1

2

3

The Kyoto Protocol and the Emergence of “Contraction
and Convergence” as a framework for an international
political solution to greenhouse gas emissions abatement.
The Kyoto Protocol, completed in the early hours of December 11th 1997, atpresent is no more than a potential breakthrough in the development of effective
global policy for the control of atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases andthe mitigation of human-induced global climate changes. The core issue of thenegotiations has been deferred until COP4 in November 1998. The industrial
countries have negotiated a compromise that subject to ratification will legally bindthem to commitments beyond those in the UNFCCC. But, the ratification of theProtocol by the US still remains contingent on achieving the “meaningful
participation” of “key” developing countries in the abatement regime and themultilateral acceptance of international emissions trading. This is a struggle to define
property rights. These key developing countries include India and China and they
have made it clear that their acceptance of trading is contingent on the achievementof “equitable allocations” of emissions entitlements based on achieving equal per
capita entitlements globally. COP issued instructions to the technical bodies attachedto the UNFCCC to “define the relevant principles, modalities, rules and guidelines foremissions trading” in time for COP4 in November 1998 in Buenos Aires.
GCI argues that "Contraction and Convergence" is the approach that canbreak through this deadlock and welcomes the fact that major parties and interest
groups in this dispute have already acknowledged that they take this approachseriously and that it has growing support throughout the world. As a leading
economics commentator Peter Jay has noted, “… unless there is some recognition
that eventually no one group of human being can expect to have an internationallyrecognised right to consume more of the world's limited capacity to absorb
greenhouse gas emissions than any other group, it is hard to see how a globallyenforceable policy can be built by consent.” And in the words of the President of
GLOBE International, "Contraction and Convergence is not simply the right way tosolve the problem, it is the only way to solve the problem.”-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHALLENGE FROM IPPC CLIMATE SCIENCEThe First Assessment Report (FAR - 1990) of the Intergovernmental Panel climate Change (IPCC) noted that
atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were 25% higher (350 ppmv) than pre-industrial (280 ppmv) and rising
faster and higher than anytime in the previous 160,000 years. An extremely strong correlation between rising
CO2 concentrations and human CO2 emissions [mainly from fossil fuel burning] was observed from around1800 forward. The IPCC also observed circumstantial links to rising global mean temperature and stated that
immediate minimum 60% to 80% cuts in human CO2 1emissions were necessary if atmospheric concentrationsof CO2 were to be stabilised just at 1990 levels (see chart 1). Since then, IPCC has stated that the balance ofevidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on the climate system. They also suggested thedamages consequent on no abatement and further global temperature increase as being between serious andpotentially catastrophic, regionally and even globally. Since 1990 there has been much investigation into what
constitutes atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations levels that do not dangerously affect the climate system.
According to carbon cycle and global climate modelers, the time frame foreseen for achieving at least 60% cutsin emissions is between 50 and 200 years, depending on the ultimate atmospheric CO2 concentration goal.
1

GCI recognises the relevance of other ghgs, but also that industrial CO2 emissions account net for over 70% of
the human influence on climate change. Moreover we are primarily advocating the policy concept "Contraction
and Convergence" for negotiating the shared ownership of greenhouse gas emissions entitlements globally.
This depends on having reasonable global datasets and so far these only exist for industrial CO2 emissions.
4

There is a real concern however, that even going to 450 ppmv (60% cuts in emissions over roughly one hundredyears) may result in serious ecological and consequent socio-economic damages. The IPCC has published data
derived from climate models that attempt to demonstrate the quantitative links between greenhouse gas
emissions and accumulated atmospheric concentrations. (These are summarized in Appendix A).

GLOBAL SOLUTIONS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL
At the very least, sensible contingent planning requires that if the global community is to demonstrate bothtechnically and politically that the worst of the potential damages from human-induced global climate change
can be avoided, it will have to demonstrate that the cuts in emissions can be achieved. There will be a twincompromise. The rate of cutting emissions must rapid enough to halt the rise of atmospheric greenhouse gas
concentrations below levels that dangerously affect the climate system. However, it must also be gradual enoughto give time for non-fossil alternative energy sources and energy saving measures to be introduced so as not toprecipitate an economic crisis. Moreover, the whole operation will have to be planned for inclusivity undercontinuous political and scientific review. Not only is it appropriate to insist that “a global solution is required
for a global problem” as the US has repeatedly done, it is also necessary to actually come up with a global
solution. This unavoidably means having to recognise and acknowledge that a global solution is by definition,
constitutional. It will be the result of having first had to determine the principles upon which the rules for
globally sharing finite resources will be founded and applied. In the case of climate change, this means
determining the principles and rules for sharing a future global carbon budget that is also consistent with thetwin compromise above The political struggles at Kyoto have brought the need for this unprecedented
imperative into focus more sharply than before.
Deliberate limitation of CO2 emissions from industrial activity is certainly contentious. Dollar GDP from theformal economy has so far been very closely correlated with CO2 from fossil fuel burning (see Chart 1) andanything less than the positive growth of dollar GDP is regarded as a primary signal of macroeconomic failure.
Consequently now achieving a delinking of GDP and CO2 emissions must be a primary feature of any future
economic planning. Moreover, CO2 emissions and GDP are both historically and currently, very unevenly
generated and distributed throughout the global economy. In simple language, it is those who have made themoney who have also made the mess in the atmosphere. This is now increasing instability in global politics aswell as in the global climate system, where the increasing risks of environmental adversity are increasing therisks of attendant social and political conflict. The issue of how to determine the “differentiated responsibilities”
in any global programme required to achieve the necessary levels of emissions abatement is thorny and has
confounded the UNFCCC negotiations all the way from INC1 in Washington in 1991 to COP3 in Kyoto in
December 1997. The argument is fundamental, but is quite novel for being truly “global”. Everybody regardlessof levels of wealth and development is implicated, some as alleged perpetrators but all as probable victims.
CHART 1NEARLY 100% CO2 : GWP CORRELATION GLOBALLY

8%

18

%s
GWP
%s
CO2

9

0%
Future Trend
Fossil Carbon@+/- 2 % p.a....

OECD CO2- 8%
1955

RoW CO2

40% of 1990 CO2 (for 350 ppmv)

0
1990
5

2025

Giga Tonnes Carbon

Equals 100%
pre-Kyoto Annex 1
Commitment

NO PROBLEM, NO REGRETS, NO SOLUTIONS WITHOUT DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
Since 1990 we have been through three periods of argument about whether human-induced climate changes
were occurring. The initial period of “no problem” gave way to a period of “no regrets” (perhaps there’s aproblem so do what makes sense for reasons of economic efficiency). In reality this all seems to have reflected awish to postpone any genuine engagement with the real issues. For example John Knaess, the head of the US
delegation to the Second World Climate Conference, insisted that “simple sophomore physics reveal that the
problem is real” (greenhouse gases trap heat so more greenhouse gases trap more heat) and that the only
questions were “how much” and “how soon”. It bears some reflection as to why it took seven years until June
1996 at COP2, for the US government to attempt to get behind emissions abatement policy consistent with theacceptance of human-induced climate change as a reality. It seems probable that the real argument has always
been about how to compute and then most particularly share the future sustainable “Global Carbon Budget”.
Post-Kyoto we are all now openly being called to account on this point. So, since COP2 we have been in thethird period called “no solutions without developing countries”. For the last eighteen months the call fromacross the board in the US has been that there has to be, “meaningful participation by developing countries”
because “global problems require global solutions.” This was in spite of the Berlin Mandate with its focus ondeveloped country commitments only.

A STRUGGLE TO ASCERTAIN PRINCIPLES GOVERNING GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION
The period of tactical denial could well have related to the battle between two competing socio-economic
arguments that were advanced at the outset for determining the international distribution of future CO2
emissions entitlements in the carbon budget. These were flat-rate emissions cuts globally with budget shares, oremissions entitlements, proportional either to GDP or to population. Application of each argument leads to very
different distributions of entitlements globally. For example the USA in 1990 had approximately 4% of global
population but emitted 25% of CO2 emissions with a GDP share to match. In the same year India had
approximately 15% of global population but emitted 3% of CO2 emissions with a GDP share to match. It is no
surprise therefore to find the US favored flat-rate cuts applied to shares proportional to initial GDP figures,
while India favored shares proportional to population. In the World Bank’s Development Report of 1992 thearguments were applied, the consequences were analysed and the inverse distributional results were compared.
They noted distribution from shares equal on a per capita basis accumulated between 1950 and 1990, gave an
overall negative share to developed countries stating simplistically that for that reason the alternative seemed themore feasible approach.
CHART 2 – Entitlements reduced always proportional to initial GDP
PER CAPITA

10Gtc
Non-Annex 1
8Gtc

Annex 1

6Gtc
4Gtc
2Gtc
Gtc
2000

Annex 1

4tc
tonnes carbon

gigatonnes carbon

GROSS

2020

2040

2060

2080

Non-Annex 1
3tc
2tc
1tc
0tc
2000

2100

2020

2040

2060

2080

2100

CHART 3 – Entitlements reduced always proportional to initial population

PER CAPITA

10Gtc
Non-Annex 1
8Gtc

Annex 1

6Gtc
4Gtc
2Gtc
Gtc
2000

Annex 1

4tc
tonnes carbon

gigatonnes carbon

GROSS

2020

2040

2060

2080

2100 6

Non-Annex 1
3tc
2tc
1tc
0tc
2000

2020

2040

2060

2080

2100

However, what the arguments have in common is that they are “pro rata” arguments where entitlements would
be the result of applying a central organising principle to distribution out of necessity, simply to enable thecollective contraction to be computed. The point here is that you have to make some assumption other thanbusiness-as-usual about distribution if you want to deliver the purpose of the UNFCCC, pre-eminently to deliver
overall contraction of greenhouse gas emissions. Over the full period of achieving the 60% cuts in global
emissions, this is unavoidably a negative-sum-game on emissions for everyone. And it is self-evident thatwithout the application of a central organising principle to the determination of future allocations of emissions
entitlements, the negative-sum-game of global carbon contraction will be unachievable. Business-as-usual andthe now globally competitive character of market forces tend to engender deregulation and an erosion of
democratic politics. If this culture is assumed for the management of greenhouse gas emissions, the future
global carbon budget and its distribution will simply be the “invisible hand” in its malignant guise. It will be thead hoc result of each party to the negotiations continuing the attempt to maximise its shares of the budget at theexpense of all its competitors. Consequently, the future global carbon budget will expand indefinitely as theglobal aggregate of reluctance to clean up causing dangerously raised levels of atmospheric greenhouse gas
concentration. In other words it will be the ever more visible and aggressive hand of climate change and thepainful damages it will bring. This will continue unless and until there is a multilateral willingness to accept theapplication of a central organising principle to the determination of future international shares of what globally
is a deliberately conceived and managed budget for carbon contraction. Put another way, more and more people
now seem to accept that two hundred countries times two hundred arguments will never achieve the level ofinternational agreement required to secure 60% cuts in emissions globally. What should also be self-evident isthat the defining character of such arrangements will be based on some universally recognisable principle ofequity simply to secure the necessary multilateral acceptance of Quantified Emissions Limitations Reductions
Objectives (QELROS). If so it would then be recognised that any efficiencies that are achievable will be derived
from - rather than give rise to - the primacy of the equity based arrangements. In other words principle andpractice are inseparably linked and the old adage is true: “principle without practice is useless and practicewithout principle is dangerous.”
So far, the most frequent argument of many Western economists has been that sustainable future CO2 emissions
entitlements should be distributed between countries proportional to GDP precisely because of the close
correlation between CO2 and GDP. Contrarily, most developing countries have argued that sustainable future
CO2 emissions entitlements should be distributed between countries proportional to population because theglobal atmosphere and climate system are a “global commons”, the sustainable use of which should be the equal
responsibility of all members of the global community. If the commons belongs to anybody, it belongs toeverybody. Both themes are embedded in the language of the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC). Moreover, while the “basis of equity” is recognised in the UNFCCC in the context
of international per capita emissions paths which are historically disparate, “cost-effectiveness” of global
emissions abatement measures is also called for, which is portrayed as pursuing the “global benefit” (of avoided
emissions) at least possible cost.
CHART 4 shows that these conflicting positions can be resolved through "Contraction and Convergence”.
We start proportional to GDP and deliberately move to being proportional with population (here by 2030).
GROSS

