Some interesting views from Simon Retallack, formerly with the
Ecologist, now working for Blair's favourite think-tank the Institute
for Public Policy Research
Chris
* Tony Blair and climate change: a change of heart? *
Simon Retallack <http://www.opendemocracy.net/author/Simon_Retallack.jsp>
8 - 11 - 2005
* The British prime minister’s recent comments on climate change have
caused confusion among supporters of the Kyoto Protocol. He must clear
the air, says Simon Retallack of the Institute for Public Policy
Research. *
------------------------------------------
No world leader has done more to raise an environmental problem up the
political agenda than Tony Blair. By making climate change a priority
for the United Kingdom’s presidencies of the G8 and European Union
<http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/international/g8-presidency/> in
2005, Blair has focused world attention on probably the greatest
challenge facing mankind this century. But his recent comments on the
subject – leaving the impression that he is abandoning the established
consensus on how to tackle climate change through Kyoto-style targets –
have caused surprise and confusion. Headlines have decried a “wobbling
prime minister” and dire warnings have been issued about undermining the
outcome of fifteen years of international climate negotiations.
But is it as bad as that? Has Tony Blair really changed his mind
<http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page6333.asp>?
*Also in openDemocracy, a major debate on “the politics of climate
change
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-climate_change_debate/debate.jsp>”,
with contributions from writers (Ian McEwan, Bill McKibben), scientists
and science writers (David King, Stephan Harrison, Dave Frame, Chris
Mooney, Carol Turley), policy analysts (Mayer Hillman, Camilla Toulmin,
Tom Burke, John Ashton) and activists (Sophie Harding, Angel Green,
Rubens Born). *
*More recently, openDemocracy writers assess the climate-change aspects
as well as the political fallout of hurricane Katrina, including:*
*Ian Christie, “When the levee breaks
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/articles/View.jsp?id=2801>”*
*If you find this material valuable please consider supporting
*openDemocracy* by sending us a donation
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/registration2/donate.jsp> so that we can
continue our work for democratic dialogue*
*A retreat from Kyoto? *
The trouble began on 15 September at the Clinton Global Initiative
<http://www.clintonglobalinitiative.org/home.nsf/pt_message_from_wjc>
conference in New York. The conversation had turned towards climate
change and within a few seconds of taking the floor, Tony Blair
announced: “I’m changing my thinking about this.” He remarked that “no
country is going to cut its growth or consumption substantially in the
light of a long-term environmental problem”; instead, what countries
would be prepared to do is “develop the science and technology in a
beneficial way.” The main question, Blair argued
<http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=46586>, was how to
put incentives in place to do that, in circumstances where “I don’t
think people are going to start negotiating another major treaty like
Kyoto.”
The comments set alarm-bells ringing in Whitehall and the environmental
community. Blair’s remarks sounded all too much like an endorsement of
the policy George W Bush has adopted on climate change over the past
five years: talking up the role of technology but making no mention of
the need for emission-reduction targets, like those in the Kyoto
Protocol <http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/kyoto/>, necessary to drive
the deployment of low-carbon technologies in the first place. That has
not gone unnoticed by opponents of mandatory limits on emissions in the
United States Congress, which have already seized on Blair’s
contribution to justify continued inaction.
The comments were unfortunate for another reason. From 28 November-9
December, negotiations will be held in Montreal
<http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_11/items/3394.php> on what should follow
the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol, with Britain leading the
negotiations on behalf of the European Union and officially seeking a
second round of emission-reduction targets from industrialised
countries. To dismiss the EU’s chances before the summit has even begun
could hardly be helpful, especially as Blair’s prioritising of climate
change at the G8 and in the international arena generally gives his
voice on the issue so much weight.
For all these reasons, NGO and business leaders were swift to ask for
clarification from the prime minister on his return to London. Was he
articulating new government policy or did he misspeak? Did he really
believe Bush was right all along, or was he just temporarily
over-empathising with his American audience?
With so much at stake, the prime minister’s advisors and officials in
the department for environment, food and rural affairs (Defra
<http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/>) pledged
clarification. They set about drafting an article and a speech for the
prime minister which would set the record straight and undo any possible
damage done. That was the promise.
