country damage assessments
converted to US$ at market exchange rates.
This is misleading and would only make sense if the OECD countries intend to pay for all damages, a liability notaccepted by them. So in developing countries, the monetary significance of their damage costs to them (and proportionately in
the global account for the purposes of international comparative assessment) is substantially under-represented because theamounts in question are devalued through the currency exchange rate system. The burden on the damage to non-OECD
countries would be more realistically represented if the figures were revalued at PPP equivalence.
If the IPCC calculation is redone using PPP to evaluate all the damages (except the human deaths - see comments
later), the distribution of the damage is shown to fall much more harshly on the ROW and the total amount of damage
increased.
IPCC Total Damage Costs (but excl human deaths)
GDP (billions$)

PPP (billions$)

OECD

192

159

ROW

107

203

WORLD

299

362

% of total damage excl deaths% of total damage excl deaths

OECD

64

44

ROW

36

56

WORLD

100

100

• OECD damages fall from 64% to 44% of the total• ROW damages rise from 36% to 56% of the total• global annual damages rise above the original figure by $63 billion or 22%
IPCC Total Damage Costs (Excluding Human Deaths)
Comparing Assessments in GDP and PPP
800
GDP (billions$)
PPP (billions$)
600

400

200

0
OECD

ROW

25

WORLD

2. Unequally Valued Mortality Costs
IPCC recognises many people will die each year as a result of global climate changes. Most of these deaths will be indeveloping countries. Economists have to put a cash figure on these deaths in order to perform the G-CBA. They value people's
lives around the world differently because of the disparate income levels of those directly affected. Consequently the lives ofpeople in the poor countries are valued at one tenth the value of people in the wealthy countries. Deaths in the USA and the EU
are costed at $1.5 million per head. In the poorer countries they are put at $150,000 per head.
This approach is controversial and may compromise the IPCC in general. So far, the poorer countries have no
responsibility for causing global climate change. In fact many authorities argue that low-energy consuming countries areproviding an environmental subsidy to energy-intensive ones. Yet it is in these low-energy consuming countries that the
majority of deaths will occur.
If WG3’s figures are recalculated using the US value of $1.5 million for all deaths, the results are show below.
IPCC Total Damage Costs

Total Damage Costs (incl equal death evaluation)

GDP (billions$)

GDP (billions$)

OECD

249

249

ROW

132

407

WORLD

381

656

% of total damage excl deaths% of total damage incl equal deaths

OECD

65

38

ROW

35

62

WORLD

100

100

• OECD damages fall from 65% to 38% of the total• ROW damages rise from 35% to 62% of the total• global annual damages rise above the original figure by $275 billion or 72%

IPCC Total Damage Costs in GDP Compared with
Total Damages (including equal deaths) in GDP
800
IPCC Unequal Death Evaluation - GDP (billions$)
GCI Equal Death Evaluation - GDP (billions$)

billions

600

400

200

0
OECD

ROW

WORLD

So contentious is the question of unequal life-evaluation that a sign-on protest against it started last June. Many
professional people North and South including some IPCC lead authors became co-signatories. This protest has alreadyattracted considerable international media interest.

26

3. Combining PPP and Equal Lives and Comparing the Results with IPCC
If changes for both equal life evaluation and PPP are made together, the overall level of damage costs of global
warming rise substantially and the distribution of these are shown to fall very much more heavily on the Rest of World (ROW)
than in the original IPCC estimate.

IPCC Total Damage Costs

PPP Damages costs (including equal deaths)

GDP (billions$)

PPP (billions$)

OECD

249

217

ROW

132

503

WORLD

381

720

% of total damage excl deaths% of total damage incl equal deaths

OECD

65

30

ROW

35

70

WORLD

100

100

• OECD damages fall from 65% to 30% of the total• ROW damages rise from 35% to 70% of the total• global annual damages rise above the original figure by $339 billion or 89%
IPCC’s total damages of 2% of GWP rise to 3.2% when these revaluations are performed.

IPCC Total Damage Costs
Compared to Revaluation for Equal Deaths and PPP
800
IPCC Total Damage Costs GDP (billions$)
PPP Damages costs (including equal deaths) PPP (billions$)
600

400

200

0
OECD

ROW

WORLD

It is entirely probable that policy-makers from developing countries will refuse the existing results of IPCC's
Global Cost/Benefit Analysis (G-CBA). The margin of error is too great. Any policy measures conceived under the original
formulation are bound to treated with suspicion and even hostility, and the IPCC’s credibility could be impaired.

Global Commons Institute (GCI) 42 Windsor Road, London NW2 5DS,
Ph +44 (0)81 451 0778, Fx (0)81 830 2366, e-mail: saveforests@gn.apc.org

27

UPDATE SIGNATORY LIST ON PROTEST LETTER AGAINST UNEQUAL LIFE EVALUATION BY CLIMATECHANGE ECONOMISTS IN INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC)
Below is a sign-on letter which GCI has been circulating. Since June, many people and organisations around theworld have co-signed this in protest against the actions of some economists now working in the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change or IPCC's Working Group Three (WG3) on "Economic and other Cross-Cutting Issues".
These (mostly OECD) economists have now established the following ideas in the drafts of the IPCC's Second
Assessment Report (SAR): (a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

There will a huge number of deaths as a result of human-induced global climate changes.
These need to be given a cash value (a "damage cost").
The cash value of people's lives around the world is different.
This is because of their differing abilities to pay for damage insurance.

Consequently, the lives of people in poor countries should be substantially discounted in the Global Cost/Benefit Analysis (GCBA) being conducted by IPCC.
The poorer countries have least - or indeed no - responsibility for causing the problems of climate change. They also cover theregions of the globe where most of the associated deaths will occur. They are also the countries now most blamed for "future
impacts".
We do not feel that this aspect of the IPCC's analysis is ethically justifiable or politically prudent. We therefore ask you and all
your colleagues please to consider becoming co-signatories to the attached letter. Signature collection will also continue until
the 1st "Conference of the Parties" (COP) ie the UN Climate Change negotiations in Berlin next March.

"DEFEND THE VALUE OF LIFE"
Please co-sign THIS letter to the Conference of the Parties & the IPCC
"Protecting the world environment requires that development be sustainable.
"Some time ago main-stream economists explicitly set out to capture the sustainable development agenda
for the economics profession.
"In this pursuit and with much public money, they invented the technique they call "global cost/benefit
analysis" (G-CBA). Global warming and the cost and benefits of climate change are now assessed bythem in these monetary terms. And this assessment is being aggressively pushed by the economists in the
UN's Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
"Part of this exercise, they assert, entails giving cash values to human lives. They accept there are going
to be hundreds of thousands of deaths worldwide as a result of global climate changes.
"A recent research paper from the UK-Government-funded C-SERGE, the UK's "Centre for the Socialand Economic Research of the Global Environment", (C-SERGE Director David Pearce is also theconvening lead author in IPCC on "Social Costs" and has now formally lodged this approach in the
IPCC text - and it has survived the peer review) states that the cash value of a "statistical life" in the EC
or the USA is $1,500,000 per head, but in ("poorer countries" such as) China it is only $150,000. In GCBA, this means that, as an economist, you help capture the sustainable development agenda for yourprofession by discarding a real Chinese life ten times more easily than a real life in the EC or the USA.
"Ironically, these lives are now at risk as a result of damage to the global environment for which citizens
in the EC and the USA have been and are at least ten times more responsible per head than citizens in
China. There is, of course, a foreign policy cost associated with this since the population of the EC andthe USA is outnumbered 10-1 by everyone else.
"The need to value human rights as equal, is prudent as well as perennial."
28

Aubrey Meyer
Global Commons Institute (GCI)

Sheelagh O'Reilly
Bangor University, Centre for Arid Zone Studies
Research Fellow

