Skip to content

Christina Figueres Joins The Lancet

June 24, 2017

By Paul Homewood

Apparently the Lancet now believe that world communism will improve everybody’s health:

 

image

The 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change marked historic progress for the planet and human health. Signatories agreed to limit global temperature rise to “well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels”; redouble a global commitment of financial flows to developing countries of US$100 billion annually by 2020; and created a mechanism to increase ambitious action.1 Although inaction threatens to undermine 50 years of progress in public health, meeting the Paris Agreement’s ambitions presents the greatest global health opportunity of this century.2 The challenge now lies in implementation.

Although the development and signing of the Paris Agreement was an international effort, the charge was led by one woman—Christiana Figueres. She took to the helm of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)—the mechanism underpinning international action on climate change—as its Executive Secretary in 2009, and was challenged with securing a safe path forward for the Convention and the world’s climate. Building a cross-sectoral and international coalition, she helped shepherd the Paris Agreement to its signing in Paris in December, 2015.

The international ratification of the most ambitious climate treaty in history has set the momentum for tackling climate change. Even with the departure of the USA from the Agreement, 196 other countries are united in their commitment to prevent a global climate catastrophe. One country dropping out will not change the course of action.

The medical community has three crucial parts to play in addressing climate change and acting on the momentum created by the Paris Agreement. First, we need bold leadership and a strong voice, communicating to patients and advocating to governments that climate change is fundamentally a public health issue. Second, the health benefits of responding to climate change must be realised and maximised globally. Third, we must benchmark and monitor efforts to meet and overcome these challenges. Only then can the true impact of climate change on health be understood, and the health benefits of responding to climate change be realised.

The Lancet Countdown: Tracking Progress on Health and Climate Change is meeting these needs.3 By providing annual data across a range of indicators, the Lancet Countdown will lead and communicate on health and climate change; demonstrate the health co-benefits of mitigation and adaptation; and monitor global progress in meeting the Paris Agreement.

The Lancet Countdown has the potential not only to improve the response to climate change, but to transform it. The collaboration is therefore delighted to announce that Christiana Figueres will join as Chair of its High-Level Advisory Board. Much as she did with the Paris Agreement, Christiana Figueres will help guide the Lancet Countdown to maximise its impact and deliver on the promise of the Paris Agreement.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)31667-7/fulltext

Advertisements
32 Comments
  1. Broadlands permalink
    June 24, 2017 2:16 pm

    “Signatories agreed to limit global temperature rise to “well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels.” How do they plan to promise to deliver on that feat? Temperatures have risen less than 1°C in over 200 years, and they will limit that “dramatic” rise… by lowering atmospheric CO2 to its 1987 level… 350 ppm?

    • Curious George permalink
      June 24, 2017 2:54 pm

      “196 other countries are united in their commitment to prevent a global climate catastrophe” – which is happening only in models. And they will prevent it. Imagine the amount of good feelings generated.

  2. John F. Hultquist permalink
    June 24, 2017 2:16 pm

    Whenever I see Christina’s name, I am reminded of a leach — just before breakfast, that is not a good thing.

    … 196 other countries are united in their commitment to prevent a global climate catastrophe …

    Here is a fix:
    196 other countries are united in their commitment to suck as much wealth as possible from the people that produced that wealth.

    When everyone everywhere is dirt poor, we can start over.

    • John Palmer permalink
      June 24, 2017 2:18 pm

      What a bunch of virtue-signalling ‘merchant bankers! (sorry, that’s a London expression!).

    • HotScot permalink
      June 24, 2017 4:51 pm

      “When everyone everywhere is dirt poor, we can start over.”

      And guess who will end up wealthy again, before the entire envy agenda begins again.

  3. June 24, 2017 2:24 pm

    Christiana Figuera’s husband is Konrad von Ritter the owner of WEnergy Global Pte Ltd who is the “One-Stop -Shop provider of renewable energy solutions”.
    No conflict of interest there then – talk about noses in the trough!
    You couldn’t make this up could you!

    • June 24, 2017 3:15 pm

      Is that not a definition of sustainable business
      One partner outside collecting profits
      One partner inside government stirring up demand for the product you sell
      WENERGY 305 ALEXANDRA ROAD #05‐10 SINGAPORE 159942 SINGAPORE
      WENERGY GLOBAL PTE LTD same address
      I don’t know the turnover, but Twitter shows lots of contact signings
      Palawan Solar
      Bangkok Airport cycleway etc.

