GLOBE INTERNATIONAL
50 rue du Taciturne
B-1000 Brussels
BELGIUM

GLOBAL EQUITY & CLIMATE CHANGE
A History of the UNFCCC Negotiations
for a GLOBAL SOLUTION

1

CONTENTS
CLIMATE CHANGE - A "GLOBAL PROBLEM".............................................................4
ATMOSPHERIC GREENHOUSE GAS CONCENTRATIONS RISE AS GHG EMISSIONS RISE ............4
GHG EMISSIONS MUST FALL JUST TO STOP CONCENTRATIONS RISING FURTHER ..................4"GLOBAL SOLUTIONS?" ....................................................................................................4
THE US VERSION OF A "GLOBAL SOLUTION" REJECTED AS INEQUITABLE .........................4
THE UN GLOBAL SOLUTION - AN "EQUITY BASED" FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ............5
Why have the UNFCCC?....................................................................................................5
What is the Objective of the Convention? - (ghg emissions CONTRACTION) ..................5
What is the Principle of Global Equity? - (CONVERGENCE - ALLOCATION)...............5
What is the Precautionary Principle? ................................................................................5
What is the Principle of Global Efficiency? - (GLOBAL EMISSIONS TRADE)................5

COP1 - THE "BERLIN MANDATE"....................................................................................6"FLAWED PROCESS" SEEKING SUB-GLOBAL SOLUTIONS .........................................................6
INDIAN GOVERNMENT ESSAY A "GLOBAL SOLUTION" AT COP1 .............................................6
THE AOSIS PROTOCOL ...........................................................................................................6

COP2 - GLOBAL APARTHEID.............................................................................................7
FLAWED SUB-GLOBAL ETHICS GET FLAWED SUB-GLOBAL SOLUTIONS ..................................7
GLOBAL ETHICS FOR GLOBAL SOLUTIONS...............................................................................7
THE BYRD HAGEL GLOBAL SOLUTION ................................................................................7
BYRD HAGEL IS "CONTRACTION AND CONVERGENCE" .......................................................8
CONTRACTION WITHOUT CONVERGENCE TO PER CAPITA EQUALITY NON-VIABLE .................8"CONTRACTION & CONVERGENCE".............................................................................9
THE AFRICA GROUP RESPOND ............................................................................................9
THE USA: - "IT’S THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN.".......................................................................10
CHINA - "EMISSIONS CONTROL STANDARD FORMULATED ON A PER CAPITA BASIS" ...............102

COP3 - THE "KYOTO PROTOCOL" ................................................................................11(ARTICLE 17) - GLOBAL OR SUB-GLOBAL?.............................................................................11
GLOBAL EQUITY DAWNS AT KYOTO'S DARKEST HOUR - G-77 GOES GLOBAL ......................11

SUPPORT FOR C&C SINCE KYOTO ...............................................................................12
UK GOVERNMENT .................................................................................................................12
GLOBE INTERNATIONAL ......................................................................................................12
NON-ALIGNED MOVEMENT ...................................................................................................13
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE NETWORK FORUM (EJNF)...........................................................14
GLOBE SOUTHERN AFRICA NETWORK.................................................................................14
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT .......................................................................................................14

WRONG ROAD, RIGHT ROAD..........................................................................................15
WILL THE US RATIFY THE KYOTO PROTOCOL?.....................................................................15'US RATIFICATION' IS THE WRONG QUESTION .......................................................................15
RIGHT ANSWERS ARE GLOBAL PRINCIPLES FOR GLOBAL PRACTICE......................................16
PRINCIPLES, NO PRACTICE - USELESS. PRACTICE, NO PRINCIPLES - DANGEROUS...................16

COP4 - THE "BUENOS AIRES MANDATE" ...................................................................17
BEGINNING THE END OF GLOBAL APARTHEID'. ......................................................................17
PRINCIPLES FOR 7 GENERATIONS: WORLD LEADER'S HISTORIC OPPORTUNITY AT COP4 .....17

APPENDICES.........................................................................................................................18
ONE - THE BYRD HAGEL RESOLUTION ..............................................................................18
TWO - THE AFRICA GROUP STATEMENT AT AGBM7 .......................................................19
THREE - CHINA STATEMENT PRE-COP3 ...............................................................................21
FOUR - SPEECH BY THE RT. HON. MICHAEL MEACHER MP ..................................................22
FIVE - GLOBE INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE ACTION AGENDA......................24
SIX - THE GLOBE SOUTHERN AFRICA NETWORK................................................................25
SEVEN - THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION .............................................................27

3

Climate Change - a "GLOBAL PROBLEM"*
Atmospheric Greenhouse Gas Concentrations Rise as GHG Emissions Rise
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported for the first time in1990. IPCC said that greenhouse gas (ghg) concentrations in the global atmosphere wererising as a result of human ghg emissions, principally from fossil fuel burning.
The historic record (440,000 years/ice-core) of ghg concentrations in the atmosphereshows between 200 and 300 per million by volume (ppmv). Since industrialization, theimpact of human fossil fuel burning has raised ghg concentration in the atmosphere by
30%. This is very dramatically faster and higher than anywhere in the historical record
above.
This is clearly a 'global problem'. Because ghg concentrations trap heat (infra-red), moreconcentrations trap more heat, this puts us on a human-caused trajectory of increasing
global warming and climate changes towards potentially disastrous global damages.
GHG Emissions must FALL just to stop Concentrations Rising Further
There is another dimension to the global problem. While the global dependency on fossil
energy for economic growth remains nearly 100% at this time, the IPCC also noted thatcuts in ghg emissions in the order of 60 - 80% were required immediately if risingatmospheric ghg concentrations were to be stabilised just at present raised values.
There is another even more difficult dimension to this global problem. The IPCC also
noted that stabilisation of atmospheric ghg concentrations at any value was contingent on
cuts of this magnitude in some give time frame. Because atmospheric ghg concentrations
are a function of accumulated emissions, rising ghg concentrations will only slow inproportion to the rate at which emissions actually fall (negative growth). Causing
concentrations to actually fall would require extended zero emissions.

"GLOBAL SOLUTIONS?"The US version of a "GLOBAL SOLUTION" rejected as inequitable
When the negotiations began for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC) in 1991, the US canvassed quite logically for a 'global solution' to this'global problem'. The language used at the time was 'a comprehensive approach'. IPCC
scientists had suggested that global emissions should be reduced by 1 - 2% per annum forthe next 50 - 100 years. The US proposed that any modification in emissions would be
uniform across the globe. In other words all countries would limit or reduce by the sameamount.
This simple central organising principle was rejected. The mistake at that time was toreject the notion of central organising principles altogether just because that particularversion of the principle was so obviously globally inequitable.
Developing countries rightly pointed out that the 20% of global population living in theindustrial countries had been responsible for over 80% of the accumulated ghg output
since the beginning of industrialisation and had grown rich and powerful whilst remaining
unaccountable over that impact.

4

The UN GLOBAL SOLUTION - An "Equity Based" Framework Convention
After two years of negotiation the UNFCCC text was tabled at the Earth Summit in 1992.
It defined the global problem and stated that it's global objective had to be guided by theprinciples of precaution and equity (differentiated responsibilities) with a need for
efficiency.
Why have the UNFCCC?

Parties to the UNFCCC, "acknowledge that change in the Earth's climate and its
adverse effects are a common concern of humankind." They are, "concerned thathuman activities have been substantially increasing the atmosphericconcentrations of greenhouse gases, that these increases enhance the natural
greenhouse effect, and that this will result on average in an additional warming of
the Earth's surface and atmosphere and may adversely affect natural ecosystems
and humankind" (Preamble).
What is the Objective of the Convention? - (ghg emissions CONTRACTION)

The Parties define the ultimate objective of the Climate Convention and any
related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt as follows.
"It is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention,
stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level thatwould prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."(Article 2)
What is the Principle of Global Equity? - (CONVERGENCE - ALLOCATION)

The Parties adopt the principle that they, "should protect the climate system for the
benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on the basis of equity."(Article 3.1). They note that, "the largest share of historical and current global
emissions of greenhouse gases has originated in developed countries and that percapita emissions in developing countries are still relatively low" (Preamble). Theynote therefore, "that in accordance with their common but differentiatedresponsibilities and respective capabilities the developed country Parties must takethe lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof" (Article 3.1),
while, "the share of global emissions originating in developing countries will growto meet their social and development needs," (Article 3.3)."
What is the Precautionary Principle?