Tony Cooper
Global Commons Institute (GCI)

Dr. David T. Smernoff
Bay Area Action California

Richard Douthwaite
Global Commons Institute (GCI)Louise Say
Bradford University Peace Studies

Tim Rickman
Global Commons Institute (GCI)

M C Mapako
Biomass User's Network Technical Director

Joy Pagano
Global Commons Institute (GCI)

Marielle Savard,
British Columbia University, Canada

Dan Davenport
Global Commons Institute (GCI)

Malachi O Orondo
CCDU Kenya Director

Dave Bradney
Global Commons Institute (GCI)

Professor Graciela Chichilnisky
Director, Project on Information and Resources Columbia
University

Nigel Dower
Aberdeen University Dept Philos Politics & Int.
Relations

Helle Rasmussen
Copenhagen Business School

Antoine Sendama
Africa Water Network

Leif Bloch Rasmussen,
Copenhagen Business School

Sadachari Singh Tomar
Agri Energy and Power Institute Bhopal India

Neelam Sethi
Cornell University

Bruce McFarling
MA Economics (University of Tennessee)

Dora Ann Lange Canhos
Base de Dados Tropical Fundacao "Andre' Tosello"
BrazilMustafa Pultar
Prof. Faculty of Art, Design, Architecture,
Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkiye

Milind Kandlikar
Carnegie Mellon Uni, Dept of Engineering & Public Policy

Arthur R Barrit
Associated Labour Unions, Philippines

D Taylor
Centre for Low Input Agriculture, South Africa, Director

Peter Kiwummulo
Association of Socio Economic Progress Uganda

Koshy Cherail
Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi, India

Nirmada Das
ASTRA Indian Institute of Science

Dr Paul Redfern
Centre for the Study of Global Governance LSE UK

N Ganguli
ASTRA Indian Institute of Science

Cynog Dafis
Ceredigion & Pembroke North MP

S Lokras
ASTRA Indian Institute of Science

Caree Simmons,Drury College

U Shrinivasa
ASTRA Indian Institute of Science, Chairman

John Hontelez
Chairman Friends of the Earth International

Victor Anderson
Author Alternative Economic Indicators

Paul Spray
Christian Aid UK

Brian Grant
National Party of Canada, Pacific Region

Stan Jones,
University of Oregon, USA

Tom Athanasiou
29Dennis Berg,
Environmental Studies, CSU, Fullerton

Stephen Law
Environmental Monitoring Group, South Africa

Christine Harold

MK Sharma
Educational Media Research Centre, India

Tova Perlmutter
K R Baskar
EMRC - MK University Madurai S India

John Mead
Christian Ecology Link

S Rayamarihandan
EMRC - MK University Madurai S India

Grace Akumu
Climate Network Africa (Kenya)

S Manukandan
EMRC - MK University Madurai S India

MK Pillai
Coir Board India

N Murthipandi
EMRC - MK University Madurai S India

Art Farley
Computer and Information Science Uni Oregon USA

M Ramkeerthi
EMRC - MK University Madurai S India

Per Flensburg
Copenhagen Business School

John Gowdy,
Professor of Economics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst Troy,
New York

Helle Rasmussen
Copenhagen Business School

S V Bajay
Energy Planning Co-Ordinator University of Campinas
BrazilBirgitte Bush
Copenhagen Business School
Leif Bloch Rasmussen,
Copenhagen Business School

Youba Sokona
Environment and Development in the Third World,
IPCC WG3 Lead Author, Mali

Chris Cuomo
Cornell University Science and Technology Studies

Chris Chetsanga
Environment and Remote Sensing Institute, Zimbabwe

Ulrich Loenig
Edinburgh University Centre for Human Ecology - Dir.

Rob Sinclair
Environment Liaison Centre International

Miles Litvinoff
Earthscan Action Handbook Author

Heinz Greijn
Environment Liaison Centre International

Shelley Braithwaite
Earth Action Resource Centre

Jim Berreen
Environment Speaker Green Party UK

Jonathon Bevan
Earth Repair Charter

W Fred van Raaij
Erasmus University Rotterdam

Dan Hinckley
Earthweb Project USA

Martin Hogan
Essex University

Dr John Whitelegg
Ecologica Ltd Lancaster UK

Musiliu O Ashiru
Forestry Research Institute Nigeria

Nicholas Hildyard
Ecologist Magazine

AB Oguntala
Forestry Research Institute Nigeria

Wagaki Mwangi
EcoNews AfricaCharles Secrett
Friends of the Earth UK Director

Adrian Berwert
Environmental Economist Zurich

John Whiting
Global Commons Trust UK

Eugene P. Coyle
Energy Analyst San Francisco, California
30

John Gordon
Global Environmental Research Centre

Nel van Djik
Member European Parliament, Groen Links, Netherlands

Iris Marion Young,
Professor Graduate School of Public & International
Affairs University of Pittsburgh

Stan Newens
Member European Parliament, London Central
Peter Crampton
Member European Parliament, Humberside, UK

Titus Alexander
Stop Global Apartheid
Mike Feinstein
Green Party California

Veronica Hardstaff
Member European Parliament, Lincolnshire & Humberside
South, UK

Patrick Samphire
Green Party Colchester

J Poehlmann
Green Party Germany

Alan Francis
Green Party Euro-candidate Beds and Milton Keynes

Jan Bojer Vindheim
Green Party Norway

John Morrisey
Green Party Executive UK

Peter DoranGreen Party of Northern Ireland Region

Penny Kemp
Green Party Executive UK

Frank de Jong
Green Party of Ontario, leader

Susan Miles
Green Party Executive UK

Mike Woodin
Green Party Oxford City Council

Penny Shepherd
Green Party Executive UK

Mike Woodin
Green Party Oxford City Council

John Morris
Green Party Executive UK

Claes RoxberghGreen Party Sweden

Miriam Kennett
Green Party Executive UK

Gosta Lynga
Green Party Australia

Alex Begg
Green Party Executive UK

Ian McKenzie
Green Party Australia

Ron Bailey
Green Party Executive UK

Leeza Dobbie
Green Party Australia

Darren Johnson
Green Party Executive UK

Brendan Fuller
Green Party Australia

Jan Clark
Green Party Executive UK

Karen Alexander
Green Party Australia

David Taylor
Green Party Executive UK

Piers Allbrook
Green Party Australia

Kit Brown
Midlothian Green Party

Fran Thompson
Green Party Australia

Ian Morrice
Midlothian Green Party Treasurer Scottish Green Party

Susie Chapman
Green Party Australia

Patricia McKenna
Member European Parliament, Comhaontas Glas Eire

Deb Foskey
Green Party Australia

Richard Howitt
Member European Parliament Labour Essex South

Malcolm Lewis
Green Party Australia
31

Loise Crossley
Green Party Australia

B R Jagan
Karnataka Power Corporation, India

Dr Richard Lawson
Health Speaker Green Party UK

Peter Newell
Keele University, Dept of international Relations

Oleg Cazanov
Independent Ecology-Political Movement Russian Fed

Atiti Okwambitsa
KENGO Protection Offi cer

Moha Rafi
India

Gilbert Arum
Kenya Energy & Environment Organisations

P J PaulIndian Institute of Science

Dominic Walubengo
Kenya Energy & Environment Organizations

R Prakas
Indian Institute of Science

M S Ramaprashad
KIEST India

K S Jagaduh
Indian Institute of Science

Sarah Hemstock
King's College London

V Guyathu
Indian Institute of Science

Frank de Jong
Leader Green Party of Ontairo

M Girish
Indian Institute of Science

Melanie Jarman
Llyods and Midland Boycott Campaign

K J Dinesh
Indian Institute of Science

Suchit Nanda
Live Wire BBS Bombay India

Mahesh Natarajan
Indian Institute of Science

Mark Norman
Macclesfield Green Party

Donald Winslow
Indiana University Department of Biology

R S Rajan
MadrasPhil Ferraro
Institute for Bioregional Studies

Piers Stephens
Manchester University Philosophy Department

Thomas Pattern
Institute of Education London University

Mark Thorp
Manchester University Academic Affairs Officer

Thomas Schulze
Institute for Energy Economics & the Rational Use ofEnergy University Stuttgart

