I see Tony Blair has stuck his oar in to make Labour's life more difficult on the climate issue. Is he right though? He's not wrong about people not accepting financial impacts or restrictions on their lifestyles to make net-zero happen. But he completely ignores or deliberately doesn't mention that the reason for this is because people think the burden is unfairly being imposed on working people who are already struggling, while wealthier people can continue with their luxury lifestyles unhindered.
He's also right on us never giving up fossil fuels. Again though he doesn't mention that this is because the capitalist economy we operate demands perpetual growth, and that has to come from cheap and abundant energy sources which right now are only deliverable via fossil fuels. If we want to solve the climate issue we need a different economic model, and to do that we need to confront those who most benefit from the current model.
Seems to me these two things contradict each other.
1/12Tony Blair Institute have released a report which is getting a lot of coverage in UK todayIt says the drive for net zero emissions is flawed and some media outlets have gone to townHowever it’s a bit oddBy odd, I mean there’s a lot of bollocks in it and shouldn't be taken seriously 🧵🧵
— Doug Parr (@dougparr.bsky.social) 2025-04-30T06:33:06.349Z
There's a thread here about why he's talking bollocks.
There's also this. He basically works for Saudi / UAE oil firms.
EUROWEEKLYNEWS.COM I was talking to a colleague earlier, and i mentioned how weird it is that we live in a society where we believe it's our right to purchase our own motor vehicle...cars can be absolute peanuts to buy, yet the prices of houses are astronomically high in comparison...
pretty much anyone could build a house from scratch, i mean it might be a leaky shed but it could be considered a house, cars are hugely complex short lived devices, why are they so much more affordable? Surely there is something wrong with the financial model of society to make this feasible.
I'm a firm believer that everything we buy to a degree, is not priced correctly, because we demand and expect it.
I say Tax stuff properly, fuel, so the biggest users pay the more duty.. Meat, also a contributor, shouldn't be as cheap as it is, the farmer should do better from the sales and in turn provide better animal conditions... If you want the biggest polluting goods then it should be reflected in the cost, however, that increase in money should be used to reduce the pollutants
No direct relation to Tony Blair's article mind
For me, net zero tends to mean doing some exercise and then eating cake.
Seriously though (actually that was serious 😢), of course net zero is doomed. People will prioritise money over climate until the world's actually on fire.
He's wrong. Sometimes you just have to do the right thing, whatever anyone else is doing.
THEGUARDIAN.COM
Is Tony still on the payroll of noted net-zero fan Qatar?
His opinions on anything involving his sponsors and mates probably fall into the same bracket as this:
'Don’t disrespect Qatar': Sir Tony Blair says it's time to 'move on' from World Cup protests about LGBTQ+ rights
byu/Audioboxer87 inLabourUK
As for his point that people won't accept significant constraints on their lifestyles, you could have applied that argument to other historical political movements seeking to end injustice. Why should we end slavery/ pay for an NHS or welfare system, bring social reform etc?, it will just make us poorer!
But he completely ignores or deliberately doesn't mention that the reason for this is because people think the burden is unfairly being imposed on working people who are already struggling, while wealthier people can continue with their luxury lifestyles unhindered.
It's because politicians and the like are those wealthier people.
Our politicians are 'career politicians' with absolutely no clue how real life actually is for the vast majority of this country.
They do not care.
It always has been, and always will be, all about personal gain for themselves.
But once again, the public also does not care, there are no mass demonstrations etc. The public simply shrugs their shoulders, grumbles about it a little, and then bends over and takes it.
So it is little wonder that said politicians keep reaming us, because we let them get away with it.
grumble grumble
The whole thing seems like a complete straw man though. Yes people believe that collectively we should be reducing our climate changing emissions. But no people don't believe that taking away our shopping bags, and plastic straws, is a robust and credible way to do so when private jets/ huge new cars/ Tesco packaging around every item of fruit and veg/ drinks delivered only in plastic bottles exist.
This idea that each individual person is somehow responsible for stopping China burning coal/ manufacturers using endless supplies of plastic destined never to be recycled/ the monied elite burning billions of tons of fossil fuels in driving/ flying/ boating/ space trips/ Formula 1 is and always has been a complete crock, useful for large companies and governmnents to pretend that there just isn't the public will to reduce climate change.
Also, of course: "is Tonty Blair behind this?"