The Parties, "should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or
minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there
are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should
not be used as a reason for postponing such measures . . . . (Article 3.3) . . .
What is the Principle of Global Efficiency? - (GLOBAL EMISSIONS TRADE). . . taking into account that policies and measures to deal with climate change
should be cost-effective so as to ensure global benefits at lowest possible cost."(Article 3.3)

5

COP1 - The "BERLIN MANDATE""Flawed Process" seeking Sub-Global Solutions
Instead of immediately engaging with the task of organising a global solution, the First
Conference of the Parties (COP1) to the UNFCCC in April 1995 adopted the Berlin
Mandate. This sought to extend the commitments to control greenhouse gas emissions
required of the industrial country group (Annex One) in the UNFCCC.
The justification was the moral argument. Under "differentiated responsibilities" theindustrialised countries had to take the lead and be seen to take the lead before thedeveloping countries would join in.
Indian Government essay a "Global Solution" at COP1
Already recognising the ultimate flaw in the Berlin Mandate, the Indian Government madethe following statement at the end of the First Conference of the Parties (COP1).
"We face the actuality of scarce resources and the increasing potential for conflictwith each other over these scarce resources. The social, financial and ecologicalinter-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 make matters worse unless they areproperly referenced to targets and time-tables for equitable emissions reductions
overall. This means devising and implementing a programme for convergence atequitable and sustainable par values for consumption on a per capita basis
globally."
The AOSIS Protocol
The 'sub-global' model adopted for the Berlin Mandate however, was the Alliance ofSmall Island States (AOSIS) Protocol that advocated 20% cuts against 1990 emissions
levels by 2005 for developed countries only. This sought to increase their existingcommitments of 0% above 1990 by 2000.
A year later at COP2 in June 1996, as most governments declared acceptance of the IPCC
Second Assessment Report (SAR) and the reality of the warming problem, the US
declared the AOSIS Protocol "unrealistic and unachievable" and rejected it out of hand.
They also focussed again on the "fatal flaw" in the UNFCCC as the 'apartheid' between
Annex One and the rest of the countries. It is very significant that the US was again in
effect driven to focussing its objections to conditions of 'global apartheid.'This judgement was significant blow to the lobby in favour of the AOSIS Protocol.
The US with 4% of world population is responsible for 25% of any year's ghg output and
33% of accumulated output is the world's biggest ghg emitter. Consequently, many reason
that without the US ratifying any of the UNFCCC treaty arrangements, the whole exercise
will be a dead letter.

6

COP2 - GLOBAL APARTHEID
Flawed Sub-Global Ethics get Flawed Sub-Global Solutions
In seeking to overcome this 'global apartheid', the US dilemma was in seeking to share
public responsibility for the impacts causing climate change and the costs of mitigating
them, whilst also seeking ways of not having to share the benefit of the private income
derived from making these impacts. The dilemma cut hard in two ways. It put the US in avery powerful position to insist on a 'global solution' because they knew that without them
there would be no solution at all. However, it also put every one else in an equally
powerful position too.
If political will was there, they could define a 'globally equitable solution' in preference tomerely demanding a symbolic and tactical victory with a sub-global solution on the basisof an undefined global equity.
Global Ethics for Global Solutions
It is possible to define a more rigorous solution with the central organising principles ofglobal sustainability and global equity or democracy. Such a solution would see emissions
rights becoming proportional to people rather than remaining proportional to accumulated
income and environmental impact: - in other words an agreed convergence to per capita
equality of emissions rights globally under a sustainable global emissions cap.
Such an approach would be consistent with transcending the sub-global ethics of 'global
apartheid' in a practical way. Moreover not only does climate change make this possible,
averting human caused climate change actually makes ending global apartheid necessary.
Clean energy paths cannot be achieved globally without an organised global solution forsharing resources and information effectively. As the UNFCCC requires, this means
sustainably, equitably and efficiently in that order.
This is exactly what the Africa Group would propose a year later in August 1997,
surprisingly assisted by the full body of Senators in the US Congress in the so-called
Byrd-Hagel Resolution passed in July 1997.
The BYRD HAGEL Global Solution
In July 1997 US Senators Byrd and Hagel tabled a resolution about the US involvementwith the Kyoto Protocol (KP). It rehearsed all their objections to what they felt was the'flawed' character of the Berlin Mandate and the impending Kyoto Protocol.
Their fundamental objection was to the 'global apartheid' in the UNFCCC between theDeveloped Country Parties of Annex One who were to observe commitments to control
their ghg emissions, and all the Developing Country Parties who were not required toobserve such commitments.
The Resolution, adopted with a vote of 95 in favour and 0 against, clearly allows"Contraction and Convergence".
"Now, therefore, be it Resolved that: -7

(1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or otheragreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which
would mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for
the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new
specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions forDeveloping Country Parties within the same compliance period."
BYRD HAGEL is "Contraction and Convergence"
The crucial detail in the Byrd Hagel Resolution is in paragraph 1A. Two defining
distinctions are maintained. The first is between the Annex One Parties and theDeveloping Country Parties. The second is between 'limit' ghg emissions and 'reduce' ghg
emissions. Limitations of ghg emissions means controlled positive growth of ghg
emissions and reductions of ghg emissions means controlled negative growth ofemissions;
If we put these concepts together "within the same compliance period", the paragraph can
only translate into a process of formal "Contraction and Convergence". Annex One Parties
will reduce (or contract) their ghg emissions while the Developing Country Parties will
limit their ghg emissions (so as to converge with Annex One Country Parties).
Technically, not just rhetorically, there has to be a 'convergence factor' to do this. It won't
happen by accident.
The unavoidable question is "what is this convergence factor?"[Full statement in Appendix One]Contraction without Convergence to Per Capita Equality Non-Viable
The essential problem is about sharing carbon entitlements between people globally,equitably and sustainably. In principle there is no other viable convergence factor thanconvergence on per capita equality of shares by an agreed date inside a finite contraction
budget. Anything else is an accident happening by default.
The moment more complex convergence indicators are introduced, the whole process
becomes a morass of competing indicators and contradictory assumptions. In practice itmeans that 180 countries with 180 different arguments about equity will negotiate at COPs
for the next 100 years in the hope that some kind of 'invisible hand' will aggregate all of
the international rivalry, politicking and cross-talk into a controlled and consensual global
ghg contraction agreement. This is obviously not going to happen.
Even implicitly continuing to work to this scenario also continues to cultivate the cultureof forgetfulness regarding the increasingly dangerous relationship between ghg emissions
and their accumulating concentrations in the atmosphere. Even it we succeed in achievinga gradual global ghg contraction of emissions, concentrations (all other factors remaining
stable) will only stabilise at the end of the contraction budget (e.g. 100 years @ +/- 450
ppmv CO2). Consequently global temperature and damages will continue risingthroughout. The risks of failing to achieve even this degree of control over ghg emissions
especially in vulnerable regions such as in SADC are appalling! Significant regional
damages in SADC are already apparent just at present raised concentration levels of
360ppmv.

8

"Contraction & Convergence"
The AFRICA GROUP respond
Recognising these mounting dangers the Africa Group of Nations took a clear initiative ayear later at the August 1997 negotiating session of the Ad Hoc Group of the Berlin
Mandate (AGBM7). The group defined and presented the global solution now formallyknown as "Contraction and Convergence" to the final plenary session.
"As we negotiate the reduction of GHG, the countries of Africa believe that there shouldbe certain principles that need to be clearly defined.
1. There must be limits on all GHGs if the danger to our climate is to be averted. The
IPCC scientific assessment report provides us with the basis for global consensus onsuch limits.
2. A globally agreed ceiling of GHG emissions can only be achieved by adopting theprinciple of per capita emissions rights that fully take into account the reality of
population growth and the principle of differentiation.
3. Achievement of a safe limit to global GHG emissions can be achieved by reducing theemissions of Annex One while at the same time ensuring that there is controlled
growth of future emissions from Non-Annex One countries, reflecting our legitimate
right to sustainable economic growth. We strongly believe that this will take us along apath to responsible climate management that allows us to reach our goal of defining amutually agreed point of convergence and sustainable development. Such a
convergence Mr. Chairman must ensure that we maintain a global ceiling on
emissions to prevent dangerous interference with the climate system.
4. When we look at time frames, we believe that insufficient commitment by Annex One
countries will only result in delaying our influence on the climate system. If this course
is maintained, then we will all suffer and the burden will be even greater for humanity
in general. The burden for any future mitigation efforts on those of who have not been
historically and currently responsible for creating the problem will be greater.
Mr. Chairman, we must focus our attention on the most appropriate, reasonable andacceptable time frame for action. There is an over-riding pre-requisite. The time frame
can not be too far away into the future if we are to avoid at all costs the dangers that
global climate change poses. The current scientific evidence indicates that Africa faces
decline in water resources, agricultural production and economic performance. It istherefore for this reason that we wish to register the seriousness with which we view theeffective implementation of the Convention and future agreements emanating from it."
They carried this position right through to the very end-game of COP3 in December thatyear, with vivid and literally dramatic results in the final session establishing the Kyoto
Protocol, seeding the NAM statement in those very moments.
[Full statement in Appendix Two]

