Thursday, 29 January 2009

Copenhagen Article Now Online!

Check out the online magazine version here.

Super extended version to appear here very soon...!



Anonymous said...

Boo! It's Lisa from Manchester (a Zoology student and brief Green Action group member - do you remember me? One of Dani Linton's friends...

Oddly enough... I have found you through the "green feed" on twitter - which took me to a blog (bristling badger) - and I spotted your name in the blogroll!

Anywayyyyy - how the devil are you? I have been listening to your stuff on myspace! OUTSTANDING!!!

Drop me a line sometime!I am working for Greenpeace International in Amsterdam.

You can e.mail at lisa(dot)vickers(at)greenpeace(dot)org

I still remember "Chivers Delivers!"


Anonymous said...

Hi Danny,
read the piece via ecotist shout out on twitter.

Very clear and witty analysis. Will shamelessly steal it for Copenhagen public meeting next Tuesday, 10th.

Marc Hudson

toma said...


This is Tom Athanasiou, one of the authors of Greenhouse Development Rights.

Bravo. Very nice piece. BUT you are wrong about GDRs not including historical responsibility.

The GDRs obligation indicator -- calculated for all countries is actually called a "Responsibility and Capacity Indicator."

It is true that, in the default case, we calculate R starting from 1990, which some folks consider to be wrong. But we have our reasons for doing so, and the "responsibility start date" is in any case a "tweakable parameter."

Anyway, lovely.

-- toma

Danny said...

Thanks for the clarification, Tom. Unfortunately, when trying to boil complex ideas down into a few snappy sentences some of these details can get lost!

I guess the point is that where countries feel that they are being unfairly punished by targets that do not consider the full historical contribution made by all countries since the industrial revolution, anything based on emissions since 1990 isn't going to help them feel better on that particular point. But I should have made it clearer that GDRs do indeed have the capacity to address historical responsibility.

So sorry about that. But overall, I stand by my main point that while these kinds of details are vital for the negotiating table, at the moment we need some strong, simple messages that loads of people and groups can unite behind, and "get rid of carbon trading" seems like a good one to me. Then when people ask the question "what's the alternative?" we can start talking in more detail about GDRs and everything else.

Anyway, keep up the good work!

Danny x