The first thing that came to mind when I read that piece, was that "I wonder who is paying him" It is a very narrow view ignoring the potential benefits beyond not getting cooked or flooded by climate change
@dazh I think you're right in thinking that many folk won't make the necessary adjustments while they look around and see that other folks don't care (enough). I'd like to think of myself as easily-persuadable but a couple of recent events have me questioning my own commitment.
- After having given up on flying for many years, I was in France last year and I'm just back from Mallorca. I was feeling particularly guilty about that recent trip until I saw the brand new, city-sized, 3000 passenger cruise liner parked up in Palma - and found out that there's another three being built.
- My near 20 year old gas boiler recently needed replacement and, though I was keen to replace it with a ASHP, I just couldn't afford or justify the cost and hassle of the significant work involved .
I don't know what the answer is, other than just to keep trying to reduce energy requirements as much as I can and try to ignore other folk who are completely ignoring the issue.
I only skim read an article that paraphrased what he said, but my take away was not that he said "net zero is stupid, just use oil" which of course is how some would like to present it. My interpretation was he made some valid points:
- If you want people to accept paying more / restricted choices / suffering they need to be able to see how their loss has some sort of meaningful impact on a global problem.
- If most of the pollution comes from the developing world, you need global solutions which actually help them to clean up whilst developing/growing; carbon credit stuff is not working.
- The emphasis on using less isn't working, and means we are investing less on technological solutions. Those seeking perfect solutions may be hindering the advancement of short / medium term options.
- The "net zero" message seems to undermine investment in climate mitigation infrastructure.
Its possible it is a global capitalist problem, and it is possible that he's a mouthpiece for middle eastern oil money BUT that doesn't necessarily mean his observations are wrong. Trying to change the entire globe's ecconomic model away from capitalist growth or ignoring that wealth in the middle east (and their ability to undermine any initiative you might have) is just pipe dream stuff.
Lol just before these elections LMFAO!
I'd say it's a case of self-interest.
Given the Net-Zero terminology has now gone through the grinder - the phrase is a gift to the right.
If you don't control the narratives - Reform and the Tories will. It's pretty much going the way of Brexit in terms of how the narrative is panning out.
I think Labour as a whole have a massive issue with narratives - mostly because they don't want to get their hands dirty with anything they percieve as problematic with the electorate. May as well roll over then?
We are doing all we can to combat climate change. I don't really think it's rational from a personal perspective as I will probably be dead before a lot of the problems manifest themselves.
We have solar, are vegan, we drive as little as possible , cycle for utility , but I don't know if it makes a difference.
Realistically it's all we can do. Basically I think we are up a creek without a paddle as a species and everybody thinks someone else should he changing first.
I despair!
If we want to solve the climate issue we need a different economic model, and to do that we need to confront those who most benefit from the current model.
The people who benefit most are, basically, everyone in an already 'developed' economy. It's all well and good pointing fingers at billionaires with superyachts, but everyone in the western world lives unsustainably, and recycling pop bottles and plastic bags (which is the extent of most westerners 'environmentalism') is not going to change that
Basically I think we are up a creek without a paddle as a species and everybody thinks someone else should he changing first.
Yup.
useful for large companies and governmnents to pretend that there just isn't the public will to reduce climate change.
What evidence is there that there is a public will? Of course people will say it's important, but as soon as that involves any kind of personal cost (and it does, and the cost is probably significant) then they become much less keen.
I think the view that the levels of altruism exist in the general public that are necessary to make the kind of changes and sacrifices needed is incredibly naive. These are the people who fought over bog-roll at the start of the pandemic...
What evidence is there that there is a public will? Of course people will say it's important, but as soon as that involves any kind of personal cost (and it does, and the cost is probably significant) then they become much less keen.
Show me where me paying more money has measurable impact on climate change please. As in, how many degrees of global warming has it prevented; how many tons of carbon remain unmined as a result of my additional spend. Oh, and if you could show that that's not just a drop lost in the continued increase in coal-fired power generation worldwide, that'd be great.
The appetite is there, but not without clear indication of its actual value.
but everyone in the western world lives unsustainably
This.
Until my recent long haul flights i have lived a low carbon lifestyle and been soundly mocked on here for doing so with almost everyone saying those compromises are too burdensome. But that lifestyle ia still unsustainable.
To prevent gigadeath people in the west would have to make massive lifestyle changes. They wont and politicians say they dont have to. So gigadeath it is.
In 25 years or so large parts of the planet will not be able to sustain humans and people will move north in the millions not the thousands that do now. Billions will die.
.
And Blair is a dick
The Tony Blair institute is allegedly funded by parties, one of which is Saudi Arabia, another is the U.S. State Department, another is U.S. tech company Oracle, that potentially have a vested interest in Net Zero being discredited. See below . . .
What evidence is there that there is a public will? Of course people will say it's important, but as soon as that involves any kind of personal cost (and it does, and the cost is probably significant) then they become much less keen.
The key behind it is political will and being seen to be serious about it. So it's all well and good saying "we're declaring a climate emergency" but then if you just carry on as normal, you weaken that message and imply that it's not important.
Much as the Tories were terrible about any form of environmentalism, Labour aren't much better. Expanding airports, road building, "I'm on the side of drivers"... Labour are just terrified of doing anything other than the easiest route possible.
Much like icebergs weren't very important until there was one punching holes in the Titanic at which point it became very important and also far too late to do anything about it.
His opinions on anything involving his sponsors and mates probably fall into the same bracket as this:
And this?
As for his point that people won't accept significant constraints on their lifestyles, you could have applied that argument to other historical political movements seeking to end injustice.
Yeah if governments followed that rule VAT wouldn't exist. It definitely puts constraints on people's lives and affects their economic situation.
Lol just before these elections LMFAO!
It should give Green candidates a nice boost where their main opposition is Labour
Most of the public say they want stronger climate action. Of course they do, because they think that someone else is causing the problem, when it's actually them and the economy they live in. When the cost and lifestyle changes required of them as individuals of achieving that is pointed out to them, they become less keen.
And for environmental stuff I don't necessarily mean financial cost, it could also be a cost (or what they would view as a cost) in terms of fewer choices, less travel, less meat etc etc... When/if it came down to brass tacks, there would not be the public will
Much like icebergs weren't very important until there was one punching holes in the Titanic at which point it became very important and also far too late to do anything about it.
We're at the point where the band are playing on the deck and the deckchairs are being shuffled...
Of course people will say it's important, but as soon as that involves any kind of personal cost (and it does, and the cost is probably significant) then they become much less keen.
The point is that it should cost the worst offenders. No one is going to accept higher energy bills or more expensive consumer goods while people are flying around the world every day in private jets. Whilst ultimately we need to move to a more sustainable economic model, we need to start with using existing fiscal and monetary tools to incentivise good behaviours and penalise the bad. It really is that simple..
If we want people to drive electric cars, make them cheaper and invest in charging infrastructure so that they're as practical as ICE cars.
If we want people to fly less, tax regular flyers and reward people who don't fly.
If we want people to drive less, make public transport better and cheaper.
If we want people to switch gas boilers for heat pumps, then pay for it.
If we want people to save energy and be more energy independent, pay for insulation and solar panels.
etc...
All this can be done within the existing political/economic framework, but it needs a govt willing to tell the wealthiest that they are going to have to pay more tax to fund all this stuff, and a govt willing to prioritise the lifestyles and incomes of working people over those of the wealthiest. Climate justice will ultimately be delivered via economic justice.
Climate justice will ultimately be delivered via economic justice.
There has never been economic justice, there never will be economic justice within the 'western/developed' model. What's more, even if there was there is a much, much larger economic injustice between the developed and undeveloped world.
It really is that simple..
The thing is, if it was, someone would have done it.
TL:DR - we're screwed, and we we've been screwed from the Renaissance when the science started getting going that kicked off the industrial revolution. The horse has bolted, the cat is out of the bag, pick your own metaphor...
TL:DR - we're screwed, and we we've been screwed from the Renaissance when the science started getting going that kicked off the industrial revolution. The horse has bolted, the cat is out of the bag, pick your own metaphor...
That has been my thinking for the last 20 years or so. It is not going to even be attempted to be fixed until it is far too late and people will be screaming "why was nothing done about this".
I gave up caring about it some time ago.
The thing is, if it was, someone would have done it.
Political will v interests of the status-quo.
Outcomes are too far removed from public purpose in the interests of the wealthy.
Funding is the easy bit.
