Kyoto2 and "Contraction & Convergence"

The idea of "Contraction and Convergence" (C&C) was developed in the early 1990s by Aubrey Meyer who went on the found the Global Commons Institute (GCI) as a vehicle to further develop and promote the concept.

It emerged as a counterpoint to "Expansion and Divergence" as the then prevailing reality as regards emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. What C&C proposes is, in outline:

• a series of global caps on greenhouse gas emissions to be defined for the years ahead, aimed at stabilising the planetary climate within tolerable limits.
• the recognition of the right to emit greenhouse gases (GHGs) as a common right of humanity, not the private right of existing polluters, global corporations or industrial countries.
• the consequent division of the global cap on GHG emissions into equal per capita rights.
• the allocation of those rights to national governments, or regional coalitions of governments such as the EU.
• the creation of a market in the rights to emit GHGs, so that governments of countries that emit less than their allocation can sell their surplus to those that emit more, so providing an economic benefit to those generally poorer countries with low per capita emissions.

In C&C the "contraction" refers to the progressive contraction of the global gap in GHG emissions. The "convergence" refers to the progression towards equal per capita rights to emit GHGs, or at least a convergence in the benefits so arising.

Since its inception C&C has gained widespread recognition and support, reflecting both:

• the need for a firm, global cap on GHG emissions without which such emissions are likely to carry on rising precisely as has happened under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol which contains no such cap.
• the equity principle inherent in C&C, that the right to emit GHGs is a common right of humanity.

Kyoto2 is in complete accord with both of these core ideas of C&C. Accordingly, Kyoto2 considers itself to be within the C&C "family" of approaches to regulating GHGs, and might be considered as an "evolution" or "interpretation" of the original C&C concepts. We explicitly recognise the importance of C&C in shaping the wider debate on climate change, and its contribution to Kyoto2 in particular.

Where Kyoto2 differs from canonical C&C is in its interpretation of how the humanity's common right to emit GHGs is best interpreted for the greatest human benefit and equity. There is an acute need for significant funding to:

• finance adaptation to such climate change impacts as rising sea levels, shifts in rainfall patterns, loss of glaciers and snowmelt, and consequent flood, drought, property damage and shortfalls in food production.
• shift the world onto a new low-carbon development path, with particular emphasis on ensuring that the energy needs of the world's poor (including in rich countries) may be met at affordable cost and low environmental impact.

Accordingly Kyoto2 is structured so as to raise funds on a sufficient scale to meaningfully address these needs, by selling the rights to emit greenhouse gases at a global auction. The allocation of GHG emission rights to national governments would represent a wasted opportunity in that there is no obvious alternative means of raising the required funds.

Kyoto2 also departs from the whole approach, embodied in both canonical C&C and the Kyoto Protocol, of regulating / controlling greenhouse gases on a country basis. This approach requires significant carbon accounting and verification exercises adding greatly to cost and bureaucracy. In addition it makes little sense in the context of today's global economy, in which energy products and embodied energy in products are freely traded across international boundaries.

Instead, Kyoto2 would regulate the actual production of greenhouse gases, and in the case of emissions from fossil fuels, the production of the fossil fuels themselves at source. The onus to obtain GHG production rights would be on the producer (such as the energy company or cement manufacturer), not on the government of the country in which GHG emission took place.

The Kyoto2 proposals therefore represent an efficient, equitable and practical interpretation of the core C&C philosophy.

Oliver Tickell, 13 February 2007.