PER CAPITA
4tc
Annex 1

Non-Annex 1
8Gtc

tonnes carbon

gigatonnes carbon

10Gtc
Annex 1

6Gtc
4Gtc
2Gtc
Gtc
2000

2020

2040

2060

2080

3tc
2tc
1tc
0tc
2000

2100

Non-Annex 1

2020

2040

2060

2080

2100

But so far they have been polarised to an intractable seeming deadlock. Those who see entitlements as being
proportional to GDP not only get the bulk of entitlements, they have also seen themselves as the main providersof entitlements in any market that may emerge where entitlements are tradable internationally. In other words if
there was emissions trading and we were following the World Bank’s “most feasible” case (see above), India
7would purchase entitlements from the USA. The US Mineworkers Association put out material making this casein the run up to COP3 in Kyoto. Contrarily, because at least 50% of any year’s emissions continue to reside in
the atmosphere over very long time frames, countries with low per capita consumption have argued that they areinnocent of causing climate change historically, currently and even into the medium term future. The Brazilian
proposals to COP3 for example attempted to define responsibility for observed global temperature rises bycomputing national proportions of blame as a function of nationally accumulated historical emissions. The resultof this analysis shows that countries such as Brazil remain “blameless” well into the future. Bach Koomey andKrause did a related exercise in a report for the Dutch Government (“Energy Policy in the Greenhouse” –Earthscan 1989) where “blame” was linked to nationally accumulated historical per capita emissions. The resultof this particular analysis demonstrated that if equal emissions entitlements were the currency for resolving the
problems of global abatement, the industrial countries are already indebted to developing countries to the extent
of total bankruptcy. There have been many other attempts at straightening out distributional methodology for the
allocations of future emissions entitlements. They usually involve more or less complex combinations ofweighted indicators such as carbon intensity of emissions, per capita GDP and per capita emissions (proposedby the Norwegians) and emissions per unit of export (favoured by coal-rich Australia). This has usually been
applied to time frames well short of stabilising greenhouse gas concentrations and often to only sub-global
country groupings such as the Annex One of the UNFCCC for example. Moreover, special exceptions havebeen achieved as well where for example the US has successfully negotiated that emissions associated with UNbacked military operations should not be added to the accounts of the countries undertaking the operations.
Faced with this degree of intractable complexity and quarreling, some commentators have pooh-poohed theneed for a central organising principle altogether. Some are non-contrarians suffering from real anxieties aboutclimate change and a process which seems fundamentally unwilling to really engage in the politics beyond
denial, self-exemption and exclusivity. Often they have expectations based on accepting the continued
operations of unfettered markets and link these to programs conceived in the mould of “Joint Implementation”.
Others suggest a general disposition towards “adaptation to” rather than “mitigation of” climate changes is amore realistic way of “submitting to” the future. This occasionally tends – probably not co-incidentally – toaccompany the at least residually contrarian views of human-induced climate change, where the need for carbon
contraction per se is still questioned. The adversities of climate change are seen as being on a scale fromexaggerated to non-existent and the extent of human-causation of climate changes either as over-emphasized orinvented and overwhelmingly irrelevant. There is also a line of reasoning which says that with or without
climate change, the ability of humans to devise and operate to anything political that has a component of central
planning is “ideological” and therefore undesirable and probably ineffective or unachievable in practice anyway.

“FAIRNESS” – AMBIGUITIES, STEREOTYPES AND CONFLICTS
What this reveals is that without a clearly perceived need for carbon contraction, the issue of “fairness” remains
as ambiguous as ever it was. “Haves” defend unequal distribution as “fair” because rewards should be
proportional to factors such as competence, initiative and sustained effort. “Have-nots” usually defend
redistribution towards equal distribution as “fair” pointing to structural disadvantage usually in the context ofthe traditional arguments between capital and labour. In essence the “North/South” argument is no different
from this albeit at a global level.
Distributional fairness, in circumstances where the increasing gap between “haves” and “have-nots” isstructurally resisted, is probably easiest identified with the application of welfare economics as at least anecessary buffer against the social distortions of unmitigated market-forces. Distributional fairness, incircumstances where the increasing gap between “haves” and “have-nots” is seen as requiring reversal and evenclosure, probably embraces everything between the tendency to philanthropy on the one hand and the tendency
to say “when’s it my turn?” on the other. Some people (usually characterised as coming from the left and often
but not always in the constituency of “have-nots”) appear to be for distributional fairness. And some people(usually characterised as coming from the right and often but not always in the constituency of “haves”) appear
not to be. These inverse policy attitudes about “fairness” tend to centre on the distribution of socially createdand privately partitioned wealth measured as GDP or the “benefit” of income alone. Seen this way arguments
concerning “distributional fairness” would seem to have no altered prospects of relevance or realisation one way
or the other now than in the past. Although globally the have-nots consistently have been and remain the
majority, the “haves” dominate the political decision-taking related to distributional fairness. The resultant status
quo embeds a trade-off between these left/right tendencies, stabilised by a well-established legal framework forcontinuity in property rights with much attendant academic and theoretical work explaining and justifying the“political economy” of this status quo.
8

In global terms, this framework has not been subjected to any pressures that seriously challenge its sustainability
and therefore its legitimacy until the present and the advent of human-induced global climate changes. But inthe economics of the global commons everything changes. The rules which developed for the distribution andprotection of the socially “created wealth” cannot simply be transposed to encompass the “received wealth” ofthe commons. The commons are the nearest thing we could identify with providence itself. This is wealth we
did not create nor could we. As Tim Wirth of the US State Department said on the subject last year in his lecture
at Kew Gardens, “the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment.” With this understanding ofsubsidiarity and the very global scale of the problem, it is not foolish us to look for new principles of wealthprotection and security and distribution related to establishing property rights in the global commons.

BEWARE THE NUMERAIRE AND THE ECONOMICS OF RELUCTANCE
An eminent contributor to the climate change debate – Professor William Nordhaus of Yale University –introduced ideas for “The Economic Management of the Global Commons”. However his have relied mainly on
neo-classical assumptions in favour of using “Global Cost-Benefit Analysis” for this task. He and many othereconomists contributing to the IPCC's Second Assessment Report (SAR) maintained that the whole question ofwhat to do about climate change is answerable through recourse to analysis of this kind. Their early results werecollated in the SAR published in 1996. The results tended to portray the costs of damages from climate changes
as being less than the costs of the actions for emissions abatement necessary to avoid these damages. Bluntly, it
was cost effective to go along with climate change, not to resist it. The whole exercise seemed to have thecharacter of a self-fulfilling prophecy in favour of business-as-usual. In effect it was polluters contentiously
tending to put a high price on abatement and a low price on damage. The clearest example of the latter being the
cash evaluation of global mortality at CO2 doubling where crudely fifteen dead Chinese equaled one deadAmerican, despite one living Chinese emitting about one tenth of the industrial CO2 of one American. It wasalso despite the even more skewed history of the emissions of industrial CO2 and the fact that at least half theemissions in any year accumulate there with a residence time of about 100 years. (The US alone with an average
3% of global population over the last century and a half remains responsible for just under 35% of accumulatedindustrial CO2 emissions to date). In fact all damage evaluation resorted to the snap-shot convention of
expressing units of damage as cash values proportional to the average levels of local income. The predictable
result was that damages of all kinds in developing countries were devalued relative to the equivalent unit ofdamage in a developed country. So in spite of the prediction that there would be roughly five times as muchdamage in developing countries as in developed countries, the overall cash value assigned to the damages indeveloping countries was about half that of the value of the damages predicted to occur in developed countries.
And all this was contributing to a global cost/benefit comparison that broadly suggested that it was cheaper toadapt to the damages from climate changes than to prevent them. Unsurprisingly it was characterised as the
economics of genocide in the Indian press.
These analytical results attracted much criticism in the fora of the United Nations such as the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). These fora had been created especially to mediate andresolve the international policy conflicts of human-induced climate change, not to exacerbate them. The attempt
to mediate some of the dispute that followed in the IPCC itself is recorded in the Summary for Policy Makers of
Chapter 6 of the Working Group Three contribution to the IPCC SAR. (It is reproduced as Appendix B). The
period seems in retrospect to have been one of “stressful learning”. Perhaps a more relaxed and robust attitude is
now possible with regard to the need to test a whole array of relevant assumptions. Some at least of these will
inevitably underpin the next round of analysis and its assessment in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (TAR)
due for completion some time after the year 2000. It seems crucial in the preparations for the TAR that theeconomic assumptions related to the assignment of property rights in the global commons are reassessed. This isrelevant because “meaningful participation” in the UNFCCC of developing countries is one of the conditions the
US attaches to its ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.
It is fair to point out that much of the economic analysis reflected in the SAR was conceived during the earlier
period of “no regrets”. During this period, climate change as a human-induced problem was generally
downplayed, alongside the continuing efforts of climate contrarians who were attempting to demonstrate that
there was actually “no problem” at all. Their efforts continue at this time in an increasingly implausible way.
However, at that time uncertainties to do with the climate changes were clearly more about whether the problem
really existed than with concerns about actually under-reading the dangers of climate change and potential
catastrophes. For example the most of the potential for biogeochemical feedbacks was omitted from the climate
models because of their complex non-linearity. Much of this potential would contribute to the upward forcing of
global temperature if the mechanisms become active. Large releases of the greenhouse gas methane frombeneath tundra and icecaps as they melt will increase warming. Little understood but globally crucial CO2 sinks
9

in the boreal forests and elsewhere could easily switch off as the temperature rises. Increased water vapour inthe atmosphere as a result of ocean warming will compound the warming effect. The range of increased
temperature predicted by the models (e.g. with a best-guess 2.5 degrees Celsius rise at CO2 doubling) are
inadequate because the models could only in effect assign a zero value to these factors. The quantitative results
acquired have nonetheless achieved the status of “received wisdom” simply by virtue of the frequent reference
made to them. When uncertainty is cited in this context it has been of the “even-handed” kind, which positions
the results as being between either too high or too low. The quantitative absence of feedbacks in the models
results clearly give results that err on the side of caution however.
Faced with these dimensions of complexity, it is not surprising that economics has been struggling to redefine
itself in the face of global ecological imperatives. Even Professor Nordhaus by 1997 had loosened his neoclassical belt a little. In a paper for the IPIECA conference last year he commented as follows, “Once we open
the door to consider catastrophic changes, a whole new debate is engaged. If we do not know how humanactivities will affect the thin layer of life-supporting activities that gave birth to and nurture human civilizationand if we cannot reliably judge how potential geophysical changes will affect civilization or the world aroundus, can we use the plain vanilla cost-benefit analysis (or even the premium variety in dynamic optimization
models). Should we no be ultraconservative and tilt towards preserving the natural world at the expense of
economic growth and development? Do we dare put human betterment before the preservation of natural
systems and trust that human ingenuity will bail us out should Nature deal us a nasty hand?” Having asked thequestions he asserts a preference for the reasoned judgement of natural and social scientists over the judgementof philosophers and politicians. But he acknowledges the “massive uncertainties” and suggests that “copingwith climate change is a worthy challenge for us all.” This is all a far cry from his suggestion a few years backwhen he suggested that climate change was of no consequence to the US as they had air conditioning andshopping malls. Later he suggested that spotted-owl-equivalents would do just as well as money for thenumeraire in the global cost benefit analyses of climate change. It was the one moment of mirth in the period of“stressful learning”; - no one at the UN could understand how 15 dead Chinamen equaled one dead Englishman
if a spotted owl equaled a spotted owl. Economics is sometimes more daft than dismal.
So what do social scientists – and most particularly the neoclassical economists - now suggest is the solution to
the international distributional struggle? How do we establish the pattern of the ownership of the entitlements to
consume a future global carbon budget that is finite and contracting by around 60% so as to be consistent withthe objective of the UNFCCC? Is the role of politicians simply to relay the wisdom of social scientists to thenegotiations at the UN and so deliver the climate treaty? It certainly hasn’t worked so far. And critically the US
is seeking the general acceptance of the international tradability of pollution permits and the assigning ofproperty rights in the global commons is essential to the exercise. Simply trading margins off the existing trendsof pollution in the globally inequitable status quo will not bring about the reductions to which the developed
countries are now legally committed. Nor particularly will it encourage the involvement of the developing
countries on whose participation the process and its success so obviously depends and whose participation in an
unavoidable way depends on the issue of distributional fairness globally. As the end-game of Kyoto clearly
demonstrates, China, India and the Africa Group of nations are making “equitable allocations” and theacceptance of linking Contraction to Convergence a precondition of their acceptance of emissions trading andtheir involvement in any global solution. This not an invitation to have another century of neoclassicaleconomics. It is about limits. Its more than a worthy challenge, it is wholly unprecedented in human affairs. Just
as capitalism surrounded and contained communism, now the massive uncertainties of climate change
engendered by them both, surround and contain them both. Discovering the way forward is a challenge more
rigorous than merely worthy.

