Leading the world on green tech

The government likes to see Ireland as a hotbed of all things green and techie. It must have been a bit of a disappointment then that the Economist’s briefing on Europe’s tech entrepreneurs (June 12) does not mention the Emerald Isle at all. The only Irish connection is the European Commissioner, Maire Geoghegan-Quinn.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has just announced the authors of its Fifth Assessment Report. The list is, to a large degree, a list of the international, academic establishment on all things climate. Ireland is not represented.

The list of authors for Working Group 3 is impressive (scheduled for release at 8 am this morning). WG3 deals with greenhouse gas emission reduction and hence has a lot of economics in it. The list is a mix of world leaders and upcoming talent; expertise and topics match; and there are a few heavy weights with the authority to stand up to anyone who attempts censorship.

The list of authors for Working Group 2, on the impacts of climate change, is good too. There is less economics here, but what is there is well covered.

For completeness, here’s the list for Working Group 1 on the physics, chemistry and biology of climate change.

UPDATE: The (correct) WG3 list is now available.

24 replies on “Leading the world on green tech”

I remember an attempt some time ago to have Dr. Pachauri replaced. Seems it failed. I notice he retains his position.

there are a few heavy weights with the authority to stand up to anyone who attempts censorship.

It looks like RTol has something on his mind. Maybe he could elaborate?

Ireland is not represented.

This would appear to be a factually-challenged statement, unless the ESRI is now based out of the Netherlands.

And linking to the PDF only via your own new sceptic website is classy, I have to say.


Ah, but Mr. Tol’s is not your father’s worn-out old climate skepticism – this is Skepticism 2.0. (In a nutshell: “Sure anthropogenic global warming is happening, but it’s not that serious and it would be too expensive / anti-market to do anything about it.”)

Here’s a direct link to the WGII list of authors without going through Global Warming Policy Foundation territory. I’ll leave it to Mr. Tol to provide a direct link to the list of funders of that august institution.

Dunno where Tol gets the delusion that Ireland is a hotbed of green tech.

Even the Irish GP doesn’t suffer from that mental aberration.

This would be hilarious, were it not so serious. Good to see the ESRI finally start fessing up about its role in leading Ireland Inc. blindfolded into the economic/banking crash (Prof Frances Ruane said this morning the ESRI did not know what was going on behind “the wall of banking”….”It was partly on our side a lack of specialist knowledge…”)

Having screwed up royally on the ‘E’ part of ESRI, now one of their number, a climate skeptic and denialist think tank advisor (albeit a 2.0 Lomborg-ised version) goes forward from Oirland as our “expert” on the IPCC’s WG3. He’s winding up his new blog with denialist claptrap already: “Working Group 2 systematically portrays climate change as a bigger problem than is scientifically acceptable”.

How reassuring to find the antidote to all those “alarmist” “warmist” and “hysterical” scientists and commentators is none other than an economist from the neoclassical school. Looking forward to finding more ‘Balance’ (ignore the science) and ‘Reason’ (no pollution taxes for big business), not to mention ‘Calmness’ (shure, fingers crossed, ’twill never happen!) in future IPCC reports.

You may want to read up on the smart economy.

Thanks for pointing out the wrong link. Now corrected.

@EWI/John Gibbons
Ireland is not represented in the IPCC author teams, not by me, not by anyone else, as revealed by a simple search on “Ireland” in the three linked documents.

@ RTol

Well searching for “Tol” gives:

CLA Richard S.J. Tol Economic and Social Research Institute Netherlands

I believe that’s you, as I’m sure you’ll be happy to confirm. And unless you’re working for two different ESRI’s, that’s our one that you’re credited as being there from.

That’s me alright, but not on behalf of Ireland.

That would appear (putting it mildly) to be open to dispute, unless you’re going to get someone to correct this to one of the other hats you wear.

I have, by the way, just read through that Economist article, and I fail to see how it mentions ‘green’ technology in any substantial way. And further to a debate here a while ago on smart grid tech, I continue to be amazed at economics commentators to whom only supposed Randian supermen are visible, and not, say, the likes of less sexy, but more solid and sustainable businesses like our own ESBi.

The Economist article is about exciting new tech companies from Europe. This is mostly ICT where Ireland pretends to lead already. Ireland wants to lead in green tech too, but does not yet pretend that it does.

My nationality for IPCC purposes is unambiguously not Ireland. The IPCC is an intergovernmental body, so institutional affiliations are irrelevant.

My nationality for IPCC purposes is unambiguously not Ireland. The IPCC is an intergovernmental body, so institutional affiliations are irrelevant.

There must be two different Richard Tol economists running around, then, lecturing scientists on science. Because one at least said on 11th June of this year:

“WG2 has put me forward as a convening lead author of one of the chapters in AR5.

I tentatively accepted, knowing that this would be a lot of difficult work under immense scrutiny.

Guess what? Although the Irish government nominated me, it will not financially support my participation – not even travel costs – because of … substantive differences over environmental policy.”


Sure. So I participate in the IPCC on behalf of the Netherlands.

So you’ve resided and had your main employment here for several years, you’re the ESRI appointee on the Climate Sciences panel of the Royal Irish Academy, you (obviously) hang around and contribute to national debates on this blog of leading Irish economists and in the pages of Irish national newspapers, you were nominated to the IPCC by Ireland and were accepted.

And you still claim that “Ireland is not represented”, though even your place on that list gives the ESRI as your background. Does this pass the laugh test? (A low standard with your stuff, but still)

It was not my decision that I would not represent Ireland.

This is reminiscent of Kremlinology. You were nominated by Ireland, and invited to join the IPCC process as an Irish representative, but chose not to do so? It seems that you’ve left more than a few relevant facts out of your original post, that this is because of your own choice.

Only a handful of people are privy to the full information. For all but one, I know that they are not you. You’re either bluffing, or you just revealed your identity.

You’re either bluffing, or you just revealed your identity.

Well, tell me who I am, then.

The interesting part of the thread is the number of presumed greens who happily twist facts and say that it is okay to suppress discussion. The green vipers on this site try to argue or insult their way out, but over there they burn books.

So in the interests of transparency, can you tell us why you think you are not being funded by the Irish Government? What policy disagreements have you had?

Comments are closed.