9

The USA: - "It’s the only game in town."
During mid 1997 and at the request of US government personnel, a series of private policy
briefings on "Contraction and Convergence" took place in Government agencies in
Washington comprising the US climate policy community (EPA, AFLCIO, State Dept.
and the Energy Dept.). They were fully briefed on the flexibility of the model.
The application of the principle of graduated "Contraction" of the global ghg emissions
budget over time to a pre-set goal of atmospheric ghg concentrations, enables any futurecarbon budget to be computed and subsequently revised to control concentrations.
The application of the principle of "Convergence" to equal per capita shares globally to apre-set date within the budget and the budget period to a pre-set population year enables
any rate of international convergence to be negotiated and revised blending control withconsent.
The US were also advised that this flexibility should be read in conjunction with theflexibility sought in respect of the extent to which the resultant ghg allocations would beinternationally tradable as emissions permits. Assuming such flexibility from the outset
enables the "Contraction and Convergence" rates to be negotiated without having tomimic and modify baseline trend emissions as in principle the global ghg emissions
budget was convertible for cash.
Senior bureaucrats conceded that if the Chinese could be persuaded to play "Contraction
and Convergence" the US would have to play. It was the only game in town.
China - "Emissions control standard formulated on a per capita basis"
During August 1990 Chinese policy makers were given the equivalent briefing and by
October 1997 the Chinese appeared to have been persuaded to signal a tentative readinessto play C&C. In doing this they spelled out more specifically their views for the mid-term
than had previously occurred. They in effect declared potential pathways for "Contraction
and Convergence".
Dr Song Jian (the State Councilor with responsibility for Climate Change and Population)
made the following statement at the closing ceremony of the China Council forInternational Co-operation on Environment and Development.
"When we ask the opinions of people from all circles, many people, in particular thescientists think that the emissions control standard should be formulated on a per capita
basis.
According to the UN Charter, everybody is born equal, and has inalienable rights to enjoy
modern technological civilization. Today the per capita consumption is just one tenth ofthat of the developed countries, one eighth of that of medium developed countries. It isestimated 30-40 years would be needed for China to catch up with the level of medium
developed countries."[Full statement in Appendix Three]10

COP3 - The "Kyoto Protocol"(Article 17) - global or sub-global?
The Kyoto Protocol (KP) was tabled at Third Conference of the Parties (COP3) in Japan in
December 1997. It attempted to fulfil the Berlin Mandate for a "sub-global" solution, themain tension over 'globality' unanswered.
Emissions reduction commitments were attached to the industrial country group only. In
spite of the Africa Group position many developing countries continued to resist any talkof parallel (voluntary) commitments from them because of the history of deep inequity andmistrust.
However, the flaws in this "sub-global" strategy were revealed. The developing countrygroup was persuaded by the northern environmental lobby to project an aggressively onesided and unrealistic long-term scenario for global arrangements on emissions restraint. In
exchange for nothing, the developing country group would prescribe ever-deeper ghg
emissions reductions for the developed country group only for the next fifty years or more.
In their growing frustration with the US and the US insistence on 'globality ', the NGOsargued that this would be seen as "developing countries taking the lead".
The sub-global strategy also complicated the position of those developing countries that
had been taking climate friendly measures including some control of ghg emissions. Theircomplaint became that these actions were not even being recognised let alone 'credited'.
This was true but transactional credit required the finite accounts of globality.
Moreover, as the issue of the international tradability of ghg emissions entitlements
progressed, an increasing number of countries recognised the logic of the Africa Group
proposals for "Contraction and Convergence". Not only did the principles answer the US
demand for a global solution, they did so in a manner that enabled revenues frominternational emissions trading to accrue to developing countries for sustainable
development in potentially significant amounts.
While the US appeared not to have won their insistence on 'globality' they had won theircase for tradability. This led directly to what the US called a "near-death experience" at thevery end of the negotiations; major G-77 players suddenly turned the tables at the lastminute.
Global Equity Dawns at Kyoto's Darkest Hour - G-77 goes global
At the end of the Kyoto negotiations, the entire debate came to centre on the issues oftrade and the assigning of property rights in the future carbon budget. By definition,
emissions trading cannot occur until the principle of property rights has been agreed andthe entitlements have been assigned and ratified.
At 3.00am when the negotiations were already into injury time, the paragraph in the draft
Kyoto Protocol relating to trade came up for acceptance. The US re-iterated theirinsistence on everyone's acceptance of emissions trading. The governments of China andIndia, contrary to people's expectations, did not rebut the idea.
Instead they responded by saying that acceptance of trade depended on the issue of"equitable allocations" of emissions entitlements on a per capita basis. Moreover the11Africa Group of Nations intervened, re-iterating that this was why they had advocated"Contraction and Convergence". The US replied by saying that they heard the call for"Contraction and Convergence" but suggested this wasn't the moment to try and integrate
such a comprehensive structural methodology.
However, that US response underlined the remarks made in Washington in July 1997 andreaffirmed at the GLOBE International workshop in Bonn in October 1997 by US
Ambassador Mark Hambley to an international gathering of Parliamentarians, that the idea
is being taken seriously in Washington. Like many others since, they have said it is the
only game in town. The global equity argument was finally being won on the floor of the
COP.
The COP meeting was arrested for half an hour. On resumption, Chairman Estrada readout a prepared text (now known as Article 17). In effect the COP issued instructions to
SBI and SBSTA to elucidate during 1998 the rules, principles, modalities etc relating totrade, in time for COP4 in Buenos Aires in November 1998.
These events led directly to the subsequent formation of the NAM Statement on emissions
trading supported by the GLOBE International Parliamentarians General Assembly, thenewly formed GLOBE Southern Africa Network and subsequently the European
Parliament.

SUPPORT for C&C SINCE KYOTO
UK Government
In May 1998 immediately prior to the G-8 Conference in Birmingham, the UK Ministerwith responsibility for climate change, the Rt Hon Michael Meacher MP, made astatement in support of "Contraction and Convergence" the House of Commons including
the following: "As I have said it is our view that the time has come for a serious review under theConvention of the commitments of all countries, that reflects the economic anddevelopment needs of developing countries. "Contraction and Convergence"
should be clearly one of the ideas on the table in such a review. It has theattraction of equity and logic - but equally raises huge political and practicalissues which need to be considered carefully."
In response to a subsequent enquiry by the President of GLOBE UK, the UK Prime
Minister, the Rt Hon Tony Blair, endorsed this view in a personal letter to the GLOBE
President.
[Full statement in Appendix Four]
GLOBE International
A few days before (24-26 August, 1998) the NAM, the GIGA in Cape Cod, adopted astatement on the global management of climate change which embedded "Contraction andConvergence" and urged the NAM to persist in calling for equity at COP4 in the following
terms: -12

"Support the adoption of a mandate at Buenos Aires to redefine the way in whichgreenhouse emission cuts are currently shared between countries, following theprinciple of equity enshrined in the Contraction and Convergence analysis, andurge the summit of the Non-Aligned Movement countries meeting in Durban, RSA,
to persist in demanding an equitable approach as a precondition for their
participation in COP4 at Buenos Aires."
It is significant that a number of both Democratic and Republican Senators signed on tothis statement.
[Full statement in Appendix Five]
Non-Aligned Movement
In September 1998 the NAM declared that: "Emission trading for implementation of (ghg reduction/limitation) commitments
can only commence after issues relating to the principles, modalities, etc of suchtrading, including the initial allocations of emissions entitlements on an equitablebasis to all countries has been agreed upon by the Parties to the Framework
Convention on Climate Change."
This formulation is intended to resolve the challenge contained in Article 17 of the Kyoto
Protocol (KP). It is not as some have portrayed an attempt to block out emissions trading.
It seeks to ensure the long-term effectiveness of the emissions trading process.
Consequently, it recognises that emissions trading, if it is to achieve the objective of the
UNFCCC, can only be an efficient mechanism for that aim if it is structured in the priorrecognition of international equity and order in the allocation methodology adopted within
the terms of Article 17.
Put the other way around, inequitable allocations are obviously not consistent with getting
the full international cooperation needed to achieve the objective of the UNFCCC.
Consequently, the hoped for efficiency of emissions trading will not pass its reality test if
emissions trading is set up based on globally inequitable allocations. It will simply be seen
as a mechanism for sustaining sub-global inequity with a green veneer of pseudosustainability of business-as-usual, in other words sustaining conditions of global
apartheid.
In this sense the NAM statement seeks an effective global solution to a global problem
exactly as the US has argued, but where global efficiency is legitimate only as a derivativeof global equity.
This does not have to prevent emissions trading in the short-tem. The point is to ensurethat the chaos of the disorderly sub-global and inequitable precedent of the Berlin
Mandate/Kyoto Protocol allocation chaos does not become the precedent of default for all
future process on ghg emissions allocations. The task must be to ensure that at theappropriate moment the Kyoto Protocol is superceded by global equity based
arrangements.

