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.
