This is quite remarkable :
But Labour insiders warned the damage had already been done, with Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, saying she felt “vindicated” by the comments and Nigel Farage boasting on X that Reform UK was “winning the argument” on net zero.
The humbly named "Tony Blair Institute for Global Change" could have waited until Friday to announce their criticism of a Labour government, instead of doing the day before important local elections and a by-election.
Anyone want to hazard a guess as to why Tony Blair couldn't wait just two days?
People will prioritise money over climate until the world's actually on fire.
At which point they'll scream and shout at the government for not preventing it from happening.
rolicase. where are you going to put those billions of people?
do you really think Europe will accept them?
Anyone want to hazard a guess as to why Tony Blair couldn't wait just two days?
Desperation to be relevant and important "I used to be someone"
People will prioritise money over climate until the world's actually on fire.
And what's totally bonkers about this is money is nothing more than a score keeping system. Assets and liabilities on a government balance sheet - that they control with their central banks. .
We're misrepresenting that for something real and devastating.
It's proves the grasp the right have on narratives - that has been assimilated by much of the centre too.
It's the most insane thing I've ever witnessed.
rolicase. where are you going to put those billions of people?
do you really think Europe will accept them?
it's nor sea level rise it's crop failure. heat. lack of water.
there will be hundreds of millions of folk from Africa attempting to get to Europe.
there will be internal displacement of millions in Europe
It's currently quite difficult to comprehend if/when this will happen, over what time period? to me at least
But i am a firm believer that my kids will experience some sort of Mad Max type event in their lifetime, i'm so convinced about it that if i were contemplating having kids now, i probably wouldn't....
I'm talking climate change, insect depopulation, pandemics. Leading to fights over land and resources and the mass migration of people, over how much time?
Then there are the naysayers who will say the earth goes through cycles like this, well yes, we had the last ice age and the great flood (not sure how reliable that is but many people seem to mention it as being real), a lot of Egypt was green and fertile and wet in the time of the pyramids being constructed... but that's some 3-4000 years ago, I'm convinced I've seen climate change with my own eyes in my lifetime.
ecause 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.
I don't think this the reason. The typical anti-net-zero person that I come across is ill-educated, but that doesn't necessarily make them someone who struggles financially. They've just fallen for the Daily Mail rubbish hook, line, and sinker, along with all the stuff that goes with it. They hate cyclists and believe that asylum seekers are being housed in 5-star Mayfair hotels. Climate denial is just one of their many beliefs. For climate denier, see Brexiteer. They all share the same brain cell.
If you rent or are on a low income then making your home net-zero compliant is not your problem. And to be clear - it's net zero, not zero zero. You can still burn things, you just have to offset it. So flights to Benidorm will continue.
Flaperon - Mr Blair would like you to read his whole report! He starts off by pointing out that the conversation is too emotionally charged and anyone who questions the strategy of achieving net zero is commonly called a climate change denier, and insulted as you have just proven to be true.
genuine climate change deniers are only marginally above flat earthers in my book (and probably most of both are trolls who enjoy the argument more than the belief). However it’s possible to accept man made climate change is real but not agree on how to tackle it.
For example, greenwashing your home to make it “net zero compliant” (if anyone even agrees what that means) is a futile effort if you live somewhere that is going to be flooded from climate change, or where water supplies become cut off in the summer of it’s impossible to insure against damage from wild fires.
we all agree there is a problem, we all agree the problem is serious we “globally” have been attempting a strategy to deal with that and struggling to make progress. It seems entirely sensible that someone with no direct political/electoral risk, who has a grasp on global affairs should stand up and say “time to think again”. The report seems to identify genuine challenges with the net zero dream which I’ve heard mentioned before but perhaps not so well articulated. I think
he’s not suggesting that people should not insulate their homes, fit solar, drive EVs etc - he’s pointing out that this is like trying to reduce water waste by fixing a dripping tap whilst your kids have spend the day in the garden running through the sprinkler to keep cool.
could have waited until Friday to announce their criticism of a Labour government,
The institute aren't criticising the Labour Govt, that's just a headline in a newspaper. Again; the report says the evidence shows that while more and more folks are aware of climate change and what it means, and want change, Govts are doing less and less, (and points to the various reasons why they aren't) and says the public's belief in policies like 'net zero' capability to actually achieve anything constructive is declining. you might try reading it, rather than relying on media hyperbole?
It seems entirely sensible that someone with no direct political/electoral risk, who has a grasp on global affairs should stand up and say “time to think again”.
Eh? Are you seriously unaware of Tony Blair's well publicised links with governments of petroleum exporting countries and his other links with the industry?
Patrick Galey, the head of fossil fuel investigations at the nongovernmental organisation Global Witness, said: “Blair’s well-documented links to petrostates and oil and gas companies ought to alone be enough to disqualify this man as an independent and reliable arbiter of what’s possible or commonsense in the energy transition.”
The institute aren't criticising the Labour Govt, that's just a headline in a newspaper.
That's not apparently how Labour MPs are seeing it, nor Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage who are milking it for all it's worth.
How daft is Tony Blair not to realise that the "headlines", as you see it, the day before very important elections for Labour were likely to greatly benefit the Tories, Reform UK, and the Greens?
Is he really so stupid that he couldn't figure out that it would be best to wait a couple of days? Is he new to politics and all this "headline" malarkey? I don't think so.
His sponsors are likely to be very pleased though.
Renewables seems to make sense even beyond the climate change argument to me. We have greater energy independence and if you put solar & battery in to your own house you can be much more self sufficient too, and it's cheaper. Not everyone can do that but in reduces the load for other people too.
Last time I looked into theres no viable way of removing carbon form the atmosphere on anything like the scale needed.
and anyone who questions the strategy of achieving net zero is commonly called a climate change denier
They arent though. This is the common tactic of taking a statement about a subset and claiming its about the entire set.
I mean I suspect Blair and those paying him arent climate change deniers but just dont want to be inconvenienced by any mitigation factors and are comfortable their cash will ensure they dont pay the price. I see his institute is going for the classic "carbon capture" aka a nice fake market which doesnt help much but does funnel cash to the right people.
We know, for example, that the large oil companies (similar to the tobacco companies) were forecasting the risks many years back but provided counter funding since that suited their interests.
Aside from anything else reducing our dependence on fossil fuels has a clear strategic importance for the UK.
But i am a firm believer that my kids will experience some sort of Mad Max type event in their lifetime, i'm so convinced about it that if i were contemplating having kids now, i probably wouldn't....
Yup. I've probably got about 30-40 years left and I reckon, cynically and probably selfishly, that that will be about the right to check out, as by then things will really be starting to hit the fan. I do wonder about, and indeed in some ways pity, the generations growing up behind me.
Eh? Are you seriously unaware of Tony Blair's well publicised links with governments of petroleum exporting countries and his other links with the industry?
I don’t think that necessarily makes him wrong. Of course I’m not saying he’s right either - but I think it’s really dangerous to dismiss views that challenge the status quo when it’s quite clear the status quo is not achieving what it wants.
They arent though. This is the common tactic of taking a statement about a subset and claiming its about the entire set.
My comments was clearly directed at flaperon who had just made this statement, “The typical anti-net-zero person that I come across is ill-educated, but that doesn't necessarily make them someone who struggles financially. They've just fallen for the Daily Mail rubbish hook, line, and sinker, along with all the stuff that goes with it. They hate cyclists and believe that asylum seekers are being housed in 5-star Mayfair hotels. Climate denial is just one of their many beliefs. For climate denier, see Brexiteer. They all share the same brain cell.”
which I think showed Blair’s point quite nicely: challenge net zero you must be stupid and you must be a climate denier.
He's wrong, probably because he can't, like most people , appreciate a long time span. If you had to get there next year it's expensive, say 30 or 50 years, then not so much (think back 50 years .... computers, mobile phones, etc etc ). He's also, like the UK looking at from the point of view of an old country with old, insitu infrastructure in place.
If you look at the longer term I expect renewables to be a lot cheaper as the OPEX from making leccy from HC's is high, and doesn't get lower with time. That's what every oil industry economist has ever told me, but you do have an infrastructure hurdle to get over
The institute aren't criticising the Labour Govt, that's just a headline in a newspaper.
That's not apparently how Labour MPs are seeing it, nor Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage who are milking it for all it's worth.
How daft is Tony Blair not to realise that the "headlines", as you see it, the day before very important elections for Labour were likely to greatly benefit the Tories, Reform UK, and the Greens?
Is he really so stupid that he couldn't figure out that it would be best to wait a couple of days? Is he new to politics and all this "headline" malarkey? I don't think so.
His sponsors are likely to be very pleased though.
you think people change who they vote for on Thursday as their local councillor based on an ex-PMs statement on Tuesday about climate policy?
The TBI is not some Labour party working party who owe the party some special hierarchical subservience because its founder used to be the Labour leader. They will have timed their announcement for when they expected it to get maximum attention.
Kemi and Nigel should probably be careful what they wish for - a strong showing at the local elections might not give them the boost they expect at the next GE - there’s nothing more disappointing than voting for the change candidate and getting more of the same. Local government actually has so little political decision making that change is unlikely to be noticed by many.
The Green Party should be studying Blair’s “manifesto” carefully. It’s unlikely that they agree with everything in there, but at least some of what he says should resonate.
it's nor sea level rise it's crop failure. heat. lack of water.
there will be hundreds of millions of folk from Africa attempting to get to Europe.
there will be internal displacement of millions in Europe
That was just one example of what's happening in one part of the world.
If you're interested in Africa specifically check out the Africa Climate Mobility Initiative, particularly the "African Shifts Report", linked below, which gives some great expert insight into what's expected over the coming decades.
Quoting from the report, "by 2050, up to 5 percent of Africa’s population of some 2 billion people could be on the move due to climate impacts, up from 1.5 percent today. The overwhelming majority of this movement will happen within countries rather than across borders." No mention of any need for people to become refugees.
https://africa.climatemobility.org/about
But what if it does actually mean they can't go on holiday?
If that's the case then we need to stop rich people going on holiday first. My point isn't about what is or isn't required, it's that if working people are going to accept and support whatever it is (ie not flying), then they're not going to do that if they think richer people are being given an exception. Start at the top and work downwards, only then will there be a chance of the majority of the population accepting whatever changes are required to their lifestyles.
His sponsors are likely to be very pleased though.
I doubt it, the actual report is pretty scathing. It reports how interested bodies- like oil companies are also responsible for a lack of responsiveness in dealing with climate change.
The report really isn't massively controversial, it doesn't say anything that climate campaigners (and TBF most govts) haven't been saying for some time now: We need to do more, more quickly in a more joined up way by both industrialised and developing countries, the only additional thing it says is that evidence shows the public are increasingly sceptical of policies like "net zero" , because they're (the public) very well informed and don't believe that these sorts of single policies make a huge difference to what needs to be a fundamental shift in how we (as an entirety) tackle climate change.
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
I don't think so. Renewable are cheap and abundant, that's the only reason we've seen so much development. If it cost more than fossil fuels the whole concept would barely have got off the ground, where it was for 20/30 years after being mooted.
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?
Because houses are built by hand, cars are almost entirely automated.
Our politicians are 'career politicians' with absolutely no clue how real life actually is for the vast majority of this country.
Some are, some aren't. This is a lazy argument.
Most of the publicsaythey 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
Yes, but it's impossible to get many people to make changes on their own. I really want to see action on climate change, and yet I am going to drive to North Wales at the weekend in a diesel car. TJ is a very outspoken eco warrior but he's currently driving across Australia in a Ute. This isn't blame, by the way, it's an illustration of how people are. We either need to be forced not to drive to North Wales or fly to Australia, or we need sustainable alternatives.
If we couldn't travel or have these kind of experiences, our lives would be poorer (as many people's lives are) so the most humane and possibly the only democratically acceptable way could be to go all-in on technological solutions. How about we sail to Australia and drive in a solar powered Ute?
I don't think so. Renewable are cheap and abundant
And yet fossil fuel use is still increasing. Future energy demand is still out-pacing renewables supply so Blair is right that fossil fuels are going nowhere. Probably the only way to reduce or hopefully eliminate fossil fuel use is to change the global economic model to something that has 0 or even negative growth. I think we all know the likelihood of that happening in a managed and peaceful fashion.
fiddling around the edges ie electric cars and renewable make an insignificant difference.
I don't think so. An 80% drop since 2012 is not insignificant, nor is it fiddling around.
A 25% drop in overall consumption too is not insignificant.
Car transport emissions have dropped 25% since 1990 despite miles driven having gone up a bit
It's not enough, but it isn't insignificant.
Probably the only way to reduce or hopefully eliminate fossil fuel use
Is to vastly and quickly scale up renewables.... which requires going against the propaganda the oil'n'gas industry is spending so much money on to try and get us to drill baby drill.
Is to vastly and quickly scale up renewables....
I don't disagree, but left to the market this won't happen. Currently the cost of this transition is being borne by bill-payers, and working people are taking the hit as a percentage of their incomes. You can see why they don't want to pay for it when fossil fuels offer a cheap alternative. As with many other things like electric car takeup and switching gas boilers to heat pumps, the govt needs to fund the transition, and that will require greater taxes on the wealthy (lets put aside the MMT argument for now).
Point missed molgrips. Its insignificant to the scale of the problem
lets put aside the MMT argument for now)
Whoah there, Daz avoiding an argument? I think the current mini-heatwave must be making him dizzy, there's an effect of climate change right there 🙂
Don't forget the ignorance (deliberate or not) in the media. The Times today reports that adding solar to new-build homes will increase the cost by £3,000 or more. It won't - integrated solar panels are half the price of roofing tiles and the labour cost to install them is the same, both requiring skilled workers. About the only additional cost is a solar inverter, but the £500 ex VAT here is saved from the tiles.
Whoah there, Daz avoiding an argument?
The MMT angle on net-zero is not where the money is coming from, but how we redeploy resources from other areas of the economy to the net-zero transition. At the moment the plan seems mostly to be 'leave it to the market'. That's obviously not going to work so the govt needs to be much more interventionist, and also much stronger in opposing the fossil fuel and anti-net zero lobbies. Given Starmer is currently sucking up to the worlds biggest climate vandal that doesn't look likely.
There are plenty of people who can afford to make changes, they just can’t be bothered. Or, they’re too busy, or they’re leading a “look at me” lifestyle.
Until it’s ‘cool, fashionable and the ultimate in must haves’ then items such as solar panels, heat source pumps, e cars, or cycling everywhere, not shopping in places with designer labels etc we’re stuck.
Most people don’t care about anything but their own lives and some people are unaware of what’s going on in this planet.
Since the news nowadays is so desperately dreadful, many don’t listen and have switched off.
I hope TB is wrong, but it’s not looking that way. Oh and as for all politicians being wealthy and living the high life- ours certainly does not.
If that's the case then we need to stop rich people going on holiday first. My point isn't about what is or isn't required, it's that if working people are going to accept and support whatever it is (ie not flying), then they're not going to do that if they think richer people are being given an exception. Start at the top and work downwards, only then will there be a chance of the majority of the population accepting whatever changes are required to their lifestyles.
your describing it from a very western standpoint. You can do whatever you want here and make the UK net zero, but Americans will not stop flying, the up and coming nations will not be persuaded that their citizens should not be mobile etc. So it needs solutions that don't simply say "stop".
Probably the only way to reduce or hopefully eliminate fossil fuel use is to change the global economic model to something that has 0 or even negative growth. I think we all know the likelihood of that happening in a managed and peaceful fashion.
I have wondered if this is actually something where tariffs COULD have a role to play. If every country had a "rating" based on its emissions, and each tariff code had a rating based on its contribution to pollution you could multiply those two together to get a tariff that penalises imports from the most polluting nations and incentivises cleaning up processes in the developing world, or switching to different tariff code products which are "cleaner". Obviously needs international cooperation to be really effective, but any large market could start the ball rolling.
I had a look at Graphs like the ones Molgrips has posted for France and Spain earlier. Pretty much no fossil fuels in the mix. Progress is being made and will continue to be made if the objectives are maintained. Unfortunately the climate sceptic and oil lobby propaganda is doing rather well. France used to have free registration on leccy cars, that went today. The Germans have dropped subsidies. Main stream politicians are generally well educated, they understand the issues, they want to do the right thing, but know that doing th eright thing will see them out of office as the populist lies opposition have manifestos that appeal to the hard of thinking, racist, selfish, greedy, uncaring, vindictive majority of voters.
I'm a geologist, I know where we are headed and it isn't good, it's just of question of whether we'll make life really unpleasant for humans or wipe ourselves out completely in a cretaceous anoxic type event. CO2 is already up by 50% if you're wondering why your garden is looking especially lush this year. We have the potential to burn enough fossil fuels to get to levels that would turn the CO2 monitor orange in a school class room and have the kids feeling drowsy.
Three more Pyrenean ski resorts have closed for good this year including Hautacam which might mean something to the TdF fans on here. Ski instructor junior is now working in the less affected high Alps, where most of his colleagues drive gas guzzling ICEs, live in thermal sieves, and vote populist - if they aren't can't see the problem and do something about it who will ?
It’s not and never will be high on most people’s agenda. The majority of the worlds population are just trying to get through tomorrow, not 2050.
His sponsors are likely to be very pleased though.
I doubt it, the actual report is pretty scathing. It reports how interested bodies- like oil companies are also responsible for a lack of responsiveness in dealing with climate change.
I wasn't talking about the report! I was talking about the timing of Tony Blair sticking his oar in......one day before an important election and how it is likely to help climate change sceptical parties such as Reform and the Tories under an extreme right-wing leadership.
You mentioned the effect of "headlines", Tony Blair fully understands the effect of headlines, as do apparently many Labour MPs who have criticised Tony Blair's intervention one day before an important election.
Remember this is a man who is paid vast amounts of money by governments, and despots, to advise them on political tactics and public relations exercises.
He knows exactly what he is doing. So the question remains, why could he not wait two days to release his report to minimise the damage to the party which he is apparently a member of?
He has clearly helped the climate change deniers like Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage.
I still believe its just to get the headlines to appear relevant still. Pleasing his paymasters is a useful side effect
I’m perfectly happy with all the alternative energy sources that are being built, and I’m also quite happy to have new nuclear power stations being built - they are a stable and consistent source of energy to back up the solar, wind and possible tidal energy supplies.
However, at the same time vast new render farms are being built to generate the new super whizzy AI and Bitcoins that people tell us are the future for computing and international financial services. The energy required is vast, and these places generate enormous quantities of heat, and require enormous amounts of energy to cool.
How, I ask myself, are we going to square that particulary vicious circle… 🧐
But what if it does actually mean they can't go on holiday?
then people will vote for someone who tells them they don't need to and can just carry on as normal.
There are two big problems here to my mind
1) pursing emission reduction and decarbonisation is "anti-capitalist" because we need societal change which involves moving aways from a constant growth and consumption model.
2) several key billionaires have already bought into the "mad max" apolalypse scenario, so their actions seem to be focused on get as much money as possible and build a bunker / spaceship / <insert science fiction wet dream here> to ride it out while the world burns
One of the weirdest things about all this is that the Government is polling relatively well on Net zero and more widely the public is accepting that climate change is man made and needs to be addressed.
Essentially anti climate change/ net zero activism by the right wing papers and parties has bled into the mainstream narrative because conflict makes good news
This is how Brexit crept up the political agenda over years. Climate change denial is being rehabilitated back into mainstream discourse.
Climate change denial is very much not what the Blair report says, but is foreword does not properly reflect the contents. The reporting of Blair's foreword then gets pushed further by the telegraph etc and then lands with Blair believes Labours policies on climate change from Reform and Tories
It will be a disaster all ways up if Labour back down on Net zero policies on the back of this
I imagine that most of the outrage is coming from people who are taking bits deliberately out of context. Or who haven't read the report.
But in any case it proves the adage that it's always better to say the wrong thing at the right time than say the right thing at the wrong time.
he runs an “institute” with hundreds of staff to generate these sort of thought pieces. I’m quite sure if he just wanted to be in headlines he could be without all that hassle and cost. Indeed he could have fired off a press release or opinion piece on net zero without any substance behind it and it would have got similar attention because it seems most people debating it here haven’t actually read what they wrote! I had some brief interaction with his institute on totally different topics - they were trying to tackle a problem that we describe as “trying to boil an ocean” (a metaphor not a climate change reference). It was quite nice to talk to people who actually weren’t focussed (as far as I could see) on what’s in it for me, how will the politics look, and 5 yr parliamentary cycles. I didn’t deal with Tony himself, his purpose appeared to be to unlock conversations with people who wouldn’t answer the door to ordinary folk.I still believe its just to get the headlines to appear relevant still. Pleasing his paymasters is a useful side effect
it seems most people debating it here haven’t actually read what they wrote!
You misunderstand what people are debating poly. The issue being discussed here, and apparently in Downing Street, are the headlines which Tony Blair generated, not the contents of the report.
Headlines which could very easily have been put on hold for a mere 48 hours, if Blair had so wished.
Headlines that gave Nigel Farage the opportunity to announce "we are winning the net zero argument" hours before polling stations opened.
Whether that is true or not is irrelevant, going by the headlines it certainly sounded as he might be so it is reasonably to assume that at least a few people might have been convinced.
Last night Nigel Farage won a safe Labour seat by just 6 votes.
Please don't tell me that Tony Blair, handsomely paid advisor to governments and heads of state across the world, hadn't considered the possible negative effect of generating headlines which would appear to be critical of a Labour government hours just before an important election.
So what is he up to?
So what is he up to?
That is some conspiratorial thinking, right there. You've decided (with apparently no need of any evidence) that there's a plot lead by Blair for some nefarious purpose that disrupts his own former party's chances of success at a local election.
Seems reasonable...
You've got to admit the timing is a little suspect.