13

Environmental Justice Network Forum (EJNF)
On the 18th of October 1998 EJNF adopted the following resolution.
"Noting that global warming and climate changes are having growing and adverse
impacts on South Africa and her peoples, such as flash flooding, increasing aridity,
increasing crop insecurity and spread of tropical diseases such as malaria,
and recognising that there has been a history of a profound imbalance within the country
and between all the countries of the world in the consumption of the resources which havetriggered these global changes,
EJNF resolves to promote corrective actions within and between nations that deal bothwith the unequal consumption and the overconsumption of the resources in question
particularly those which lead directly to the release of greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions
such as fossil fuels
EJNF commits itself to campaign in support of the "Contraction and Convergence"
proposals that specifically embody the principles of global equity and sustainability.
This means that EJNF will advocate that the apportionment of future international
greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions entitlements shall be the result of a deliberate
convergence process to a point of equal per capita shares globally by a date to benegotiated by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC)."GLOBE Southern Africa Network
GSAN with members from nine of the fourteen SADC countries, convened in Cape Townin early September 1998 and affirmed support for the NAM and the "Contraction andConvergence" principles espoused by GLOBE and the Africa Group as follows: We the Members of Parliament and Members of the GLOBE Southern Africa Network;
Support the adoption of a mandate at Buenos Aires to redefine the way in whichgreenhouse emission cuts are shared between countries under the Kyoto Protocol,
following instead the principle of global equity enshrined in the Contraction andConvergence analysis,
1. Specifically work to ensure that all future development of the UNFCCC and its related
instruments will be consistent with these interdependent principles of global equity andsustainability;
2. And rebut any recourse to "flexibility mechanisms" that are not derived from theinterdependent application of these principles of sustainability and global equity;[Full statement in Appendix Six]
European Parliament
A few days after the NAM and GLOBE Southern Africa statements were adopted, theEuropean Parliament adopted a resolution on climate change that clearly embedded theglobal constitutional principles for the long-term management of global climate changeusing "Contraction and Convergence". The resolution, led by the Environment
Committee, was intensely debated and finally adopted with a 90 percent majority infavour.
14

". . . . . calls on the Commission and the Member States to take the lead in brokering anagreement on a set of common principles and a negotiating framework beyond Buenos
Aires;. . . . . . . re-iterates and re-emphasises once again its view that a set of common
principles will have to be based on, inter alia:
1. agreement to have a worldwide binding limit on global emissions consistent with amaximum atmospheric concentration of 550 ppmv CO2 equivalent,
2. initial distribution of emissions rights according to the Kyoto targets,
3. progressive convergence towards an equitable distribution of emissions rights on a percapita basis by an agreed date in the next century,
4. across-the-board reductions in emissions rights thereafter in order to achieve thereduction recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
5. an agreement to have a quantitative ceiling on the use of flexibility mechanisms thatwill ensure that the majority of emission reductions are met domestically inaccordance with the spirit of articles 6, 12 and 17 of the Kyoto protocol; in thiscontext trading must be subject to proper monitoring, reporting and enforcement;
6. an adequately financed mechanism for promoting technology transfer from Annex 1 to
non-Annex 1 countries;"[Full statement in Appendix Seven]

WRONG ROAD, RIGHT ROAD
Will the US Ratify the Kyoto Protocol?
There are four answers to this question; - 'yes', 'no', 'maybe' and 'it depends on when you
want the answer by.'If everybody were on board before 2002, with 'maximum flexibility' in the amount ofemissions trading that can occur, we would have achieved 'globality' so the answer is 'yes'.
If only Annex One is on board with quantitative caps on the amount of emissions trading,the answer is 'no'. (See Byrd Hagel Resolution - it is the US Senate which ratifies
International Treaties). If the conditions that gave rise to the answer 'no' were modified tothe extent that 'qualitative' caps on trade were applied and major developing countries
accepted voluntary commitments, the answer is a tentative maybe. But the key countries
listed in the BH resolution shows this is as good as impossible.
The point about the date relates to the next presidential election. The answers above areprobably accurate before that election but less so after especially in the event of a
Republican victory.
'US Ratification' is the Wrong Question'Will the US ratify the KP?' is the wrong question. The US has demanded 'globality' and its
ill-defined counterpart 'meaningful participation by key developing countries'.
Looking for the answer 'yes' to this question assumes the power lies in the 'sub-global' US
more than it lies in the danger of the global problem and the equity-logic of the global
solution. The global argument recognises that the US has so far proposed everythingnecessary to solve the global climate crisis except international equity.
15

Expecting the US to resolve the equity question in a one-sided manner is by definition
impossible precisely because the US by itself is 'sub-global'. Any such result will
inevitably be a one-sided continuation of inequity and therefore non-viable.
Moreover, expecting to solve the global climate crisis with a 'one sided anything' isdoomed to be ineffective, which ironically has been the US point all along. The irony for
the US is realizing too slowly that what they were arguing for all along was by definition'global equity'.
Right Answers are Global Principles for Global Practice
The principles are Global Precaution and Sustainability and Global Equity and
Democracy.
The practice is using these principles for the process of "Contraction, Convergence,
Allocation and Trade." (C-CAT). This will manage global climate change effectively on
the basis of equity through the efficiency of making the available permits internationallytradable.
Principles, no Practice - useless. Practice, no Principles - dangerous.
Article 17 of the Kyoto Protocol is all about, putting principles before practice.
"The Conference of the Parties shall define the relevant principles, modalities,
rules and guidelines, in particular for verification, reporting and accountability foremissions trading. The Parties included in Annex B may participate in emissions
trading for the purposes of fulfilling their commitments under Article 3. Any suchtrading shall be supplemental to domestic actions for the purpose of meeting
quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments under that Article."
The emissions trading is not intended to occur for its own sake. It is intended to achieve
the objective of the UNFCCC more efficiently than if emissions trading did not occur.
Moreover, although practice is sequential, principles are perennial and exist in parallel.
This crucial distinction relates to the Millenium Paradigm shift now occurring. This is the'Third Way' where the global equity principle covers third parties (the environment and allits stakeholders) by definition and efficiency is the derivative of that interdependent
combination.

16

COP4 - The "BUENOS AIRES MANDATE"
Beginning the end of Global Apartheid'.
The right answer is a multi-lateral agreement for Global Sustainability and Global Equity
that by definition will begin the ending of Global Apartheid. Global Sustainability depends
on Global Equity; - we all get global sustainability when the US gets the global efficiencyof emissions trading and globality in exchange for global equity and democracy.
Principles for Seven Generations: World Leader's Historic Opportunity at
COP4
The US cannot unilaterally propose this globally equitable solution. Nor will it emerge by
accident. World leaders must come together at the highest levels of international
diplomacy to advocate openly and urgently the establishment of its principles at COP4.
As is clear from the Africa Group Statement, the Resolution of the European Parliament
and the GLOBE campaign, it has been designed. As is clear from the NAM statement,
there is now the call for it to be delivered just as South Africa assumes the presidency of
the NAM.
As is clear both from the logic of the situation and the predicament of ineffectual subglobal politics, there is both a need and an opportunity for this to be done in Buenos Aires.
The strategy would not be to displace or disparage the bureaucratic struggle underway atthe level of existing debates about details relating to the Kyoto Protocol. Rather, it would
be to rescue the Kyoto Protocol by confirming the obvious parallel need for a process to
begin now to address the 'big-picture', the long-term global solution rigorously guided by
the principles of global justice and sustainability.
The initiative would specifically establish a long-term mandate from Buenos Aires tocarry future negotiation forward in these terms. This combination is in preference tocontinuing only with acrimonious and self-defeating short-term mandates for mayhem at
the COPs.
Without such a mandate, disintegration will be the increasingly visionless future where
many people will perish. "Contraction, Convergence, Allocation and Trade" structures theprinciples of global precaution and sustainability, in the social and environmental
efficiency of global equity and democracy. This interdependence achieves global
desegregation and enables a degree of control. It captures the two themes of global equity
and efficiency within a context of controlled rates of using resources linking democracy
and the markets to global sustainability through prosperity by other means.
Without this there seems little prospect of avoiding a climate tragedy and ensuring thefuture for those from whom we have borrowed it. Time was when it was normal to planfor seven generations. The next seven need champions for this purpose now.

17

Appendices
One - The BYRD HAGEL Resolution• "Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the conditions for the United States
becoming a signatory to any international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions
under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)•

Whereas the UNFCC (in this resolution referred to as the `Convention'), adopted in
May 1992, entered into force in 1994 and is not yet fully implemented;•

Whereas the Convention, intended to address climate change on a global basis,
identifies the former Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe and theOrganization For Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), including theUnited States, as `Annex I Parties', and the remaining 129 countries, including China,
Mexico, India, Brazil, and South Korea, as `Developing Country Parties';•

Whereas in April 1995, the Convention's `Conference of the Parties' adopted the socalled 'Berlin Mandate';•

Whereas the `Berlin Mandate' calls for the adoption, as soon as December 1997, in
Kyoto, Japan, of a protocol or another legal instrument that strengthens commitments
to limit greenhouse gas emissions by Annex I Parties for the post-2000 period andestablishes a negotiation process called the `Ad Hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate';•

Whereas the `Berlin Mandate' specifically exempts all Developing Country Parties
from any new commitments in such negotiation process for the post-2000 period;•

Whereas although the Convention, approved by the United States Senate, called on all
signatory parties to adopt policies and programs aimed at limiting their greenhousegas (GHG) emissions, in July 1996 the Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs
called for the first time for `legally binding' emission limitation targets and timetables
for Annex I Parties, a position reiterated by the Secretary of State in testimony before
the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate on January 8, 1997;•

Whereas greenhouse gas emissions of Developing Country Parties are rapidly
increasing and are expected to surpass emissions of the United States and otherOECD countries as early as 2015;•

Whereas the Department of State has declared that it is critical for the Parties to theConvention to include Developing Country Parties in the next steps for global action
and, therefore, has proposed that consideration of additional steps to include
limitations on Developing Country Parties' greenhouse gas emissions would not begin
until after a protocol or other legal instrument is adopted in Kyoto , Japan in
December 1997;•