Harry Lesser
Manchester University Snr Lecturer Philosophy
Department

Dennis Palmini,
Professor of Economics Uni Wisconsin-Stevens Point

Douglas McArthur
Manchester University Snr Lecturer French Department

Axel Dorscht
Institute for Social Research, Ottawa, CanadaPeter Dorman
James Madison College, Michigan State University

Daphne Wysham
Institute for Policy Studies Washington

Blair Sandler,
Lorax Political Ecology Study Group California USA

V BaluInternational Energy Initiative Director Bangalore

Dr. Laura Punnett,
Dept. of Work Environment, Univ. Mass. Lowell, USA

M Ramachandran
IREDA New Delhi India, Manager

Oduor Ong'wen
Multilateral Development Bank

Andrew Samuels
Jungian Analyst

Manuel Cervantes
National University of Nicargua Managua
32

Simon Zadek
New Economics Foundation UK

R Marston
Sterling University Dept of Environmental Science Dr

Martin Saning'oOlkonerei Pastoralist Survival Project Tanzania

Gerald Leach
Stockholm Environment InstituteMike Smith
Oxford University Philosophy Dept

Toby Champion
Sussex University

Sharad Lele
Pacific Institute Berkeley USA, Doctor

Martin Khor
Director Third World Network

Julio K Prime
PanamaBuhler Reea
Umwelt und Energie, Dorfli

Dr Julian E Salt
Peace Studies Dept University of Bradford

Arnaldo Walter
University of Campinas Brazil

S K Arthikeyan
PMT PVT Ltd

Stan Jones,
University of Oregon, USA

Jon ScottProf & Chairman Atmospheric Sc. Univ. at Albany NewYorkDavid Barkin
Professor of Economics
Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana Unidad
Xochimilco, Mexico City

Ian Douglas
Prof School of Geography Manchester University

Chris Tilly
Assoc Professor economist Dept of Policy and Planning
University of Massachusetts

Ian Ramsey
Rainforest Action Group Scotland
Angie Zelter
Reforest the EarthJohn Barkham
University of East Anglia Snr lecturer Sch ofEnvironment Sc.

Brendan Hill
Reforesting Scotland

Electo Silva Lora
University of Oriente Cuba

Andy Wightman
Reforesting Scotland

Alan LongVEGA UK

Alastair McIntosh
Reforesting Scotland Development Director

George Monbiot
Visiting lecturer Green College Oxford UK

Tim Lenton
Robinson College Cambridge University

Ann Heidenreich
World Council of Churches

Jose Nicolas
Rural Enterprise Development Fdn Philippines

Tom Wakeford
York University Biology Department UK

M K Raja
Samrat Engineering

Ernst von Weizsacker
Wuppertal Institute PresidentPeter Lauchmonen
Sarvodaya Development Organisation, Zimbabwe

Mechtild Schmedders
Wuppertal InstituteWanda S. Ballentine
Save Our Ozone

Christopher Manstein
Wuppertal InstituteKeekok Lee
Snr lecturer Philosophy Department Manchester Uni

Marcus Stewen
Wuppertal Institute/University of Mainz

N H Ravindranath
Snr Sc Officer Indian Institute of Science

Nese Yawuz
Wuppertal Institute33

Meike Kolsch
Wuppertal InstituteBernhards Wiebel
Ruhr Universitat, Bochum

Thomas Merten
Institut Arbeit und Technik

Zia van der Veen
Dr Warren Andrew Chang

Lorenz Kneser
Wuppertal InstituteDavid Carter
Odette Berger

Hans Peter Durr
Max Planck Institut fur Physik

Andrew Ridell
Annegret Falter
VDWPeter Alcock
Ian Boote

Ulrich Albrecht
Freie Universitat Berlin

Graham Reid
Andreas Buro
JW Goethe Universitat Frankfurt

Gurinder Shahi
S Iniyan

Johns Behrmann
Max Planck Institut

Patrick Mann
Organic Farmer

Heinrich Schiemann
Pensionene des ZDF

Jacqueline Florek,
Issues Specialist, USA

Constanze Eisenbart
VDW

George Silva
Roland Vogl
Staatshanglenland Brandenburg

Ramona McCoy
Blair Irvine

Helga Ehlers
Freie Journalisten

Nancy Glass
HE Gumlich
TU Berlin

Markku Oksanen
Heikki Patom

Bernd Hamm
Universitat Trier

Kenneth Scott (USA)
Olaf Joachim
Universitat Bonn

Toni Vidan
Zelewa Arcia Zagreb

Ulrich Bartosch
Universitat Regensburg

Andrea Ersek
Zelewa Arcia Zagreb

HJ Fischbeck
EV Akademie Mulheim

Marin Kiriwck
Zelewa Arcia Zagreb

Christiane Busch Luty
Universitat der Bundeswehr, Munchen

Kristina Markowic
Zelewa Arcia Zagreb

Charles Levenstein, Ph. D.
Professor of Work Environment Policy University of
Massachusetts Lowell

Maja Bogunovic
Zelewa Arcia Zagreb
Eva Kaufmann
VIRUS Vienna

Fotine Fahouris
Member WWF Greece
Robert Rubin
Wolfgang Rehm
VIRUS Vienna
34

Karl Brandnek
VIRUS Vienna
Ernst Lamar
Endery Vienna
Maria Bayer
Siemensk Vienna
Michaela Hoffman
Siemensk Vienna
Michael F Herder
ViennaTomas Cerny
ViennaMarcus Windhaber
Gymnasium Vienna
Ivoneta Diethart
Bernhard Baumann
ViennaEvelyn Magletner
ViennaAngelica Tesak
ViennaJet van Hailsma
ASEED Holland
Chrissa Pearson
PragueStephanie Howard
PragueErika Welge
Kulturne Socialni Centrum Prague
Hellmuth-Christian Stuven
Denmark
Brian Grant
Claire GilbertBlazing Tattles
late arrivals
Anand Patwardhan
Department of Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University
Ellen Schmidt
Greenpeace International Climate and Energy Campigner