CLOSING FALSE DICHOTOMIES CAN OPEN THE WAY TO COMMON SENSE
Given disputes over early efforts, (the “descriptive” acceptance of CO2 property rights proportional to GDP,mortality evaluation being made proportional to income and so on), the allegedly left/right relationship of what
is presented as “prescriptive” as against “descriptive” should be re-evaluated in a common sense way. The freemarket model is described as being free choice in action and largely unfettered by prescription. People vote with
their dollars every time they make a purchase in this market. And this market described as GDP, also currently
describes the human causation of climate change. Here is a descriptive example of the distribution of dollars
globally in the global free-market in 1990. One third of global population responsible for 90% of fossil fuelemissions had 94% of the dollar-equivalent purchasing power, while the other two thirds responsible for 10% of
fossil fuel emissions had the remaining 6% of the dollar-equivalent purchasing power. Notwithstanding, theSAR economists from the wealthy group describing this market with cost-benefit analysis revealed that it was
10cheaper to adapt to climate change than not. One consequence was that the dollar vote of Bangladesh forexample was not big enough to weight the cost/benefit ratio towards prevention and away from adaptation.
The analysis claimed to be merely descriptive and free of prescription, but for the Bangladeshis it was aprescription about learning to adapt to rising sea level. The distinction between what is descriptive andprescriptive is not as clear as the convenience of cost/benefit analysis requires. In the now altered circumstancesof human-induced climate change, it is a false dichotomy. Being in any way rational and particularly having
recourse to measurements of any kind whatsoever, is being both by definition. Heisenberg clarified that.
This doesn’t mean we should all try and seek immediate nescience. And nor does invite a continued tendency totolerate the unfortunate free-market requirement for the liquidation of people who haven’t got any money. Whatcommon sense requires is a re-appraisal of our collective prospects freed from some of the absurdities above. It
is not wrong to openly contemplate our prospects in terms of a requirement for negotiated prescriptivity inglobal solutions to global problems.
This re-appraisal may have already begun. At the meeting of IPCC WG3 in Oslo in August 1997, the Energy
Modeling Forum (EMF) at Stanford University introduced specifications for modelers that for the first time
included the device of a “prescriptive” requirement on the future distribution of global emissions entitlements. It
was inter alia that the future costs and benefits of climate change control measures be evaluated in the context ofcarbon budgets which had been internationally distributed on the basis of a deliberate convergence to equal per
capita shares globally by various predetermined dates. One of the core group members, Richard Richels, madethe sanguine point that no economist can come up with sensible numbers for the international distribution of thecosts of climate change policy “until the economists had been given the rules of distribution”. In the absence ofagreement yet at the political level at the UNFCCC, the EMF had discontinued the pattern of “descriptive-only”
distributional assumptions, as continued in the SAR, and admitted the expedient of at least theoreticallyprescribing a variety of formal convergence-based examples of distribution. Elsewhere on the theme of “Burden
Sharing”, in the IPIECA “Symposium on The Economics of Climate Change” (1997) he and his colleague Alan
Manne, were even more specific. “We begin with one widely discussed proposal: a transition to equal per
capita emissions rights (globally) by 2030,” again allowing the expedient of a “prescription” to “solve” what isotherwise insoluble.
It is worth emphasizing that there are three key decisions here. One is that an assumption has been made that“prescriptivity” is unavoidably part of the process. Two is that the “prescriptivity” is the result of the applicationof a central organising principle. Three is that the choice of central organising principle (the convergence toequal per capita) is one which has been “widely discussed” which could be read as evidence of thereasonableness of the idea and that these economists share that judgement about that reasonableness.

GCI’s CAMPAIGN FOR EQUITY AND SURVIVAL
We have actively advocated the linking of carbon contraction to percapita convergence of emissions
entitlements globally for many years. We see this as the practical expression of recognising the global link
between equity and survival. It is not equity just for its own sake but the equity of necessity. And we have also
pleaded the wisdom or more probably just common sense of recognising the lack of any viable alternatives tothis undoubted political novelty. Consequently GCI welcomes the positive attention being given to these ideas
by these academics, and also now many bureaucrats, politicians, diplomats and other NGOs.
Our attempt to make a positive contribution to this debate has been not just to pose the need for “Contraction
and Convergence”. We have also provided and promulgated a planning model with a central organisingprinciple for distributional equity that can demonstrate many scenarios for the generation of integrated global
accounts for emissions entitlements. In these, after the given initial distribution of CO2 emissions entitlements,
they are progressively distributed under any chosen (and even revisable) global cap so that the available
entitlements become more proportional to population each year. This creates a pattern of international
convergence to any chosen future date, from which point forward international emissions entitlements would
contract pro rata on an equal per capita basis as determined by the global cap and any revision thereof.
"Contraction and Convergence" is not a prescription per se, it is way of demonstrating how a global prescription
could be negotiated and organised.
At the First Conference of the Parties (COP1) in April 1995, the Indian Government, drawing on GCI’s equityfocused contributions to the IPCC WG3 sections of the SAR, proposed a solution to future global carbon
budgeting. It is significant that this happened at a time when the terms of the Berlin Mandate were being drawn
up. While the mandate foresaw only strengthened commitments on greenhouse gas (GHG) abatement for the11Industrial Countries of Annex One – that is with no GHG abatement commitments being contemplated for thedeveloping countries of Non-Annex One – it is significant that the Indian Environment Minister declared: “We face the actuality of scarce resources and the increasing potential for conflict. Protecting the world’s
environment requires that development be sustainable. It also implies the implementation of a programme forconvergence at equitable and sustainable par values for the use of environmental space on a per capita basis
globally. In our view equal rights to carbon usage is fundamental to the convention.” (This is “Contraction andConvergence”). “Policy instruments such as tradable emissions, carbon taxes and joint implementation may
well serve to make matters worse unless they are properly referenced to targets and timetables to be observedby those responsible for the damage to the atmosphere and biosphere. The social, financial and ecologicalinter-relationships of equity should guide the route to global ecological recovery.”
Since COP1 in March 1995: (1) GCI has generated the model “Contraction and Convergence” Options [CCOptions] to facilitate
negotiation in these terms of “Contraction and Convergence” approach (see Annex C) and(2) And propagated the international uptake of this approach and the use of the model, through extensive
outreach and international travel and attendance at international negotiations under the UNFCCC andrelated IPCC workshops,(3) The European Parliament adopted a resolution for the United Nations General Assembly Special Session(UNGASS) in June 1997 explicitly based on the approach.
(4) The US government tabled a draft protocol 1997 in at the AGBM in April 1997. It enables “Contraction
and Convergence” to be agreed so for this reason we supported the US draft.
(5) The Chinese, Indian and US Governments all have the CCOptions model with technical support as a resultof their requests to GCI to provide it.
(6) The Byrd-Hagel resolution was passed through the US Senate also enabling “Contraction andConvergence” with much debate recognising the need for controlled growth of emissions entitlements indeveloping countries in the medium term alongside the need for real reductions in developed countries.
(7) The Africa Group of Nations adopted “Contraction and Convergence” as its position for the negotiations at
COP3) in Kyoto (see Appendix C) and re-iterated this call during the final plenary session.
(8) IPCC WG3 adopted modeling specifications that included per capita convergence paths under different
contraction scenarios acknowledging the normative character of this and its novelty within IPCC.
(9) The Chinese State Councilor with responsibility for Climate Change and Population policy (Dr Song Jian)
has publicly affirmed (October 5th 1997) his government’s position in per capita terms which are precisely
and explicitly consistent with “Contraction and Convergence” (see Appendix D).
(10) GLOBE International adopted principles explicitly based on this approach. GLOBE also made thefollowing proposal to a plenary session of the Third Conference of the Parties (COP3) in Kyoto. “Let theConference of the Parties resolve to agree to negotiate a legally binding “Equity Protocol” establishing theprinciple that the apportionment of global emissions entitlements be deliberately converged to a point ofequal per capita shares.” (Full speech is Appendix E)(11) Representatives of the AFLCIO, UNCTAD and the Chicago Board of Trade have publicly expressed
support for "Contraction and Convergence” as a viable basis on which to negotiate the allocations
necessary for emissions trading.
(12) The prestigious science journal “Nature” produced a special edition for Kyoto endorsing the approach.
“Contraction and Convergence” is ever more widely seen as a way of overcoming the negotiating impasse
between the United States of America, the other Annex One Countries and the Non Annex countries. Potentially
it resolves USA’s insistence on emissions trading and “globality”, where “all” or “key” developing countries
must be pre-figured for abatement commitments if the general Kyoto settlement, is to achieve the necessary
ratification, whilst meeting the developing countries requirement for “equitable allocations”.
The test of whether global emissions trading is relevant or irrelevant is not merely "avoided emissions at least
cost." Stated thus, it is not indexed to the objective of the UNFCCC. The test is stabilisation of atmosphericgreenhouse gas concentrations at levels that avoid disruption of the global climate system at least cost. Here"cost" means both damage cost (regardless of whether these costs are or can be monetised or not) and emissions
abatement cost required for this. However, effecting the "relevant" trade plan is contingent on establishing
globally inclusive QELROs and GCI asserts is not possible without "Contraction and Convergence". Thus
pursuing "relevant" emissions trade commands by definition convergence as well as reducing the costs ofcontraction. This way gives the triple win. The first and second parties, the trading partners, win but because of
the equitable distribution so do the third parties. In other words all parties and the planet win because through"Contraction and Convergence" with trade climate change is avoided at least cost globally.
12

GLOBAL EQUITY DAWNS AT KYOTO’s DARKEST HOUR
At the end of the Kyoto negotiations, the entire debate came to centre on the issues of trade and the assigning ofproperty rights in the future carbon budget. By definition, emissions trading cannot occur until the principle ofproperty rights has been agreed and the 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 their insistence on the acceptance of emissions
trading. The governments of China and India, 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. The Africa group of countries intervened, re-iterating that this was why they wanted “Contraction
and Convergence”. The US replied by saying that they were attentive to the call for "Contraction andConvergence" but felt it was too soon. This underlined the remarks made 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. They have said since it is the only game in town.
The meeting broke for half an hour. On resumption, Chairman Estrada read out a prepared text (now known asarticle 16 bis). In effect the COP issues instructions to SBI and SBSTA to elucidate during 1998 the rules,
principles, modalities etc relating to trade, in time for COP4 in Buenos Aires in November 1998. (A simple GCI
module of global emissions trading consistent with the objective of the UNFCCC is suggested in Appendix F).
In order to make progress and avoid another effective deferment at COP4, the most urgent task for 1998 is tohave these principles and rules developed in terms of the logic of "Contraction and Convergence" and topromote the widest uptake, acceptance and application of this approach. (The GCI Draft Protocol for"Contraction and Convergence" is attached in Appendix G). (The "Contraction and Convergence" model is
described in Appendix H. The model can be down loaded from GCI’s website at www.gn.apc.org/gci with atechnical description of all its features). The model will compute (1) any budget with (2) any integral with (3)any take off slope and (4) any landing slope for (5) any number of countries or (6) groupings thereof with (7)linear convergence or (8) any rate of exponential convergence to (9) any chosen target date with (10) the option
to “freeze” population growth beyond a chosen date. Moreover (11) each budget can be revised “in progress”.
CHARTS 5 & 6 below show gross & per capita "Contraction and Convergence" for the world in 6 regions.
The contraction profile is from 2000 for an outcome of atmospheric CO2 concentrations at 450 ppmv by 2100.
The convergence pattern is from given levels at 2000 to equal per capita shares globally by 2030. Here it isachieved exponentially with population growth included until that date.
Historical CO2 Emissions/Future CO2 Entitlements under 450 ppmv
Contraction budget w ith Convergence to Equal Per Capita by 2030

10GT

Deforestation

8GT

Rest of World
INDIA

6GT

CHINA
Annex 1 (non-OECD)

4GT

OECD minus USA
UNITED STATES

2GT
GT

1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

7.00
6.00

PER CAPITA CONVERGENCE CURVES for Future CO2 Entitlements under
450 ppmv Contraction budget w ith Convergence to Equal Per Capita
by 2030 and population grow th numbers frozen from 2030 forw ard

Tonnes Carbon

UNITED STATES

5.00

OECD minus USA
Annex 1 (non-OECD)

4.00

CHINA
INDIA

3.00

Rest of World

2.00
1.00
0.00
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

13

APPENDIX A
Consideration of IPCC CO2 Scenarios for Carbon Emissions
IPCC have published scenarios for different atmospheric GHG concentration levels resulting from different
CO2 emissions scenarios, as in the graph below. The scenarios run through years 1990 to 2500 and are
expressed in gigatonnes carbon (GTC) from CO2 annually on the left-hand axis. The accumulated emissions(integrals), between 1990 and 2100 only, are summarised in the top right hand corner of the graphic. These arealso expressed in GTC. The atmospheric CO2 concentration curves are not shown, but in each case stabilisation
occurs after the respective emissions contraction path of each has completed.