    • Curious George permalink
      June 24, 2017 9:39 pm

      She seems to be a devoted wife.

      • dennisambler permalink
        June 25, 2017 9:28 am

        They are separated currently. Frau Von Ritter does not sound as exotic as Christina Figueres.

  4. Neil Holliday permalink
    June 24, 2017 2:28 pm

    Will she be taking her white stick to all future meetings?

  5. June 24, 2017 2:37 pm

    “Delivering on the promise of Paris…(?)” What?!? These people are delusional.

  6. June 24, 2017 2:51 pm

    The ‘super-credible’ Lancet can publish now and then use it’s handy Red stamp
    that keeps fro it’s retractions like the MMR scare study.

    • HotScot permalink
      June 24, 2017 4:54 pm

      Ought to be effing held to account for their incompetence.

  7. June 24, 2017 3:46 pm

    She wants to drastically reduce the world’s population. Communism has been one of the best methods to accomplish population reduction.

    Lenin and Stalin were genius at it to the tune of many millions; Cambodia’s Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge; China, especially in the 1960’s; the Castros in Cuba and their late friend, Che Guevara; and do not forget that the Nazis were actually Marxists–very efficient in population reduction.

    • HotScot permalink
      June 24, 2017 4:56 pm

      Capitalism doesn’t murder people, it makes them employees and customers.

    • Broadlands permalink
      June 24, 2017 5:48 pm

      Joan… the irony is that the correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global population has been almost perfect since 1983. Newell & Marcus wrote about that in 1987 (when CO2 was 350 ppm). “Carbon Dioxide and People”.

      http://palaios.geoscienceworld.org/content/2/1/101

      • j martin permalink
        June 26, 2017 8:28 pm

        Paywall.

  8. June 24, 2017 4:37 pm

    Figueres we can all agree on, an archetypal representative of her type, the rapacious champagne socialist.

    But The Lancet?! God’s blood….!

  9. June 24, 2017 4:47 pm

    The huge taxfree salaries and benefits of UN bureaucrats paid by taxpayers must stop asap.
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2794991

    • HotScot permalink
      June 24, 2017 5:00 pm

      A deeply disturbing paper chaamjamal. Thank you for that.

  10. June 24, 2017 4:56 pm

    ‘First, we need bold leadership and a strong voice, communicating to patients and advocating to governments that climate change is fundamentally a public health issue.’

    If anybody in the medical system tries that on me they will get a very negative response to put it mildly.

    ‘Second, the health benefits of responding to climate change must be realised and maximised globally.’

    Meaningless, but mad anyway.

    • Henning Nielsen permalink
      June 24, 2017 6:51 pm

      By 2050, doctors won’t know what snow is. And there will be mandatory operations for whole populations in order to reduce the level of co2 in our lungs.

  11. Ian Miller permalink
    June 24, 2017 6:41 pm

    In as much as a blanket of CO2 greenhouse gas is said to hold in heat at the earth’s surface, thus warming the planet, this same blanket equally will insulate the planet from heat entering the atmosphere from the sun.

    If this CO2 blanket will HOLD IN as much fossil fuel generated heat, as HOLD OUT heat, (which it must) – then CO2 emissions can only have a broadly neutral effect on Climate, contrary to what the ‘authorities’ who wish to curtail us all, – would desperately try to tell us.

    Let’s be clear, If we in the UK really wish to fund public services, the NHS, the police, the public service pensions shortfall, while simultaneously reducing the deficit, we will most certainly need to get real, be financially responsible, and ditch this grossly expensive, unreliable ‘renewable energy’ White Elephant of an energy policy.
    It was not set up to stop ‘global warming induced Climate Change’ but blatantly obviously to bleed society’s life blood, in order to limit perceived the proletariat’s alleged extravagancies.

    Having NO effect whatsoever on moderating world temperatures, our current Energy Policy serves deliberately to impoverish us all through misappropriation of resources and when the envisaged crunch point is reached, the governing ‘Elite’ and its entire enthusiastically supportive Biased Broadcasting Corporation, will suffer the consequences at the ballot-box.