35

ORIGINAL GCI CLIMATE STATEMENT AND SIGNATORIES"We the undersigned acknowledge with concern that climate change through enhanced global warming isa real and growing threat and is caused by the emissions of long-lived greenhouse gases from humanactivities.
"The IPCC advises that to stabilise atmospheric concentrations requires a reduction of emissions to lessthan 40% of current levels.
"On average each person in the world contributes 1.65 metric tonnes of carbon and equivalents eachyear. 40% of this figure ie 0.66 MTCE thus represents each individual's output threshold to forcing futureclimate change.
"Currently (1990) 53% of the people in the world produce greenhouse gas emissions at or below thisthreshold figure, and their emissions contribute only 90% of the non-forcing total. They therefore provide
the equivalent of a 10% "credit" (subsidy) which is taken up by the rest of the world.
"This inequity is particularly unacceptable at a time when the majority of people are struggling to meetbasic human needs. it is also unacceptable as the forcing emissions total is derived largely fromunsustainable, luxury-based activities in countries one of whose governments has still refused even theprinciple of setting targets for CO2 stabilization let alone reduction.
"We believe that all people present and future, should have rights-to-life and sustainable livelihoods
which are free from the threat and the reality of human-induced climate disruption.
"We stress that the responsibility for taking corrective action and reducing bad practice lies with those
who created and who continue to exacerbate this global crisis. We demand that their response should be
immediate and without prevarication, and should take special action over this issue of social inequity."
Ann Clywd
Shadow Minister Overseas Development UK
Sir Richard Body
Conservative MP (UK)Tony Benn
Labour MP
The Rt Hon Paddy Ashdown
leader of the Liberal Democrats UK
Simon Hughes MP
Lib/Dem Environment SpeakerCharles Kennedy
President of the Liberal Democrat Party UK
Margaret Ewing MP
Leader of the Scottish National Party
Ken Livingstone MP
UK Labour Party
Bryan Gould MP
UK Labour Party Shadow Environment Speaker
Dr David Clark
UK Labour Party Shadow Food and Agriculture Speaker36Clare Short MP
UK Labour Party
Hermann Scheer
Bundestag MP
Michael Meacher
UK Labour Party Shadow Spokesman Social Security
Jim Wallace MP
UK Lib/Dem Party Chief Whip
Sir Russell Johnson
Lib/Dem Speaker on Europe
Lord Bonham Carter
Lib/Dem Speaker on Overseas Development
Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Labour Peer) Former Lord Commissioner for the Treasury and Front Bench Opposition spokesman
on Energy in the Lords
Baroness Eward Biggs
opposition spokesman for ODA House of Lords UK
Wilfried Taelkemper
Vice President European Parliament
Dyfdd Wigley MP (Now Lord)
Plaid Cymru
Dyffd Ellis Thomas MP
Plaid Cymru
Rosie Barnes MP
Social Democratic Party
Bowen Wells
Conservative MP
Ken Collins
MEP Chair of European Parliament Environment Committee
James Glynn Ford
Member European Parliament
Kim Howells MP
UK Labour Party
Terry Lewis
UK Labour Party
Joyce Quinn MP
UK Labour Party
Tom Pendry MP
UK Labour Party
Joan Ruddock MP
UK Labour Party
Jeremy Corbyn MP
UK Labour Party
Jim Cousins MP
37

UK Labour Party
Hemmo Muntingh
Member European Parliament
Paul Lannoye
Member European Parliament
Jon Owen JonesUK Labour Party
M Watson
UK Labour Party
Joan Lestor
UK Labour Party
R Waring MP
UK Labour Party
Dawn Primarolo MP
UK Labour Party
Anne Campbell
UK Labour Party
Jean Corston MP
UK Labour Party
Alice Mahon MP
UK Labour Party
Kevin Hughes MP
UK Labour Party
Mike Hall MP
UK Labour Party
Andrew Miller MP
UK Labour Party
Dale Campbell Savours MP
UK Labour Party
Ieuan Jones MP
UK Labour Party
Cynog Dafis
Plaid Cymru

38

South North Development Monitor - SUNSFri Mar 24 16:44:36 1995
'Genocidal' economic analysis on climate change
Geneva Mar 23 (Chakravarthi Raghavan) -- The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which with its expertisein an area involving some hard science helped to establish its reputation and credentials to speak for the public interest, seems
in danger oflosing its credentials for dialogue as a result of its incursions into the softer science of economics where theories and models
and 'facts' come out to suit particular ideologies.
The view appears to be gathering strong among Southern policy makers that it would be impossible to 'dialogue' with groups,
claiming pseudo-scientific expertise, to shift the burden on the South.
At issue is the report being prepared on its behalf, in a Working Group III, on the potential economic damages to nations andpeoples, as a result of global warming.
Last year, at a workshop in Nairobi, Southern and Northern NGOs joined hands to denounce this working group which theysaid had been taken over by the OECD economists and their attempts to put "value" on lives of humans across the globe, andon the damages in non-human terms.
In a report yet to be approved by the IPCC and presented as part of its assessment to be given at the end of this year, but withsome preliminary views to be conveyed to the first Conference of Parties of the Framework Convention on Climate Change,
beginning next weekat Berlin, the economists assumed, in terms of mortality costs, the value of one human life in North America (US and Canada)
and the EU to be $1.5 million per head and that in the developing countries of the South at 150,000 per head.
In other words, ten Southern lives are equal to that of one in the North.
The UN's Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) which had been meeting to prepare for the COP meeting nor the
Climate Change secretariat have so far taken note of these officially.
One of the diplomats involved suggested that with the COP and the intergovernmental bodies of the COP envisaging their own
scientific panel etc, the IPCC has been trying to find a continuing role, but has allowed itself to be hijacked by these economists
whose views
seem to be an echo of the former World Bank Chief economist, and now US Treasury's No 2, Summers, who propounded theview about allowing the export and siting of toxic and dirty industries to the South.
The special working group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), WG3 on "Economic and other CrossCutting Issues", met in Paris this week to put the finishing touches on the analysis which will be submitted at next week's
international talks on climate change in Berlin. According to the latest reports, the WG3 is trying to take on the purchasing
power parity valuations instead of the exchange rate, but its critics say it does not change their overall criticism.
The IPCC report will be published in August or September as part of the update to the original IPCC report first published in
1990.
"Their analysis amounts to genocidal economics," says Aubrey Meyer of the London-based Global Commons Institute. "The
implications of this are that there are too many Bangladeshis and, if they drown, who cares..." says Meyer.
Meyer has prepared, with easy graphics to catch the eye of policy-makers, an analysis of the WG3 approach, and providing a
different projection based on a more equitable approach, and this is under study by several of the Environment Ministers fromthe South.
Meyer also faults the tradable permits approach used by UNCTAD, and faults it for avoiding the 'equity issue' of responsibility
for the past and who should cut the consumption and pay.
Some of the Environment ministers from the South are taking a common position to make clear that if this is the approach, itwill be difficult for them (or for the COP and the Climate Change secretariat of the future) to engage in a dialogue with the
IPCC and its neo-classical economists trying to safeguard the North and its industries against environmental measures to reduce
their consumption and spewing of Greenhouse gases, but attempt to shift the burden on to the South.
The GCI has mobilised a letter writing campaign by the NGOs, but has also had discussions with key environment ministers of
the South on the dangers of the IPCC-WG3 approach.
39