Gigatonnes carbon

IPCC CO2 EMISSIONS SCENARIOS 1990 - 2500
for various atmospheric CONCENTRATIONS (in ppmv)
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2

S350 ppmv 1990 - 2100 (only) accumulated 283 GTC
S450 ppmv 1990 - 2100 (only) accumulated 626 GTC
S550 ppmv 1990 - 2100 (only) accumulated 868 GTC
S650 ppmv 1990 - 2100 (only) accumulated 1027 GTC
S750 ppmv 1990 - 2100 (only) accumulated 1191 GTC
S1000 ppmv 1990 - 2100 (only) accumulated 1405 GTC

S1000
S750
S650
S550

CHART THREE
S450
S350

1990

2045

2100

2155

2210

2265

2320

2375

2430

2485

Integrals quoted in the right-hand corner of the graphic are obtained from the data supplied by IPCC. They are
different from the integrals published by IPCC in their table, which follows. IPCC’s published ranges foraccumulated emissions against atmospheric concentration curves are in the table below.
atmospheric concentration of CO2 expressed in parts
per million by volume (ppmv)
350
450
550
650
750

ranges of accumulated CO2 emissions
expressed in gigatonnes carbon (GTC)
300 to 430
630 to 650
870 to 890
1030 to 1190
1200 to 1300

APPENDIX B
POLICY MAKERS' SUMMARY SOCIAL COSTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
Chapter 6 Summary for Policy Makers IPCC WG3 SAR
The literature on the subject in this section is controversial and mainly based on research done on developed
countries, often extrapolated to developing countries. There is no consensus about how to value statistical lives
or how to aggregate statistical lives across countries. Monetary valuation should not obscure the humanconsequences of anthropogenic climate change damages, because the value of life has meaning beyond
monetary value. It should be noted that the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21 call for human beings to remain at
the centre of sustainable development. The approach taken to this valuation might affect the scale of damage
reduction strategies. It may be noted that in virtually all of the literature discussed in this section 1). thedeveloping country statistical lives have not been valued equally at the developed country value 2). otherdamages in developing countries are also not equally valued at the developing country value. Because national
circumstances, including opportunity costs, differ, economists sometimes evaluate certain kinds of impacts
differently amongst countries.
14

The benefits of limiting greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing sinks are (a) the climate change damages
avoided and (b) the secondary benefits associated with the relevant policies. Secondary benefits include
reductions in other pollutants jointly produced with greenhouse gases and biological diversity conserved. Net
climate change damages include both market and non-market impacts as far as they can be quantified at thepresent and, in some cases, adaptation costs. Damages are expressed in net terms to account for the fact that
there are some beneficial impacts of global warming as well which are however, dominated by the damage
costs. Non-market impacts, such as human health, risk of human mortality and damage to ecosystems, form an
important component of available estimates of the social costs of climate change. The literature on monetaryvaluation of such non-market effects reflects a number of divergent views and approaches. The estimates of
non-market damages, however, are highly speculative and not comprehensive.
Non-market damage estimates are a source of major uncertainty in assessing the implications of global climatechange for human welfare. While some regard monetary valuation of such impacts as essential to sound decision
making, others reject monetary valuation of some impacts, such as risk of human mortality, on ethical grounds.
Additionally there is a danger that entire unique cultures may be obliterated. This is not something that can beconsidered in monetary terms, but becomes a question of loss of human diversity for which we have no
indicators to measure economic value.
The assessed literature contains only a few estimates of the monetised damages associated with doubled CO2
equivalent concentration scenarios. The estimates are aggregated to a global scale and illustrate the potential
impacts of climate change under selected scenarios. Aggregating individual monetised damages to obtain totalsocial welfare impacts implies difficult decisions about equity amongst countries. Global estimates are based
upon an aggregation of monetary damages across countries (damages which are themselves implicit
aggregations across individuals) that reflect inter-country differences in wealth and income - this fundamentallyaffects the monetary valuation of damages. Taking income differences as given implies that an equivalent
impact in two countries (such as an equal increase in human mortality) would receive very different weights inthe calculations of global damages.
To enable choices between different ways of promoting human welfare to be made on a consistent basis,
economists have for many years sought to express a wide range of human and environmental impacts in termsof monetary equivalents, using various techniques. The most commonly used of those techniques is an approachbased on the observed willingness to pay for various non-market benefits. This is the approach that has beentaken in most of the assessed literature.
Human life is an element outside the market and societies may want to preserve it in an equal way. An approach
which includes equal valuation of impacts on human life wherever they occur may yield different aggregate
global estimates than those reported below. For example, equalising the value of a statistical life at a global
average could leave total global damage unchanged but would increase markedly the share of these damages
borne by the developing world. Equalising the value at the level typical in the developing countries would
increase the monetised damages several times, and would further increase the share of the developing countries
in the total damage estimate.
Other aggregation methods can be used to adjust for differences in the wealth or incomes of countries in thecalculations of monetary damages. Because the estimates of monetary damage tend to be a higher percentage
of national GDP in low-income countries than for high-income countries, aggregation schemes, which adjust for
wealth or income effects, are expected to yield higher estimates of global damage than those estimatedin this report.
The assessed literature quantifying total damages from 2 to 3 degrees Celsius warming provide a wide range ofpoint estimates for damages given the presumed change in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. The
aggregate estimates tend to be a few percent of world GDP, with in general, considerably higher estimates ofdamage to developing countries as a share of their GDP. The aggregate estimates are subject to considerable
uncertainty, but the range of uncertainty cannot be gauged from the literature. The range of estimates cannot beinterpreted as a confidence interval given the widely different assumptions and methodologies in the studies. As
noted above, aggregation is likely to mask even greater uncertainties about damage components.
Regional or sectoral approaches to estimating the consequences of climate change include a much wider rangeof estimates of the net economic effects. For some areas, damages are estimated to be significantly greater andcould negatively affect economic development. For others, climate change is estimated to increase economic
production and present opportunities for economic development. For countries having a diversified industrial
15

economy and an educated and flexible labour force, the limited set of published estimates of damages are of theorder of one to a few percent of GDP. For countries having a specialised and natural resources based economy(e.g. heavily emphasizing agriculture or forestry), and a poorly developed land-tied labour force, the limited setof published estimates of damages are several times larger. Small islands and low-lying coastal areas are
particularly vulnerable. Damages for possible large-scale catastrophes, such as major changes in ocean
circulation, are not reflected in these estimates. There is little agreement across studies about the exact
magnitude of each category of damages or relative ranking of the damage categories. Climate changes of thismagnitude are not expected to be realised for several decades and damages in the interim could be smaller.
Damages over a longer period of time might be greater.
IPCC does not endorse any particular range of values for the marginal damage of CO2 emissions, but publishedestimates range between $5 and $125 (1990 US) per tonne of carbon emitted now. This range of estimatesdoes not represent the full range of uncertainty. The estimates are also based on models that remain simplistic
and are limited representations of the actual climate processes in being and are based on earlier IPCC scientificreports. The wide range of damage estimates reflects variations in model scenarios, discount rates and otherassumptions. It must be emphasized that the social costs estimates have a wide range of uncertainty because oflimited knowledge of impacts, uncertain future technological and socio-economic developments and thepossibility of catastrophic events or surprises.
(1) The value of a statistical life is defined as the value people assign to a change in the risk of death among a
population.
(2) The concept of willingness to pay is indicative, based on expressed desires, available resources andinformation of a human being at a certain point in time. The values may change over time. Also other concepts,
such as willingness to accept compensation for damage, have been advanced, but not yet widely applied in theliterature and the interpretation and application of willingness to pay and other concepts to the climate problem
may evolve.
(3) Due to time lags between findings in the natural sciences, their use in determination of potential physical andbiological impacts, and subsequent incorporation into economic analysis of climate change, the estimates ofclimate change damages are based mainly on the scientific results from the 1990 and 1992 IPCC reports.
(4) See the Assessment Reports of Working Groups One and Two.

APPENDIX CTEXT OF THE AFRICA GROUP OF NATIONS STATEMENT TO THE AUGUST 1997 AGBM
Mr. Chairman - Let me begin by adding the Africa Group support for the statement made by 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 tocommend 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 theParties have made any real headway in trying to strengthen the commitments under Article 4.2 (a) and (b) andadvance 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 of progress that has been made.
Unfavourable climatic conditions will continue to plague our economies, our crops will continue to fail, national
external debts will remain a problem 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 that have chosen to refrainfrom 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 to evaluating these
proposals in order to assess the impacts they will have on our socio-economic infrastructures. Some of ourcountries 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.

16

First: There must be limits on all GHGs if the danger to our climate is to be averted. The IPCC scientificassessment 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 the principle of percapita emissions rights that fully take into account the reality of population growth and the principle ofdifferentiation.
Third: Achievement of a safe limit to global GHG emissions can be achieved by reducing the emissions ofAnnex 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 willtake us along a path to responsible 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 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 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 by Annex One Parties and sustainable growth in
the Non-Annex One Parties. To do this Africa would need predictable financial resources, technology transfer,
education, training and public awareness, systematic observation and research. We look forward to renewed cooperation with other Parties in implementing our commitments under Article 4.1.
Mr. Chairman, we must focus our attention on the most appropriate, reasonable and acceptable time frame foraction. 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 is therefore forthis reason that we wish to register the seriousness with which we view the effective implementation of theConvention 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 the Convention. We look forward to meaningful targets
and timeframes for consideration at the next session of the AGBM. - I thank you. (Mrs. Karamanzira Zimbabwe).

APPENDIX DEXTRACT FROM SPEECH BY DR SONG JIAN (STATE COUNCILLOR WITH RESPONSIBILITYFOR CLIMATE CHANGE AND POPULATION) AT THE CLOSING CEREMONY OF THE CHINACOUNCIL FOR INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT(OCT 5TH 1997)
We fully understand the worldwide campaign to battle the climate change spearheaded by 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 be formulated on a percapita basis. According to the UN Charter, everybody is born equal, and has inalienable rights to enjoy modern
technological civilization. Today the per capita consumption is just one tenth of that of the developed countries,
one eighth of that of medium developed countries. It is estimated 30-40 years would be needed for China tocatch 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 airconditioning. 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: -

17

1.
2.

3.

4.

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 the environment.
To put the exploitation of hydroelectric power resources on the top priority, and to explore otherrenewable energy sources, develop clean coal technologies and reduce the emissions of unit energy
consumption.
To continue the campaign of afforestations, plant more trees, attend pasture lands, develop
ecological agriculture, protect ecological environment and preserve and strengthen the ability ofsinks for absorbing carbon dioxide from the 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.
To raise extensively the efficiency of energy utilisation, develop new and less energy-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 theexperts of the working groups could put forward opinions and creative suggestions.

APPENDIX E
Kyoto, 9 December 1997
SPEECH BY TOM SPENCER, MEP TO THE PLENARY SESSION OF THE UNFCCC.
I had the honour to address COP1 in Berlin. I had the impertinence to suggest that future meetings be held on
the great Antarctic iceberg as a way of dramatising the urgency of our task. Kyoto is much more pleasant thanan iceberg, but the urgency has intensified.
The nature of the challenge of climate change is now clear. It is not scientific. It is not technological - we are an
adaptive species. As John Prescott said yesterday, the challenge is political, and I would add, it is intellectual,
institutional, and ethical. After a week of debate about important details, I suggest that the time is right for astatement of even more important principle, After years of debate, about "efficiency" I suggest that your resultscannot be brought to success without a statement about equity. The "sense of the Senate" resolution made thefair political point that they could not ratify a treaty, that was not seen to be fair by the American people, A
treaty would have to include meaningful participation by developing countries. I would say to my friends inCongress that you cannot ask for that involvement on the basis of efficiency alone, You must specify that thenature of that involvement will be equitable. I am not a Government. I speak this morning only for an
organisation of environmentally- committed parliamentarians from 47 countries. With all the humility
appropriate to a non-negotiator, may I suggest a text to this great gathering of negotiators.
Many of you know the Contraction and Convergence analysis. It offers a framework for an answer. It offers anenvelope of equity within which we can trade and barter our way to collective sanity in the coming decades.
Let us make a start in this direction. Let the Conference of Parties resolve " to agree to negotiate a legallybinding "Equity Protocol" establishing the principle that the apportionment of global emission entitlements bedeliberately converged to a point of equal per capita shares at a date to be agreed."
I invite the Government of Japan to propose such a text, which is in line with their policy statement at AGBM7.
I invite the European Union, whose efforts entitle it to take a leadership role, to propose such a text. I invite theUnited States, which rightly takes its stand on the basis of a "global solution to a global problem" to draw the
logical conclusion of its own approach, and to propose such a text.
And in response: May I invite the Africa Group whose statement in August led the way to respond to such atext. May I invite the AOSIS states whose very survival depends on our collective success to back such a
proposal. May I invite the Governments of China and India to seize this opportunity of an equity protocol thatwould entrench in our process the principle they have correctly and courageously fought for.
In life the right thing to do is the right thing to do. It is occasionally true in diplomacy that an ethically justanswer is also the only available way out of an impasse.

