I have previously written here about six reports from the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change (TBI), each of which has taken an increasingly critical stance towards Ed Miliband’s interpretation of Net Zero – namely his “Clean Power 2030” agenda. Blair’s reports have made a few ripples, indicating a weakening of what had been a rock-solid consensus position on the Left-of-centre, mirroring the Conservatives’ Net Zero epiphanies. Now, rather than tasking his wonks, the former Prime Minister has set out his objections in his own words – nearly 6,000 of them in a broader ramble about the direction of the party he once led to three election victories. And those words, far more forceful than those of his minions, have attracted much more attention, with Blair going as far in interviews about his essay as calling Ed Miliband’s agenda a “quixotic fantasy”, but resisting the implication that Miliband is thus a “quixotic fantasist”.
Whether or not Blair will move the Government from its fantasy, this latest intervention does undermine the foundations of the policy agenda. It is an unfortunate fact of British politics that it takes a figure like Blair to effectively authorise the expression of Net Zero scepticism, even though the stark arithmetic facts of the climate agenda’s inevitable doom have been obvious from the outset. Resistance to basic arithmetic was fuelled by the Green Blob’s dominance over British politics, and by the hollowing out of our democracy, as I shall explain below. And, as I’ve argued,
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I wonder if Blair and his ilk actually believe that what they do is somehow “above politics” or if it’s just more bullshit they feed to people to help sell whatever it is they are pushing. I suppose there must be useful idiots who believe it.
This. Hug the devil for acknowledging the pain he has caused whilst he slips a knife between your ribs.
It is an unfortunate fact of British politics that it takes a figure like Blair to effectively authorise the expression of Net Zero scepticism
‘Prestige’ That is what it is all about. Tony the Liar is considered by the elite blob to have ‘prestige’ and therefore he is given a hearing. He, of course, knows nothing about whatever he is talking about, like all of the others considered to have ‘prestige’ but they would still be invited to ‘inform’ a parliamentary committee at the exclusion of those who do know what they are talking about.
The Devil is a smooth-tongued conman who comes in many forms. He is persuasive, credible, fruebdky, sympathetic, deceitful, liar, evil – always after something to serve his own interests.
Climate change and net zero have always been a technocratic method of manipulating the populous through a crude control of the energy supply. High prices, punitive regulations, perverse subsidies, corrupted science and an industry of propaganda combine to fundamentally and negativity impact our existence.
Now, a more comprehensive method of controlling the populous is being rolled out through AI and mega data centres. The problem for technocrats is that this requires huge amounts of energy. A commodity currently in short supply due to net zero, and hard to justify given their previous objections. So they have changed tack and are doing an about face on climate and energy supply. This is not however a victory for climate realism, just a symptom of a shifting in methodology.
Blair is simply doing the bidding of his billionaire paymaster Larry Ellison, founder of Oracle, one of many corporations building the AI infrastructure. To put it bluntly for these people net zero has become a liability, but make no mistake total control is still the goal.
Mrs T ordered our first Pressurised Westinghouse Reactor at Sizewell and it was built on time in 8 years and for one tenth of the cost of the Hinkley Reactor, which may be ready in 13 years by 2030. The new Sizewell station chosen is similar to Hinkley and built by EDF, who have had similar problems at Flamainville and Finland. China also tried to build one.
Blair and Brown cancelled nuclear generation. If we had built 10 more, we would now have 32GW of reliable cheaper electricity and not be destroying industry. Thanks for the advice Tony.
We didn’t need 10 nuclear power stations, we had enough coal (supplying over 50% of demand) and gas-fired.
Shutting down coal caused the problem and replacing it with wind and solar, not lack of nuclear power.
Nuclear power is the most expensive slinging generation to produce electricity. It requires massive taxpayer funding, and guaranteed, lifetime above market wholesale prices.
No one mentions the tonnes of mercury burning coal puts into the atmosphere annually.
Mercury is toxic and neurotoxic in parts per billion. There is no safe level and it accumulates in the brain. The UK Committee on Toxicology has a permitted daily and weekly tolerable limit which is set at a level that the damage caused is not detectable – not that none is caused.
2,200–2,400 tonnes of mercury annually – put that into kilogrammes and multiply by a billion and divide by the average human body weight to get an idea of how many humans including children that can poison.
That is a lot of humans. Then multiply by the number of years each of those humans has been exposed.
Burning oil and gas generates mercury but at 300-400 tonnes of mercury annually.
Where does it all go? Some may stay in the atmosphere as mercury is a vapour at normal temperatures and some may come down in rain into the oceans and onto land into watercourses and is taken up by plants. In the oceans it may be concentrated into the food chain and end up in the fish people eat.
Where did the radiation from Fukushima and Chernobyl go?
Blair’s ‘persuasion’ mainly amounted to headlines listing how much he was going to spend on each pet project (the more the better), announcing the same spending multiple times as though it was new and resulting in ‘there being no money left’.
It’s not surprising he was known as Bliar.
You could make a reasonable argument that Blair’s constitutional changes were ‘easy’ because he was pushing against doors already wide open. He was no Messiah – just a lucky boy.
The difference now is that those constitutional doors are wedged wide open and will need more than some elder statesman, convinced of his own abilities, to make the necessary course corrections.
Course corrections? They will be doggedly resisted by those who benefit most. Perhaps we should just rip the plasters off?
This process is going to be very painful for everyone, but the problem is that the vast majority do not understand the need for it nor what it entails. David Starkey has explained it well, getting back to the status quo ante 1997 will be very difficult and as ever politics is the art of the possible.
I want Blair to say nothing at all. We are in the position we are in because of him. And the people he is works for.
Blair says we need change.
Change is a grand piano falling on your head.
I want a country where everything works, what doesn’t is fixed, politicians and civil servants aren’t morons and women in dresses don’t have dicks.
How is that too much to ask?
PS. Every election for decades they tell us change is coming.
Change comes. Everything is worse.