Essay by Eric Worrall
h/t strativarius – Hangon, didn’t Blair help make Net Zero happen?
No 10 defends net-zero policies after Tony Blair brands them ‘irrational’
The Labour former prime minister suggested voters being asked to ‘make financial sacrifices’ are turning away from climate policies.
No 10 has defended the Government’s net-zero policies after Sir Tony Blair attacked any strategy that limits fossil fuels in the short term as “doomed to fail”.
The Labour former prime minister argued that the current climate approach “isn’t working”, with the debate having “become irrational” and people “turning away from the politics of the issue because they believe the proposed solutions are not founded on good policy”.
“In developed countries, voters feel they’re being asked to make financial sacrifices and changes in lifestyle when they know that their impact on global emissions is minimal,” Sir Tony wrote in the foreword for a report from the Tony Blair Institute (TBI).
But Downing Street insisted that Sir Keir Starmer’s Government’s approach has a minimal impact on people’s lives.
…
Read more: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair-government-ed-miliband-dna-downing-street-b1225009.html
Other mainstream media outlets take an even harder line on Blair’s Net Zero criticism;
Tony Blair has exposed an inconvenient truth about net zero
Most politicians will not dare say that the net zero emperor is naked – so the former prime minister is brave to admit there is a ‘credibility gap’ at the heart of it, says John Rentoul
Tuesday 29 April 2025 12:31 BST
never thought of Tony Blair as playing the part of the young boy in the story of the emperor’s new clothes – but that is the role he has adopted in the debate about climate change.
He has cut through the assumptions that have built up over the decades – assumptions that everyone knew were not quite right, but which it had become dangerous to question.
“Political leaders by and large know that the debate has become irrational,” Blair writes, but are “terrified of saying so, for fear of being accused of being ‘climate deniers’.”
…
Read more: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/tony-blair-climate-change-net-zero-b2741287.html
The original piece by Tony Blair;
The Climate Paradox: Why We Need to Reset Action on Climate Change
PAPER 29TH APRIL 2025
LINDY FURSMANForeword [By Tony Blair]
People know that the current state of debate over climate change is riven with irrationality. As a result, though most people will accept that climate change is a reality caused by human activity, they’re turning away from the politics of the issue because they believe the proposed solutions are not founded on good policy.
So, in developed countries, voters feel they’re being asked to make financial sacrifices and changes in lifestyle when they know that their impact on global emissions is minimal. Whatever the historical responsibility of the developed world for climate change, those with even a cursory knowledge of the facts understand that in the future the major sources of pollution will come principally from the developing world.
But for that developing world, there is an equal resentment when they’re told the investment is not available for the energy necessary for their development because it is not “green”. They believe, correctly, that they have a right to develop and that those who have already developed using fossil fuels do not have the right to inhibit them from whatever is the most effective way of developing.
Therefore, there has been a period where climate-change action and global agreements, notably the Paris Agreement in 2015, seemed to herald a new era; but that momentum has been followed – exacerbated by external shocks like Covid and the Ukraine war – by a backlash against such action, which threatens to derail the whole agenda.
…
Tony Blair
…
Read more: https://institute.global/insights/climate-and-energy/the-climate-paradox-why-we-need-to-reset-action-on-climate-change
What can I say? I guess Britain’s economic problems aren’t Trump’s fault after all.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It is a pity that Australian politicians are so dumbassed as to not recognise this as well.
Yep Dutton and Co have squibbed the real issue and are looking like history as the election has turned into an auction of red ink handouts for the younguns to contemplate in future.
Blair was always a centrist who was not big on either left wing or right wing politics and propaganda. He was probably the most effective British PM since Thatcher, even if his politics were more centrist than hers. The Brits could certainly use him now. He is far more likely to be elected, if he were active in parliamentary politics, than anyone else today, including Nigel Farage.
He is not discarding climate change as an issue – he is saying if you’re going to deal with this, do it rationally and intelligently, which he says has not been the case so far. He’s learned something from the last decade, and admits so.
Blair is a man of all seasons
He holds up a wet finger to see from where the wind is blowing.
