"The only thing missing from the Agreement is who, what, and how," writes Mike Sandler. "Like a zen koan, the Agreement is a riddle that just leads to more questions."
Mike Sandler writes that the math is clear: there is a carbon bubble. The science on climate change indicates that there is no time for low initial national "contributions" with "ratcheting up ambition" after 5 or 10 year review periods.
Is it realistic to insist, as Feasta climate group members are doing, that world citizens could set up a global trust that would issue fossil fuel extraction permits , thus ensuring that greenhouse gas emissions gradually reduce to zero? What about politics? Cartel pressure and greed? And how can we get the word out about Cap & Share in the first place? Laurence Matthews makes some practical suggestions.
In an article originally published by Scientists for Global Responsbility, John Jopling provides a succinct overview of Cap Global Carbon: a radical back-up plan for curbing global carbon emissions.
Naomi Klein's new book is well worth a read by anyone interested in the relationship between the growth-based economy and runaway greenhouse gas emissions. It also provides some suggestions for finding our way out of this morass. By Caroline Whyte
We find the latest IPCC report's emphasis on climate as a "global commons problem" helpful and constructive. However, the economy must break its dependency on GDP growth in order to achieve emissions reduction without economic collapse. Fortunately the potential exists for significant co-benefits from climate mitigation, including poverty alleviation and reduced inequality. Grassroots legal action could help give teeth to the international institutions needed for cooperation.