Whereas the exemption for Developing Country Parties is inconsistent with the needfor global action on climate change and is environmentally flawed; and Whereas the
Senate strongly believes that the proposals under negotiation, because of the disparityof treatment between Annex I Parties and Developing Countries and the level of18

required emission reductions, could result in serious harm to the United States
economy, including significant job loss, trade disadvantages, increased energy andconsumer costs, or any combination thereof:
Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that (1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement
regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at
negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would A.

mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the
Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new
specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions
for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period, orB.

would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States; and(2) any such protocol or other agreement which would require the advice and consent of
the Senate to ratification should be accompanied by a detailed explanation of any
legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement the protocol orother agreement and should also be accompanied by an analysis of the detailed
financial costs and other impacts on the economy of the United States which would beincurred by the implementation of the protocol or other agreement."
Two - the AFRICA GROUP Statement at AGBM7"Mr. Chairman - Let me begin by adding the Africa Group support for the statement madeby the Chairman of the Group of G-77 speaking on behalf of the G-77 and China.
Speaking on behalf of the Africa Group, I wish to commend you on the manner in which
you have presided over the negotiations in the AGBM process. This has been an extremely
difficult session of meetings. However, what is crucial is to try to evaluate whether of not
the Parties have made any real headway in trying to strengthen the commitments under
Article 4.2 (a) and (b) and advance the implementation of Article 4.1 as was mandated to
us by the Berlin Mandate.
We shall pack our bags and return home with a sense of concern about the pace ofprogress that has been made. Unfavourable climatic conditions will continue to plague
our economies, our crops will continue to fail, national external debts will remain aproblem to us and our basic social infrastructure will continue to suffer as a result of the
impacts of climate change. Yet the Annex One Parties - in particular those parties thathave chosen to refrain from giving us their numbers - will go home smiling, celebrating
their success in holding back the negotiation process.
We are grateful to those Parties who have given us their proposals and we look forward toevaluating these proposals in order to assess the impacts they will have on our socioeconomic infrastructures. Some of our countries are already in the process of
implementing activities to address the problem of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG)
emissions. We wait in anticipation for Annex One countries to show the necessarycommitment. As we negotiate the reduction of GHG, the countries of Africa believe that
there should be certain principles that need to be clearly defined.

19

First: There must be limits on all GHGs if the danger to our climate is to be averted. The
IPCC scientific assessment report provides us with the basis for global consensus on such
limits. The contrary view therefore does not enjoy much emotional, political or indeed
scientific support.
Second: A globally agreed ceiling of GHG emissions can only be achieved by adopting theprinciple of per capita emissions rights that fully take into account the reality of
population growth and the principle of differentiation.
Third: Achievement of a safe limit to global GHG emissions can be achieved by reducing
the emissions of Annex One while at the same time ensuring that there is controlled
growth of future emissions from Non-Annex One countries, reflecting our legitimate rightto sustainable economic growth. We strongly believe that this will take us along a path toresponsible climate management that allows us to reach our goal of defining a mutuallyagreed point of convergence and sustainable development. Such a convergence Mr.
Chairman must ensure that we maintain a global ceiling on emissions to prevent
dangerous interference with the climate system.
Fourth: When we look at time frames, we believe that insufficient commitment by Annex
One countries will only result in delaying our influence on the climate system. If thiscourse is maintained, then we will all suffer and the burden will be even greater forhumanity in general. The burden for any future mitigation efforts on those of who have notbeen historically and currently responsible for creating the problem will be greater.
Mr. Chairman we recognise that per capita emissions rights, as a form of differentiation is
not an easy goal. It calls for deliberate actions to attain reduction targets over time byAnnex One Parties and sustainable growth in the Non-Annex One Parties. To do thisAfrica would need predictable financial resources, technology transfer, education,
training and public awareness, systematic observation and research. We look forward to
renewed co-operation with other Parties in implementing our commitments under Article
4.1.
Mr. Chairman, we must focus our attention on the most appropriate, reasonable andacceptable time frame for action. There is an over-riding pre-requisite. The time frame
can not be too far away into the future if we are to avoid at all costs the dangers that
global climate change poses. The current scientific evidence indicates that Africa faces
decline in water resources, agricultural production and economic performance. It istherefore for this reason that we wish to register the seriousness with which we view theeffective implementation of the Convention and future agreements emanating from it.
Finally Mr. Chairman, we would request that the Secretariat take note of the views
expressed in this statement on behalf of the African Group of Nations and Parties to theConvention. We look forward to meaningful targets and timeframes for consideration at
the next session of the AGBM."

20

Three - China Statement pre-COP3"We fully understand the worldwide campaign to battle the climate change spearheadedby the European Union and Nordic Countries. The voice of small island states also brooks
no ignorance. According to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC) and the Berlin Mandate, China bears no responsibility for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. When we ask the opinions of people from all circles, many
people, in particular the scientists think that the emissions control standard should beformulated on a per capita basis.
According to the UN Charter, everybody is born equal, and has inalienable rights to enjoy
modern technological civilization. Today the per capita consumption is just one tenth ofthat of the developed countries, one eighth of that of medium developed countries. It isestimated 30-40 years would be needed for China to catch up with the level of medium
developed countries. No one is entitled to prohibit families from using refrigerators or
those who live or work in such a high temperature of 40 degrees Celsius from enjoying
air-conditioning. However the Chinese people and government do have realized their due
responsibilities for the global climate change and committed to make efforts to lower
down the increase rate of greenhouse gas emissions in the following way: 1. To control the growth of population and stop China's population from growing
within thirty years. This is the decisive guarantee of protecting climate and theenvironment.
2. To put the exploitation of hydroelectric power resources on the top priority,and to explore other renewable energy sources, develop clean coaltechnologies and reduce the emissions of unit energy consumption.
3. To continue the campaign of afforestations, plant more trees, attend pasturelands, develop ecological agriculture, protect ecological environment andpreserve and strengthen the ability of sinks for absorbing carbon dioxide fromthe atmosphere. The forest coverage is planned to be doubled to exceed thirty
percent of the total territory of the country in the 30-40 years to come.
4. To raise extensively the efficiency of energy utilisation, develop new and lessenergy-consuming industries and reduce the consumption for per unit of GDP.
In all these fields, the scientific and industrial communities of China shall try the best to
make their own contributions, and at the same time, we need international co-operation. I
hope that all the members and the experts of the working groups could put forward
opinions and creative suggestions."

21

Four - Speech by the Rt. Hon. Michael Meacher MP"Mr. Chairman I am pleased to be able to address this launch and take the opportunity to
set out the Government's position. I am only sorry that I cannot stay to listen to all yourspeakers. Despite the long and grueling negotiations, Kyoto was a huge success - anhistoric turning point in the fight against climate change. It is, however, only the first stepin the process, for several reasons:first, much greater reductions in greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions will be necessary in thelonger term, it we are to stabilise the increase in average global temperature;second, Kyoto left a lot of unfinished business such as establishing the rules andprocedures for the flexible mechanisms within the Protocol, for example on emissions
trading; and third the issue of future commitments for developing countries is crucial tothe implementation of the Protocol, and one which must be addressed.
The latter of these two are major issues which will take up much of the time of theConvention over the next few years, starting at the next Conference of the Parties in
Buenos Aires in November. As John Prescott said at Kyoto, we now have "a window ofcredibility" between Kyoto and ratification to allow progress to be made on these crucial
issues. As EU President, I have been steering through the discussions regarding the EU
position on these issues. They also feature in the current round of the G8 discussions, bothat the Leeds Castle meeting of the Environment Ministers at this weekend's Heads ofGovernment meeting.
I want now to talk in more detail about the first of these major issues - the flexible
mechanisms. Make no mistake the EU favours the use of these flexible mechanisms, but we
do have two have two big concerns:
first, domestic actions MUST be the main means of achieving the emissions reductions.
There are two reasons for this - domestic action allows us to our own economies that arenecessary to tackle climate change in the longer term - and it demonstrates to developing
countries our clear commitment to taking action, hopefully helping to persuade them toeventually take on similar commitment. That is why the EU will propose in Bonn, a limit to
the amount of emissions reductions that can be achieved through flexible mechanisms.
second, there is the issue of the so-called "hot-air". This is where some countries under theProtocol have targets significantly less demanding than their business-as-usual
projections - I don't think I need to mention names here. If these countries sell this"surplus" (or "hot-air"), there is an overall environmental loss since the two countries
involved (the buyer and the seller) do not take any actions to reduce actual emissions.
There is a real concern here - that "hot-air" would set an unwelcome precedent fordeveloping countries, many would invariably end up with less than challenging targets
which would undermine both the overall aim of the Protocol, and the system of trading inemissions permits.
This brings me to the second of the major issues I identified earlier - that of developing
countries. There is little doubt that if we are to limit climate change to acceptable levels,and the EU has suggested a maximum temperature rise of 2 degrees Celsius and a CO2
concen-tration of no more that 550 per million by volume (ppmv) or double the preindustrial level - not only will the developed country emissions need to be reduced22substantially but developing country emissions will also need to be controlled perhaps
allowing for some growth initially. It does mean that global emissions will eventually need
to be reduced by 60 to 70 percent to reach stabilisation. This broad concept has been ablypressed by Aubrey Meyer over the past few years and I congratulate him on his dedicationand his powers of persuasion.
In the shorter term we need to consider ways for engaging developing countries in theprocess. Two are being discussed. The first of these is allowing developing countries totake on voluntary reduction targets. In fact several have already taken action to limit theirgreenhouse gas (ghg) emissions. Although this wasn't part of the final agreement at Kyoto,
it is possible that it may yet be revived. We would have no difficulty with such a proposal,
apart from the concerns which I have already mentioned, over the issue of "hot-air".
The second way of engaging developing countries would be for a review, under the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), of the commitments of
ALL Parties to it. Such a review would need to consider what extra commitments would benecessary in the longer term. It is this method of engaging developing countries that the
EU favours. The review would need to be wide-ranging. It would need to recognise thelegitimate needs and aspirations for economic growth in the developing countries, theeradication of poverty as well as their common but differentiated responsibilities towards
climate change. At the same time it would need to recognise the global objective of
stabilising greenhouse gas (ghg) concentrations at a level which avoids dangerous
anthropogenic interference with the climate system which is in the interests of all
humanity.
The concept of "Contraction and Convergence" is one that would be considered in such a
review of commitments. But there will probably be others such as the pre-Kyoto Brazilian
proposal for an eventual extension of targets to developing countries. The long-term
development of the Convention and the Protocol in terms of further targets and the
involvement of developing countries is essential. But we believe that we must necessarily
tread cautiously if we are to make progress. There are big political issues at stake. We
need to build confidence with developing countries, demonstrate that the developed worldclearly takes its Kyoto commitments seriously and is willing to pass on experience andexpertise. It we move to hard and too fast, we risk complete failure.
At Kyoto, we the developed world made commitments to reduce our emissions. This is as itshould be since we are the main cause of the problem to date. But everyone recognisesthat climate change will be a problem for us all and will affect developing countries morethan developed countries. The problem can only be solved it we all take action. As I havesaid it is our view that the time has come for a serious review under the Convention of thecommitments of all countries, that reflects the economic and development needs ofdeveloping countries. "Contraction and Convergence" should be clearly one of the ideason the table in such a review. It has the attraction of equity and logic - but equally raises
huge political and practical issues which need to be considered carefully.
The Global Commons Institute and GLOBE are to be congratulated for raising awarenessof this concept as it can only help to stimulate the debate which must now take place about
how we solve a global issue."23