He is for something, until he is against it.
.
But he is right about super-expensive Net-Zero by 2050 to reduce CO2
Only the most-idiotic morons could be for it.
.
We should ignore the unscientific prattle of the IPCC
.
We should be talking about CO2 being a wonder gas, an absolutely essential ingredient for growing abundant flora, that supports abundant fauna, and increases crop yields to feed 8 billion people.
WE NEED MORE CO2 ppm in the atmosphere!!!
Drill, baby drill for more oil, coal and gas
Crafty politicians — and most of ’em have to be crafty to succeed — figure out which way the parade is headed, then jump out in front of it, waving their batons as if the parade were their idea. Only a few actually lead. That would require recognizing needs, considering action, anticipating the consequences of a policy, taking initiative, then urging the public to see the good in the policy despite early fear and resistance. Leaders often get ignored or passed over if they don’t have charm, or perfect timing, or luck.
It’s not easy to lead. That’s why real leaders are few, and why so much of politics seems like the blind leading the blind, all the while getting bogged down in infighting fed by vicious prejudices.
“… recognizing needs, considering action, anticipating the consequences of a policy, taking initiative, then urging the public to see the good in the policy despite early fear and resistance.”
Well stated.
Such politicians these days are “populists” and acthreqtvtondr’ocrzcy, so are banned or gaoled (see Germany and France and almost the US) if too many of the people decide to follow their leadership.
The very thought that you’re going to “deal with climate change” *is irrational in and of itself.
Human beings are not in control of the climate, make no measurable “contribution” to climate on a global scale, and cannot “DO” anything about it aside from adapting to any *actual* changes.
I’m wondering if “easily elected” isn’t part of the problem. We elect non-leaders who stand for nothing until it seems to be a lock for the majority. They don’t know enough about anything but politics, and will respond favorably to financial influence.
Universal suffrage + unlimited tax raising/borrowing powers + fiat currency + redistribution of money via the tax system = inevitable bribery and corruption = election of whoever promises enough of the Great Unwashed enough candy take from others.
Blair is why we have 10 million too many people – imports – welfare dependent, and hundreds of thousands of illegals flowing across the Channel, who invented “hate crime legislation” and made causing offence – but only for a favoured few – a crime, who sold us down the river to the EU, who took us into two unnecessary wars with an ill-equipped military far too many of whom were killed or brutally maimed, and who incidentally signed up to the EU plan to “decarbonise” our energy supply which, according to him, he thought just meant electricity generation not all fossil fuel energy.
Brits could certainly use him now? Like a hole in the head.
It’s a pity that so few people study the hard sciences of physics, chemistry, and biology. And then watch talking heads on TV bleat, “Follow the science,” even though they’ve never studied science either, and don’t know what they’re saying. The dumbass lead the dumbass into a moral panic. Then what?
I can’t claim originality for this which sums it up nicely I think: “I followed the science and found nothing. I followed the money and found the science.”
Hang on, Blair isn’t saying that climate change is not human induced via CO2 emissions but rather that the policy settings in the developed world are wrong.
So in fact he still believes in human induced climate change but rather now being caused by the developing world’s energy investments creating higher CO2 emissions.
So what is all the fuss? He hasn’t changed any thought process other than saying the developed world won’t/don’t accept the price to pay in reduction to the cost of living to ‘combat’ climate change.
This is more of a realization than anything else. Ho hum back to sleep.
Well, you can cheerlead what he’s still wrong about, but some prefer to see the bit he’s getting right.
The Lomborg position is a step in the right direction.
Whether CO2 or not, the impact on all of us are the policy settings.
It’s alarmism to control the deplorables, not science.
It’s the sun, not CO2.
It’s H2O, not CO2.
That’s the short list.
I will save the 16 horsemen (aka tipping points) of the climate apocalypse for another time.
Wrong policy. So instead new policy devised, introduced, administered by Tony Blair Enterprises… send money.
Kimda from from Saulus to Paulus (the one that surrendered in )WW2.
