cc: "Mike Hulme" <m.hulme@uea.ac.uk>, "John SCHELLNHUBER" <h.j.schellnhuber@uea.ac.uk>
date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 10:47:57 +0100
from: "John Ashton" <john.ashton@co2.org>
subject: Re: Moving this forward
to: "Peter Read" <pread2@attglobal.net>, "John Shepherd" <j.g.shepherd@soc.soton.ac.uk>

   All



   John, John and Mike heard much of my argument at the Tyndall Assembly. But I should clarify
   it a little in the light of Peter's message.



   The problem at present is not the absence of propositions that offer stabilisation and that
   are scientifically, technologically and economically, credible. Two such broad propositions
   are biomass energy and capture and storage: both deserve attention within a portfolio of
   possible responses.



   The problem is that at present the political conditions do not exist to make possible
   investment - of money and of political capital - at the necessary scale and pace. The Prime
   Minister's problem is not to identify the propositions but to change the political
   constraint, which is another matter. That is, I am sure, why his recent speech concentrated
   on putting across, more starkly than he has done before, the scale and urgency of the
   challenge. Abrupt climate change is a crucial piece of that jigsaw - and you can make more
   impact with it at present by simply highlighting the danger without going too far into any
   particular set of responses (of which, I fully accept, capture and storage on a very large
   scale will almost certainly have to form part).



   Having established scale and urgency, the political challenge is then to turn this from an
   argument about the cost of cutting emissions - bad politics - to one about the value of a
   stable climate - much better politics.



   The G8 is much more than a talking shop. It can be a powerful vehicle for raising
   awareness. But I don't think that pushing this proposal, in this form, will help with that.
   You need a much lower resolution message: scale, urgency, value, investment. Shifting the
   narrative in this way is not for climate negotiators; it is for political and other leaders
   (including scientific). If that begins to happen, it can open up possibilities that the UK
   might be able to turn into policy during its Presidency of the EU in the second half of
   next year. But it is not yet clear what the most effective policies would be, because they
   are a function of the politics yet to be accomplished.



   I agree with John Shepherd that you should be very careful about how to take these ideas
   forward. I do not think at this stage you should be trying to bring them to the Prime
   Minister's attention. My instinct is that you should run the three components - biomass,
   c&S, and abrupt change - separately, and that at present the most valuable thing to do is
   to tell the story about abrupt change as vividly as possible. In presenting the other two
   elements, you should pay attention to the politics. There is a potentially very serious
   public acceptability barrier to c&s; and biomass on the scale you are suggesting would
   amount to a global land use policy - quite a challenge when you think about the CAP etc!



   I also think that the recent paper on "stabilisation wedges" by Socolow and Pacala offers a
   very good framework for getting into the propositions. Think portfolios, not magic bullets.



   I hope this helps. I'm not trying to pour cold water, just to discourage wasted effort



   John





   ----- Original Message -----

   From: [1]Peter Read

   To: [2]John Shepherd

   Cc: [3]Mike Hulme ; [4]John SCHELLNHUBER ; [5]John Ashton

   Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 7:21 AM

   Subject: Moving this forward

   Dear John



   Talking with John Ashton yesterday it became clear that getting this on the table with g8
   is not the end, though it may be part of the means towards achieving policy take-up.



   The problem is to shift the framework of discourse from zero-sum emissions constraint to
   stimulating a technological snowball.  He says that Blair is rather good at that sort of
   thing.



   But G8 is only a talkshop with no executive function.  If I understood John right, results
   will only come if Blair, as EU President 2nd half 2005, and the next US President agree to
   go home to their respective constituencies with a view to getting their negotiators to
   shift the framework of discourse at the 2005 COP11 into the more positive direction.



   Whatever the process, getting the idea into Blair's mind is obviously paramount and I hope
   you feel the latest version, annexed to the second draft of my press release herewith, is a
   suitable version to take to David King.  Obviously I would like to be involved in that
   process but appreciate that you may feel that you should do that, and in any case my time
   window may not fit -- I am in Wales next week [ 01 678 520 192 and receiving e-mails] and
   flying out on my way home on Monday 25th.  But I'm in London and available for travel to
   Norwich or Southampton in the week 18-22.



   Best regards

   Peter





     ________________________________________________________________________
     OK: scanned by MessageLabs

   ______________________________________________________________________
   This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
   For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
   ______________________________________________________________________