18

ANNEX F

The Ideas behind Contraction and Convergence
Fundamental Assumptions
1/ Survival and IPCC Scenarios
In accordance with the FCCC and best scientific evidence as reported by the IPCC and elsewhere, we assume
that total anthropogenic emissions of CO2 over the 110-year period 1990-2100 must be in line with those set out
in IPCC working group 1's 1994[1] and 1995[2] reports under the 'S350' or 'S450' scenarios.
We regard S350 as a necessary target to give a reasonable degree of belief that large-scale damage to the world
economy, human lives and natural ecosystems can be averted. We also used the S450 scenario as an upper limit
for consideration; under which there is a chance that damage, though serious, will be containable.
The S550 and higher scenarios we ignore, as it is clear that going for those presents a high probability that
positive feedback loops, admittedly underrepresented in the modeling underlying the IPCC scenario
calculations, will lead to catastrophic failure of ecosystems and of human societies. Additionally, when a chartof an S550 scenario is examined for the period of the 21st century, rather than for the much longer period usedin the IPCC reports, it is clear that, even ignoring these feedbacks, S550 is virtually equivalent to business-asusual for a large chunk of that century. In other words, adopting it is little different from a do-nothing approach.
Finally we note that, if an aim of 550ppm were agreed, and later it was desired on the basis of new evidence tochange policy and aim for 350ppm instead, it would be almost impossible to do so after about 2005. Cuttingback from a 450ppm target to 350, on the other hand, could be done up to about 2015.
The CCOptions workbook enables the validity of these assertions to be checked.

2/ Contraction
To implement the above, and based on data reported in [1] and [2], we select a target value for CO2 emissions tostabilise at and a target year to stabilise in. We select the target value as the highest value, up to a maximum of
40% of the start-year value, which yields a curve that does not dip below the target value. We select the target
year to be as far into the future as looks workable. For an S350 scenario we suggest 2050; for an S450 scenario
2070. To compute CO2 allocations one needs also to make assumptions about future population growth. In (7)below we set out precisely how we have dealt with this issue. Our algorithm enables a schedule of total global
emissions to be laid out which adds up to a desired total over the 110-year period and is normally chosen to bein line with tables presented in [1] and [2]. Given the assertion in [1] that the total climate impact of a pattern of
CO2 emissions depends to a first approximation only on the total emissions, and not on the temporal pattern of
those emissions, we have a reasonable basis for our assertion that our scenarios can legitimately be represented
as S350 and S450 scenarios.
Scenarios where stabilisation occurs after 2100 can be represented by entering a global emissions decline rate
for the year 2100. CCOptions does not attempt to look forward beyond 2100.
Note that there is no necessity to stick to 350/450/550 as targets. 400ppm might be a practically negotiabletarget; from which a change of plan to 350ppm looks to be possible until about 2025.

3/ Convergence
To enable international negotiations to have some chance of success, these emissions need to be allocated bycountries in a way that is both achievable and is seen by all to be fair. To that end we specify that the per-capita
emissions converge from their present diverse values to a standard world value, to be the same for each country,
in a 'convergence year' set as 2045. 2045 is chosen because partly because using it gave a good balance between
what is achievable and what can be seen to be fair. Equally importantly, 2045 is chosen because it is the United
Nations' centenary year; and it seems a fruitful idea to invest that year with being the target date for achieving
this limited but significant measure of international equity.

19Note that there is no algorithmic need for the convergence year to be earlier or later than the contraction year. It
might make for ease of negotiation to set them to be the same; but at this stage that seems an unnecessary
restriction to us.

4/ Consistency with Rio Commitments
We have assumed that the 'Annex1' countries as defined in the 1992 FCCC will meet their commitment to return
emissions to their 1990 levels by 2000. Even if they do not meet them, future allocations should be on that basis,otherwise the IPCC and the UN will be undermined. Modification of the model to be consistent with the Kyoto
commitments is in hand, but will make only a minor impact on the process overall.

5/ Algorithms
The approach is a three-stage process, with an initial stage that extrapolates from the most recent year for which
actual CO2 emissions data is available up to 2000, the scope of the pre-Kyoto FCCC commitments. Contraction
and convergence proper are then started in 2000; a global contraction profile being determined first, and then aseparate convergence criterion applied.

5.1/ The Initial StageAs laid out in (4) above, we assume that Annex1 countries' emissions return to their 1990 values by 2000. For
definiteness we assume that emissions from 1995 to 2000 retrace backwards the actual trajectories from 1990 to
1995. We have also had to estimate emissions for 1995, as data is only available from the UN as far as 1994 (asof May 1997). For the other countries for the remainder of the 90s decade we linearly extrapolate the trend ofgrowth from the latest available figures.

5.2/ The Contraction StageFor this we fit a quartic curve of the formz = k+ly+my2+ny3+py4
where z is the total global industrial CO2 emissions; y is the year and the parameters k,l,m,n and p are jointly
determined by the following five conditions:
i: z is set for the start year of 2000 as explained in (5.1) above.
ii: z is set at the contraction target value for the contraction target year as explained in (2) above.
iii: dz/dy was set to a target value for this target year (i.e. we assume that the emissions decline rate reaches atarget -- commonly zero -- at that time).
iv: dz/dy is set to 1.5% in 2000, reflecting the actual global increase in that year implied by the method
described in (5.1). In the workbook, this is an adjustable parameter.
v: The area under the curve, calculated by integration of the above formula, corresponding to the total global
emissions over the 110-year period, was set as explained in (2) above.
These conditions yield a set of 5 simultaneous linear equations which are solved to compute the actual values of
k,l,m,n, and p.
An allowance of 50GT in total is subtracted from the 110-year target taken from [1] or [2] to take account of
deforestation emissions. As even the present annual emissions rate appears to be uncertain to within at least 50%
or so; and the total amount of carbon in global forests is orders of magnitude less than that in unburnt fossil
fuels, we think it both justifiable and politically helpful to make this very crude approximation. The actual figureof 50GT is towards the optimistic end of the range (30GT to 90GT) used in the six IS92a-f scenarios whichwere set out in IPCC WG1's 1992 report [3]. We are in the process of adding in also an allowance for 'bunker
fuels' – fuel used in civil air and sea transport, which are not allocated to countries and have been excluded frommost calculations up to now. We plan to treat these, like deforestation, as a world overhead, and do not suggest
allocating them to countries. We suggest that reductions be projected to proceed at the same rate as total global
industrial emissions. For similar reasons we have not taken account at all of other greenhouse gases. These
shortfalls could easily be addressed in the future when or if accurate and acceptable data becomes available.
An option is also available to enter a preset profile of global emissions from 2000 to 2100 as a set of numbers.
CCOptions then applies its convergence algorithm.

5.3/ The Convergence Stage
This, the process to allocate %shares of global emissions to all the worlds' countries, is a little more complex.
The ideas behind our algorithm are:i/ to start out with 'actual' shares in 2000, as derived by the methods described above;20

ii/ to converge all the shares on to actual proportions of global population in the convergence year, which, as wehave explained we strongly urge be set to 2045. But the population figures used are subjected to a cap as set outin (7) below.
iii/ the actual degree of convergence allocated in each year to depend on the (potentially capped) population
only for that and earlier years. This means that if these procedures were in use, the actual allocations for any
given year would only depend on data then available, not on forecasts of population in some year that is then in
the future.
The formula used is sy+1=sy-( sy - py+1)exp(-a(1-t))
where sy is the emissions share of a country in year y, py is its share of the global population (subject to the cap)in year y, t is the fractional time elapsed between 2000 and the target year (t=0 for 2000 and t=1 at theconvergence year of, say, 2045), and a is an arbitrary parameter that determines the rate of convergence.
In the workbook a is adjustable. The higher the value the more the convergence happens towards the end of theconvergence period, and vice-versa. Choosing a=4 gives an even balance.
This is intended to be the simplest formula that achieves the aims i-iii above.
An option has been added to converge linearly instead of using the above formula.

6/ Allocations
The actual industrial CO2 emissions allocations are then made by multiplying the global total value derived
from the contraction process by each country's shares derived from the convergence process.

7/ Population Assumptions
We have used UN median figures for forecast population growth by country.
We have then used a cap on population growth for the purposes of allocation of emissions rights. This was done
by notionally freezing population numbers (only) for years beyond a 'population cutoff year' at the values forthat year. Note there is no assumption being made about what populations will or should be beyond the cutoff
year; merely that population growth after that year should not accrue additional emissions rights. In the
workbook the year is adjustable. We hold it necessary to adopt some such cap criterion, as otherwise the system
will be construed as giving national governments a positive incentive to encourage their populations to grow to
obtain an increasing share of emissions rights.

8/ The CCOptions Workbook
The above ideas on contraction and convergence have been actualised in a Microsoft Excel workbook,
CCOptions; which is available free from the GCI web site. Excel version 5 or later is required.
CCOptions models CO2 emissions allocations from the present up to 2100, married with CDIAC data forhistorical CO2 emissions.
The user is presented with a panel of parameters which are adjustable within limits; and whenever new values
are typed in, graphs of countries' emissions are regenerated for the time-span from 1860 to 2100. Some of thesegraphs have been used to support well-received presentations at various climate-change conferences from COP2
in Geneva in July 1996 on.
As well as the base C&C computation, the workbook also includes a feature to investigate what could happen if
policy were to switch from a 400ppm initial target, say, to a 350ppm target at some future date. This is done byhaving a 'Phase two' for contraction, with user-settable start year, target 110-year CO2 emissions, and target
annual emissions. The convergence process is unaffected by this.
For a brief explanation of how to use the workbook see separate document, available from the web site.

References[1]CLIMATE CHANGE 1994 Radiative Forcing of Climate Change and An Evaluation of the IPCC IS92
Emission Scenarios. Cambridge University Press for the IPCC. 1995
[2]CLIMATE CHANGE 1995 The Science of Climate Change, Summary for Policymakers and Technical
Summary of the Working Group I report. IPCC. 1996.
[3]CLIMATE CHANGE The IPCC 1990 and 1992 Assessments. WMO/UNEP June 1992.

21

APPENDIX H
1. Contraction of Global CO2 Emissions (e.g. by 2100 as shown for 450 ppmv)
Stabilisation of atmospheric CO2 concentrations – according to the ultimate objective of the UNFCCC –requires cuts in human emissions of CO2 in the order of 60%. This level of reductions requires a long-termbudget framework with a sequence of short-term controls under constant scientific and political review.
By definition, the solution to the global problem of human-induced climate change must be a global solution.
On a differentiated basis, all countries must be involved if the solution is to be achievable.
2. Convergence to Equal Per Capita Entitlements by a negotiated date (e.g. shown 2030)
Adherence to a globally contracting CO2 budget over several generations requires unprecedented international
co-operation. The international distribution of future emissions entitlements inevitably needs to be determinedon the basis of equity between the peoples of all nations. This suggests a process, which corrects the historicallyand currently polarised patterns of consumption globally.
We know of no method for doing this that has any chance of achieving this co-operation other than a negotiatedconvergence to equal per capita emissions entitlements globally.
3. International Emissions Allocations
The combination of the global emissions budget and global convergence of international emissions paths gives
allocations to all countries. Countries move from their current levels of emissions along trajectories determinedby the combination of the “Contraction and Convergence” (C&C) curves.
The example shown here (450 ppmv by 2100 with Convergence by 2030) is consistent with the short-term goalsof the Berlin Mandate. Annex One contracts by 15% by 2010 while Non-Annex One countries grow collectively
at an average of 3% per annum until 2030.
4. Trade of Emissions Permits
National allocations are for emissions permits that can be traded. Contraction rates in developed countries canbe reduced through the purchase of permits from developing countries. The resultant cash-flow could bedirected to non-fossil energy based development (leap-frogging) in developing countries, while also giving ageneral incentive to CO2 emissions avoidance because of the value of permits.
All this provides that global emissions abatement can be achieved at least cost, thus meeting the requirements ofglobal efficiency in a globally equitable and sustainable manner.