Blair’s concern might just be the risk of a blackout, have in mind that without electricty there is no broadcast and so no brainwash.
Ah, monday was beautiful in Spain, for once the effing TVs and radios were dead until the morning
I wonder if the blackouts in Spain and Portugal spurred Blair to write his editorial?
When the UK has a blackout, Blair can say, “I told you so!”.
Quote from the article:-
“But Downing Street insisted that Sir Keir Starmer’s Government’s approach has a minimal impact on people’s lives.”
Another good example of politicians saying one thing but their actions being the complete opposite.
In two decades the U.K.’s industrial strength has all but disappeared as energy costs rose and policy forces electric vehicles and heat pumps.
If that is ‘minimal impact, I’d hate to see a major one.
Yeah saying that their climate policies have “minimal impact on people’s lives” is like saying Little Boy had “minimal impact” on Hiroshima.
I would have thought that stopping climate change would have a great big impact on people’s lives. And a beneficial one, if any if the CAGW / CCC rubbish was correct.
But it isn’t correct and their pointless efforts to do the impossible (i.e., control the climate) are doing nothing more than impoverish everyone but the wealthy and politically connected who can profiteer on the grift.
[Blair:] “So, in developed countries, voters feel they’re being asked to make financial sacrifices and changes in lifestyle when they know that their impact on global emissions is minimal.”
Blair’s point is that the imposed changes in lifestyle (energy costs, restrictions on travel, etc.) are not justified by the “minimal” effect on global CO2 emissions and an even smaller effect on climate.
Blair may not have given up on the idea of global warming, but has concluded that the cost / benefit ratio of Net Zero is astronomical and unaffordable.
Ironically, one of the major proponents of global-warming theory in the UK was the otherwise great Margaret Thatcher, who thought that limiting CO2 emissions would help her against the coal miners’ union in elections. She had no idea at the time (1980’s) that this would end up destroying the UK’s industrial base.
Therefore, there has been a period where climate-change action and global agreements, notably the Paris Agreement in 2015, seemed to herald a new era; but that momentum has been followed – exacerbated by external shocks like Covid and the Ukraine war – by a backlash against such action, which threatens to derail the whole agenda.
He is still committed to the net zero agenda which means he has learned nothing and he is still an implaccable opponent of rational climate and energy policies.
A very dangerous man.
And will nuclear power advocates please calling it clean which supports the foundational lie about CO2 aka plant food, that supports all the climate and energy lunacy.
They are dangerous as well because they stall the discussion that we need to have to get more coal and gas in the system.
Schernikau and Smith explain that wind and solar power are a net drain on the energy systems of the world and they have to be propped up by more efficient conventional energy.
https://rafechampion.substack.com/p/wind-and-solar-the-energy-thieves
My thoughts on this. We are never going to see a progressive politician say in public “you know, this whole global warming thing? I reckon we got that wrong – so sorry about that”
no – what we will see is arm waving about “timelines”, “consensus”, “negative impacts” and other things…..As with relaxation on ICE quotas, boiler levies, Hydrogen injection into the gas mains etc….Blair’s comments are along the same lines. Welcome none the less.
you watch what policy makers say after the next major grid outage. (And there will be one)!
Chevy Chase and Jane Curtin: “Never mind!”
I believe you mean Dan Ackroyd and Gilda Radner (aka Emily Latella)
I believe you are correct.
False alarm
Tony Blair forced to U-turn on net zero fury by Downing Streethttps://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/tony-blair-forced-to-u-turn-on-net-zero-fury-by-downing-street/ar-AA1DWIjr
What a mess. Meanwhile
Don’t give up on oil, Norway warns BritainNet zero will leave UK dependent on imports for decades, says Oslo’s energy minister
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/04/30/dont-give-up-on-oil-norway-warns-britain/
The inconvenient truth about the Blair comment is it demonstrates it takes Left wing politicians roughly twenty years to recognise reality.
A more crazy story came out yesterday in the Daily Telegraph suggesting Ed Miliband could be the next PM!!?
