NOTE> We review all comments and forward them to the paper's authors. Comments are reviewed periodically and then selectively published. We may edit comments for concision and clarity.

During the work of the WSSD in Johannesburg (2002) I had proposed that we have to establish a special branch of education to be adopted by the global community: The Education for Sustainable Development. Now allow me to propose "Global Warming Education," where Mitigation and Adaptation will be the two main educational branches. The protection of forests would be integrated into the financial System Bank System using mathematics and Logic.

We have to plan our global educational system using new terms for obtaining innovative prospectives. And this new educational approach has to be taught globally because our global society faces commonly shared problems.

It is now agreed that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities have been the main causes of warming in the past half century.
But to concentrate on the reduction of greenhouse gases is to miss the point.

The world's industrial might is not producing carbon dioxide to create a warmer climate. It is a by-product of the production of stuff fueled by a boom in technology, and the transporting of ourselves and our stuff, from place to place in a most environmentally unfriendly manner.

Therefore, we must focus on limiting the production of stuff. Global warming might, then, just take care of itself.

In a 1971 essay, Prof. Herman Daly deplored the received wisdom that robust, unlimited economic growth was not only possible but desirable and suggested in its stead a stationary-state economy where zero growth of population and the economy is not only desirable but necessary to avoid the depletion of our environmental resources. Of course, limiting production of stuff means looking hard at a stationary-state economy and a limit to wealth.
A commitment to limiting wealth in turn suggests a more equitable sharing of that wealth, with its corollary, a simpler life style. If this means that economists should begin to study ethics and theology, then so be it. That is where economics began.

(Note: This comment is excerpted from a longer essay called "Exponential Troika.")

James T. Dette
22 Duer Place
Weehawken, NJ 07086
201-866-0692
jtdette@aol.com

The Contraction and Convergence model supported by the authors is correct in its fundamental principles, but fails in the details of its implementation.

1. The per capita allocation of greenhouse gas emission rights in fact means giving these rights to national governments. There is no guarantee that governments will use them wisely or for the benefit of their people.

2. The benefits should in any case not be divided per capita, surely, but on the basis of need. Some people stand to suffer terribly from climate change - such as those who will be flooded out, or whose lands will be afflicted by drought. Any economic benefits should be concentrated on helping the most vulnerable people.

3. As well as the need for funds for adaptation to climate change, there is also a need for funds to finance the solutions - a shift towards renewable energy and energy conservation, forest preservation, elimination of industrial greenhouse gases ...

The Kyoto2 proposals (www.kyoto2.org) are based on the same princples as canonical C&C - progressive shrinking of greenhouse gas emissions and the recognition of the atmosphere as a global commons. However it proposes the sale of greenhouse gas production rights by auction to the producers (for fossil fuels, this would mean fossil fuel producers) and the use of the funds raised (probably some $500 - 1,000 billion per year) to address the causes and the consequences of climate change.

I read this paper with interest. Recently I was part of a group in a small regional Queensland city that organized a visit from the Climate Change Roadshow of the Lismore Rainforest information Centre. Our evening was presented by Centre director Ruth Rosenhek. I also attended a similar evening in a nearby town presented by veteran rainforest activist John Seed. Only a month before, the local branch of the Greens put on a showing of "An Inconvenient Truth" at the local cinema which attracted almost 200 people.

One of the disappointments of this film is that after effectively painting the picture of the global situation and the urgency of taking action, all the "strategies" that appear on the screen in text form afterwards are "individual" acts. I have been disappointed in Ian Lowe's Futuremakers group on the same grounds. Sure, people should do things. I've been fighting this fight for over 30 years, long before there were any concerns about climate change. But when it's big businesses and their government backers that are doing the large-scale damage, well, don't tell me the most effective thing is for me to buy "green" energy.

I liked this (Mackey and Li) paper because it attempts to work on both fronts, both individual efforts but also to hold governments and decision-makers responsible with some binding agreements that have some "teeth". Seeing the big end of town brought in line will do more to give heart to all the grassroots people who care than a thousand tips on saving on your power bill, or reducing your individual footprint.