22280ppmv CO2

360ppmv CO2

450ppmv CO2

20TC
18TC
16TC

5GTC
14TC
12TC
GTC

8TC
World Total

6TC

Annex One

-5GTC

Non-Annex One

4TC

Possible A1 Trade Margin
Possible Non-A1 Trade Margin

2TC
0TC

-10GTC-2TC-4TC-15GTC-6TC-10TC-20GTC-12TC-14TC-25GTC
-16TC
-18TC
-20TC

-30GTC

23

gigatonnes carbon

-8TC

18
60
18
80
19
00
19
20
19
40
19
60
19
80
20
00
20
20
20
40
20
60
20
80
21
00

tonnes carbon per capita

10TC

gigatonnes carbon

10GTC

APPENDIX GCONTRACTION AND CONVERGENCE
Draft Proposals for a Climate Change ProtocolContents:...
Overview
Part I: Core tasks to achieve "Contraction and Convergence":
1. Recognise the prevention of dangerous climate change as an essential global security interest
2. Agree Danger Indicators
3. Decide CO2 concentration target and timetable
4. Set annual global CO2 emission budgets according to contraction formula.
5. Calculate relative national shares of the global budget according to a convergence formula
6. Allocate national CO2 emissions quotas
7. Establish criteria and mechanisms for quota management

Part II: Proposals for contraction and convergence
A. Draft proposals for control of greenhouse gas emissions.
2.1. Set up a system for CO2 emissions trading
2.2 Require International Airline and Shipping companies to purchase CO2 emission quotas.
2.3. Consider national targets for anthropogenic emissions of other greenhouse gases
2.4. Agree potential Sanctions, Penalties, and Compensation
B. Draft proposals on climate damages
2.5. Monitor climate damages
2.6. Plan for emergencies
2.7. Consider options for damage compensation and historic debt
C. Draft proposals on Policies and Measures to aid implementation.
2.8. Establish financial mechanisms to aid implementation
2.9 Establish mechanism for development and transfer of sustainable technologies
2.10 Phase out fossil fuel subsidies
2.11 Require consistency in international policy making
2.12 Establish a forum for local governments
D. Proposals on research and education
2.13. Enhance education, training and awareness2.14 Strengthen climate research particularly into feedback processes
2.15 Examine responsibilities of trans-national corporations and finance
Documents available separately on request
Appendix A: contraction formula
Appendix B: convergence formula
Appendix C: cumulative credit/debit formula
Definition of terms

24Overview
The Prevention of dangerous climate change is now an essential global security interest. Recognising thisinterest, this GCI draft document sets out some key tasks necessary for a protocol to stabilise greenhouse gas
concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.
Pre-eminently, this requires a rapid “Contraction” of all human CO2 emissions globally. Moreover,unprecedented international co-operation will be required to achieve this. Such a “comprehensive approach” isonly likely to be adopted by most if not all nations, if it is linked to the simultaneous task of “Convergence”
towards an equitable and sustainable level of emissions on a per capita basis globally.
This inter-linked configuration of “Contraction and Convergence” is fundamental to GCI’s view of the entire
climate change dilemma and its solution. GCI has crafted such an approach, which provides the basis for thisdocument. Part One of the document presents the core tasks of this approach. The first proposal develops thewell-established concept of national security interest to include dangerous climate change as a global security
interest. This emphasizes the urgency of this issue and has practical implications for the decision making
process and technology development and transfer. The next six proposals spell out practical steps fromagreement of danger indicators through to a mechanism for the management of national quota allocations
according to a scientific assessment, a contraction formula and a convergence formula.
Additionally, the document presents further proposals for a protocol. These have been drafted in response toevents at the Second Conference of Parties (COP2) to the Framework Convention on Climate Change in Geneva
in July 1996. While we received remarkably wide-ranging support for our proposals for “Contraction andConvergence”, many questions were raised about the detailed implications of such an approach.
These further proposals are an attempt to map out some of these implications and are set out in Part Two. The
first set concern emissions trading, air/shipping bunker fuels, other greenhouse gases and measures to deter noncompliance. The next set outlines the assessment of and compensation for climate damages, past, present andfuture. The next four points outline measures to aid implementation, including funding and technology transfer.
The final three are concerned with education and research.
At COP2, the US Government stated that all protocols currently on the table were “unrealistic andunachievable”. This effectively sank the AOSIS Protocol proposed by the island-states most vulnerable toclimate change. However, many states considered that our “Global Commons Initiative” for contraction andconvergence was the most plausible basis for a comprehensive long-term protocol.
We, therefore, invite all far-sighted governments to consider incorporating all or part of these proposals into
their submissions to the Secretariat by 15th October 1996 for discussion at the next AGBM meeting in Geneva
this December, and as the basis for a draft protocol by March 1997 in time for consideration at COP3 in Kyoto.
Please always bear in mind that this is a draft document and that we would greatly welcome your opinion andexpertise in developing these proposals into a viable protocol.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------I. Core tasks for achieving "Contraction and Convergence"-----------------------------------------------------------------------1: Recognise the prevention of dangerous climate change as an essential
global security interest.
The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions shall be regarded as an essential global security interest forhumanity.

25

RATIONALE AND POLICY IMPLICATIONSThis proposal generalises the accepted concept of "essential security interest" to the whole of humanity.
The gravity of global climate change is greater than the essential security interests of any nation andfundamental to the maintenance of international peace and security during the coming century. This justifies theurgent development of measures proposed in this protocol and places a duty on governments to regard climatechange as an international emergency. This also means that action may be taken to secure the use of sustainable
technology for the benefit of humanity in much the same way as governments may protect the use of militarytechnology under the Security Exceptions for intellectual property rights as set out in Article 73 of Annex 1C of
the Final Act of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations as well as national security legislation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Agree danger indicators
Agree a list of specific, quantifiable indicators to define "dangerous anthropogenic interference to the climate
system" as stated in Article 2 of the Framework Convention. The indicators shall be listed in the protocol andtheir quantitative values shall be reviewed annually by SBSTA with advice from IPCC. The values should reflect
the precautionary principle and take account of the time lag between emissions and climatic changes. The
indicators shall be applicable on any geographical scale to include local damages induced by global climatechange.
CoP shall commission detailed recommendations for suitable indicators and their appropriate values. The
following suggestions are put forward as a starting point:a) relative sea level rise to a threatening level at any location;b) increased coastal erosion that forces evacuation of inhabited land or loss of wetlands;c) global mean surface temperature rise or significant regional temperature changes over a given time period;d) an annual increase in the number of tornadoes or tropical cyclones in any region beyond current naturalvariability;e) a significant reduction in permafrost area, resulting in release of natural methane;f) significant changes in regional or sub-regional precipitation resulting in prolonged droughts or frequent
flooding;g) an increase in bush and forest fires above natural variability;h) loss of marine and terrestrial ecosystems and species;i) substantial prolonged reduction in marine primary production (plankton, algae);j) a significant contraction of either polar ice cap and / or glaciers;k) a major prolonged change in ocean circulation, such as the north Atlantic current or El Nino / Southern
Oscillation;l) a spread attributable to climate change of any human, animal or plant disease;m) direct impact of climate change on human health;n) economic damages attributable to climate change.
These danger indicators should be reviewed on a regular basis by IPCC as new scientific evidence becomes
available and revised by the CoP when prudent to do so.
26

RATIONALE AND POLICY IMPLICATIONSThis Task puts key scientific indicators for dangerous climate change at the centre of the protocol. The"definition of adverse climate change" (FCCC Article. 1, 1) and "dangerous anthropogenic interference with theclimate system" (Article. 2) need to be set out in the form of specific danger indicators based on best scientificadvice and the precautionary principle (Article 3).
Each indicator should reflect a distinct impact resulting from climate change and should be defined inquantifiable terms on a global, regional and subregional scale. Where possible they should indicate both thedanger threshold and potentially dangerous rates of change. The choice of indicators should take into accountthe considerable time lag between greenhouse gas emissions and subsequent climatic response.
The prospect of breaching any one of the indicators should be sufficient to require preventative action, on the
grounds of the precautionary principle, even though it may only affect one area of the world directly. On thebasis of equity, damages must be avoided on a local scale since many of the most vulnerable countries areneither responsible for global warming nor in a position to adapt to the harmful effects. Local climate-changeinduced damages may not be traded off against the pursuit of global economic growth, because it is impossible
to sensibly create a consensus around the quantification of such damages in terms of rising risks of ecologicaland political instability (see also II.A.1).
--------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Decide CO2 concentration target and timetable
A stabilisation target and timetable shall be agreed for atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The target should be
set by applying the precautionary principle to avoid the danger indicators agreed under Section I.1 (above).
This target shall initially be 350 ppmv to be achieved by the year 2100 . The
target shall be reviewed every five years by IPCC as new scientific evidence becomes available and revised by
the CoP if the danger indicators clearly show that it is prudent to do so.

Rationale and policy implications
Dangerous changes in the climate system are a result of specific greenhouse gas concentrations in theatmosphere, so it is necessary to set a specific ceiling on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. In absence ofbetter scientific understanding of climatic feedback processes (listed in section II.D.2 ), the initial target of
atmospheric CO2 stabilisation at 350ppmv by the year 2100 is chosen such that the system remains close to thebounds of our present knowledge. This can be achieved by following a future emissions scenario in which the
cumulative CO2 emissions are similar to those of IPCC S350.
When reviewing this target, IPCC should take into account predicted changes in the concentration of othergreenhouse gases (considered further in section II.A.3).
--------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Set annual global CO2 emissions budgets according to a "contraction"
formulaThe Conference of the Parties shall set a net global anthropogenic carbon emissions budget for each year
throughout the period of contraction to meet the stabilisation objective as defined in I.3 above. This shall becalculated according to a mathematical formula which defines an emissions scenario that leads to stabilisationof emissions at around 2045. The formula may be reviewed annually five years in advance to take account ofrevisions to the stabilisation target set under proposal 3 as well as changes in natural sinks and sources basedon scientific advice of the IPCC.

27

Rationale and policy implications
Stabilisation of CO2 concentrations requires a global ceiling on emissions which contracts over time until theyreach the target of 350 ppmv. The "contraction" formula would define a realistic emissions scenario which
avoids both unachievable annual emissions reductions and temporary net negative emissions in the future. The
formula should refer to all anthropogenic sources and sinks of CO2, i.e. changes in emissions resulting directlyfrom human activity, including anthropogenic changes of natural sinks and sources. Natural "equilibrium"
sources and sinks should be considered in the science behind the emissions scenario, but should not be includedin this global anthropogenic emissions budget.
The formula will need to be reviewed annually to take account of changes both to the concentration target and of
actual sinks and sources of CO2. However, in order to reduce uncertainty for both planning and trading purposeseach annual review will adjust the budgets five years in advance.
Implementation will require setting up a Scientific Panel drawn from the SBSTA and approved by the CoP toagree the formula and recommend annual CO2 budgets.
The target date of 2045 is suggested because it lies within the window for realistic contraction and coincides
with the centenary of the United Nations.
For the purpose of illustration only, a sample "contraction" formula is available from GCI.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Calculate relative national shares of the global budget according to a
"convergence" formula.
Each country shall be allocated an annual, relative share of the global emissions budget (set according tosection I.4 above) using a consistent formula to calculate the proportion for each country for each year. The
allocation shall be set such that national shares move gradually from present emissions levels to equal per
capita emissions levels by a fixed "convergence" year (e.g. 2045). Provision shall be made for bunker fuels forshipping and air transport (see II.A.2).

RATIONALE AND POLICY IMPLICATIONSThis task gives effect to the principle of equity set out in Article 3.1 of the FCCC while recognising that equal
per capita allocations would be neither acceptable nor feasible for Annex I countries if implemented
immediately. The formula therefore provides a predictable and viable method of achieving a convergence toequity. National shares would be based initially on current emissions levels, or for Annex 1 countries, thoselevels already specified by commitments under the UNFCCC , and would then converge to the same per capita
level by the target date of 2045. After this relative shares would remain constant.
Calculation with the convergence formula will use the UN median population estimates. These population
statistics may be reviewed if necessary at the request of a majority of the CoP.
However, after a fixed year (e.g. the convergence date) population figures could be frozen.
The relative national shares are independent of the annual scientific reviews, although the actual allocations ofemissions (allocated in section I.6) will of course vary according to the global budget agreed. Annual shareswould be calculated for all countries, whether or not they are Parties to the Protocol, and shall be set out in an
Annex to the protocol as tables.
For the purpose of illustration only, a sample "convergence" formula is available from GCI.