  12. Henning Nielsen permalink
    June 24, 2017 7:01 pm

    So, the time has come to count out the Countdown.

  13. John Peter permalink
    June 24, 2017 7:11 pm

    “If this CO2 blanket will HOLD IN as much fossil fuel generated heat, as HOLD OUT heat, (which it must) – then CO2 emissions can only have a broadly neutral effect on Climate, contrary to what the ‘authorities’ who wish to curtail us all, – would desperately try to tell us.”
    First time I have seen this articulated. Sounds reasonable. Worth an investigation and a proper peer reviewed paper if not already done.

    • A C Osborn permalink
      June 24, 2017 8:08 pm

      No, because sunlight has very little Long Wave IR which interacts with CO2 Frequencies, whereas the Earth emits Long Wave.
      Not that CO2 has much effect compared to H2O.

  14. manicbeancounter permalink
    June 24, 2017 7:25 pm

    Three graphs, from a post I am currently working on, might help get a bit of perspective on why the 2C emissions target is unattainable.
    First, from Climate Interactive, the emissions pathways to obtain the 2C and 1.5C relative

    Note that global emissions have to fall dramatically after 2030 to meet the targets.
    Second there is the global emissions from the Reference Scenario, broken down in 7 areas that I extracted from CIs C-ROADS software about 18 months ago.

    Third, there is the population projections for those 7 areas.

    The Lancet’s coverage is just the UK and to a lesser extent the rest of the Western World for just a small part of the population in those countries. True outreach must be global and inclusive of every country, not just preaching to the self-appointed elites in a few developed countries. Instead, most of the world is made irrelevant. This is evidenced by the forecasts of emissions and population show some odd things.
    – Despite advancing technology, the policy countries will become much less efficient in energy use. This bucks the trend since the 1970s in both the US and the EU. In China and Russia, with falling populations forecast, emissions per capita will far exceed that of the US prior to the oil crisis of 1973. This “forecast” means that signing a bit of paper and meeting other world leaders makes a huge difference to global emissions.
    – The developing countries, with no obligations to cut emissions, are forecast to have very little emissions growth, on the back of much lower economic growth forecasts than experienced in the last couple of decades. So in 2100, “other developing countries” with 7 billion people will have less emissions than China with just a billion.

  15. Athelstan permalink
    June 24, 2017 11:58 pm

    So, the ‘Lancet’ goes the way of the New Scientist, Nature et al into advocacy and downwards to ignominy and ridicule.

    What ever happened to the Hippocratic Oath? Nanny state, the NHS, Unionized, weaponized civil servants and ordering people’s lives under the all encompassing pretext preventative ‘medicine’ diktat – that’s what.

    Medics, lobbyists and politics, never a good mix. Moreover, as their degree studies are watered down and medicine becomes a everyday bog standard, diagnostics/ phlebotomy. Alas, the BMA became something it was never intended to be – a bunch of societal reformists, deluded, progressives and rabble rousing, Marxist apologists are now dragging the Lancet into their jaundiced sphere.

    Get on with helping man and women in dire need saving lives, and leave the political doctoring out of it.

  16. Gamecock permalink
    June 25, 2017 1:51 am

    197 countries met in Paris and agreed to control the weather. How quaint.

    ‘One country dropping out will not change the course of action.’

    We’re the ones with the money you were going to distribute. How are you going to ‘redouble a global commitment of financial flows to developing countries of US$100 billion annually by 2020’ when you don’t have any money?

    ‘and created a mechanism to increase ambitious action’

    Whut?

  17. David Bishop permalink
    June 25, 2017 8:49 am

    Ms Figueres and The Lancet are of like mind. The Lancet is not just a medical journal, it prides itself on its activism. Listen to Richard Horton, the Editor …
    … and shudder.
    http://www.thelancet.com/about-us

  18. Gerry, England permalink
    June 25, 2017 11:07 am

    The creeping cancer of socialism is taking over many a once fine and respected institution but in such a way that the majority don’t notice and therefore continue to bestow prestige upon them. The BBC is a classic case. We who comment hear know the truth but I have encountered many who still look up to the BBC and you see that many write in support of the BBC see them as they once were.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: