Throughout the late 1990s the ecologist complained about evil climate changers but refused to promote Reforestation. The ecologist has been oblivious of the role of Reforestation in combating global burning - despite protestations to the contrary.[181] Its priority for combating global burning is reducing greenhouse gases, “It is therefore the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, in other words the extent of the accumulation of emissions, which must be focused on (to combat the greenhouse effect).”[182] It began showing increasing interest in the cgi’s ‘contraction and convergence’ strategy but even in its november/december 1997 issue refused to give this strategy outright support, “The global commons institute considers that their global framework scheme, ‘contraction and convergence’, could provide the only practical way of overcoming this obstacle (of how much countries should reduce their Carbon emissions). Under the scheme, a global Carbon budget would be set, such as 350 ppmv, to be reached by a particular date, say 2050. Gci argues that the only way to divide this budget among states in a way that is acceptable to all, and hence durable, is on the basis of convergence towards equal entitlements to emit on a per capita basis globally. The ecologist believes this is by no means ideal. On the other hand, whatever may be the Ecologist’s reservations, the adoption of per capita allocations within a global Carbon budget may prove to be the only practical way of bringing the rapidly industrializing world to agree to set a legal cap on its emissions ..”[183]

In the run-up to kyoto, ben matthews gave the cgi policy some favourable publicity by writing an article in a magazine produced by brutland’s ‘scientists for global responsibility’. He also criticizes another climate campaign group, “The european union, together with some of the developing countries and the climate action network, still consider that the u.s. call for all of the world’s emissions to be capped is absolute heresy, as it would break the berlin mandate. .. gci argues that the developing countries should be asking for a global cap (on greenhouse emissions), on the basis of gradual convergence in the distribution of emissions to equal per capita levels. Under this scenario, since the developing countries start with a low per capita emissions, then for many years most would have an emissions entitlement greater than they need for their own use. They could trade their surplus entitlements to industrialized countries who are obliged to reduce emissions, and thus gain a financial income which would help economic development. Joint implementation would also be superfluous under this scheme. And, most important of all, the total emissions are controlled so that we can aim for a specific concentration in the atmosphere or specific temperature rise ..”[185]

Paul brown gives the cgi some good publicity in a guardian article on the kyoto agreement, “A more bizarre way of reaching an agreement to tackle global warming early next century cannot be imagined. Half those involved were asleep on the floor, chairs or tables, unaware that history was being made. They did not know that in those last tense hours, when all seemed lost, president clinton ordered from the whitehouse that enough concessions had been made to the u.s. viewpoint for a deal to be struck. (the agreement) agreed on cuts of less than 7% in the developed world’s greenhouse gas emissions in the first 10 years of the next century. The real result of kyoto will not be known for some time. Remarkably, the final text was still in the form of chairman raul estrada’s notes when the politicians flew home. Many key articles were fudged in those final hours, leaving everything to play for in the negotiations in bonn in the spring, and the next conference of the parties (cop4) in argentina in november. The claims for “carbon credits” for planting Trees and saving forests in developing countries have yet to be scientifically verified. Unreported, but central to really taking action, was the inclusion of per capita emissions. India, supported by china and the g77 countries, said their future acceptance of limiting their greenhouse gas emissions would be based on per capita quotas. In other words, the aim would be that a chinese citizen would be permitted the same emissions per head as the average american.”[186]

Daniel kammen and ann kinzig express their support for the cgi in a tiempo article, “We also argue that, in the long term, global equity in per person emission rights is not only ethically the most reasonable target, but is also the least cumbersome basis for an international agreement.”[187]