Skip navigation
9comments
Share conversation: Share via:

Climate Colab

Aug 21, 2014
04:38

Member


1 |
Share via:
This entry did not include sub-proposals, which was a key element requested in the contest prompt, and thus was initially passed over. But it has many interesting features and is under a second review.

Climate Colab

Aug 23, 2014
10:42

Member


2 |
Share via:
Comments from Judges: - There are similar proposals and analyses out there for example by UNEP, Schindell, Steve Smith, etc. and some of this work is acknowledged. One thing left out is the issue of whether or not it is possible to control the aerosols with positive forcing without also controlling those that have negative forcing. This is still to my knowledge a significant scientific uncertainty with political implications. The direct link of these issues to the negotiations esp. the north-south dimension of those, is more unique and promising. - Proposal is interesting but cost analysis is qualitative and not particularly detailed. No links to sub-proposals. No model simulations or quantitative analysis of impacts. If models in Climate CoLab are viewed as inappropriate, could describe results from models that author believes are relevant. Proposal could also provide a more thorough and analytical evaluation of impacts and more detailed action plan for broadening negotiations and linking to CO2 based negotiations. - From the perspective of international relations/international environmental politics, this proposal could take a more reflective stance on the international negotiations. The world has been negotiating non-stop on climate change since 1989 and not gotten anywhere. A more nuanced reflection on how international negotiations can be redesigned to yield better climate outcomes would help.

Jan Kunnas

Aug 25, 2014
10:09

Member


3 |
Share via:
I like your proposal that developed and developing countries does not have to make identical step towards climate change mitigation, it is more important that all takes a step. This could be a vital block in solving the current stalemate in climate negotiations. I see a clear connection to my proposal on how to proceed with the Climate Negotiations. I argue that splitting continued negotiations into two separate blocks could both save time and make it more likely to ultimately reach a comprehensive treaty. 2010. The first block would deal with historical emissions of greenhouse gases including a mutual debt cancellation: developed countries carbon debts vs. developing countries conventional monetary debts. Your suggestion could then be the next block. My proposal was originally presented here: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/6bf2k0dz and my Global plan, to which I linked your proposal, is partly based on it https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300701/planId/1308202

Hemant Wagh

Aug 26, 2014
01:47

Member


4 |
Share via:
Sir, This is a Top-to-Bottom proposal; I request you to kindly include Bottom-to-Top steps in your proposal. Thanks

Enrique Posada

Aug 26, 2014
04:50

Member


5 |
Share via:
I like the idea of adressing CH4 and soot emissions in the scheme.

Michael Maccracken

Aug 30, 2014
01:58

Judge


6 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
My apologies for a delayed response--I was on vacation and essentially in communicado from August 16-29. Regarding the Judges comments: While the push for control of emissions of short-lived species is indeed similar to the emissions reductions suggested by Shindell, et al. through their UNEP assessment, I would note that what is intended to be different here is that the negotiations would utilize the need to reduce emissions of both long-lived and short-lived species as a way to bridge the divide that has existed between developed and developing nations about how to proceed--namely, to encourage comparable efforts to deal with the need to reduce the warming influences being created by human activities, but through a primary focus (meaning perhaps hard and enforceable actions) on reducing emissions of CO2 (and other warming contributions) in developed nations and a primary focus (and so real numerical goals, etc.) on reducing the emissions and warming influences of the short-lived species in developing nations (which they will be wanting to do anyway because of the co-benefits) while also doing also what they can on CO2 (e.g., by increasing efficiency and other cost effective measures, etc.). The point is that arguing that developing nations should make the same percentage reductions in CO2 (or even in CO2 equivalent using the 100 year GWP) is a non-starter as it fails to recognize the need for energy to lift their citizens out of poverty and also fails to recognize the very different per capita emissions of CO2. On the other hand, the 2 C limit cannot possibly be reached unless everyone is acting aggressively, and the developing countries can play a big role by limiting emissions of short-lived species--and should be recognized for this. As one final note about the judges mentioning proposals from others about this, while these other proposals have been more prominently published and more quantitatively developed, my publications on this suggestion of comparable efforts goes back to 2008. To jan-k, thank you for the note and point well taken. Apologies for not searching out and making reference to your proposal. To wagham, there are those who suggest that the way to get to an international agreement is to build block-by-block, so a provision on forests, one on aircraft or ships, one on efficiency, one on financing, and on and on. I hope that approach works, but my view is that the problem has been that the combining of the effects of all emissions into a single total of CO2-equivalent using the 100-year global warming potential (GWP) has obscured the possibilities for progress, and that if one goes back to considering the fundamental problem we face, it is to get everyone acting to deal with the problem, and this is only possible if one gives distinct recognition to the need to limit emissions of short-lived species and the important role that developing nations can play (and in fact are already, in many cases, playing), so what is needed is a rethinking of the overall framing of the discussion--and once one gets agreement and recognition on each playing their role but recognizing the differing situations, then the details will come much more easily. So, this proposal does start from the top and work down as I really think must be part of the approach. As to the expert comments on working this all out in more detail, I unfortunately don't have the resources to be doing this (at least more than was done in one of the papers cited, which showed (well before the Shindell et al. paper) that, in principle, such an approach would, if implemented, have a good chance of working.

Hemant Wagh

Sep 2, 2014
12:08

Member


7 |
Share via:
Sir, "to get everyone acting to deal with the problem" an approach involving most of the population of world is needed. Here I sincerely feel that "Swami Vivekananda Fruit-Trees Expansion Mission for environment, peace, health" should be of good help to all of us.I put it here. Thanking You Sincerely.

Jan Kunnas

Sep 2, 2014
02:31

Member


8 |
Share via:
Thanks Mike, Perhaps we could later on discuss further the possibility to combine my proposal for a debt swap and your differentiated actions. Please feel free to send me an email anytime Jan.KunnasATeui.eu

Climate Colab

Sep 12, 2014
12:02

Member


9 |
Share via:
Thank you for your submission. This proposal was not advanced because no revisions were made to address the Judges' comments.
ADD YOUR COMMENT
You must be logged into your account to post a comment.