Abstract
Well before President Putin ratified the Kyoto Protocol, the debate had begun as to the appropriate form of any post-Kyoto agreement. Amongst the emission reduction regimes being considered is that of Contraction and Convergence; conceived by Global Commons Institute (GCI) as a practical interpretation of the philosophy that “every adult on the planet has an equal right to emit greenhouse gases”. To support the Contraction and Convergence regime, the GCI have developed a computer model, CCOptions, to correlate CO2 stabilisation levels with global, regional and national carbon reduction targets. This paper analyses the model, concluding that, whilst the aim of CCOptions is laudable, the application of the model in its current form is unnecessarily ambitious and as a consequence potentially misleading to all but the well-informed user.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bows A, Anderson K, Upham P (2005) Growth scenarios for EU & UK aviation: contradictions with climate policy. Tyndall Centre Publications: WP84
Cameron J, Evans A (2003) What happens after Kyoto? More of the same or ‘Contraction & Convergence’? New Eco 10(3):128–131
CDIAC (2004) Global, regional and national fossil fuel CO2 emissions: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/meth_reg.htm. Cited 2003
COMM (2005) Winning the battle against global climate change. European Parliament Communication
Cox PM, Betts RA, Jones CD et al (2000) Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model. Nature 408:184–187
Cox PM, Huntingford C, Jones CD (2006) Conditions for sink-to-source transitions and runaway feedbacks from the land carbon-cycle. In: Schellnhuber HJ, Cramer W, Nakicenovic N, et al. (eds) Avoiding dangerous climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 155–161
Cranmer W, Bondeau A, Woodward FI et al (2001) Global response of terrestrial ecosystem structure and function to CO2 and climate change: results from six dynamic global vegetation models. Glob Chang Biol 7:357–373
DEFRA (2006) Climate change: the UK Programme 2006. UK Government Publication. DEFRA, London, HMSO, Norwich
Den Elzen MGJ, Lucas P (2003) FAIR 2.0: a decision-support model to assess the environmental and economic consequences of future climate regimes. RIVM report 550015001
DTI (2003) Our energy future – creating a low carbon economy. Energy White Paper, Department of Trade and Industry, Stationery Office, London
DTI (2006) Our energy challenge: securing clean, affordable energy for the long term. Department of Trade and Industry, London
Eggleston HS, Salway AG, Charles D et al (1998) Treatment of uncertainties for national estimates of greenhouse gas emissions. AEAT-2688-1
Friedlingstein P, Bopp L, Ciais P et al (2001) Positive feedback between future climate change and the carbon cycle. Geophys Res Lett 28:1543–1546
Friedlingstein P, Cox PM, Betts RA et al (2006) Climate-carbon cycle feedback analysis, results from the C4MIP model intercomparison. J Climate 19:3337–3353
Grassl H, Kokott J, Kulessa M, Luther J, Nuscheler F, Sauerborn R, Schellnhuber H-J, Schubert R, Schulze E-D (2003) Climate protection strategies for the 21st century: Kyoto and Beyond. German Advisory Council on Global Change, Berlin
Houghton JT, Meira Filho LG, Callander BA et al (eds) (1996) The science of climate change, contribution of working group 1 to the second assessment report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment report of the IPCC
Jones CD, Cox PM, Huntingford C (2006) Impact of climate-carbon cycle feedbacks on emissions scenarios to achieve stabilisation. In: Schellnhuber HJ, Cramer W, Nakicenovic N et al (eds) Avoiding dangerous climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 323–331
Lenton TM (2000) Land and ocean carbon cycle feedback effects on global warming in a simple Earth system model. Tellus B 52:1159–1188
Lenton TM, Huntingford C (2003) Global terrestrial carbon storage and uncertainties in its temperature sensitivity examined with a simple model. Glob Chang Biol 9:1333–1352
Matthews HD (2005) Decrease of emissions required to stabilise atmospheric CO2 due to positive carbon cycle-climate feedbacks. Geophys Res Lett 32:L21707 doi:10.1029/2005GL023435
Matthews B (2006a) Java climate model. http://www.chooseclimate.org
Matthews HD (2006b) Emissions targets for CO2 stabilization as modified by carbon cycle feedbacks. Tellus B 58(5):591–602
Meyer A (2000) Contraction & convergence - the global solution to climate change. Green books, Devon
Raupach R, Marland G, Ciais P, Le Quere C, Canadell JG, Klepper G, Field CB (2007) Global and regional drivers of accelerating CO2 emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104(24):10288–10293
RCEP (2000) Energy- the changing climate. 22nd report: CM4749. The Stationery Office, London
United Nations (2002) World population prospects, revision 2002. http://www.un.org/popin/data.html. Cited May 2005
White A, Cannell MGR, Friend AD (1999) Climate change impacts of ecosystems and the terrestrial carbon sink: a new assessment. Glob Environ Change 9:S21–S30
Wigley TML, Richels R, Edmonds JA (1996) Economic and environmental choices in the stabilisation of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Nature 379:242–245
Zeng N, Qian H, Munoz E et al (2004) How strong is carbon cycle-climate feedback under global warming? Geophys Res Lett 31:L20203
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bows, A., Anderson, K. Contraction and convergence: an assessment of the CCOptions model. Climatic Change 91, 275–290 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-008-9468-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-008-9468-z