The original IPCC report concluded that the planet's surface is warming as a result of the accumulation in the atmosphere ofartificial gases, like carbon dioxide and methane, that trap heat from the sun. The scientists estimated that emissions of thesegases would have to be cut back by at least 60 percent to reverse this "greenhouse effect".
At the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, 100 countries signed an agreement to cut back their emissions of greenhousegases to 1990 levels by the year 2000.
The IPCC economic analysis was commissioned by the Centre for Social and Economic Research of the Global Environment(C-SERGE) to seven economists, including Samuel Fankhauser of Germany, William Cline of the United States and David
Pearce of Britain -- who haveadopted an approach conceived in terms of a Global Cost/Benefit analysis (G-CBA).
With this approach, excluding human costs, they estimate the annual global damage costs to be 1.5% to 2.5% of the Gross
World Product, if the atmospheric Carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations reach twice the pre-industrial levels. It then distributes
this damage in the proportion of 65% for the OECD countries and 35% for the Rest Of
World (ROW).
As Indian Environment Minister Kamal Nath has pointed out, in a letter he has apparently sent to several of his colleagues fromthe South, the entire approach overlooks the fact that the current CO2 burdens in the atmosphere is entirely or mainly due to theactivities of the industrial countries, since their industrialisation, in their reckless consumption of the 'global commons' and now
trying to preserve the status quo by throwing the responsibility on the ROW and in particular the developing countries. Nath
has advised his Northern and Southern colleagues that India would have nothing to do with the IPCC-WG3 approach, and that
this would vitiate the entire negotiations at the COP.
Meyer points out that the WG3 approach fails to use Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) for comparative assessment of overall
damage costs, excluding human life or mortality costs and its "unequally valued" mortality costs associated with global climatechange.
He points out that at present the total global damage assessment is an aggregate of all individual country damage assessments
converted in US dollars at current market exchange rates. This he says is misleading and would only make sense if the OECD
countries intend
to pay for all damages -- a liability not accepted by them.
Hence, in developing countries, the monetary significance of the damage costs, and proportionately in the global account for
purposes of international comparative assessment, is substantially under-represented because the amount in question isdevaluedthrough the currency exchange rate system.
Thus, damage to Vietnamese or Bangladeshi food crops are given a lower dollar amount than damages to the same crops in
Canada, even though they provide the same nutritional value to human beings.
The burden on the damage to the non-OECD countries, he says, would be more realistically represented if the figures werevalued in PPP terms.
By redoing the IPCC (non-mortality) calculations using the PPP terms, the distribution of the damage falls more heavily on the
ROW. Instead of the 64% damage for the OECD, estimates on PPP terms reduces it to 44%, while that of ROW goes up from
35% to 56%.
Meyer notes that the IPCC recognises many people will die each year as a result of the global damage and that most of these
deaths will be in the developing countries.
In trying to put a cash value on these deaths (as the economists do for the G-CBA exercise), they value people's lives differently
because of the disparate income levels of those affected directly.
Lives of people in ROW are valued at one-tenth of value of lives of people in the wealthy countries. Each life in the US or
Europe is valued at $1.5 million, while that in the South is put at $150,000.
This approach itself, Meyer says, is controversial and compromises the IPCC approach.
The poorer nations of the South have had no responsibility for causing the CO2 and GHG overloads of the atmosphere andcausing global climate change.
Many argue that the poor countries of the South, with their low-energy consumption, are now providing an environmental
subsidy to the energy-intensive rich countries.
40But the largest number of the climate change related deaths will be in the poor countries.
Recalculating the WG3 figures on the PPP basis, Meyer says that the OECD damages total fall from 65% to 38% of the total
and the ROW damages rise from 35% to 62% of the total.
The global annual damages rise above the IPCC-WG3 figure by $275 billion annually -- or by 72%.
The contentious nature of the unequal life-evaluation has resulted in a sign-on campaign against the IPCC and its WG3 sincelast June, with many professionals from the North and the South including many IPCC lead authors becoming co-signatories,
says Meyer.
If changes for both equal life evaluation and PPP are made together, the overall level of damage costs of global warming rise
substantially and the distribution of this falls much more heavily on the ROW than the original IPCC approach says Meyer.
The global annual damages rise above the IPCC original figure by $339 billion or 89%. The ROW damage rises from 35% to
70% of the total while that of the OECD falls from 65% to 30% of the total. The IPCC's total damages of 2% of the Grossworld product rises to
3.2% when these revaluations are performed.
Proponents like Fankhauser say the critics have misunderstood the logic of his argument. "Economists do not value lives. Whatthey do estimate is people's appreciation of a risk-free environment. It has nothing to do with the worth of life as such," hewrote recently in a reply to the Ecologist article.
But Daphne Wysham of the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies says that the 300,000-person death toll fails to takeaccount of possible increased starvation due to global warming- induced crop failure. A total of between 135 and 900 million
people could die as a result of global warming by the year 2030, she estimates. Most of the victims will be in the Third World.
"(Fankhauser's) figure is an extrapolation of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data -- which apply only to the UnitedStates and tend to regard phenomena like heat-induced death and hurricane casualties as the major kinds of mortality," Wyshamsays in the Ecologist, a British magazine.
Fankhauser says he was criticised for using different values for goods in different countries, but the values used by him were infact identical, in the sense that they were identical fractions of income. "But to use absolute values would completely disregard
observed facts. Chinese are not willing to sacrifice ten times as much for environmental goods as Europeans," he argues.
But Meyer says that this is missing one of the most important aspects of global warming. "It is the industrialisation of Europe
and America that has created the accumulation of greenhouse gases. But the people who will suffer are those in the poor
countries."
Also, it is fine for an European, after having achieved a level of living, to begin looking to improve the quality on
environmental goods, while in the Third World nations the food and basic needs are the first "environmental goods" needed, if
properly understood.
Meyer notes that the argument of the rich "is the most sickening form of self-fulfilling prophecy. They are saying, in effect, thatsince those who created the problem, gained more wealth, they have more rights to determine who dies," he said.

INDIA REJECTS ECONOMICS OF U.N. CLIMATE CHANGE PANEL
by Jaya Dayal
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 24 (IPS) - India's environment minister has repudiated the findings of a U.N.-convened panel of
economists on climate change as biased against developing countries.
In a letter made available to IPS Friday, India's Minister for Environment and Forests, Kamal Nath, faults the ''absurd anddiscriminatory global cost/benefit analysis procedures propounded by economists in the work of IPCC Working Group Three.''
The two-page letter was sent to environment ministers and senior government officials of more than 10 industrialised
countries including Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, Sweden and the United States.
In addition, the letter was sent to more than 16 developing countries including Brazil, China, Egypt, Indonesia, Kenya,
Malaysia and Singapore.
41

