China

Korea (S)

Indonesia

Korea (N)

TaiwanThailandMalaysiaPhilippinesVietnamHong KongMyanmarMongoliaBruneiNew CaledoniaMacauCambodiaFrench PolynesiaLaos

AOSIS (Asia Pacific)

Mexico

ArgentinaVenezuelaColombiaChilePeruDominican RepublicEcuadorBoliviaPuerto RicoGuatemalaPanamaUruguayCosta RicaEl SalvadorHondurasParaguayNicaraguaMartiniqueGuadeloupe

French Guiana

Greenland

BermudaCayman Islands

British Virgin Islands

St. Pierre & Miquelon

Montserrat

Turks & Caicos Islands

IndiaPakistan

BangladeshSri Lanka

Saudi ArabiaUnited Arab Emirates

SyriaKuwaitOman

Qatar

YemenLebanonJordan

South AfricaEgyptAlgeria

Libya

NigeriaMorocco

ZimbabweTunisia

Cote d'IvoireAngola

KenyaGhana

EthiopiaCameroon

BotswanaSenegalGabonMauritaniaSudanTanzania

CongoReunion

ZaireMadagascar

Zambia

UgandaMozambique

TogoGuineaBeninNigerBurkina FasoMalawiEquatorial GuineaRwandaSierra LeoneMaliLiberiaDjiboutiSwazilandCentral African RepublicGambiaBurundiWestern SaharaChadSt. HelenaSomalia

Brazil

BhutanAfganistan

Nepal

Iran

IraqIsrael

OmanBahrain

Aruba

AOSIS (Afro Caribbean)

TexasCalifornia

PennsylvaniaFloridaIndianaIllinois

New YorkMichigan

LouisianaGeorgiaNorth CarolinaKentuckyAlabamaMissouriTennessee

West VerginiaVirginiaWisconsinOklahomaMinnesota

Massachusetts

Colorado

Iowa

Arizona

South Carolina

Kansas

WyomingUtah

ArkansasMississippi

New MexicoNorth Dakota

NebraskaAlaska

Oregon

NevadaConnecticutMontanaMaineNew HampshireHawaii

DelawareIdahoSouth DakotaRhode IslandVermont

United KingdomItalyFrancePolandSpain

TurkeyCzech RepublicBelgiumGreeceRomaniaAustriaPortugalFinlandHungaryDenmarkSwedenBulgariaSwitze

rland

Russian FederationUkraine

Kazakhs

tanBela

rusAzerbai

janTurkmenis

tanEstoniaLithu

aniaLatviaMoldo

vaGeorg

iaTajik

istanKyrgyzsta

n

Japan

Australi

aNew Zea

land

Canada

District of Columbia

Ohio

New Jersey

Washington

Maryland

Germany

Netherlands

Uzbekis

tan

Slovakia

Norway

Yugoslavia

Ireland

CroatiaCroatia

Bosnia-Herzegovina

Cyprus

Luxembourg

Macedonia

Slovenia

350 ppmv

450 ppmv

550 ppmv

(1) Historic expansion of annual global CO2emissions(2) Historic divergence of per-capita emissions within different regions and countries Equal per-capita emissions entitlements

CONVERGENCE(1) In the first year, emissions entitlements are allocated to countries in

proportion to their current emissions (2) From there on countriesentitlements converge to equal per-capita allocation by the

“Convergence Date” (2050 in this example).

8

7

6

5

3

4

2

1

0

1800 220020 00195019001850 2150210020 50

Convergence Is to equal per capita shares of contraction by an agreed date, [here by 2050 [population base year 2050]. The model will show any rates of C&C.

C&C is based on a global ghg emissions 'contraction' budget calculated from a safe and stable (revisable) ghg concentration target. The example shown is for CO2contraction complete by 2100 to give 450 ppmv, as modeled in IPCC Wg1.

The Objective - stabalise atmospheric ghg concentrations

2GTCGTC

Bubble TheoryWhere the European Union creates a ‘EU bubble’, C&C creates a ‘global bubble’. Within this global bubble the rate of convergence to equal per-capita shares can be accelerated relative to the rate of contraction. This is feasible as shares created by C&C are tradable emissions permits, rather than emissions per se.

Any population base year can be set but global permit distribution under C&C is more sensitive to rate of convergence relative to the rate of contraction, than the population base-year chosen. This example shows convergence complete by 2050 with population growth fixed at the same base year. The C&C model demonstrates all possible rates and dates of C&C and population base years.

The North/South tension over the 'historic responsibilities' for emissions might be resolved with Southern countries allowing these as ‘sunk costs’ in exchange for an accelerated global convergence.

To resolve differential conditions within regions, the example of the EU could be adopted widely. We have suggested other regions’ bubbles in the example presented here.

The EU - as a ‘bubble’ - rightly makes its own internal convergence arrangements. So with other regions in ‘bubbles’ under C&C, individual countries can re-negotiate within their own regions. For example within the African Union, South Africa has per-capita emissions higher than other countries in Africa. While upholding C&C’s global bubble, South Africa could negotiate extra permits from within the African ‘bubble’ rather than from the global bubble.

This is wholly feasible, as C&C creates permits for African countries well-above their baseline projections. With the same advantages, Caribbean countries could leave AOSIS and join this ‘Afro-Caribbean’ bubble.

450

250

BAU

Lowest Outcome using the C&C Budget Below

USA

Afro-Caribbean

Middle East

Indian Subcontinent

S. America

Asia Pacific

China

Canada

Australia N.Z. Japan

Former U.S.S.R.

