Comments on: Comparing key proposals for climate change mitigation

By: Huw Slater

Huw Slater — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 04:40:57 +0000

Ah, I think I may have found it. The reference is in the China Update version of DRC’s proposal, while I was referring to an earlier draft.
The issue remains, however, that taking in to account emissions as far back as 1900 (let alone the beginning of the industrial revolution), would entail China’s emissions entitlements prior to the global stabilisation point, between equal to something in the order of four times their entire historical emissions (to 2009 when I wrote this piece).
My point is that pushing the idea of calculating equal per capita emissions as far back as possible becomes unrealistic, and in my opinion, could only have a sound basis after 1990.
Garnaut’s approach to redress historical responsibility through technology transfer and adaptation assistance seems to be a far more realistic arrangement.

By: Huw Slater

Huw Slater — Thu, 04 Aug 2011 04:11:53 +0000

Thanks Aubrey,

could you provide the reference for this, as it certainly wasn’t in the DRC proposal that I was referring to.

Thanks, Huw.

By: aubrey meyer

aubrey meyer — Sun, 24 Jul 2011 15:23:45 +0000

What the DRC actually says is this and this entirely consistent with contraction and convergence: -

“Since the principle of ‘contraction and convergence’ was first proposed by the Global Commons Institute in 2000, it has been widely embraced by some industrialised countries. Under contraction and convergence, each country will start out with emission entitlements equal to its current real emissions levels, and then, over time, converge to equal its per capita entitlements, while the overall global budget contracts to accommodate the emissions reduction objective. The convergence principle should be applied immediately rather than later as the ‘converged point’ in the future. ‘Real emissions’ is a different concept to ‘emissions entitlement’. A country’s high/low per capita real emissions cannot justify its high/low emission entitlements. In the process of convergence, the rights and interests of country B are really infringed by country A. In the NEA-based solution, the concept of convergence can still be incorporated, but it now merely means ‘convergence of real emissions’ rather than ‘convergence of emission entitlements’. Each country’s gaps between its emission entitlements and real emissions need to be balanced by the traded emissions quotas.”

By: milan mitic

milan mitic — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 11:36:34 +0000

Mitic CLIMATE ENGINEERING

USING HUGE (12m) TIDES FOR EROSION ASSISTED EXCAVATION OF LAND CHANNELS AND MAINTENANCE AFTER.

FOR AUSTRALIAN CLIMATE MELIORATION MODIFICATION TO MAKE DESERTS GREEN AND MORE RAIN DOWNSTREAM.

Erosion trigger channel + huge tides = huge erosion of land tidal channels = low cost excavation with erosion = land desalination = more clouds = more rain = cooler climate = huge carbon sink

Ask the farmer that got into trouble with erosion because of rain. What erosion do with huge 12m tides.

Ask the scientist how big will evaporation be in dry scorching hot desert if tidal system of canal and channels is made by erosion assisted excavation.

1. Evaporation from saline tidal water, canals, channels, tidal lakes, tidal marshes
2. Transpiration from mangroves and other sea water tolerating plants
3. Transpiration from rain forest around, ( tidal evaporation 1 and 2 = more rain = rainforest 3)

Ask the engineer if it can be done.
Ask the economist would project be economical if less: cyclones,floods, droughts, bushfires, more hydro energy

Greener deserts and more clouds, cooler climate,more water in rivers lakes and soil

for more see: http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Submissions/SubmissionDocuments/SUBM-002-010-0001_R.pdf

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/submissions/cprs-green-paper/~/media/submissions/greenpaper/0929-mitic.ashx