First part of this journey - remove the Policy cost levy on our bills - that would over-night smack a lot of the Reformers straight in the face. Bills would get cheaper - and that would be the government directly investing in its own stuff. They would no longer be able to blame our bills for paying the mythical 'net-zero' levy that gets banded about. I can't see an inflationary risk either. (Ps Taxes never fund spending - so it's bullshit anyway, but plays to the 'pay-for' crowd.)
Easy win for Labour. But Labour are stupid and believe private money should finanace this. You pay.
Political will that is not based around Neoliberal thinking.
(Imagine how many migrants there are going to be when temps become unsurvivable in really hot places.)
pretty much anyone could build a house from scratch, i mean it might be a leaky shed but it could be considered a house, cars are hugely complex short lived devices, why are they so much more affordable? Surely there is something wrong with the financial model of society to make this feasible.
Its not the house its where the house is - the cost of materials and labour is often a negligible component of the value. If my house burnt to the ground tomorrow it would cost more to rebuild than I could sell it for which suggests its location, even with its lovely see view, short walk to a train station, proximity of motorways etc, actually has a negative value. Weirdly though - an empty plot in the same locale would be worth almost as much as my house costs whole- because someone could build the house they want rather than settle for whats available. So it's actually a complex interplay of where it is, and what kind of house it is relative to the needs of people who want houses. Houses in the area are generally huge maintenance hungry victorian manse like properties or cramped little 1 and 2 bed 50s terraces. What people want locally is something in the middle but instead theres an oversupply of too big and too small houses.
Rightly or wrongly people aren't convinced there is a moral case for them to do anything. When you've got resources being wasted on popstars going into space for a laugh and the top-1% emitting as much as the bottom 66% it's hardly a surprise. Why should I cancel my one hard earned family holiday when rich people are taking private jets to the shops and so on.
I think net zero goals will stumble along for a few years yet but ultimately we'll gradually move towards adaption being the priority. As a species we're pretty good at adaption so I'm quite optimistic that we can avoid most the worst potential effects of climate change. Naturally it would be better if we avoided having to adapt, but I don't think that's realistically going to happen, so adaption it is.
There has never been economic justice
Maybe not, but there have been periods where there was an awful lot more economic justice than there is now. Currently the direction of travel is less (you'd think it couldn't get any worse but it almost certainly can) and we need to reverse that. The more economically secure people are, the more they will accept changes to their lifestyles to achieve net-zero.
Why should I cancel my one hard earned family holiday when rich people are taking private jets to the shops and so on.
Exactly. Guilt-tripping working people about their holidays (and what they eat) has probably been the most damaging and self-defeating aspect of climate change policy and campaigning. I've said it before, but if net-zero is going to be achieved it needs the majority to be on board, and that's not going to happen by telling them they can't go on holiday.
As a species we're pretty good at adaption so I'm quite optimistic that we can avoid most the worst potential effects of climate change.
By adapt I assume you mean 'die'? Humans may be very versatile and creative, but we've never had to adapt on anything like the scale climate change will require. Peacefully relocating billions of people away from coastal cities and lower latitudes in a few decades is simply not going to happen.
Blair is just going into bat for SKS, expect labours already feable enviromental policies to be jetisoned soon.
Is he right though?
Here's the statement on his website, It's worth noting that he's not claiming that climate change isn't real or that tackling it isn't urgent, what is says is that people's belief that a politic solution to it isn't progressing as well as it should or even possible in the near term, and that there isn't a proper supra-national mechanism (As COP clearly isn't working at the pace needed) to make it happen
As a species we're pretty good at adaption so I'm quite optimistic that we can avoid most the worst potential effects of climate change
Yes, we're pretty good at adaptation, although we, as one of the wealthiest economies on the planet, jailed people who were causing mild inconvenience while protesting for improvements to home insulation (as it turned out, in the run-up to one of the biggest energy price crises in recent years)...
The main methods of adaptation globally will be wars, famines and mass migration. Again, as a nation, we don't seem to have grasped that the current highly unpopular trickle of displaced people could become a flood as more regions become uninhabitable or economically unviable. And that the failure of crops in other countries will mean a significantly reduced quality of life for us.
A lot of people still think that the only thing that matters is coping with what happens to our own weather (although we may regret not taking Insulate Britain more seriously if the Atlantic current circulation fails).
