While Tony Blair has a complex legacy it is true to say that his governments did positive things in the name of fighting the climate crisis. After all, it was under the third Blair government in 2006 that the Climate Change Bill was introduced. As part of this Bill, his government proposed the five-year reporting targets that would later be made law when the Bill became and Act.
These targets have saved us from some of the worst excesses of the anti-net zero cadre in politics and have ensured some level of continuity around decarbonisation policy, enabling advocates and policymakers a level of basic security that has been lacking in other critical areas.
So — having said all this, how did Blair get it so wrong in his latest essay?
He says:
We must prioritise cheaper energy and electrification over net zero and use what is left of our North Sea oil and gas resources. This is essential for our competitiveness and for taking advantage of AI.
To suggest this is an ‘either/or’ misses the point. Net zero does not mean eliminating the use of oil and gas altogether; it means getting the world to a point where it emits less CO2 into the atmosphere than it takes out.
You only have to look at China, India, Pakistan, and even the United States of America (Texas is a good example) to see how renewable energy: 1) can be rolled out at scale to provide cheaper energy; and 2) is key to electrification.
All of these countries are beginning to see the benefits of lower bills thanks to renewable energy generation — whether in solar, wind, battery storage, and other vectors. Here in Britain, renewables are demonstrating the potential for lower energy costs. As we build more of it, the rewards will come down the pipeline.
That Tony Blair frames a retreat from net zero as being necessary to take advantage of AI is telling. His think tank – the Tony Blair Institute (TBI) – where his comments were originally posted, is a significant outlier in a UK context because it has levels of funding akin to a US Super PAC and exerts significant influence on the UK Government. The TBI has received or been pledged a total of $348m from Oracle, a prominent AI company whose founder has also sought to buy up huge swathes of the US media landscape and is a Trump supporter. The TBI and Oracle are so closely entwined that their staff go on joint country retreats and join one another’s calls with policymakers. Tony Blair is not an independent voice when it comes to AI and net zero policy. If, however, you do believe that AI can create a better world, the amount of power needed for it to function means we are going to require all the energy sources we can find. There is no way it can be supported by oil and gas alone without massive further damage to the climate.
Blair then goes on to ask: ‘Does our economy need right now the goal of clean energy or cheap energy?’
Again, he creates a dichotomy that needn’t exist. Clean energy or cheap energy. As if we can’t have both.
The renewable energy pipeline for Wales up to 2035 is estimated to be almost 18GW. (To put this in context, energy regulator Ofgem says the average household uses 2,700kWh per year. Meeting this target would also mean 8,000 FTE jobs created, and 13.4m tonnes of CO2e saved. Through its Contracts for Difference (CfD) scheme, the UK Government has also committed to supporting wind, solar, and tidal developers capital expenditure costs. Once these renewable projects are built, we will have both clean and cheap energy.
Oil and gas will then represent a diminished amount of our energy — meaning a win for protecting the climate, for household bills, and for energy independence.
Finally, Blair talks about an agenda that is ‘radical but sensible’. Again, he misunderstands. The radical-but-sensible option — the only option — is to pursue cheap energy through clean energy.
It is perhaps a casualty of his worldview that he thinks it must be an either/or; his politics are founded on the principle that there are simply those who get it, and those who don’t. There is no sense that the guiding mission should not only be achievable — it also must carry with an understanding. of the future people want to live in.
People want lower bills; they also do not want to live on a planet that is constantly plagued by extreme weather, crop failure, pollution, and instability brought about through scarcity.
There is no greater mission than solving the climate crisis. It’s immediate, and it cuts across pretty much every other area of life (housing, environment, education, trade, foreign affairs).
So it seems strange that Blair thinks that any overriding mission should be absent of net zero. Because at some point, without net zero, the other things will begin to break down. You can’t have economic growth if flooding and bad weather means people can’t work, go outside, and live their lives. You can’t have good health if people are struggling with heat exhaustion. You can’t have strong trade if crops fail.
This is why net zero has to be a part of any conversation about our future.
Someone with Tony Blair’s level of experience, and his claims to such foresight, should know better than to prioritise short-term gain at the expense of a serious long-term plan that we all desperately need.
Unfortunately, Blair has a long history of misunderstanding the significance of nature and climate – especially when things go wrong. Back in 1996, our founder and director Margaret interviewed Blair for HTV ‘Grassroots’ in his role as opposition leader following the devastating Sea Empress oil spill off the coast of Pembrokeshire. It became obvious to Margaret that Blair knew little about energy in Wales. For her, this attitude is reminiscent of his recent scorning of Labour’s Net Zero policy.
Sustainable Wales