You would wonder how such a thing could happen until the writer an ex Labour MP and cabinet member makes the point if Starmer resigns or has to leave there is no one else in the Labour cabinet who commands as much support as Miliband among the Labour members who would have the final say on the next leader. Tom Harris may be onto something or maybe just on something who knows.
Can you imagine what the markets would do if Mad Ed was given the keys of the treasury?
There’s always a back story where Blair is concerned.
Well worth the watching that Blair.
““The current approach isn’t working… These are the inconvenient facts, which mean that any strategy based on either ‘phasing out’ fossil fuels in the short term or limiting consumption is a strategy doomed to fail… The disdain for technology in favour of the purist solution of stopping fossil-fuel production is totally misguided… The COP process will not deliver change at the speed required… Political leaders by and large know that the debate has become irrational. But they’re terrified of saying so for fear of being accused of being ‘climate deniers’.” – Tony Blair
Which bit isn’t true?
It obviously escapes you that your argument is non sequitur
So he is arguing not to phase out fossil fuel generation but your problem with him is he is pushing nuclear power 😉
You do get that if his bias was nuclear he would be pushing to phase out fossil fuels 🙂
You have to understand Tone is retired from politics now-
‘Chaos’: People are ‘waking up’ to the negative impact of renewables
This is probably how the mania dies. The fundamental problem with the climate movement never was the science of climate. It never was whether the world faces a climate crisis caused by emissions.
It always was that the policies and technologies they proposed and got implemented would not work, and that the closer they got to net zero the more obvious this would become.
We have no idea what Blair really thinks about global warming, But he’s one of the smartest politicians Britain has ever produced, and he’s put his finger on the real problem, the power generation net zero plans, and with his usual acute sense of the political moment, he has called it just right.
They are not working, and they are pointless because even if they did work they would have no effect on the supposed problem.
The problem for the climate movement is that you can get away with advocating a mistaken theory about the supposed climate crisis as long as it has some public plausibility. Arguments willl go on and on, and you can argue that its wrong to take huge risks with such a contentious matter.
That’s fine. But trying to run the country on electricity, wind and solar is a different matter. The costs and the technical difficulties become undeniable. After all, if everyone is sitting around in the dark one calm winter evening because of your energy policies, all your other arguments go out the window.
That’s where we are now. The vision of the electric society powered by wind and solar is steadily being discredited. Blair’s recognition of that is a significant indicator. As it is discredited, it will take out of the window with it all the climate hysteria.
The activists should have learned from Alinsky. Rule one is never propose solutions. Rule two is, never allow yourself to be placed in charge of implementing them. Ed is probably waking up to this now. But its too late for him, and may be too late for Labour who are confronted with a choice between energy disaster and painful U-turn. Either one will be an electoral disaster. Its a bit easier for the Conservatives, they at least are not in charge, so their U-turn is a lot less painful and expensive.
Yep I always said their looney prescriptions would bring them undone and in that respect Trump is ahead of the curve.
Re “This is probably how the mania dies … After all, if everyone is sitting around in the dark one calm winter evening [ or even after a too-bright Spring day in Iberia ] because of your energy policies, all your other arguments go out the window. That’s where we are now. The vision … is steadily being discredited.”
Yes. Steadily, gradually … and then finally, suddenly (bankrupted).
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/how-the-lights-went-out-in-spain-solar-power-electric-grid-0096bbc7
Excerpt: “A modern society can’t function without an electricity grid. By continuously reducing inertia, Spain’s policymakers engineered a vulnerability. The grid collapse was the result of a series of brazen missteps by lawmakers. They disregarded warnings grounded in laws of physics. One could say that Spain flew too close to the sun, leaving its electrical grid exposed to imbalances that became impossible to stabilize. … Spain’s system was engineered politically, not rationally. It’s the latest lesson in how not to make energy policy. Will anyone learn from it?”
Authors: Messrs. Calzada and Fernández Ordóñez are senior fellows at the University of the Hesperides’ Peter Huber Center
P.S. Happy Holiday (May Day) to all from the U.S.-of-A. (Arizona)!
“Yes. Steadily, gradually … and then finally, suddenly (bankrupted).”
