open Democracy News Analysis - The United States has it right on climate change - in theory, - Comments

aubrey@gci.org.uk on "The United States has it right on climate change - in theory"

aubrey@gci.org.uk — Wed, 04 May 2005 09:20:58 +0000

Yes - but will they/we-all . . . ? Beware 'counting' based on the false dichotomy of 'either-one-thing-or-the-other' . . . Kyoto and C&C are not choices, in the sense that one displaces the other. "Achieving the UNFCCC objective inevitably requires C&C;" [in the words of the UNFCCC Secretariat 2003]. Kyoto is partial [flawed] attempt to establish the totality of the C&C requirement. AS required, Kyoto's 'flaw' is corrected by C&C. Norman Baker's understanding here is sharper than Tim Yeo's. It is the flawed 'partial-ness' of the Kyoto Protocol that has kept the US out of Kyoto Protocol. It is the C&C 'correction' that will bring them in. The Labour Party has an interesting opportunity here: - http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1474683,00.html Aubrey

caspar.henderson@opendemocracy.net on "The United States has it right on climate change - in theory"

caspar.henderson@opendemocracy.net — Tue, 03 May 2005 18:22:37 +0000

openDemocracy asked spokespeople for the major British political parties to comment on climate change and the UK general election (see here: http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-6-129-2473.jsp). Tim Yeo, for the Conservatives, and Norman Baker, for the Liberal Democrats want both Kyoto and contraction & convergence? A response from Labour is awaited. Will it be like Tony Blair's apparent position on science and creationism - he wants more of both? Scientists and mathematicians may not always be good musicians, but how strong is the politician's grasp of numbers? Is it all "one, two, many" to them...and do they know the difference?

aubrey@gci.org.uk on "The United States has it right on climate change - in theory"

aubrey@gci.org.uk — Tue, 03 May 2005 09:34:14 +0000

Seems Benito, you might like to consider two things now: - 1. How is it that for the past eight years the C&C = the Byrd Hagel recognition escaped your most learned attention (could it be the company you keep?) - This has been written up many times. 2. The reactions of REP Jim DiPeso to this proposition. Clearly REP doesn't seem to feel the need to contradict this linkage (C&C = BH). As I see it, this makes the 'novelty' to which you refer more one of your own discovery of this rather obvious point, than anything you for which you generously wish to congratulate me. Between the two us, musicians *count*. All mathematicians are 'Platonists' or they couldn't be musicians, i.e. because they can't count, they can't play. You surely remember the story about Einstein playing the violin with Atur Rubenstein, ["What's the matter with you Albert, can't you COUNT?"]. The only thinking lacking in Byrd Hagel was how to count. There was no calculus. C&C provided it, hence BH-C&C. [Nobility of purpose in bed-fellows is something about which I see you know but about which I need [and plead] ignorance]. Aubrey

aubrey@gci.org.uk on "The United States has it right on climate change - in theory"

aubrey@gci.org.uk — Sat, 30 Apr 2005 18:01:53 +0000

Thank you Benito. Aubrey

The United States has it right on climate change - in theory,

Benito Müller — Sat, 30 Apr 2005 07:20:27 +0000

I have to congratulate Aubrey: his interpretation of US motivations and, in particular of the Byrd-Hagel Resoultion ('It accepts the need for differentiated responsibilities for all countries in the UNFCCC'etc.) is novel, to say the least. The only caveat I would like to offer is that I would be somewhat cautious in choosing my bed-fellows, no matter how noble the cause.