28

The establishment of fixed national emissions budgets will encourage investment in appropriate technology andallow for the possibility of orderly emissions trading, but this depends crucially on having finite net CO2
budgets calculated according to a formula that produces a predictable level of
permissible emissions from the present to the stabilisation date, to achieve the concentration target set in Section
I.3 above.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Allocate national CO2 emissions quotas.
National emissions quotas shall be calculated for each year by multiplying each country's relative share set by
the convergence formula (agreed according to Section I.5) by the annual global emissions budget (set by the"contraction" formula agreed according to Section I.4). These quotas shall be measured in tonnes of carbon.

RATIONALE AND POLICY IMPLICATIONSThe national allocations are described as 'quotas' rather than entitlements or rights to emit CO2 in order toemphasise that the atmosphere and climate system are a global commons which cannot be appropriated by any
state or person but whose use must now be shared by common consent. The formula approach provides for themost effective way of establishing a consistent and equitable allocation of emissions quotas.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Establish criteria and mechanisms for quota management
Establish a mechanism for the international management of quota allocation, accounting and verification basedon criteria consistent with these proposals. The quotas shall cover "net anthropogenic emissions" resulting fromhuman activities, including reduction of natural sinks minus deliberate natural sinks enhancement.

RATIONALE AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The allocations would refer to "net anthropogenic emissions" of CO2. This is defined as all emissions resulting
from human activities, including reduction of natural sinks minus deliberate natural sinks enhancement.
However, this should exclude changes in natural sources and sinks caused directly by global climate change.
This definition encourages sustainable forestry, for example, but avoids crediting the existing natural resource
endowment of each country. We recognise that some countries have deliberately retained such resources whilst
others have already diminished them, therefore this will be accounted for in the task concerning historic debt
(section II.B.3). Natural sink enhancement will only be credited within national boundaries, not within any
global commons. For example, credit will not be given for enhancement of the CO2 sink into the ocean.
The proposed mechanisms would also arbitrate in case of dispute over budgeting anthropogenic sources andsinks.
It is not necessary to allow for crediting of sink enhancement or emissions reduction within other countries,
known as Joint Implementation, since this can effectively be achieved through the emissions quotas trading
system (section II.A.1).
This proposal completes the procedure for applying "contraction and convergence".
--------------------------------------------------------------------

29

II. Draft proposals to achieve contraction and convergence-------------------------------------------------------------------A. Related tasks for control of greenhouse gas emissions-------------------------------------------------------------------1. Set up a system for emissions trading
Establish mechanisms for real-time emissions trading between parties to the Protocol under strict conditions ofcontraction and convergence. Trading shall be restricted to a proportion of the annual emissions quotas,
defined as permits, and limited to one year in advance. The mechanism should be transparent and avoid
financial feedbacks that would undermine the ultimate aim of the Convention and its protocols.

RATIONALE AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The criteria for a trading regime should set out the basis on which possible trading regimes will be assessed.
These will inevitably need to balance the different interests and needs of parties to the Convention. In deciding
on a suitable mechanism, parties should consider the work already done by UNCTAD in this area and continue
to involve it in the development thereof.
A trading regime would initially be developed under the SBI which would continue to supervise the process for
CoP. However, once agreed, emissions trading would require a set of robust institutions capable of acting on
behalf and under the supervision of CoP. Trading must be open, transparent, efficient and well regulated. The
regulatory bodies must also ensure that TEPs are not bought or sold under coercion of any kind.
Emissions trading would also address the issue of "carbon leakage" to countries with relatively lower emissions.
This would particularly be the case if purchasing rights of permits were extended to TNCs.
As the mechanism comes into effect, Joint Implementation will no longer become an issue as the trade will help
to redress emission imbalances, while the incentive to invest in climate friendly technology remains by releasing
quotas for trade.
The mechanism must also ensure that trading is developed primarily as an efficient means of reducing emissions
and must not compromise future generations on the principles of inter-generational equity. The implications of
this international trade on intra-national equity will also need to be examined andaddressed. The increased value of emission quotas from international trade must not detrimentally affect thedisadvantaged in national societies. 'Contraction and convergence' applies within countries as well as between
them.
Given the historic link between growth of monetary GDP and CO2 emissions, there is a danger that trade in
CO2 quotas and any other increase in financial activity as a result of this Protocol will simply increase global
purchasing power leading to an increase in CO2 emissions. This would be contradictory to the purpose of theConvention. Another danger is that trade in Emissions Quotas increases inter-national financial liquidity to
produce inflation or other instability, as occurred following the OPEC oil price rises. These dangers might be
addressed by the creation of a carbon-free "green currency". A study of the potential of carbon-free currency
should be commissioned for consideration by CoP in future.
Moreover, existing purchasing power disparities between developing and developed countries can only beaggravated by creating a trade mechanism which continues to exploit the arbitrary advantage enjoyed in theinternational markets of economies based on hard currencies. This is especially relevant in view of the fact thatit ignores the much higher efficiencies of soft currency based economies when national dollars-per-ton
efficiencies are adjusted for purchasing power parity (PPP).
30

--------------------------------------------------------------------

2 Require International Airline and Shipping companies to purchase CO2
emission quotas.
CO2 emitted by all aircraft or shipping must be accounted for within the global emissions budget by requiring
international transport companies to purchase emissions permits.

RATIONALE AND POLICY IMPLICATIONSCurrently, aircraft on international flights, or shipping in international waters, can purchase untaxed fossil fuelwhich is not included in any national carbon account. Air transport in particular is one of the fastest growing
sectors of global CO2 emissions, and must be constrained in a similar manner to other carbon intensive
economic activities. Fiscal measures which might achieve this, such as an international tax on bunker fuels,
would require a global authority to predict and control demand. On the other hand, if airline or shipping
companies have to purchase emissions permits the market will ensure a "level playing field" with land-basedtransport.
This measure will also ensure that all emissions are constrained within the contraction / convergence global
budget (sections I. 3,4,5), whilst the price of the quotas is passed on to the consumer of the transport, rather thanbecoming the responsibility of governments.
It may be possible to extend this option to purchase emissions quotas to other Trans National Corporations(TNCs). This would have the advantage of discouraging "leakage" or carbon-intensive
production to countries where emissions are cheaper, since the TNCs could purchase emissions quotas fromcountries with a surplus, without needing to relocate.

-------------------------------------------------------------------3. Consider national targets for anthropogenic emissions of other greenhouse
gases
Draw up a timetable for agreeing constraints on concentrations of greenhouse gases other than CO2, withspecific targets for each gas, as scientific knowledge of their biogeochemical cycles becomes sufficiently
reliable. The allocation of budgets should be based on the same task of equity as used above for CO2, whilst
giving special consideration to each country's need to exploit its natural resources and agriculture.

RATIONALE AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Concentrations of greenhouse gases other than CO2 are rising fast and must be brought under the FCCC. Gases
with similar sources and atmospheric lifetimes may be grouped together and some substitution of these may bepossible within the national budgets. Some international trading of emissions quotas may also be considered.
However, agreement on one greenhouse gas should not be delayed whilst awaiting better knowledge of the othergreenhouse gases.
Greenhouse gases other than CO2 fall into two main categories:
For wholly man-made gases such as most CFCs, HCFCs and SF6, an early agreement could be reached.
Production of some of these gases is already constrained under the Montreal Protocol
for protection of stratospheric ozone. Their major sources and sinks are already sufficiently quantifiable.
National budgets for these gases should be allocated using the same principles of "contraction andconvergence", allowing for trading if necessary, as outlined for CO2 in Sections I.2 through to I.5 above. Someof these gases have long lifetimes, and therefore their Global Warming Potential relative to each other iseffectively independent of the time horizon used. These gases could be substituted within national budgets.
31However, on the basis of inter-generational equity and long-term sustainability, production of the very longlived gases should be tightly constrained and phased out as soon as possible. If a time horizon were agreed, theglobal emissions budget for the shorter-lived gases could be linked to that for CO2 by means of their Global
Warming Potential (defined by IPCC).
Methane (CH4) and Nitrous Oxide (N2O) are significant greenhouse gases produced by a mixture ofanthropogenic and natural sources. The sources and sinks are still poorly defined. Methane emissions are rapidly
increasing both as a result of changing agricultural practice (cattle, irrigation) and leakage from natural gas
installations. However, Methane has a short atmospheric lifetime and therefore it is not helpful to define a
Global Warming Potential relative to CO2. To account for the greater potency of Methane as a greenhouse gas,international standards of best practice should be agreed for industry and agriculture. Financial penalties
collected when these standards are breached, could be used to fund the development and transfer of improved
technology to reduce Methane emissions.
Nitrous Oxide has a longer lifetime than Methane but makes a smaller contribution to current global warming,and is less well understood. More research is urgently needed on the cycles of both of these gases.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

4 Devise potential sanctions, penalties, and compensation.
Request the Secretariat to draw up options for a system of proportional progressive sanctions and penalties for
non-compliance with the protocol, taking account of experience of international, regional and national legal
instruments and the review of selected non-compliance, dispute resolution andimplementation review procedures (FCCC/CP/1995/Misc.2) prepared by the interim secretariat.
Income raised from penalties could contribute to measures to aid implementation and relieve damages, as listed
in Section II.B.3 below.

RATIONALE AND POLICY IMPLICATIONSThere are at present no incentives to comply with the FCCC or the protocol. By contrast, the 1994 GATT
agreement contains extensive procedures for dispute settlement, including conciliation, mediation, arbitration,
establishment of panels, rights of third parties, remedies, and compensation.
Penalties should be in proportion to excess emissions of greenhouse gases, and considerably higher than thecurrent purchase price of tradable emissions entitlements or investment benefits from the excessive CO2
emissions.
The virtue of a tough system of penalties is that it will encourage compliance and reduce the likelihood of it
being used.

-------------------------------------------------------------------B. Tasks on climate damages-------------------------------------------------------------------1. Monitor climate damages
Require Parties to prepare an inventory of damages and damage trends, both past and present, directly
attributable to climate change. These should include human health and mortality, economic impacts, loss ofhabitats, species and biodiversity, impact on agriculture, and coastal erosion.

32

RATIONALE AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Damage due to climate change has already begun and estimates of possible future damage, casualties andrefugees have been made. The aim of this measure is to compile a comprehensive database of damages which
would provide both a benchmark for the danger indicators proposed in proposal 2
above.
Research on climate-related damages should be funded by an international programme whose emphasis should
be on impacts to developing countries.
Data on damages should be presented in their original units rather than using monetised values. Such values
based on the method of "willingness to pay" imply rights by income which is fundamentally inequitable.
International aggregation of damage data for the purpose of a global cost-benefit analysis is not appropriate,
since the majority of damages will be inflicted on developing countries whereas mostof the CO2 emissions, and hence mitigation costs, are currently the responsibility of the industrialised countries.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

2 Plan for emergencies
Require all parties to draw up contingency provisions for future emergencies which may arise from climatechange, such as flooding, drought, crop failure or disease.

RATIONALE AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Damage due to climate change has already begun and estimates of possible future damage, casualties andrefugees have been made. These should be updated regularly as a basis for arranging emergency relief andcompensation payments. Liability for compensation payments is considered in Section II.B.3.
Contingency plans should be also prepared for the potential relocation of entire populations from small islandstates and low-lying regions to the territory of Annex 1 countries.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Consider options for damage compensation and historic debt.
Request that the Secretariat prepare a study of options for damage compensation due to climate change basedon best practice in insurance and national compensation schemes, and for historic debt in relation to emissions
by Annex I countries prior to 1990, for consideration at CoP4.

RATIONALE AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Insurance companies and governments are currently making large scale payments in respect of damages causedby asbestos, radiation and other anthropogenic causes. European and US law also include provision for civil,
statutory and criminal liability for environmental damage. Countries and companies which emit CO2 above thedanger level should be under no illusion that they can avoid paying for damage caused by excess CO2
emissions, thus increasing incentives to comply with the Convention and Protocol. Careful consideration needs
to be given to historic emissions when foreseeability of damages could not reasonably have been expected andthe precedents under tort thus become less relevant. The argument of historic debt, nevertheless, still holds as
developing countries will, in future, not have the option of unrestrained emissions on which developed countries
based their historic growth.
For these reasons, Annex 1 Parties should be required to make provision for climate change related damages intheir national budgets and planning mechanism.