The solution is coordinated global legal actions against all polluting corporate and government institutions who are too slow to change in the face of this economic imperative. The message: clean up now or face ongoing increasing legal pressure for compensation.

Thanks for this very helpful and articulate article. While certainly individual acts are not enough, and policy shifts are required, the trickle up approach certainly can be effective at the ballot box and in the economy. Moveon.org and the new beyond organics "market-driven conservation" are two such examples of the vox populi. There are many people already making a difference in their own way -- the trick is to connect with them and build these individuals into a community. And bring this force to bear on the people making the policies.

You wrongly assigned my name to a post, My post was to sue the crap out of recalcitrant corporates and governments. Much as we hate them Lawyers like money like flies like sh** and once a few catch on to the size of potential damage claims and therefore fees then a global concerted legal effort is possible and probable. Hope you fix the wrong post.

Mat Colefax

WINNING THE STRUGGLE AGAINST GLOBAL WARMING: SWITCH MODERN AGRICULTURE TO FAMILY FARMING IN SENEGAL

Contribution of:
Ibrahima SECK
Coordinator of APEPFI
BP. 563 Thies, Senegal
West Africa Organizer of the
Earth Charter Community Summit

[Note: The author has submitted a long paper on preferred farming practices in Senegal as his contribution to the debate on climate change and ethics. While the paper does not address directly the issues raised in the Brendan Mackey/Song Li essay, readers may find the paper relevant. We have posted it in its entirety below. - Editors]

Click here to read paper on farming in Senegal

This is an excellent paper, and I am glad that it promoted C & C so strongly. Indeed, after many years of promoting fuel saving etc, I immediately welcomed Contraction and Conversion when I heard about it and then met Aubrey Meyer. C & C has another advantage not specifically mentioned in the paper. This is its transparency. Everyone can see that a fair deal has been negotiated; it will not be possible for the USA administration to claim that they will not do anything so long as China doesn't, because China and all low-energy-use countries will be part of an agreement on joint Contration and convergence.

But there is another aspect that no-one, not even Stern, has brought up clearly. That is that the ultimate aim has to be to leave the fossil fuels in the ground for very much longer. There are no proposals about how this can be achieved other than be international agreements about oil prices etc. The free market obviously cannot do this.

1. I appreciate this report of two distinguished members of the Earth Charter International Council. It is obviously triggered by their statement as written into the conclusion: “Our place in history will be determined by how we respond to the “challenge of global warming.”

2. I take it that the two frameworks as mentioned in the Conclusion are the suggested C & C Framework and the Earth Charter. Would it not be better to present the “legal” thoughts as the legal way forward to give substance to the call of the Earth Charter, with respect for the “World Ethic of Universal Responsibility”?

3. The authors note correctly the UNFCCC, signed by all nations, and the Kyoto Protocol, agreed upon by only a limited number of nations. From thereon it suggests a new protocol, C & C.

Connecting the Ethical Framework, i.e. the Earth Charter, to a practical / legal way forward the authors might insert some text on the “Precautionary Principle” (probably at the very beginning of the Conclusion). Next to this point (there is a really urgent need for action) I would be more explicit on “differentiated responsibilities”. Is this not too implicit in the actual text?

Obviously the authors do not believe in improving and broadening the support for the Kyoto Protocol and urge on top of UNFCCC a UN C & C Protocol. Many readers will ask what is wrong with the Kyoto Protocol. My impression is that the two first questions as suggested in C & C are useful, but already responded to in the yearly report. If nations globally do not (legally) agree on the findings it is these days mostly about “the third important question”, i.e. “allocation” and “dates to meet targets”.

I have no problem with “the simplest and fairest way to give every person an equal share”. This would be a good starting point. But how do we come from A (the situation of today) to B (really sustainable and fair development)? I do not exclude that a call for C & C can play a positive role to activate responsibilities of all matured and developing nations. So far so good, but it sounds like avoiding an answer to the questions of why don’t a number of very relevant matured economies participate in improving the Kyoto Protocol and what should be the way forward for fast developing countries.