Did you just define a very real tipping point?
Thanks. Now you’ve forced me to source properly that modern proverb, else plagiarism:
———
But you are correct, says AI Overview, the ‘tipping point‘ connection is implicit:
The saying “gradually, then suddenly” famously describes the path to bankruptcy, as popularized by Ernest Hemingway in his novel “The Sun Also Rises”. It signifies that financial ruin isn’t an immediate event, but rather a slow erosion of financial health that eventually leads to a precipitous collapse.
Elaboration:
Gradual Phase:This phase involves a slow accumulation of financial difficulties, often stemming from poor spending habits, unwise investments, or unexpected expenses. These problems might seem minor at first, but if left unchecked, they can snowball into a significant debt burden.Sudden Phase:
Teflon Tony, inventor of opportunism.
And the Blair defence…
I did it in good faith
I did it because I believed it was the right thing to do
(I cannot apologise…)
He should be applauded. Yes, he’s still a certifiable Climate Loon, but is suddenly slightly less loony than his fellow Uber Climate Loons. And the Uber Climate Loons are not happy about that, so will crucify him for it. How dare he.
All in all it’s just a…
‘nother crack in the dam
It’s in the dna so bring it on-
Ed Miliband challenges Net Zero critics to ‘bring on the fight’ | Watch
It’s all about the struggle and outcomes be damned for lefties.
Blair is not all that innocent of having advanced the climate change narrative.
Watch your back Ed as you may find yourself surplus to requirements if Tone was really all about testing which way the wind is blowing with walking it back-
Union chief lashes out at Ed Miliband for having ‘no plan’ to make Net Zero work
The climate change “debate” — such as it is — is as ridiculous as the Crocodile Dundee joke about two fleas arguing over which one owns the dog they live on.
Four assumptions about climate are virtually never admitted, let alone examined, measured, or debated.
One: Is CO2 the control knob for climate? (Probably not, but no one will say).
Two: If CO2 is trivial (likely) what factor is more significant? Why isn’t anyone measuring that?
Three: Is warmer better, or worse? What about cooler? What about wetter or drier? Would it be the same everywhere? What if cooler is better in South China, but worse in North China? What if wetter is better in Southern California but worse in Northern California? Who can say?
Four: So far, nobody has the slightest idea how to re-engineer weather or climate 100 years from now. Even if we did know, the world would have to be unanimous on a course of action. When has the world ever been unanimous about anything?
Three should be one. Warmer (on average) is CLEARLY better for life on Earth, including humanity.
A quick review of the “Cliff Notes” on The Little Ice Age, the coldest climate during the current epoch, the Holocene, illustrates this with great clarity:
And the human population during The Little Ice Age was maybe ONE billion; now we have EIGHT billion to feed.
The ridiculous notion that a warmer climate is worse is THE BIG LIE upon which all the propaganda about “climate change” is based. 180 degrees wrong.
They didn’t call the warmest by far climate during the Holocene “The Holocene Climate OPTIMUM” for nothing.
At least Blair has seen the light—generated by fossil fuels, not wind or solar—and admits that his hopes for the renewables were based by ideal scenarios envisioned by those who hoped for quick profits. It didn’t take long for the shortcomings to become evident, but whether the other eco-dreamers will wake up and abandon the Net Zero hallucination is another story.
We may have a great opportunity here. Not everyone working for safe, affordable, reliable and dispatchable energy has to agree on all points. Even though Blair didn’t come right out and say it what isn’t working currently is wind and solar power. They are not a substitute for fossil fuel, hydro or nuclear. People like Blair can get out there and advocate for nuclear a clean affordable power generator that does not emit CO2. For those of us who aren’t convinced of CAGW we can advocate for fossil fuel and nuclear. A mix of fossil fuel and nuclear is the better choice but let’s not thumb our nose at people who may choose nuclear. The thing is to get rid of wind and solar they don’t work.
Whenever the Dark Lord surfaces from the primordial soup, you can be sure he is on manoeuvres and is after something (£$€¥) – nothing is ever as it seems with him.