Blair might well be right about how things are going, but I don’t agree with him about what should happen next. The priority should be changing where we get our energy from, and that change needs to happen as fast as possible, using technology already fully formed and already deployed. Just do much more of that, and help other countries to so the same. Waiting for carbon capture and AI to make a difference is dangerous… by all means invest in that for edge case problems, but don’t rely on it for main energy production and use. Decarbonise now.
but if net-zero is going to be achieved it needs the majority to be on board, and that's not going to happen by telling them they can't go on holiday.
But what if it does actually mean they can't go on holiday?
He's right that we currently need stable power generation, which fossil fuels suit. Nuclear also fits the bill
Blair has been badly wrong on many things, start from that assumption
Perhaps we should stop banging on about the climate, and start banging on about the price of cornflakes and coffee? Saw this cartoon just now and it's freakily accurate.
Sleeping through alarms. Today’s @theage cartoon
— Matt Golding (@goldingcartoons.bsky.social) 2025-04-30T00:33:54.594Z
By adapt I assume you mean 'die'? Humans may be very versatile and creative, but we've never had to adapt on anything like the scale climate change will require. Peacefully relocating billions of people away from coastal cities and lower latitudes in a few decades is simply not going to happen.
When you Google "how many people will be displaced by climate change", estimates range from a few tens of millions to over a billion, so it's hard to know what to believe with this stuff. I think perhaps nobody really knows.
The head of the IPCC has warned against making catastrophic predictions, and you'd think someone in that job should be a respectable authority on climate change.
I'm inclined to believe that the worst case scenarios reported by the media are often unrealistic. For example they might assume a coastal city at risk from rising sea level will for some reason fail to build any additional sea defences, whereas in reality they obviously will.
I think the number of people displaced will be significant but if it occurs over several decades then it should be manageable, if not cheap.
Why should I cancel my one hard earned family holiday when rich people are taking private jets to the shops and so on.
I'm hoping that's hyperbole but the serious answer is that holidays don't need to be stopped. The expectation of what a holiday entails needs to change. TJ's recent jaunt to Australasia for example would not be morally permissable or one way only! (Transportation that one pays for rather than state funded as in the past).
I think the number of people displaced will be significant but if it occurs over several decades then it should be manageable, if not cheap.
it's billions of people . large parts of the planet will be unable to sustain humans. it's not just coastal cities.
where are you going to put these folk. they are all going to migrate. its not just 3rd world either. large parts of the US and Europe will also be affected
Renewables are going to undercut fossil fuels anyway. We can either get on board with this and accelerate it as much as reasonably possible, or stick our heads in the sand and try to persist with oil for as long as possible.
Not surprising which way the oil companies want to go but I'm disappointed that Blair is happy to shill for them. Wrong side of history on this, as with a few other things...
fiddling around the edges ie electric cars and renewable make an insignificant difference. its using vastly less energy that's needed.
In a new report, the former Labour prime minister says voters "feel they're being asked to make financial sacrifices and changes in lifestyle when they know the impact on global emissions is minimal".
My interpretation was he made some valid points:
- If you want people to accept paying more / restricted choices / suffering they need to be able to see how their loss has some sort of meaningful impact on a global problem.
Agreed, can't see how anyone could say he's wrong about this.
No doubt a minority get a warm feeling about "doing something" (however ineffectual), and thinking they're better than those who don't. Meanwhile those other individuals, businesses, and countries just do whatever they like and also seek to benefit/profit from the situation.
fiddling around the edges ie electric cars and renewable make an insignificant difference. its using vastly less energy that's needed.
Electric cars use vastly less energy than ICE cars.
it's billions of people . large parts of the planet will be unable to sustain humans. it's not just coastal cities.
where are you going to put these folk. they are all going to migrate. its not just 3rd world either. large parts of the US and Europe will also be affected
I'm just going by what I can find by googling it, which brings estimates ranging from a few tens of millions up to 1.2 billion.
Not sure how many places will become genuinely uninhabitable but where that happens, people will need to be relocated. There are already relocation programmes in some parts of the world. They'll need to be ramped up. I can see it being expensive, but not unachievable, and if the alternative is death or severe suffering, people will do what is needed.
I'm hoping that's hyperbole but the serious answer is that holidays don't need to be stopped. The expectation of what a holiday entails needs to change. TJ's recent jaunt to Australasia for example would not be morally permissable or one way only! (Transportation that one pays for rather than state funded as in the past).