Five - GLOBE International CLIMATE CHANGE ACTION AGENDA"Global Response to Climate Change•

Recalling the action agenda adopted at the XIIth General Assembly of GLOBEInternational in 1997;•

Recognizing the threat of climate change and its possible consequences for all theworld's countries, and in particular for the world's poorest countries;•

Recognizing that a first step was taken in Kyoto, Japan, at the third Conference of theParties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in response to thisthreat;•Aware that the Kyoto Protocol leaves some issues unresolved, and that specific rules
will have to be agreed to in the course of the forthcoming negotiations•

Recognising that changes in climate have serious adverse effects on ecosystem, andthus on human health and well being, and recognising that preservation andrestoration of ecosystems is one effective way of slowing down climate change;•

Aware that our countries together have a responsibility to lead in the climate
negotiations, and determined to continue to drive the process forward;•

Recognising the need to identify gaps and overlaps among the Rio instruments in orderto create synergy and identify ways in which linkages between climate change andconservation of biological diversity can be used to slow climate change;•

Recognising the work by IPCC outlining marine and terrestrial biotic responses toenvironmental change and feedback to climate;•

Aware of the evidence showing that considerable reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions can be achieved in most industrialised countries at little or no net cost,especially by reducing the waste of energy;•

Committed to working in close cooperation with each other, as well as with colleagues
from developing countries, to find a way forward which is agreeable to us all;•Reaffirming our commitment to the objective of the UNFCCC as stated in Article 2,that the ultimate objective is "the stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in theatmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference withthe climate system" and that "such a level should be achieved within a time-frame
sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change to ensure that foodproduction is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in asustainable manner.

We, Members of GLOBE International:24

1. Believe that the Kyoto Protocol is a sound basis for further work in response to
climate change, and call for early ratification of the Protocol in order to ensure
achievement of the agreed reductions.
2. Are committed to ensuring that the Kyoto Protocol delivers real reductions ingreenhouse gas emissions from industrialised countries by 2008-2012;
3. Will work to ensure that the COP agrees to unambiguous, clear and fair rules toregulate Joint Implementation, the Clean Development Mechanisms and Emissions
Trading;
4. Will support ways of ensuring that the political will is developed to implement
domestic action as required by the protocol.
5. Will support ways of ensuring that flexibility mechanisms are "supplementary todomestic action", as required by the Protocol; and call upon the European Union, theUnited States and other interested parties to agree upon the interpretation of thisphrase at the earliest possible date.
6. Will work to ensure that the various flexibility mechanisms are designed to support thepreservation and extension of biologically diverse forests.
7. Support the adoption of a mandate at Buenos Aires to redefine the way in whichgreenhouse emission cuts are currently shared between countries, following theprinciple of equity enshrined in the Contraction and Convergence analysis, and urge
the summit of the Non-Aligned Movement countries meeting in Durban, RSA, to persist
in demanding an equitable approach as a precondition for their participation in COP4
at Buenos Aires.
8. Work for the creation of a synergistic framework linking the Rio instruments which
will eliminate redundancies and fill the gaps among them to create a system toeffectively address climate change, and endorse the idea of a Convention Watch toenable parliamentarians to identify discrepancies between existing international
conventions.
9. In the light of the above, we will undertake actions such as holding a debate in ourparliament to review our countries' strategy for Buenos Aires regarding how ourcountry will fulfill the commitments we have signed up to in Kyoto.
10. We call upon our parliamentary colleagues from all parties and from all countries towork with us in seeking to achieve the objectives of this Action Agenda."
Six THE GLOBE Southern Africa Network"Action Agenda Response to Climate Change•

Recalling that all 14 members states of the SADC are Parties to the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC);

25

•

Reaffirming our commitment to the objective of the UNFCCC as stated in Article 2,that the ultimate objective is “the stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in theatmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference withthe climate system” and that “such a level should be achieved within a time-frame
sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change to ensure that foodproduction is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in asustainable manner."•

Recognizing the threat of climate change and its consequences for all the world's
countries, and in particular for the most vulnerable countries such as in the SADC
region;•Acknowledging that the Kyoto Protocol adopted at the Third Conference of the Parties
to the UNFCCC in Japan in December 1997 was the first attempt to create legallybinding reduction commitments on the nations most responsible for this threat;•

Aware however, that the reductions prescribed by the Kyoto Protocol are woefully
inadequate in relation to the scientific work of the IPCC which indicates the need forgreenhouse gas (ghg) emissions reductions in the order of a minimum of 60% globally
against 1990 levels merely to stabilise rising atmospheric concentrations ofgreenhouse house gases at some new higher value;•

Aware that initial communications from the Developed Country Parties indicate that
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in these countries and that resource flows andtechnology transfer from these to developing countries have been negligible;•

Also aware that the Kyoto Protocol leaves major issues unresolved, and that specificprinciples, rules and methodologies will have to be agreed to in the course of theforthcoming negotiations with regard to the adoption of the Clean Development
Mechanism, Emissions Trading internationally and Joint Implementation regimes;•

Further aware of the leadership taken at AGBM7 in August 1997 by the delegations
from the Africa Group of nations in tabling principles for global equity andsustainability and;•

Especially aware of the declaration of the 113 Heads of Government at the Aug/Sept1998 Summit of the Non Aligned Movement on climate change which states inter alia
that: " . . . Emission trading for implementation of such commitments can only
commence after issues relating to the principles, modalities, etc of such trading,including the initial allocations of emissions entitlements on an equitable basis to all
countries has been agreed upon by the Parties to the Framework Convention on
Climate Change . . . . ."•And noting the clarification this provides with respect to the fact that UNFCCC
acknowledges that all countries have common but differentiated responsibilities to
respond to climate change;•

Further aware that the critical need for a breakthrough to be achieved in the climate
negotiations, will only occur when the principles, rules and modalities establishing the26

global equity framework enabling a fully integrated and effective international
response to climate change, are realised;•

We the Members of Parliament and Members of the GLOBE Southern Africa Network;

3. Support the adoption of a mandate at Buenos Aires to redefine the way in whichgreenhouse emission cuts are shared between countries under the Kyoto Protocol,
following instead the principle of global equity enshrined in the Contraction andConvergence analysis,
4. Specifically work to ensure that all future development of the UNFCCC and its related
instruments will be consistent with these interdependent principles of global equity andsustainability;
5. And rebut any recourse to "flexibility mechanisms" that are not derived from theinterdependent application of these principles of sustainability and global equity;
6. In the light of the above, we will undertake actions such as: •holding debates in our parliament to review our countries’ strategy for Buenos
Aires regarding how our country will fulfill the commitments we have signed up toin Kyoto;•strengthen the capacity of the SADC Environmental Land Management System(ELMS) to integrate the Objective of the UNFCCC into national and regional
natural resource management policies; urge Ministers in the region to develop a
regional consensus position with regard to climate change for tabling at or before
the Fourth Conference of the Parties (COP4);•press to have GLOBE Parliamentarians as members of our various countries'
delegations to the Fourth and subsequent Conferences of the Parties (COP4) to the
UNFCCC;•

Call upon our parliamentary colleagues from all parties and from all countries towork with us and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), in striving to achieve theobjectives of this Action Agenda."