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a U.N. body responsible for co-ordinating scientific and economic
efforts to stem the effects of global warming, is due to publish its Second Assessment Report (SAR) later this year.
IPCC Working Group Three has been asked to provide economic analysis for policy formulation at the first Conference ofParties (CoP) to the 1992 Climate Change convention slated for Berlin beginning next Tuesday.
The approach adopted by the economists in this group has been conceived in terms of global cost/benefit analysis (G-CBA).
Using this approach, the group estimates that if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increase to double pre-industrial
levels,annual damage costs will be 1.5 to 2.5 percent of gross world product.
The group estimates that the distribution of these damages between the wealthy, industrialised Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) nations and the rest of the world will be OECD, 65 percent, and the rest, 35 percent.
But according to the London-based Global Commons Institute (GCI), a non-governmental organisation monitoring theworking group, the G-CBA rests on shaky and discriminatory ground.
Key among the faulty assumptions used by the working group, says GCI, is the differing values applied to the lives of humanbeings in the South and the North.
In his letter, Nath says ''the scale of bias which underpins the technical assessment intended to provide the basis for policy
discussions at the CoP can be gauged from the proposed unequally valued mortality costs associated with global climatechange.''GCI director Aubrey Meyer explains that the working group has assigned a cash value of 1.5 million dollars per human life in
the industrialised North against 150,000 dollars in the developing South.
''In global cost/benefit analysis, this means that you discard a Chinese life 10 times more easily than a life in the European
Community or the United States,'' he said.
GCI figures that if the working group's numbers arerecalculated using the 1.5 million dollar value for all deaths, OECD damages fall from 65 to 38 percent of the total while ROW
damages rise from 35 to 62 percent.
''We unequivocally reject the theory that the monetary value of people's lives around the world is different'' Nath says in his
letter. ''We feel that this level of misdirection must be purged from the negotiation process.''
So contentious is the question of unequal life-valuation that a protest against it started last June. Since then many economists,
environmentalists and development professionals in the South and the North have signed on.
Nath argues in the letter that any basis for dealing with the costs of climate change should not be formed along the current
lines of ''unequal rights by income,'' but ''equal rights per capita.''''Developing countries have no -- or indeed negative -responsibility for causing global climate change,'' he states.
''The implications of faulty economic assumptions are
manifold,'' Nath warns, adding, until ''they are corrected to reflect a true and just position, then and only then would any talk ofjoint implementation and adequacy of commitments become meaningful.''At the final round of talks here before next week's meeting in Berlin, industrialised countries -- under pressure from theirfossil-fuel and energy industries -- attempted to shift the burden of climate change by pushing joint implementation schemes.
These schemes, the European Union and United States argue, would provide cost-effective opportunities for rich countries tolimit their greenhouse gas emissions by financing projects in other nations.
Joint implementation projects would be financed byindustrialised countries or their big businesses. In exchange, these countries would receive credits for fulfilling theircommitments under the convention.
But some developing countries argue that the industrialised countries' rush towards joint implementation projects is a simply
a way to divert attention from politically difficult economic
decisions at home.
42Nath noted that the early discussions on joint implementation in February ''reveal increasing differences of opinion about theresolve of developed countries to meet even their existing commitments under the convention.''Geneva 25 Mar (TWN/Chakravarthi Raghavan) -India has expressed its concern over the biased and discriminatory Global Cost/Benefit Analysis procedures of the IPCC
economists and its use as a basis for policy discussions at the Conference of Parties (CoP) of the UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change (FCCC)
opening in Berlin on Monday.
In letters to other Environment Ministers, developed anddeveloping, the Indian Environment Minister Kamal Nath has said that the bias imported into the discussions by the WG3approach must be "purged, and the distributional issue of unequal-rights-by-income versus equal-rights-per-capita must be
resolved to enable fruitful discussions at the CoP about possible protocols to the Convention, proportionality of commitments
and financial mechanisms."
The letter to the Environment Ministers of the developed countries cautions them of a situation developing (as a result of the
WG3 approach) that would make further "dialogue directionless".
His letter to the G77 Ministers has stressed the need for them to adequate co-ordinate their positions at the CoP.
The Berlin meeting is the first Conference of Parties on the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and is to review the
Adequacy of the Commitments under the Convention.
It has before it a proposal on behalf of the Association of Small Island States (AOSIS) for a protocol to cut back theGreenhouse Gas, and in particular Carbon di Oxide (CO2) emissions.
This proposed protocol called for Annex A parties to undertake the cutbacks, but some recent proposals or amendments to thisare said to call for obligations by some of the major and more populous developing countries.
In the FCCC, and at the Rio Earth Summit, the Annex A Parties to the Convention undertook to provide national assessment
reports, which are to be reviewed and assessed about their adequacy. Separately, at other fora, the ICs have taken a generalcommitment to return their emissions in 2000 to the levels of 1990. But the national reports from these countries suggest thatseveral would
not achieve even these.
The IPCC in preliminary views and assessments provided to the Intergovernmental Negotiating Group (INC) which has been
preparing for the CoP-1 show that even the return to 1990 levels would not be enough to mitigate the adverse effects of Climate
Change and there has to be some sizeable cutbacks.
The Annex A Parties which accepted at Rio, and in the framing of the Convention, their major responsibility for the present
situation and need to cutback have since been doing some backsliding, and under the concept of Joint Implementation and otherproposals, are trying to shift some, if not a major portion of the responsibility to some of the major Third World economies,
like China, India, and a few others -- with low per capita GHG and CO2 emissions, but in absolute terms would be increasing
theiremissions as they industrialise and develop.
The OECD dominated neo-classical economists in the IPCC-WG3 (on Economic and other Cross-Cutting Issues) have been
trying to provide a scientific basis for this shifting of responsibilities, by a so-called economic assessment of the damages to theOECD economies and the Rest of the World (ROW).
Kamal Nath's letter to his fellow Ministers from the South and North is in relation to this.
In his letter referring to the crucial unresolved issues, Kamal Nath has expressed India's serious concern that no "significant
progress" has been at all made towards stabilising, leave alone reduction of atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases,"despite the lofty commitments made at Rio".
"On the contrary, decisive scientific evidence continues to disturb us with serious warnings about where the global community
is now headed," Kamal Nath says.
"The inconclusive discussions (at the INC) about Joint
Implementation and Adequacy of Commitments reveal increasing differences of opinion about the resolve of developed
countries to meet even their existing commitments under the Convention. In my judgement, the present impasse became
inevitable when the alleged43cost-effectiveness of Joint Implementation was sought to be based on absurd and discriminatory Global Cost/Benefit Analysis
procedures propounded by economists in the work of the IPCC Working
Group III (IPCC-WG3).
"The scale of bias which underpins the technical assessment intended to provide the basis for policy discussions at the CoP canbe gauged from the proposed unequally valued mortality costs associated with global climate changes, and the avoidance ofusing the Purchasing Power Parity system of overall damage costs. These are by no means the only issues about which we feelconcerned, but they are pertinently representative examples".
(According to the latest reports from Paris, the authors of the WG3 report, at their final meeting last week, appear to haveaccepted the need for making assessments using the PPP rather than the market exchange rates as they had done. However thisis only one aspect of a bias they are now trying to correct, and does not meet the fundamental objections to the WG3 approach,namely, its ignoring the equity issues and the past historical responsibilitiesof the OECD economies for the damages caused by them to the global environment and their responsibility to undertake theremedial measures.)In his letter, Kamal Nath continues: "We unequivocally reject the theory that the monetary value of people's lives around theworld is different because the value imputed should be proportional to the disparate income levels of the potential victims
concerned. Developing countries have no -- or indeed negative -- responsibility for causing global climate change. Yet they arebeing blamed for possible future impacts, although historical impacts by industrialised economies are being regarded as waterunder-the-bridge, or 'sunk-costs' in the jargon of these biased economists.
"To compound the problem, global damage assessments are being expressed in US dollar equivalent. Thus the monetarysignificance of the damages to developing countries is substantially under-represented. The damages caused to human beings,
whether in developed or developing countries must be treated equally andcannot be translated in terms of currency exchange rate systems.
"Faced with this," the Indian Minister continues, "we feel that this level of misdirection must be purged from the negotiatingprocess. The distributional issue of unequal-rights-by-income versus equal-rights-per-capital must be resolved to enable fruitful
discussions about possible protocols to the Convention, proportionality of commitments and financial mechanisms.""This is of immediate concern to us with regard to the AOSIS proposal," Kamal Nath continues. "We are wholly sympathetic to
it and we would like to support it, along with all Parties to the Convention, since it is clearly aimed at the global common good.
But there are attempts to modify the AOSIS proposal to an extent where it contradicts the very essence of the Rio Consensus
andnullifies the spirit in which developing countries entered into negotiations to frame the Climate Change Convention. We
strongly reject any suggestion of encumbering developing countries with obligations under Protocols, that they do not haveunder the Convention.
"The implications of faulty economic assumptions are manifold. when they are corrected to reflect a true and just position, andonly then, would any talk of Joint Implementation and Adequacy of Commitments become meaningful," says Kamal Nath. "It is
impossible
for us to accept that which is not ethically justifiable,technically accurate or politically conducive to the interests of poor people as well as the global common good".
In an appeal to the developed country Environment Ministers, Kamal Nath says: "I am sure that you appreciate these issues
which are causing India and several other developing countries much concern.
We do not want to be driven to a situation wherein dialogue itself becomes directionless. The Rio process gave rise to several
environmental Conventions. If the logic now being propounded in relation to Climate Change, also enters the interpretation of
the other Conventions, we will have reversed all the gains of Rio -the chief of which was a universal recognition of the principles of equity, and the inalienable right of all human beings to thefruits of development and 'environmental space' on an equitable basis."44

INFORMATION CONCERNING GLOBAL COMMONS INSTITUTE (GCI)a) - What is GCI?
The Global Commons Institute (GCI) is an independent group of people, mostly based in the UK. GCI’s
aims are the protection of the Global Commons. The group is currently working on the economic andpolitical aspects of global climate change.
GCI was founded in 1990 after the Second World Climate Conference, and has been an officiallyrecognised and highly active participant in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) andIntergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a Framework Convention on Climate Change (INC-FCCC)
processes.

b) - What is GCI’s current Mission?
The pursuit of economic growth and extended private property arrangements is now global in scale andintent and is driving the global community over thresholds of global ecological stability. GCI exists to
explore and explain this. It also seeks to assist the counter-process - namely, finding effective andequitable arrangements for scaling down these socio-economic and industrial impacts on the global
commons.
In this general context, GCI specifically focuses attention on; • the risk that current economic and industrial practices, may cause an irreversible enhancementof the greenhouse effect• how the skewed distribution of the benefits of the practices, aggravates tensions between overdevelopment and under-development in both North and South• how the political consequences of this skewed distribution will themselves aggravate adverse
global environmental consequences• what actions are necessary to reduce these risks and how they could be equitably and lastingly
shared by nations and by people.
c) - Acknowledgements regarding external support for GCI’s Operations
GCI’s contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the INC/COP has beenpossible as a result of voluntary donations from several concerned private and unaffiliated individuals, towhom we express our appreciation.
We also express our appreciation to the IPCC Bureau for their efforts to organise the IPCC’s “Second
Assessment Report (SAR) and their invitation to GCI to formally present ideas in that context.

