Post-Cancun politics prof suggests Climate Council of 15: "Railing at a Mexican standoff"

A very flawed proposition. The Age kindly published the following comments from me uncensored:

"Crucial to required urgent action on man-made climate change is that it is (1) consonant with the science, (2) egalitarian in terms of permitted per capita pollution, and (3) democratically determined. Professor Robyn Eckersley's proposal fails on all 3 criteria.

1. Science. Leading climate scientist Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber (Germany) has estimated that a 67% chance of avoiding a catastrophic 2C temperature rise means complete cessation of CO2 emissions by 2050. As amplified below, this means that major per capita polluters (roughly half the proposed Council members) must get to zero emissions in the period 2020-2030. Yet, for example, Australia (tightly linked to proposed Council members US and China) proposes 5% off 2000 level by 2020.

2. Equal per capita emissions. Ignoring European responsibility for 75% of historical greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, Schellnhuber has determined that with equal GHG per capita from 2010 onwards, very high per capita polluters (e.g. the US, Canada and Australia) must get to zero by about 2020; Germany, France, Russia, Poland and the EU (proposed Council members) before 2030; China by 2035; and India and other very poor countries by 2045-2050. Other top climate scientists have arrived at similar estimations. Acceptance that all men are created equal should be the starting point. Unfortunately the worst per capita offenders like Australia (annual per capita Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution circa 60 times worse than for Bangladesh) are committed to greedy and racist inaction.

3. One-man-one-vote. The proposed 15 member Council violates one-man-one-vote and violates required democracy. Indeed George Monbiot has sensibly suggested replacing present UN arrangements with a one-man-one-vote-based General Assembly."