Here is issue # 3 of the "Climate Equity Observer" (CEO), the product of a new USA NGO focused on bringing the discussion of climate equity to the fore in discussion in the USA of global warming. Disclosure: I am on the organizing board of this organization and was asked to post this to PEN-L. Gene Coyle
Friends; Forgive the awkward timing - just before the Bonn meeting - but here is the new issue of Climate Equity Observer. We think you will find it worth a glance. And note that we are evolving our homepage, www.ecoequity.org, into a climate equity portal. Much more to add, of course... -- toma ****** Raise a Glass to Kyoto http://www.ecoequity.org/ceo/ceo_3_1.htm Kyoto was never more than a first step, but what a first step it has turned out to be! Whatever happens now, the battle over Kyoto has changed the politics of the post-Cold War world. And not a moment too soon. The Pew Climate Equity Conference http://www.ecoequity.org/ceo/ceo_3_2.htm Back in April, Pew hosted a Washington conference on Climate Equity. The air was ringing with Bush's rejection of Kyoto, but the topic was still equity, and if you paid attention and closed your eyes, you could almost see the shape of things to come. Who Owns the Sky? http://www.ecoequity.org/ceo/ceo_3_3.htm A new book, Who Owns the Sky? sets out to make a case for a US "Sky Trust" as a fair but realistic way of managing a transition away from carbon-based fuels. It's an important proposal, and it helps put the neglected issue of domestic equity on the agenda. And it actually makes sense. The EcoEquity Interview: Wolfgang Sachs http://www.ecoequity.org/ceo/ceo_3_4.htm Wolfgang Sachs, editor of The Development Dictionary, co-author of Greening the North, and recently a co-author of the first chapter of the Third Assessment Report's Working Group 3 report on mitigation (which contains the TAR's most explicit discussion of equity) gave us time for a long and sometimes surprising interview. Lies and Economic Models http://www.ecoequity.org/ceo/ceo_3_5.htm Are you still quoting Department of Energy economists? If so, there are some important new studies you should quote instead.