45

Recommendations for GCI
African Centre for Technology Studies - Kenya“You raise very interesting, challenging and controversial issues in the dilemma of the Framework Convention on Climate
Change. The way you address “Global Benefit” is impressive. I agree with you that the concept - as understood by thefinancial lending institutions - is neither exhaustive nor participatory. The effort you make to generate some statistics is very
appealing. With no doubt the points you raise on institutional reform and equity are important and require serious attention.
Institutional frameworks of the IMF and OECD among others need to be counter-checked in order to conform to thecommitments of the Convention. Will you make a presentation to ACTS in Nairobi?”
Patrick Karani, Climate and Africa Project
African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS)
Nairobi

African National Congress - South Africa“We thank you for your information about the GCI campaign.
We are eagerly following your work and find the information very useful.
A new democratic South Africa will be keenly interested in environmental issues and we are confident that yourinstitute will play an important role in assisting us to deal with environmental issues in South Africa andinternationally. Please continue to keep us informed about your activities.”
Aziz Pahad, - Deputy Head ANC Department of International Affairs.

Air and Waste Management Association - USA“On behalf of the Conference Organising Committee, we are pleased to inform you that your abstract has been
accepted for platform presentation at the Global Climate Change Conference - Science and Policy Implications - in
Phoenix April 1994. In response to the ‘call for papers’ we received over 200 very good abstracts which made theselection process very difficult which in turn, has enabled us to arrange an exciting technical conference
programme.”C V Mathai, Air and Waste Management Association Conference Committee.

Bariloche Foundation - Argentina“I would like to congratulate you for the (Benefit/Disbenefit) research done and for its wide distribution. I would ask you tosend us, as soon as possible, the complete version of your work.”
Carlos E Suarez, Institute of Energy Economics, Lead Author on IPCC WG3 Second Assessment Report.

Biomass User’s Network - King's College UK"I recommend the Global Commons Institute as lead authors in the IPCC working group 3. I have been very
impressed by the quality of GCI's work in developing comprehensive methodologies for conducting "benefit/disbenefit
analysis”, which seems the most appropriate first step in the development of genuinely sustainable solutions andpolicy formulation."
Dr Frank Rosillo Calle, - Biomass User's Network, King's College.

C-SERGE - UK
"GCI hi-jacked the conference. As result of their interventions, we ended up discussing things we otherwise would nothave had to discuss."
David Pearce, - Director C-SERGE about GCI impact on first meeting of IPCC Working Group Three in Montreal."46

Canadian Club of Rome
"Congratulations on your excellent letter to Guardian weekly.
I wish you well as you urge global action."
Dr J Rennie Whitehead, - Canadian Club of Rome.

Climate Network Africa - Kenya"Your intervention made it worth my coming here (UN climate negotiations). Thank God someone is calling a spade aspade."
Grace Akumu, - Co-Ordinator Climate Network Africa.

Commonwealth Human Ecology Council - UK
"Congratulations."
Zena Daysh, Executive Vice Chairman of Commonwealth Human Ecology Council (CHEC), acknowledging the influence of
the GCI analysis and the success of the GCI strategy at the Partnerships for Change Conference Manchester. (The UK
Government's conference had just supported a call for the GCI crafted CHEC statement to be adopted by the main conference).

Earth Council - Costa Rica
"I sincerely hope that we can stay in close contact and explore avenues of co-operation. The three documents you
sent are particularly relevant for us in the design of the Earth Report. The information of "global benefit anddisbenefit" and related themes for eg offers a very useful analytical approach as well as the trends of global
industrial CO2 impact, GDP income and efficiency. The GCI abstract for the US Global Climate Conference offers avery interesting methodological framework for a systematic analysis. We would very much appreciate if you could
continue providing these very useful documents and information on the trends of sustainable development."
Alicia Barcena - Executive Director Earth Council, Costa Rica.

Embassy of Western Samoa - Belgium"Congratulations on your success co-organising the Commonwealth Partnerships Conference. I am truly stunned by
the extent to which GCI's ideas were incorporated into the conference statements.
Your analysis is clear, rigorous and very usefulto us. We want to keep in touch with you."
H E Ambassador Afamasaga Toleafoa, - Ambassador of W Samoa to the EC.

Environment Ministry - India"I had occasion to discuss with the Global Commons Institute, various important issues related to Climate Change
and the Montreal Protocol during my visits abroad. Their outspoken views and in-depth knowledge in economic
nalysis of the issues relating to equity, costs, benefits, disbenefits would go a long way in bringing out these important
aspects in clear terms. Such analysis projected in the IPCC reports would certainly help the conference of the parties
in arriving at an objective decision. I strongly recommend their names as lead authors for working group 3.
I also will support any funding proposal they may care to submit.
Mr. Kamal Nath, - Chairman, Montreal Protocol Treaty negotiations, Indian Environment Minister.

Environment Ministry of Hungary"You GCI people are very brave."
Tibor Farago Ministry of Environment Hungary, - at the IPCC, Working Group 3
European School - Belgium"I feel that it is worth a concerted effort to finance the Global Commons Institute. GCI makes an important
contribution balancing the key players from business, industry and government."
47

Jane Knott, - European School Brussels
Indira Gandhi Institute - India“Thank you very much for keeping me informed about your work.
Its nice to have your support in this battle.”
Dr (Mrs) Jyoti Parikh, Lead Author on IPCC WG3 Second Assessment Report - Indira Gandhi Institute.
IPCC Bureau - Geneva“We would like to invite you (to the IPCC Workshop on Equity and Social Considerations - Nairobi, 18/23 7 94) to make apresentation entitled ‘Unequal Use of the Global Commons: Consumption Patterns as Causal Factors in Global Change’.
We know that with your widely recognised expertise in this field, you would make an important contribution
to the work of the IPCC. It is very much hoped that you will respond positively to this invitation”
Bert Bolin, Chair - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)James P Bruce and Hoesung Lee Co-Chairs - IPCC Working Group Three (WG3)
IPCC Working Group Three - Geneva“While it is our normal practice is to encourage authors of relevant articles to contact lead authors directly, I have asked the
IPCC WG3 Technical Support Unit to send the GCI “Global Benefit/Disbenefit” paper to the WG3 lead authors. It does
present the data on CO2 emissions, in relation to economic and demographic factors in an interesting way, that further
reinforces the work of WG3 lead authors Parikh, Goldemburg Reddy and Mintzer.”
James P Bruce: Co-Chair IPCC Working Group Three (WG3)Joint International Monetary Fund/World Bank Library - USA“Please may we order the full ‘Equity and Survival’ series of GCI publications.”
Korea Institute for Human Settlements - Korea“It was a great pleasure to receive your paper “Equity and Survival - Who provides global benefit; who causes global disbenefit?”
This paper will be very useful for my section.”
Sung Woong Hong, - Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements.
Lead Author on IPCC WG3 Second Assessment Report.

Malaysian Embassy - UK
"We intend to disseminate the information in your booklet as widely as possible."
Riza Selahettin, - Malaysian High Commissioner’s Office, London.

