Lord Stern’s new kid on the climate-energy recycled inspiration block?

Never let it be said that the U.K.’s Lord Stern, supposedly an economist, will leave any virtual advocacy stone unturned in his search for who knows what?!

Last year it was Stern’s New Climate Economy:

The New Climate Economy is the Commission’s flagship project. It provides independent and authoritative evidence on the relationship between actions which can strengthen economic performance and those which reduce the risk of dangerous climate change. We reported in September 2014.

And this was so very “inspiring” that it has now given virtual birth to the Energy Transitions Commission:

We know that economic growth and climate action can be achieved together. The Energy Transitions Commission was convened to help identify pathways for change in our energy systems to ensure both better growth and a better climate. This is inspired by the work of the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate and its flagship project the New Climate Economy.

The Commissioners bring a remarkable range of viewpoints and extraordinary depth of experience. They come from across the energy spectrum, including large incumbent energy companies, renewable energy interests, heavy energy users, public and academic institutions and foundations. Some have sat at high-level negotiating tables on climate change deals. What they share is a progressive attitude to reforming the energy system.

We aim to provide decision-makers with insights and options for action at local and/or sector level. This will stem from objective research and wide engagement with actors in the energy system. We hope you find the work of the Commission interesting and insightful.

As noted above, this new kid on the inspirational block comes with its very own cast of – some new, some not so new – “experts”. Perhaps the most notable of whom (apart from Stern and his sidekick on both, i.e. former President of Mexico, Felipe Calderón) might well be the now disgraced Rajendra Pachauri’s purported successor in-waiting at TERI:

AJAY MATHUR

Incoming Director General The Energy and Resources Institute India

Dr. Mathur is soon to head The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI). He is currently Director General of the Bureau of Energy Efficiency in India and has been a lead author of the IPCC.

And this new kid on the Stern-Calderón block (h/t the ever-vigilant dambler who had pointed me towards Oil Giants Form Climate Lobbying Group) has a simply lovely graphic which shows what they’re all about:

New kid on Stern-Calderone block

New kid on Stern-Calderone block

Amazing, eh?!

7 thoughts on “Lord Stern’s new kid on the climate-energy recycled inspiration block?

  1. Hilary

    O/T and your a recipient this time when I’m infringing my multiple posts rule again

    Mileage here methinks in the dance of the thermometers!

    “James Bradley

    October 3, 2015 at 4:49 pm · Reply

    Healthy human body temperature averages 98.6F or 37C. This has been recorded since thermometers were invented in about 1714 and has never changed with modern humans still averaging 98.6F or 37C.

    Why is it that historic meteorological temperature data requires adjusting while historical medical temperature data doesn’t?”

    From a comment at

    http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/weekend-unthreaded-95/#comment-1750125

    • This one isn’t as far o/t as you might think, Ian! It has been on my back-burner for more than a few days now. The ever-perspicacious Tony Thomas wrote this while we all were waiting for the puff of white smoke** from the IPCC’s “electoral” process to run its course.

      In fact I had lifted that particular curtain myself. See: http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2015/10/47155/#comment-11082

      **If you have 30 minutes to spare – and/or are in search of a laugh-and-a-half – do take a look at:

      It seems to me that – between the fog-inducing pronouncements of the “economists” (e.g. Stern) and those of the “lawyers” (e.g. Philippe Sands & his triumvirate*** of little Oxford helpers) – whatever the “science” of the moment might be is getting completely lost in the more … uh … “sustainable” shuffle towards what I expect will be the forthcoming December Dance of the Dynamos in Paris.

      But on the bright side – from the green perspective – these apparently ascendant (post-modern?!) non-scientific voices could well be quite a convenient distraction from the factual failures of the many magic mantric models to even approximate a match to reality;-)

      *** Footnote 1 from Sands’ paper:

      In preparing this lecture I have been greatly assisted by Luis Viveros, LLM candidate at UCL, and by the very fine conference paper authored by Emily Barritt, Liz Fisher and Eloise Scotford, ‘Adjudicating the Future: Climate Change and Legal Disruption’ (2015, unpublished).

      Alas, to date, I have been unable to locate this helpful – and “very fine” – unpublished paper. But perhaps the title has morphed in the interim!

  2. If “economic growth and climate action can be achieved together”, maybe Lord Stern could pass his thoughts onto the UNFCCC for COP21 Paris? Most developing countries respectively disagree in their country submissions.
    http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/indc/Submission%20Pages/submissions.aspx
    I have been going through some of the submissions, to calculate the projected change in GHG emissions from 2010 to 2030. The IPCC estimates in 2010 global emissions from all sources were 49 GtCO2, which needs to start trending downwards to avert dangerous climate change. The combined submissions from the Australia, Canada, EU, Japan and USA are to reduce their emissions by 4 GtCO2. The combined submissions from Mexico, China, Indonesia, Turkey, India, Bangladesh and Vietnam are to increase emissions by over 12 GtCO2. Countries are going to sign up to an agreement believing it will save the world from over 2 degrees of warming, when every unit of tonne of CO2 equivalent GHG reduced somewhere in the developed world will be replaced by at least 3 tonnes elsewhere.
    As Robin Guenier has stated in his paper on the Sands lecture, the major reason given by the developing countries for growing their emissions is reduce absolute poverty. Submissions by India, Indonesia, and Vietnam are just some of those that make this abundantly clear.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s