Seven - The European Parliament Resolution•"having regard to its resolution of 2 March 1995 on a Strategy for Climatic Protectionin the EU( ),•having regard to its resolution of 14 March 1997 on the Communication from theCommission on a Common Platform :•Guidelines for European Union Preparation for the United Nations General AssemblySpecial Session to be held in27

•

New York in June 1997 to review Agenda 21 and related outcomes of the United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro in June
1992( ),•

having regard to the resolution adopted by the ACP-EU Joint Assembly on 30 October
1997 in Lomé (Togo) on ACP/EU cooperation on climate change and the third
Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change,•

having regard to its resolution of 30 January 1997 on the Commission Green Paper"Towards policy options for internalizing the external costs of transport in theEuropean Union"( )•and its opinion of 17 July 1997 on the proposal for a Council Directive on the
charging of heavy good vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures( ),•having regard to the Communication from the Commission on Climate Change - The
EU Approach for Kyoto (COM(97)0481) and to the Communication from theCommission on the Energy Dimension of Climate Change (COM(97)0196),•

having regard to the Protocol of the 36 AOSIS countries (Alliance of Small Island
States) on a 20 percent reduction in CO2 emissions in developed countries by the year
2005,

•

having regard to its resolution of 19 November 1997 on the Kyoto Conference on
Climate Change( ),•having regard to the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention of
Climate Change of 10 December 1997,•

having regard to the statement made by the Environment Commissioner to Parliamenton 18 December 1997,•

having regard to its resolution of 19 February 1998 on environmental policy andclimate change following the Kyoto Summit( ),•having regard to the statements by the Council and the Environment Commissioner on
17 February 1998,•

having regard to the Commission Communication "Climate Change - Towards an EU
Post-Kyoto Strategy" (COM(98) 0353),•

having regard to the Conclusions of the Environment Council at its meetings of 23
March and 16 June 1998,•

having regard to the declaration of the non-aligned movement Heads of State Summit
held in South Africa from 29 August to 4 September 1998, on allocations of emissions
entitlements on an equitable basis,

28

•having regard to the communication from the Commission, 'Implementing theCommunity Strategy to Reduce CO2 Emissions from Cars: An Environmental
Agreement with the European Automobile Industry' (COM(98)0495),•

having regard to the Solemn Declaration of Stuttgart of 19 June 1983 as regards theinvolvement of the European Parliament in the conclusion of significant international
agreements,

A.

whereas the G8 Summit held in Birmingham (England) in May 1998 failed toexercise leadership on this issue,

B.

whereas at its meeting in June 1998 the Subsidiary Body for Scientific andTechnological Advice (SUBSTA) failed to make any progress on the issues due tobe resolved at COP 4 in Buenos Aires,

C.

whereas climate change was a prominent issue during the visits to China by
President Clinton and UK Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott in his capacity as
President-in-Office of the Council in June/July 1998,

D.

having regard to the seriousness of the forest fires in 1998 in Indonesia, Brazil, theUSA and elsewhere,E.

whereas the commitments entered into by Annex 1 countries in the Kyoto Protocol
constitute the first tangible and visible evidence for non-Annex 1 countries that thedeveloped countries are serious about undertaking their proper share of the"common but differentiated" responsibilities for containing and controlling climatechange,F.

whereas global carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 30% to 385 ppmv in
1995 from the pre-industrial level of about 280 ppmv and are growing at a rate of
1.5 ppmv per year (0.4% per year),G.

whereas global methane concentrations were about 1720 ppbv, some 2.5 times the
pre-industrial concentration of around 700 ppbv, and are currently growing by 8
ppbv per year (0.46% per year),H.

whereas in 1995 global nitrous oxide concentrations in the atmosphere were
stimated to be about 312 ppbv, about 15% above the pre-industrial level, and are
growing by 0.5 ppbv per year (0.16% per year),I.

whereas 1997 was the hottest year this century, having been 0.43°C warmer thanthe mean temperature for 1960-1990,

J.

whereas, according to the European Environmental Agency in its recent study"Europe's Environment: The Second Assessment", the old EU promise to stabilise
carbon dioxide emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000 is unlikely to be kept,

K.

whereas the absence of an agreement between the 15 EU governments to introduce
an EU-wide energy/carbon tax along the lines proposed by the European
Commission in 1995 makes it very difficult for the EU to fulfil its Kyoto
commitment of an 8% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by around 2010,29

L.

whereas, according to the European Environmental Agency in its recent study"Europe's Environment: The Second Assessment", ensuring that future temperature
increases are no greater than 0.1°C per decade and that sea levels rise by no morethan 2 cm per decade (provisional limits assumed for sustainability) >requires theindustrialised countries (Annex 1 countries) to reduce their emissions ofgreenhouse gases by at least 30% (or even 55%) by 2010 compared with 1990
levels,M.

whereas the Kyoto Protocol would be rendered a meaningless gesture were it not
to be ratified; whereas, to enter into force, the Protocol requires ratification by nofewer than 55 Parties to the UNFCCC, including Parties included in Annex 1
which accounted in total for at least 55 per cent of the total carbon dioxide
emissions for 1990 of the Parties included in Annex 1,

N.

whereas, while there are signs that the US Administration is working towards
achieving ratification, as evidenced in recent speeches by VP Gore, and that public
opinion may be shifting in the same direction, opinion in the US Congress remains
overwhelmingly unenthusiastic about the Kyoto Protocol given that it fails to meetthe criteria of the Byrd Resolution, requiring a global solution to a global problem,

O.

whereas, therefore, the principal task for negotiators in the run-up to COP 4 at
Buenos Aires is to seek agreement on a set of common principles and a negotiating
framework post-Buenos Aires on the basis of which the Kyoto Protocol can be
ratified by all Annex 1 countries, and whereby all non-Annex 1 countries canprogressively undertake to introduce emissions limits,

1.

Regrets the limitations of the Commission's Strategy Paper and calls on theCommission and the Member States to take the lead in brokering an agreement on
a set of common principles and a negotiating framework beyond Buenos Aires;
Re-iterates and re-emphasises once again its view that a set of common principles
will have to be based on, inter alia:• agreement to have a worldwide binding limit on global emissions consistent
with a maximum atmospheric concentration of 550 ppmv CO2 equivalent,• initial distribution of emissions rights according to the Kyoto targets,• progressive convergence towards an equitable distribution of emissions rights
on a per capita basis by an agreed date in the next century,• across-the-board reductions in emissions rights thereafter in order to achieve
the reduction recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change,• an agreement to have a quantitative ceiling on the use of flexibility mechanismsthat will ensure that the majority of emission reductions are met domesticallyin accordance with the spirit of articles 6, 12 and 17 of the Kyoto protocol; inthis context trading must be subject to proper monitoring, reporting andenforcement;

2.

•
3.

an adequately financed mechanism for promoting technology transfer fromAnnex 1 to non-Annex 1 countries;

Pending agreement to such a set of common principles, calls on the Commission
and the Council to proceed with the adoption in Europe of all the proposals set out
30

in its "Elements for a Climate Change Strategy" of October 1997; invites theCommission and the Member States to bring forward as a matter of urgency thepolicies and measures that the European Union must undertake in order to meet its
Kyoto commitments;
4.

Believes that the Kyoto Protocol is a sound basis for further work in response to
climate change, and calls for early ratification of the Protocol in order to ensure
achievement of the agreed reductions;5.

Is committed to ensuring that the Kyoto Protocol secures real reductions ingreenhouse gas emissions from industrialised countries by 2008-2012;

6.

Will work to ensure that the COP agrees to unambiguous, clear and fair rules toregulate Joint Implementation, the Clean Development Mechanisms and Emissions
Trading;7.

Emphasises in particular the urgency with which the Commission should bringforward a Green Paper on the application of economic and fiscal instruments
targeted specifically at reversing climate change and the removal ofcounterproductive subsidies;8.

Calls on all parties involved in the decision-making process, and on the Council inparticular, to expedite the adoption of a directive introducing a tax on energy andcarbon dioxide emissions and a directive restructuring the Community framework
for the taxation of energy products;

9.

Calls on the European Union to support proposals for a ministerial meeting inJapan in September 1998 and a Friends of the Chair meeting in Canada in
October 1998 to establish the political momentum which will be necessary to make
Buenos Aires (COP 4) a success;10.

Calls on the United States to take the necessary steps to achieve early ratificationof the Kyoto Protocol;

11.