Movement for Compassionate Living - UK
"I feel your work could make a significant difference to our chances of survival, in view of the environmental crisis."
Kathleen Jannaway, - Movement for Compassionate Living, Surrey UK

Network Foundation for Social Change - UK
"We're very pleased your organisation is around doing what it is doing. Its a very interesting approach you aretaking. We are very pleased to support you financially."
Network Foundation for Social Change.
.
OECD Environment Directorate - Paris"Your intervention here was braveand not the sort of thing we are used to hearing here. I agreed with everything you said."
48

Gerard Dorin, - Head Administrator of the OECD Environment Directorate,
at the OECD "Economics of Global Climate Change Conference"OECD Resources Allocation - Paris"GCI should be very pleased with the influence they have already had on the economists at IPCC's Working Group 3."
Peter Sturm, - OECD Economist, Head of Division "Resource Allocation"

Organization for Latin American Energy Users - Ecuador"Your texts are excellent reference sources for orienting the Latin American and Caribbean region's policies andstrategies. We would appreciate you keeping us informed about your publications, database and other important
initiatives in this area of mutual interest, and wish you continuing success in your work"
Gabriel Sierra, - Executive Secretary, Organization Latin American Energy Users.

Oyani Christian Rural Services - Kenya“We formally request a copy of your publication “Equity and Survival - Climate Change, Population and theParadox of Growth.” This document is vital to this agency as a resource material on our awareness education on
climate change and population growth - matters which globally affect mankind. Please will you inform us on all yourpriority areas and provide any relevant documentation. May God bless you in your service to his people.”
Rev Peter A Indalo, - Programme Director, Oyani Christian Rural Services, Kenya.

Peace Studies - University of Bradford UK"A quite excellent analysis and superb graphics. I'm impressed yet again by the concise way in which you tackle thesubject in hand. I only hope it has the same impact on the UN Climate negotiations!"
Dr Julian Salt, - Department of Peace Studies. University of Bradford.

Saudi Arabian Delegation for IPCC WG3"With regard to the intervention by the Global Commons Institute,my delegation wishes to support every word of what they have just said."
Mohammed S al Sabban, - Head of Saudi Arabian Delegation to the IPCC - concerning the GCI rebuttal of the case made by
the World Bank representative for measuring the incremental costs for protecting the global environment.

Scientists for Global Responsibility - Cambridge UK“Thank you for the GCI materials. They are both useful and interesting. I am hoping you can speak at the Second“Science for the Earth” forum in Cambridge. Your perspective on the role played by economists in addressing global
environmental problems would be interesting. We like the questions you pose.”
Tim Lenton, - Scientists for Global Responsibility.
“GCI are the best campaigners for non-industrialised people that we know.”
Tom Wakeford, - Scientists for Global Responsibility.
South Centre - Geneva“The paper on climate change, population and growth is most interesting. It will be very useful for our future work on
post-UNCED strategies for the South.”Branislav Gosovic, - Director, the South Centre

49

TATA Energy Research Institute - India“I did hear from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group Three secretariat about your paper on“Global Benefit”. I think you should be very pleased at the response, because you have very effectively made the point thatyou intended.”
Dr R K Pachauri, - Director TATA Energy Research Institute, India.
Lead Author on IPCC WG3 Second Assessment Report.

The ECOLOGIST - UK
"We strongly recommend to you the Global Commons Institute as lead authors for your report on the socio-economic
framework for decision-taking concerning the economics of climate change. GCI includes a network of authors whoare both literate and numerate in this debate. They have been involved with these matters at the UN and beyond over
several years. They have built up a considerable reputation doing cross-cutting socio economic analysis. This has
had a clear focus on benefits and disbenefits and who it is who provide these and who suffer these. This effort has
been successfully challenging short-sighted economic theory still typical of the pro-growth lobby in the industrial
countries. GCI has successfully been providing a focus for those who express a more globally responsible view.
Support for their work is considerable and widespread."
Nicholas Hildyard and Larry Lohman, - the Ecologist Magazine.

UNESCO Catalunya - Spain"We are very pleased to endorse the Global Commons Institute as lead authors for the IPCC working group 3 workplan."
Dr Felix Marti and Dr Josep Puig, UNESCO Catalunya and Grace Akumu, Co-Ordinator Climate Network Africa.

University of East Anglia - UK
"Your papers are a real treasure. I enjoyed the graphs enormously."
Prof. Tim O'Riordan, - University of East Anglia Environmental Sciences Department and Associate Director CSERGE.

University of Nigeria"You are so well-informed, so coherent, so intellectually challenging, so honest and so effective; - if only we had
more people like you doing what you are doing."
Chris Ugwu, - University of Nigeria
at the UK Partnerships for Change Conference, Manchester.
Wuppertal Institute - Germany"The Global Commons Institute is one of the few places in the world giving the necessary emphasis to a radical
questioning of short-sighted economic theory. GCI's approach is rational and compassionate. Their voice must be
heard & should be further elaborated in the international debate on global warming & other global ecologicalchallenges. Their papers are stimulating. The characterisation of countries' socio-economic efficiencies particularly,is quite original. It would be highly desirable to have them on board for future work on equity in the IPCC context."
Dr Ernst von Weizacker, - Director Wuppertal Institute for Energy, Climate and Transport, Germany.
WWF-UK"The principles of international equity that are embodied in sustainable development require that the industrialised
countries recognise the global impact of their consumption patterns, and provide development opportunities forpoorer countries. Recent papers provided new perspectives on the importance of the international dimension . The
Global Commons Institute have highlighted the accumulated debt in terms of over-use of the atmosphere, andcalculated an estimated debt value that vastly exceeds the financial debt owed by the South."

Barry Coates, - Policy Development
WWF-UK - to UK Climate Action Network Conference on Transport & Global Warming50

I have read several times GCI’s submission to IPCC WG3. I have always been sympathetic to per-capita emissions allocation,
but have never seen such a clear and persuasive explanation of why such an allocation is needed both for ethical and practicalreasons. Also, I liked very much your point that climate policy analysts should make explicit the ethical positions and values
inherent in their work. So much of the debate on tradable emissions quotas and JI avoids the crucial issue of allocation.
I also agree with you that the Climate Action Network should discuss this issue more.
My group is participating in a newly formed network of East Asian NGOs (Atmosphere Action Network for East Asia
(AANEA)) working on atmospheric issues. I want everyone in this network to read your paper, because we as a network needto develop a common position on the issue of equity, and your paper is the best base for discussions I know.
Dwight Van Winkle,
Citizens Alliance for Saving the Atmosphere (CASA),Osaka, Japan
Atmosphere Action Network for East Asia (AANEA)
A new network for regional cooperation
Current AANEA member organisations:
China:
Hong Kong:Japan:

Mongolia:
Russia:South Korea:

Taiwan:Friends of Nature
The Conservancy Association
Hong Kong Environment Centre
Citizens Alliance for Saving the Atmosphere and theEarth (CASA)
Japan Acid Rain Monitoring Network
The Japan Air Pollution Victims Association
Peoples Forum 2001, Global Warming Study Group
Mongolian Association for Conservation of Natureand Environment (MANCE)
Geographical Society
The Wildlife Foundation
Center for Environment and Development, Citizens
Coalition for Economic Justice (CCEJ)
Green Korea
Korean Federation of Environmental Movements
Climate Action Network Taiwan
Taiwan Environmental Protection Union“We offer great thanks for coming to the Fourth IRNES (Interdisciplinary Research Network on Environment and Society)
Conference and delivering such a stimulating and powerful talk. Your presentation was the highlight of the whole conferencein terms of its clarity, directness and passionate delivery. I really think you made people think that evening.
GCI could not have a more eloquent and dedicated advocate than yourself.”
Peter Newell
Co-Organiser IRNES conference 1995.

51