Wednesday, May 25, 2011

The very strange case of musician Aubrey Meyer and the IPCC: In order to prevent bad weather, do we need global governance to ensure that we all emit the same amount of carbon dioxide?

Aubrey Meyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Aubrey Meyer is an author, climate campaigner and composer. he is also a former member of the Green Party[1]

He co-founded the Global Commons Institute in 1990.
...
Born in Yorkshire in 1947. Raised in Cape Town, South Africa from 1952. Bachelor of Music 1968, Music College, Cape Town University. Won South African Music Rights Organisation (SAMRO) scholarship for two years study abroad. 1969-71 Royal College of Music, London. Studied composition with Phillip Cannon and viola with the late Cecil Arronowitz. Winner, International Music Company Prize and Stanton Jeffries Music Prize.

After the Royal College, he earned his living playing viola in orchestras (principal viola in Scottish Theatre Ballet, Ulster, Gulbenkian and CAPAB orchestras) while continuing to compose. His one-act ballet ‘Exequy’ led to the award of a Master of Music degree in composition from the University of Cape Town.
...
At the request of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1992, Meyer conceived and presented his analysis of ‘The Unequal Use of the Global Commons’ to the Policy Working Group of the IPCC.
...
Meyer says the world must collaborate with musical discipline to avert runaway climate change: i.e. play C&C’s ‘carbon reduction score’ in time, in tune and together.
...On 24 June 2009, Rajendra Pachauri, (Chairman of the IPCC) said the following (see www.tangentfilms.com/WTCApromo.wmv): “ When one looks at the kinds of reductions that would be required globally, the only means for doing so is to ensure that there’s contraction and convergence, and I think there’s growing acceptance of this reality. I don’t see how else we might be able to fit within the overall budget for emissions for the world as a whole by 2050. We need to start putting this principle into practice as early as possible, so that by the time we reach 2050, we’re not caught by surprise, we’re well on a track for every country in the world that would get us there... On the matter of ‘historic responsibility’, there is no doubt that accelerating the rate of convergence relative to the rate of contraction is a way of answering that we really need to get agreement from Developed and Developing Countries to subscribe to this principle.”
Contraction and Convergence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Conceived by the Global Commons Institute [GCI] in the early 1990s, the Contraction and Convergence strategy consists of reducing overall emissions of greenhouse gases to a safe level (contraction), where the global emissions are reduced because every country brings emissions per capita to a level which is equal for all countries.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Tom - you're right, this is a 'a strange case'.

Look deep inside his website and you'll see thi s guy just describes himself as 'a dumb-ass muso'.

However, US attorney Constance Cumbey describes him as a 'genius' for having persuaded NATO to adopt his crazy plan [!] and a bunch of UK MPs nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize.

There's certainly a whole bunch'a other folk who seem to go along with all his muso-crap.

Who, do you think, should we trust?

Anonymous said...

Christ Tom, actually this goes even deeper than that.

Mr Muso-crap is also claiming that these statements about C&C from these top-climate-sceptics are on the record too: -

“I agree that to stabilize concentrations you have to have emissions contraction and that to have contraction you have to have convergence. I just don ‘t believe that humanity has the wit to organize that. “ Richard Lindzen; Pisa 2004, after IPCC 3rd Assessment.

“I have a great deal of admiration for Aubrey. He is interested in solving a problem and has a legitimate and well thought out programme.”

Myron Ebell; ‘sceptic’ CEI, COP-1S Copenhagen 2009, after IPCC 4th Assessment.

http://www.gci.org.uk/public/COP_15_C&C.swf

And then there's Fred Singer [!] in his 'endorsements' list: -

"A new climate treaty would at least pay lip service to the obligations of developing nations, although it could probably not require them to reduce emissions. Instead, a new Kyoto might be shaped by the notion of contraction and Convergence [Meyer 2000] now popular in European environmental circles."

In Unstoppable Global Warming
Fred Singer Dennis Avery

http://www.gci.org.uk/endorsements.html

Anonymous said...

Actually its even worse than that.

Two more US sceptics - Lindzen and Cumbey - go there too: -

Richard Lindzen: - "I agree that to stabilize GHG concentrations you have to have emissions contraction and that to have contraction you have to have convergence. I just don't believe that humanity has the wit to organize that."

[Well ain't that the truth].

Richard Lindzen; Pisa 2004, after IPCC 3rd Assessment.

Finally, Constance Cumbey a US lawyer in Detroit. She hates C&C because she sees it as creeping global governance etc, but she credits this dumb-ass-muso with having persuaded NATO etc etc to support C&C: -

"Aubrey Meyer's dedication is clear. So is his genius. This is one favorably stated summary of his
plans."

http://cumbey.blogspot.com/2007/09/total-new-age-control-energy-and.html