Makes the following observations concerning Commission communication
OM(98)0495:(a)notes that the Commission communication and the commitment entered into by theEuropean Automobile Manufacturers' Association (ACEA) with regard to reducing carbon
dioxide emissions from passenger cars (COM(98)0495) do not provide any satisfactory
answer to a number of urgent questions which are vital for successful implementation:•

there are no arrangements for the continuation of the commitment should one ormore of the assumptions on which ACEA and the Commission have based it nothold true,•

the 'estimated target range' of 165-170 g CO2/km for 2003 referred to in the ACEA
commitment is too imprecise a criterion, and could be too weak as the soleindicator for the possible need for a revision,31

•

the Commission's communication does not describe the procedure for a possible
revision in 2003; the reference to a future exchange of letters between theCommission and ACEA cannot be regarded as adequate,•

the procedure involving a joint monitoring system to be operated by ACEA and theCommission, whose implementation is not to be expected in the near future,remains imprecise; here too, the reference to future arrangements to be agreed
through an exchange of letters between the Commission and ACEA cannot be
regarded as adequate,•

no provision has been made for the eventuality that manufacturers who aremembers of ACEA may fail to comply with their commitments under the
Agreement,•

the proposed procedure for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from cars could
become at all worthwhile from the point of view of environmental and economic
policy only if the Commission were simultaneously to conclude largely identicalagreements with manufacturers who import vehicles into the European
Community,(b) stresses that the proposed commitment by ACEA cannot dispel the fundamental doubts
as to the effectiveness of voluntary commitments which Parliament has expressed on
numerous occasions,(c) shares the Commission's view that the proposed commitment by ACEA requires
notification under Article 85 of the EC Treaty,(d) recalls that Parliament and the Council have jointly formulated an bjective of 120
g/km (5 l/100 km for petrol engines and 4.5 l/100 km for diesel engines) as a meanvalue for carbon oxide emissions in 2005; this objective can be attained only if taken
in conjunction with instruments to provide tax incentives and provisions concerning
uniform description of the mean consumption of new vehicles,(e) can accept the procedure announced by the Commission in its communication only on
condition that the above open questions are satisfactorily resolved in the negotiations
with ACEA and the other associations;
12.
Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the Council,
the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the Secretariat of the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change, with the request that it be circulated to all
non-EU contracting parties."32

How does Contraction and Convergence work?
CONTRACTION
If we are to achieve the objective of the UNFCCC to avoid dangerous climate changes,
rising ghg concentrations in the atmosphere must be stabilised as quickly as possible.
Damages are a function of rising global mean temperature. Rising global temperature
is a function of rising atmospheric ghg concentration. Rising atmospheric ghg
concentration is a function of accumulating ghg emissions.
All climate models demonstrate this relationship between accumulated ghg missions
and rising concentrations. In other words global ghg emissions must be caused to'contract' as quickly as possible in the order of 60 - 80% less than present output values
simply to stabilise future ghg concentrations at some new higher value.
This means that by definition
humanity is already working to a
finite and progressively
shrinking future global budget of
ghg emissions, if future
generations and humanity as weknow it are to arrest otherwise
unstoppable temperature rise andglobal climatic changes.

650 ppmv temperature hi

4

650 ppmv temperature medi um

3

550 ppmv temperature hi
550 ppmv temperature medi um
550 ppmv temperature lo

2

450 ppmv temperature hi
450 ppmv temperature medi um
1

450 ppmv temperature lo

0

concentrati ons to 650 ppmv

600

concentrati ons to 550 ppmv
concentrati ons to 450 ppmv

500

400

300

parts CO2 per million by volume

-1

200

A ddi onal output f or 650 ppmv

10

A ddi onal output f or 550 ppmv
CO2 Cont racti on f or 450 ppmv
5

1800

1

1900

2000

2100

2200

CO2 is the major human source ghg. It is responsible for approximately 70% net anthropogenic aggravatedglobal warming.

33

gigatonnes carbon from CO2

The attached graphic shows thepast relationship between rising
global ghg emissions,concentrations and temperature.
It also models future 'contraction
scenarios' to stabilise CO2
concentrations only1 at 450, 550
and 650 parts per million by
volume (ppmv) [70, 100 and
130% above pre-industrial
levels] with the 60 - 80% cutachieved over a one to two
hundred year time frame. The
purpose of the graphic is to pointout that stabilisation of
atmospheric ghg concentrations
requires a contraction budget, nomatter which outcome ghg
concentration value is chosen.

temperature in degrees Celsius

650 ppmv temperature lo

CONVERGENCE
Convergence in the "Contraction and Convergence" model means a specific method oforganising the future international shares of the agreed contraction budget in a manner thatis both globally equitable and also globally tradable. The full title is "Contraction,
Convergence, Allocation and Trade" (C-CAT). It is a calculus for the progressiveinternational redistribution of the contraction budget prior to emissions-trading. It has a
specific point of arrival that is an agreed date in the next century by and after which sharesof the global contraction budget become and then stay equal on a per capita basis globally.
A simple example of "Contraction and Convergence" appears in the graphic below withthe world divided into six regions.
•

The Annex One group (the industrial country group) divided into three; The USA; the OECD group minus the USA; countries of the former Soviet Union.

•

The remainder (the industrialising countries) are divided into three; China; India; the rest of the world.

The history of international ghg emissions shown [1860-1996] is derived from CDIAC2
data. From 2000 until 2200 this particular "Contraction" example would lead to stable
atmospheric concentration of CO2 at 450 ppmv by 2100. In other words the global 60%
cut in CO2 emissions against 1990 values is achieved by 2100 with an accumulated total
emissions (the integral) between 2000 and 2100 coming to 640 billion tonnes of carbon
from the CO2.
The international shares of the "Contraction" budget in this example are calculated in a
progressive "Convergence" pattern to equal per capita shares globally by 2030.

2

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre, Oakridge, Tennessee. US Department of Energy.

34

4

2

tonnes per capita

6

0

8
6
4
2

2200

Gigatonnes Carbon

The international sharescontract pro rate thereafter.
The per capita convergence
USA
Annex 1 (non-OECD)pattern is shown in theOECD mi nus US A
Chi nagraphic on top. The resultant
Rest of W orld
Indi asix-region allocation isshown in the graphic
underneath. It is intended
Rest of W orldthat the allocations be
Indi aChi naregarded as internationally
Annex 1 (non-OECD)
OECD mi nus USA
equitable and tradable
USAemissions entitlements,
enabling the efficient
realisation of the objective of
1800
1900
2000
2100
the UNFCCC.
As can be seen the entitlements of the high per capita consumers such as the USA start tocontract immediately whereas those of the low per capita consumers such as in India start
to contract only after convergence.

"Contraction, Convergence, Allocation and Trade." (C-CAT)
GHG emissions CONTRACTION for 450 ppmv concentrations by 2100

CONVERGENCE BY 2010
1

10GT

CONVERGENCE BY 2030

World Total CONTRACTION

10GT

8GT

8GT

6GT

6GT

4GT

4GT

2GT

2GT

1

World Total CONTRACTION

GT

GT

2

8Tpc

8Tpc

USA
A1 (non-OECD)
OECD less USA
CHINA
Rest of World
INDIA

6Tpc
4Tpc
2Tpc

Per Capita CONVERGENCE
6Tpc
4Tpc
2Tpc

2
USA
A1 (non-OECD)
OECD less USA
CHINA
Rest of WorldINDIAPer Capita CONVERGENCE

0Tpc

0Tpc

3

10GT

Rest of World
INDIA
CHINA

8GT
6GT

A1 (non-OECD)
OECD less USA
USA

4GT
2GT

10GT

"CONTRACTION with CONVERGENCE"
so that ALLOCATIONS
become EQUAL to
POPULATION
by 2010

8GT
6GT
4GT
2GT

3
Rest of World
INDIA
CHINA
A1 (non-OECD)
OECD less USA
USA"CONTRACTION with CONVERGENCE"
so that ALLOCATIONS
become EQUAL to
POPULATION
by 2030

GT

GT

4

4
100%

100%

TRADABLE SHARES%s World Total

80%

TRADABLE SHARES%s World Total

80%

60%

60%

40%

40%

20%

20%

0%
1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 2120 2140

0%1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 2120 2140

CONVERGENCE BY 2020

10GT

1

NO CONVERGENCE

World Total CONTRACTION

10GT

8GT

8GT

6GT

6GT

4GT

4GT

2GT

2GT

GT

8Tpc
6Tpc
4Tpc
2Tpc

8GT
6GT
4GT
2GT

USA
A1 (non-OECD)
OECD less USA
CHINA
Rest of World
INDIA

8Tpc

Per Capita CONVERGENCE
6Tpc
4Tpc
2Tpc

2
USA
A1 (non-OECD)
OECD less USA
CHINA
Rest of WorldINDIANo Per Capita CONVERGENCE

0Tpc

3
Rest of World
INDIA
CHINA
A1 (non-OECD)
OECD less USA
USA

10GT

"CONTRACTION with CONVERGENCE"
so that ALLOCATIONS
become EQUAL
by 2020

8GT
6GT
4GT
2GT

3
Rest of World
INDIA
CHINA
A1 (non-OECD)
OECD less USA
USA"CONTRACTION with no CONVERGENCE"
so that ALLOCATIONS
remain EQUAL to1990 SHARES
until 2100

GT

GT

4

4
100%

100%
80%

World Total CONTRACTION

GT

2

0Tpc
10GT

1

TRADABLE SHARES%s World Total

TRADABLE SHARES%s World Total

80%

60%

60%

40%

40%

20%

20%

0%
1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 2120 2140

0%1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 2120 2140

35

36