Here from GCI’s viewpoint is a sum-up where the contraction-and-convergence principle [C&C] was tabled by the UK Gov and its friends, at rates as prescribed in the UK Climate Act, how they were rebuffed . . and how this might have been better managed [they should have proposed the principle and then been willing to negotiate the rates]: -
http://www.gci.org.uk/public/COP_15_C&C.swf

News from Bonn today [07 06 2011] is that there will be ‘no-deal’ at COP-17 this December in Durban SA. So, as ‘Kyoto’ expires, we teeter on a climate-change ‘event-horizon’ over which is the black-hole of dangerous rates of climate change.

There is support for C&C: – http://www.gci.org.uk/endorsements.html

If there ever is a ‘deal’, its emissions-control will be shaped something like this . . .

- The cost of all this bushfire monitoring and manning (current and projected)

- The cost of lost worktime, for people who live in the Code Red areas and obey the request to leave for the duration (current and projected)

- The cost of lost worktime, for the train service failures during heat waves (current and projected)

- The cost of additional medical support and logistical support for the elderly and infirm during heat waves (current and projected)

- The projected cost of lost tourism due to the southward progression of box jellyfish into Sunshine Coast and Gold Coast tourism precincts? Apparently a high risk if we get even a 0.5 degree increase in water temperature.

The costs are starting to mount quite rapidly. According to the reporting on ABC 7:30 Report tonight, IIRC we had something like 4 days of extreme heat in the entire previous century, but 5 days already in this century. That is rapid change, in my books. It echoes the data for the glaciers – rapid change, year to year, NOT decade to decade.

Rapid change. Repeat, rapid change. Are we sure this is linear change?

Human beings are relatively good at adapting to slow changes in their environment. They are dead useless at dealing with nonlinear, exponential change. Studies show that the vast majority of humans intuitively extrapolate a straight line, and undershoot badly.

We need to start thinking about damage in a more rigorous way.

To hell with the politics. Let’s just do it.

Fully-electric sporty cars by BMW and Audi. Cheaper than the Tesla, and more practical.

More hybrids by VW, Honda, Toyota.

Not just concept cars but planned production models – limited availability this year and wider retail in the next couple of years.

To hell with the politics. Let’s just do it.

The Taliban, and Climate Denialists – the modern enemies of enlightenment.

Or is the BOM making it all up, for some nefarious leftist purpose?

I believe that the days of the U.S, Britain and Europe dictating terms are therefore over. The approach from now on needs to be one of developed nations engaging intensively with developing nations to find common solutions. The assumption pre-Copenhagen that developing nations could be persuaded to put emissions control ahead of social and economic development has been proved spectacularly wrong.

One commenter said that it is now up to the U.S and China. I believe this is overly simplistic. Both of those nations are critical, but an agreement acceptable to them is by no means guaranteed to garner broader support. I think Australia does have a very important role to play. I believe that because there is no clear superpower relationship here, the solution will be a mosaic of regionally based agreements. Australia, as a key developed country in the Asia-Pacific has an important role to play in financing efforts in surrounding developing countries, and in providing technical and other support to gear-up efforts in developing countries. This is not lefty altruism – it is in our strategic interest given that many mitigation measures will be cheaper to implement in developing countries than in Australia, and will help us to achieve our targets. Bringing developing countries online also dilutes mitigation action across a bigger pool, making it more achievable.