A better world is possible - Global Commons Institute

Copyright Bruce Nixon 2010. All rights reserved. This electronic copy is provided free for personal, non-commercial use only.
www.brucenixon.com
“Contraction” and “convergence” (C&C) is a way of bringing about the reductions in consumption and
emissions. First, to avoid too abrupt and painful a shift, emission rights would be allocated based on the
current pattern of world output so that rich countries would have higher entitlements than poorer ones.
Then, through a process of convergence, emission rights would move progressively towards an equal
distribution on a per capita basis. How to allocate these rights within a country would be left to each nation
to determine.
“Cap & share” (C&S) is another method. Under this system, emission entitlements are not decided by
national governments. Instead each person would receive an annual entitlement which they could use as
they saw fit. Trading would be part of the scheme. Individuals who wanted to consume more would have to
buy from individuals willing to sell. Energy companies would have to buy emission entitlements to function.
This would lead to a massive redistribution of wealth from richer to poorer individuals and countries. Such
redistribution would make a big contribution to bringing about global economic and social justice and
eradicating poverty.
Fee and Dividend James Hansen, reflects on the UN Copenhagen Summit in his article Copenhagen has
given us the chance to face climate change with honesty- A carbon-use dividend for everybody must replace
the old, ineffectual 'cap-and-trade' scheme, Observer, 27 – 12- 2009, describes the outcomes as minimalist.
He sees this as an opportunity for more honest and effective action. Like many others, he sees “Cap-and -
trade” beloved of big corporations and governments as ineffectual, a “modern indulgences scheme”, a way
of avoiding responsibility for radical action to reduce fossil fuel use. Agreements to cap have not had
sufficient effect, nor are they likely to do so. Goals for future emissions reductions are unlikely to be
effective, whether legally binding or not. People will continue using fossil fuels whilst they are the cheapest
form of energy. Oil prices externalise and do not include the social cost – the damage fossil fuels do to
human health, to the planet, our children and future generations. Governments have to face down the
energy companies and tax fossil fuels at source, making them more expensive than green energy. The tax
would be applied at mine, wellhead or port of entry, creating a dividend that can be used to fund green
energy, making it cheaper, and research and development. 50% of the dividend could, he suggests, be
distributed to the public directly through their bank accounts depending on their carbon footprint, thus
encouraging efficiency in use. “Cap-and –trade”, he argues, is in effect a tax but it creates no dividend.
Not only could this measure be effectively enforced; it would help conserve a precious resource and provide
the funds for the great the transition societies will have to make.
Part 3 - A Green New Deal
The Green New Deal Group proposals got into minds all over the world and are said to have inspired UNEP’s
Global Green New Deal and influenced President Obama’s Green Economy Initiative outlined below.
The UN Environment Program (UNEP)’s "Global Green New Deal" proposes that world leaders invest the
equivalent of one percent of the global gross domestic product to revive world economy and put a brake on
global warming. According to UNEP, investments of one percent of global gross domestic product, about
$750 billion, could finance a "Global Green New Deal". Five environmental sectors should be the goals of
immense investments. These: energy efficient buildings, renewable energies, better transport, improved
122