33

CO2 has a long lifetime in the atmosphere, and historic data shows that a constant fraction of emissions hasremained airborne, although there is no guarantee for this fraction to remain constant in the future. Therefore, toa first approximation, a country's responsibility for global warming depends on its cumulative emissions
integrated over time. Industrialised countries have thus accumulated an historic debt compared to developing
countries. Applying the principle of per-capita equity to historic data, it is possible to create a formula for
calculating cumulative debits or credits, which might be used for allocating damage liability.
An international panel should be set up by SBSTA to resolve disputes over damage claims; this should include
advice from both climate scientists and insurance experts.
For the purpose of such calculations, estimates of cumulative emissions of CO2 should include historic
deforestation and other land use changes. Some countries have preserved much of their natural forest resources,
whereas others have exploited them and consequently have more land on which to replant new forests. For
consistency in accounting, it is necessary to include this form of historic debt if national emission entitlements
are to be based on net anthropogenic emissions (i.e. including changes in natural sources and sinks).

-------------------------------------------------------------------C. Tasks on Policies and Measures to aid implementation-------------------------------------------------------------------1. Establish financial mechanisms to aid implementation
The SBI shall establish mechanisms by which money can be reliably collected and distributed for global
programmes to implement the Convention. Decisions on spending shall be made through a fair and transparent
mechanism accountable to CoP.
Funding is required for the following:
Climate Research (see section II.D.2)
Education, training and awareness (see section II.D.1).
Monitoring climate damage (see section II.B.1).
Technology Transfer (see section II.C.2).
Activities currently funded by the GEF
Administration of the CoP and the Secretariat
Administration of emissions trading (see section I.7 and II.A.1)
Emergency Relief and Damage Compensation (see section II.B.2 and II.B.3)
Funding sources may include:
A tax on trading of emissions entitlements (as in section II.A.1)
Penalties for non-compliance (as in section II.A.4)
According to cumulative historic debt (as in section II.B.3)

RATIONALE AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Activities which are critical to the success of implementing the Convention, should be able to rely on secure
funding. This is already required for the Financial Mechanism under Art. 11 of the FCCC, and the commitments
set out in Art. 4 c, d and h. However, present arrangements are unsatisfactory as funds are reliant on the
goodwill of a few Parties which then control their use. Binding mechanisms must be set up to enable money toflow directly from the cause of the climate change problem (i.e. greenhouse gas emissions) towards funding its
solution. This would encourage a reduction in CO2 emissions, although the main mechanism for achieving thisshould remain the allocation of emission entitlements according to Contraction (section I.3) and Convergence(section I.4).
34

Liability to pay compensation for damages should be linked directly to cumulative historic debt as outlined in
section II.B.3.
----------------------------------------------------------------

2. Establish mechanism for development and transfer of sustainable
technologies
The development, diffusion and use of the most sustainable technologies, practices and processes which
minimise greenhouse gas emissions shall be regarded as an essential global security interest as defined in
section I.1. To this end, a mechanism should be established under the protocol to aid the development within
and transfer to developing countries of sustainable technologies.
The transfer of outdated or second-hand, carbon-inefficient technology should be controlled and preferably
prohibited.

RATIONALE AND POLICY IMPLICATIONSExplicit measures and positive incentives are urgently needed to stimulate the development and transfer of themost climate-friendly sustainable technology. Such technology should:(a) be carbon efficient or based on renewable energy sources(b) be an appropriate scale for the local community which it serves(c) be independent of expensive supplies or repairs from distant companies.
(c) not damage the local environment (as do, for example, large hydropower schemes)(d) not entail unacceptable risk (as do nuclear power stations)
Measures to stimulate the development and diffusion of climate-friendly technology would include(a) establish a technology transfer fund (paid for according to section II.C.1)(b) fund research, development and diffusion of sustainable technologies, particularly in developing countries(c) create an international inventory of climate-friendly technology(d) promote best practice and sharing expertise between countries(e) identify gaps and opportunities in national and multilateral technology programmes(f) limit the period for which patents on relevant technologies may be held without being exploited for the
benefit of humanity
A substantial transfer of outdated, carbon inefficient technology from developed to developing countries iscurrently widespread. This has the effect of prolonging the detrimental contribution of this machinery or
technology on global carbon emissions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Phase out fossil fuel subsidies
Agree mechanisms to phase out all subsidies for fossil-fuels. Transitional procedures and financial support shallbe made available to developing countries in order to achieve a smoothtransition and avoid penalising the poor.

Rationale and policy implications
Subsidies for the use of fossil fuels both increase global warming and distort the efficient allocation of resources
through markets. Definitions of subsidies should be carefully established and the needs of the poor fully taken
into consideration.
------------------------------------------------------------------35

4. Require consistency in international policy-making
Set up an international task force to ensure that all international agencies, treaties and agreements actively
contribute to reducing CO2 emissions as an essential global security interest. This should be backed by aresolution to the United Nations General Assembly to require all international agencies, treaties andagreements take the climatic implications of their actions fully into account and to support the implementationof the UNFCCC and its protocols.

RATIONALE AND POLICY IMPLICATIONSThere is a danger that trade liberalisation under the 1994 GATT agreement, investment by the World Bank andeconomic measures by the IMF and central banking system as well as actions by other agencies increase CO2
emissions or otherwise undermine the objectives of the FCCC. The aim of thistask is to ensure that all international decision-making takes full account of the Climate Convention. A
precedent for this task was established by the Ministerial Declaration on the Contribution of the World Trade
Organisation to Achieving Greater Coherence in Global Economic Policymaking of 15 December 1993.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Establish a forum for local governments
Recognising the important contribution local governments make in implementing climate friendly policies andtechnologies at a local level, an international forum on climate change for local governments should beestablished with rights of representation as an observer to CoP under Art. 7 (6). The role of this forum would be
to allow sharing of experiences and making relevant policy recommendations to national governments and CoP.
This body could also discuss issues of intra-national equity arising from the restraint of carbon emissions.

RATIONALE AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
A considerable proportion of sustainable policies and technologies are most effectively implemented at a local
level and local governments can, therefore, play an important role in emissions reductions. The exchange of
information on a local level would complement the transfer of technology on a national level as outlined in
Section 2.9. The forum would also be the ideal organ to voice any problems of intra-national inequities arisingfrom national and international implementation of the protocol and specifically the trade mechanism.

-------------------------------------------------------------------D. Tasks on research and education-------------------------------------------------------------------1. Enhance education, training and awareness
Require all Parties to increase their commitment to education, training and public awareness of climate change
under Article 6. This should encourage an holistic perspective emphasising the links between local and global
processes, both natural and economic, and convey the full scale of the climate change problem as a survival
issue. This must be underpinned by better understanding of the basic science of climate change.
Commission a feasibility study to establish options for an international system of greenhouse gas labelling toprovide immediate public awareness of the extent to which a particular product or service contributes toemissions of CO2 or other greenhouse gases and to create incentives to reduce carbon consumption.
36

Require parties to report annually to the CoP on the following matters:(a) the extent and nature of education, training and public awareness undertaken;(b) organisation, finance and target audience thereof;(c) independent evaluation of the effectiveness of such education and training;(d) results of an independent poll of public awareness of climate change, its effects and measures needed toreduce emissions to a sustainable level;(e) progress on greenhouse gas labelling(f) actions to curb promotion of carbon consumption.

RATIONALE AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Most countries have done relatively little to fulfil their commitments under Article 6 of the UNFCCC. Raisingawareness of the way in which fossil fuels and other products increase global warming has a significant role inmotivating individuals, companies and countries to reduce such consumption. If all goods and services carried aconspicuous and unambiguous statement of the CO2 or other greenhouse gases emitted by their production anddisposal, this would enable people to make more informed choices. Public awareness and education on global
warming is in constant competition with the advertising power of the air, car and fossil fuel industries. In viewof the gravity of climate change, serious consideration should also be given to measures which curb thepromotion of activities responsible for carbon emissions, similar to those currently applied to alcohol, tobacco,
pharmaceuticals and other drugs. There is much public confusion over the science and impacts of climatechange. This should be tackled both as a core part of school curricula, and as specifically tailored training
programmes for employees, stressing measures for alleviating impacts of their field of work on global climatechange, and vice versa.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Strengthen climate research, particularly into feedback processes
Increase research into physical, biogeochemical, social and economic climatic feedback processes. Such
research requires international consistency to ensure that the different processes can be combined in integrated
models, whilst also encouraging researchers to investigate new processes. This should be co-ordinatedprincipally through the International Geosphere Biosphere Programme (IGBP) and World Climate Research
Programme (WCRP). IPCC and SBSTA (when calculating the emissions ceiling according to section I.2) shouldattempt to take account of the cumulative risk from low-probability positive feedbacks. When IPCC presents
predictions or scenarios of global climate changes, there should also be less emphasis on global averagetemperature trends, and more on regional differences, particularly regarding the sulphate aerosol effect.

RATIONALE AND POLICY IMPLICATIONSThere are particular dangers that the effects of climate change may trigger uncontrollable feedback loops that
accelerate global climate change further than would be expected from current IPCC predictions, and exacerbate
regional anomalies. Some known examples of such natural climatic feedback processes are listed below:a) Clouds: Different levels of clouds can have opposite effects on climate, since they both trap terrestrial
radiation and reflect solar radiation. Clouds and water vapour also transport much latent heat. Thus it is difficult
to resolve the feedbacks. Clouds may also be seeded by sulphate aerosols, both natural and anthropogenic.
b) Ice sheets: Polar warming may increase ice melt, but also increase snowfall. This affects:* Global albedo (proportion of sunlight reflected to space)* Sea level* Local ocean salinity and albedo and hence circulation and ecologyc) Ocean circulation:* Arctic warming or increased freshwater input to the North Atlantic (ice melt, rainfall) could halt deep water
formation, weaken the North Atlantic Current, and thus make NW Europe much colder.
* Increased frequency of El Nino circulation in the Pacific affects climate world-wide.
d) Ocean ecology: Changes in phytoplankton ecology might be caused by:37

*increased stratification of the water column, due to surface warming. would reduce nutrient (Nitrate,
Phosphate, Iron) supply from bottom waters.
* increased nutrient runoff from rivers due to changing land-use.
* increased UV-B flux due to stratospheric ozone loss.
The effect of this might be to change:* the export of Carbon from surface water to deep water by the "biological pump".
* the alkalinity of surface water due to calcifying algae. Calcification puts CO2 back into the atmosphere.
* the production of greenhouse gases (N2O, CH4, other hydrocarbons)* the production of Dimethyl Sulphide which (as sulphate aerosols) seeds clouds over the ocean and thus
significantly influences global albedo* ocean fish stockse) Terrestrial ecology: warming and drying in high latitudes may cause:* release of greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O from melting permafrost* release of CO2 from peat bogs, if drying allows aeration.
* increased forest fires and subsequent CO2 release* reduced snow cover, particularly if forest replaces tundra, with consequent change in albedo.
The "CO2 fertilisation effect" may cause:* increased CO2 uptake by terrestrial vegetation* changes in evapotranspiration and hence local rainfall and groundwater.
Vegetation changes will affect albedo and also surface roughness which affects wind.
f) Flooding of coastal wetlands by rising sea level, particularly in the tropics, may cause substantial release of
CH4 and N2O.
There is presently much confusion among policymakers about the cooling effect of sulphate aerosols producedby fossil fuel combustion. It should be stressed that the aerosol effect is short-lived and local, whereas thearming by CO2 is long-lived and global. Such differences are obscured by an emphasis on global averagetemperature trends, which should be remedied within IPCC.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Study the responsibilities of trans-national corporations and financeSet up two working groups to examine the role of international finance and transnational corporations
respectively in relation to CO2 emissions, in order to report on(a) the extent to which their activities contribute to or abate global warming(b) differential responsibilities between corporate sectors(c) examples or models of good practice in regulation, incentives, statutory or voluntary codes, reporting
requirements or other measures for encouraging corporations and investment fund managers to cut CO2
emissions(d) the contribution or otherwise of small and medium businesses to global warming(e) recommendations for specific measures to enhance the contribution of investment finance and transnational
corporations to stabilising CO2 emissions

RATIONALE AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Representatives of transnational corporations are active participants in the climate change negotiations andmajor players in both sustainable and carbon energy industries. The majority of world trade and a substantial
proportion of global production is conducted by transnational corporations, while international financial flows
are the driving force in trade and industry throughout the world, often more powerful than governments. The
aim of these two study groups would be to examine the specific role of these two major types of economic
agents to identify measures to enhance their contribution to stabilising greenhouse gas emissions.

38