Europe

The Framework - contraction & convergence

In June 1997, the US Senate passed the Byrd Hagel Resolution by 95 votes to 0. “The US should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the UNFCCC of 1992, at negotiations in Dec. ‘97, or thereafter, which would mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I country Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period.”

C&C is consistent with this. As shown here. the two defining distinctions are maintained. The 1st between the Annex 1Parties and the Developing Country Parties; the 2nd between 'limit' ghg emissions and 'reduce' ghg emissions. Limitation means controlled positive growth and reductions means controlled negative growth. Together "within the same compliance period", the paragraph translates into a process of "Contraction & Convergence". Annex 1 Parties reduce emissions while the Non Annex 1 Parties limit their emissions thus converging with Annex One.

Shown alongside here in barrels and tonnes carbon is the: -

(1) peak of oil discovery in the 1960s (as published by EXXON in 2002) and

(2) peak of crude oil production as modeled by members of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO) and

(3) where past and future reserves lie - the West is now past peak with two thirds proven reserves in the Gulf Middle East. This is based on data from Petro-Consultants as published by ASPO and,

(4) ASPO’s projected global gas depletion rate and,

(5) the amount of coal that is required to make the total tonnage of carbon emitted consistent with the IPCC Working Group One projection of a future where atmospheric concentration of CO2 rises no higher than 450 ppmv (as shown above).

0

5

10

gros

s ghg

em

issi

ons (

Gtc

equ

ival

ent)

0

3

5

Per-

cap

ita

tonn

es c

arb

on p

er y

ear

Annex 1 gross emissions permits

Non - Annex 1 gross emissions permits

Annex 1 per capita emissions permits[controlled negative growth]

Non - Annex 1 per capita emissions permits[controlled positive growth]

Prosperity by O

ther Means

Limitations

Reductions

Permits equal then equal

Smart g

o here.

Fossil go here.

5Gtc

10Gtc

15Gtc

20Gtc

Global Commons Institute 2003Wwww.gci.org.uk

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

Recorded atmospheric Co2 concentration from 1860 until 2000 shows an increase of 34% over pre-industrial levels. This is a rise both higher and faster than anywhere in the ice-core sampling back 440,000 years before now. Concentrations are rising as the result of accumulating emissions. In future, the worst case is the red line as BAU. The best case sees this concentration stabilised at 70% above pre-industrial levels due to a 60% contraction in the underlying emissions by 2100.

Damages here are the global uninsured economic loss estimates (Munich Re) for the four decades past for all natural disasters projected at the observed rate of increase of 12% a year in comparison to global $GDP at 3%. If these global trends continue BAU, damages will exceed GDP by 2065! The risks will soon rise beyond the capacity of the insurance industry and even governments to absorb. Damages will rise for the century ahead even with emissions contraction, but the rate can be reduced with Contraction, Convergence, Allocation and Trading (C-CAT).

The regional per capita emissions traces shown alongside are the result of the convergence rate being set at global convergence by 2050.

Different rates of convergence (faster or slower) might be negotiated.

What is shown is the allocation of tradable permits emissions per capita with convergence complete by 2050.

These do not necessarily reflect emissions per se. Subject to the overall C&C arrangement and depending on the extent of permit trading, the realised fossil fuel consumption patterns might be noticeably different.

The red line shows BAU CO2 emissions. The solid segments show "Contraction, Convergence, Allocation and Trade" [C-CAT] to manage emissions down by at least 60% within a given time frame (2100 here) with an agreed 'contraction budget' (here 680 billion tonnes of carbon). The internationally tradable shares of this budget (eg 100 billion tonnes) result from convergence to equal per capital emissions by an agreed date and population base year (here 2020). The renewables opportunity is the difference between C-CAT and BAU. Worth trillions of dollars per annum, it is the biggest market in history.

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

0

5

20

15

10

0

200

100

0

Trill

ion

s U

S $

1050

850

650

450

350

4

3

2

1

0

-1

Atm

osp

her

ic C

O2(

pp

mv)

Temperature

Co2 Concentration

Damages BAU

Per-Capita Allocation

Contraction ConvergenceAllocation and Trade

1. Data from the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO)l2. Emissions data from CDIAC, IPCC and Global Commons Institute (GCI)

GCI - 2003 www.gci.org.uk

Bill

ion

s To

nn

es C

arb

on

fro

m E

mis

sio

ns

CO

2

Car

bo

n E

qu

ival

ent

Bill

i on

s B

arre

ls O

il

Projected Contraction of Total global CO2

Oil Discovery

Gas

CoalLimited By Global

Climate Contraction Budget

Total Historic Fossil Fuel Production/Consumption

(emissions)

Oil, H

istoric

Prod

uctio

n

Oil

Dep

leti

on

0

3

6

9

1800 1900 2000 2100 22000

25

50

75

Contraction & Convergence650

Co

2 C

on

cen

tra

tio

n (

pp

mv

)C

els

ius

Oil Depletion

Byrd HagelResolution

Pe

r-ca

pit

a T

on

ne

s C

arb

on

pe

r ye

ar

Gig

a T

on

ne

s C

arb

on

eq

uiv

ale

nt

pe

r ye

ar

Gig

a T

on

ne

s C

arb

on

eq

uiv

ale

nt

pe

r ye

arTraded

entitlements

Clean Technology

Efficiency Measures

BAU

CONTRACTION(1) Global emissions contract at a rate consistent with stabalising atmospheric CO2concentrations at a chosen level (450ppm in this example)

(2) Each years carbon budget is distributed globally as CO2emissions entitlements