4. I could end my remarks here and state that I still appreciate the report as adding to a needed discussion on how to go forward. But beyond that I like to share with the authors my opinion that the Earth Charter calls not only on governments, but also on civil society and business. Modernity is about complementary governance. And modernity calls on promoting and spreading best technologies. Differentiated responsibilities is very much about this. This is a trans-national process. Trans-national, as well, by optimizing the possibilities in countries in a different stage of economic development as spreading better (the best) technologies.

The UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol and possible additional C & C are useful parts of the solution, but in the real world change requires complementary governance. With respect to the authors I consider therefore their contribution as valuable but not as sufficiently relevant as they suggest.

5. Finally I am aware that my comments are biased because of my actual responsibilities in Energy research. The four priorities in the Institution I chair are :
- Conservation
- Renewables
- Clean Fossils (carbon sequestration and storage)
- Nuclear

Beyond the research I am involved in the implementation of a carbon-free (resp. low carbon) Rotterdam Port.

Doing this I am inspired by the Earth Charter, but obviously my experiences would produce a different report as that of the authors, my good friends. Nevertheless I consider their paper as a valuable contribution and signal to go from ethics to action.

Ruud Lubbers
Member, Earth Charter Commission
Founding Member, Earth Charter International Council

Several people have requested that I comment on the C&C debate here in the wake of the paper by Mackey and Li.

Since I am the author of "Contraction and Convergence" [C&C], for now I'll limit my remarks to registering that the definition statement for C&C is here: -

http://www.gci.org.uk/briefings/ICE.pdf

General referencing for the C&C provenance is here: -

http://www.gci.org.uk/links/detail.pdf
A context animation is here: -

http://www.gci.org.uk/images/CandC_model_context_animation.swf

Please note: - Touch buttons to advances *within* scenes and . . . touch logos to advance *between* scenes.

A heuristic animation of C&C and risk is here: -

http://www.gci.org.uk/images/Contraction_and_Convergence_Risk_Analysis_Sink_Failure

A DVD for the risk analysis with numerous eminent spokespersons endorsing C&C, has been distributed by the UK All Party Parliamentary Group on Climate Change [who commissioned it] widely, including to all UK MPs and Peers.

Copies are available on request for 10.00GBP name and address required.

I am reposting links for these two items as the single previous link was incorrect: -

A heuristic animation of C&C and risk is here: -

http://www.gci.org.uk/images/Contraction_and_Convergence_Risk_Analysis_Sink_Failure.mpg

[large file - overnight download].

The interviews with numerous eminent spokespersons endorsing C&C on the DVD distributed by the UK All Party Parliamentary Group on Climate Change [who commissioned it] is here: -

[large file - overnight download].

http://www.gci.org.uk/images/Contraction_and_Convergence_Challen_et_al.mpg

Alternatively, copies of the DVD are available on request for 10.00GBP - name and postal address are required for this.

Hopefully youth are too busy doing differently (for the better) in everyday life to spend time talking and writing about [climate change], and that is why we are not represented in the paper.

Isn't real-life example, through trial and error, the best dialogue for effective, urgent change?

Love,
Kelly Matos
Brazil

Very much in line with your call for a 'World Ethic of Universal Responsibility', we have launched a New Movement for Survival, with its goal to develop a critical mass of public insistence that world governments and societies transform their priorities and values, as an essential step for averting calamitous climate change.

It contains an on-line pledge to Value Life Itself Above All Else, including individual self-interest, and to adjust one's lifestyle in order to do so, as well as to take collective action in order to uphold this value. There are also supporting pledges which progress from practical to spiritual commitments, as well as an invitation to help develop the New Movement.

You are welcomed to e-mail us to ask to have forwarded to you our e-mailed image with an embedded link, inviting you to make these pledges, in recognition that misplace values are at the root of the climate crisis and all the other threats to life on earth as we know it. The e-mail takes you to www.m-4-s.net, where you can directly read all the background arguments and make the pledges on-line.