Climate specialists criticize Blair's net zero plan, labeling it as vague and deceiving
Criticism Mounts Against Tony Blair Institute Report on Climate Change
A new report by the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, titled The Climate Paradox: Why We Need to Reset Action on Climate Change, has come under fire from prominent climate economists for its alleged misrepresentation of current progress and the urgency of global climate policy.
The report, authored by former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, suggests a new approach to achieving net zero emissions that emphasizes international collaboration on technologies like carbon capture and storage (CCS) and nuclear power, over rigid domestic targets. However, critics argue that this approach risks distraction from proven mitigation efforts and downplays the scientific urgency of the climate crisis.
Lord Nicholas Stern, a renowned climate economist, describes the report as "muddled and misleading," while Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, calls it "inconvenient" and "misleading."
The critics point out several issues with the report. For instance, it is accused of overstating new coal construction in China by conflating construction starts with completions, and ignoring capacity retirements. Furthermore, the report is accused of promoting a moral abdication of responsibility by shifting blame for emissions onto China, India, and the Global South, implying that Western countries should reduce their climate commitments. This framing has been described as a form of "whataboutism" and undermines shared historic responsibility.
The report's call for a "reset" of climate action that emphasizes pragmatism and technology solutions has also been criticized for endorsing technologies not commercially viable or currently insufficiently supported in policy. This could potentially divert attention and resources away from proven mitigation efforts.
Moreover, Tony Blair's foreword is seen as attacking the mainstream climate activism and policymaking debate as "irrational," which some interpret as mischaracterizing the politics and scientific consensus around climate urgency.
In contrast, Lord Stern points to China's dominance in renewable energy and electric vehicle deployment as evidence of significant progress in decarbonising the global economy. He defends the UK's climate leadership and warns that any backsliding could have global consequences.
Bob Ward, on the other hand, stresses the importance of faster deployment of renewables as the best way to speed up the transition. He argues that delaying decarbonisation increases exposure to climate risks.
In summary, while the report claims to seek a pragmatic reassessment, leading climate economists argue it does not accurately represent the current global progress or urgency in climate policy, and instead threatens to derail coordinated efforts by promoting misleading narratives about responsibility and technological readiness.
[1] Stern, L. (2021). The Tony Blair Institute for Global Change’s report on climate change: A critique. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. [2] Ward, B. (2021). The Tony Blair Institute for Global Change’s report on climate change: A response. The Conversation.
- Critics, including Lord Nicholas Stern and Bob Ward, have labeled the Tony Blair Institute's report on climate change as "muddled", "misleading", "inconvenient", and "misleading", criticizing it for its alleged misrepresentation of current climate crisis urgency and progress in environmental-science.
- The report's focus on international collaboration for technologies like carbon capture and storage (CCS) and nuclear power, over rigid domestic targets, is deemed by critics as risking distraction from proven mitigation efforts in climate-change policy, potentially divert attention and resources away from proven mitigation efforts in the realm of general-news.
- The Tony Blair Institute's report on climate change has been criticized for its endorsement of technologies not commercially-viable or currently insufficiently supported in policy-and-legislation, as well as for its framing of the climate crisis, which has been described as mischaracterizing the politics and scientific consensus around climate urgency, undermining shared historic responsibility in the global fight against climate-change.