But they didn’t count on Blair rewriting them both in a way that raised
even greater concerns. In an /Observer/ article (“Get real on climate
change
<http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1604790,00.html>”,
30 October 2005), Tony Blair wrote that Kyoto “won’t work as intended”
because the US isn’t part of the agreement and it won’t affect growing
emissions from India and China. Two days later, in his speech to a G8
meeting <http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page8437.asp> of environment
and energy ministers from twenty different countries Blair went on to
say: “the moment we talk of targets, then people get very nervous and
very worried.” He reiterated his argument that “no country will want to
sacrifice its economy in order to meet this challenge.” And he added:
“in the world after 2012 [after Kyoto’s first phase ends] we need to
find a better and more sensitive set of mechanisms to deal with this
problem.”
*Simon Retallack* is a senior research fellow
<http://www.ippr.org.uk/aboutippr/staff/?id=48> at the Institute for
Public Policy Research (ippr), and author of the ippr’s report, /Setting
a long-term climate objective
<http://www.ippr.org/ecomm/files/climate_objective.pdf>/ (2005).
He is a contributor to /Alternatives to Economic Globalisation: A Better
World is Possible/
<http://www.bkconnection.com/ProdDetails.asp?ID=1576753034&PG=1&Type=BL&PCS=BKP>
(Berrett-Koehler, 2002) and co-author (with Laurent de Bartillat) of a a
compendium on the world’s climate-change challenges, /STOP/
<http://www.mon-environnement.com/infos/stop.php> (Seuil, 2003).
*. <http://www.ippr.org.uk/aboutippr/staff/?id=48>*
Whether he intended to or not, the inevitable consequence of the prime
minister’s new statements has been to confirm the impression that he has
decided to abandon the targets-based approach to reducing greenhouse-gas
emissions for the next phase of global action. If that were the case and
that view were to gain ground, it would be disastrous for our prospects
of preventing dangerous climate change. But it may not be that clear-cut.
*Clearing the air*
At the heart of the confusion
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/06/AR2005110600615.html>
sown by Tony Blair’s remarks is a failure to distinguish properly
between industrialising countries and industrialised ones, including the
United States. What the British prime minister should have said was that
setting emission-reduction targets remained the most appropriate policy
for all industrialised countries, given their responsibility for the
majority of the world’s greenhouse-gas emissions. That is what the
growing number of supporters of the “cap-and-trade
<http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=987805>” approach to
tackling climate change in the US Congress, in individual US states and
among US businesses, wanted to hear. They are fighting daily and
increasingly successful battles <http://www.pr.com/press-release/3949>
in the face of the Bush administration’s ever more isolated opposition
and they need Blair on their side.
Tony Blair should have made it much clearer that his message on targets
and future frameworks was directed at industrialising countries. Asking
them to adopt emission-reduction targets would not be fair at this
stage, given that even China emits seven times less and India seventeen
times less carbon than the US per head of population. That doesn’t mean
to say that industrialising states should not take any action
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/articles/View.jsp?id=2407> at all under
the next phase of global climate talks, but it should be appropriate to
their level of prosperity – requiring an evolution in the international
approach, not an entirely new system.
Finally, the prime minister should have taken head on instead of
repeating the myth that action to mitigate climate change will harm
economic prosperity. He should have talked about the jobs that will be
created in developing new low-carbon technologies
<http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article325237.ece> and the
harm that will be done to economies worldwide if we fail to prevent
dangerous climate change. It’s through seizing opportunities for action
now that sacrifice can be avoided.
All that can still and should be said. It is not too late to make
amends. The most important step that Tony Blair can take now is to
ensure that the UK leads by example. It is critical that the government
ignores special pleading by industry lobbyists and announces a package
of measures <http://www.ippr.org/ecomm/files/climate_commitment.pdf> to
get Britain back on track to meet the government’s long-standing
manifesto pledge
<http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4079809.stm> to reduce
carbon-dioxide emissions by 20% below 1990 levels by 2010.
The UK is projected to fall far short unless decisive action is taken
under the much-delayed Climate Change Programme Review
<http://www.green-alliance.org.uk/ourwork/ClimateChangeProgReview/>, now
scheduled for publication early in 2006. Nothing would do more to show
the world that climate targets are both necessary and achievable. In the
end, action will speak louder than words. Then, Tony Blair could claim
the mantle of leadership on climate change once again.
------------------------------------------
Official UK Government site
<http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page7442.asp>
ippr environment pages <http://www.ippr.org.uk/policyareas/?id=1225>
/STOP <http://www.mon-environnement.com/infos/stop.php>/ by Simon
Retallack & Laurent de Bartillat (Seuil, 2003)
return to the debate
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-climate_change_debate/debate.jsp>
send this article to a friend (or foe!)
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/emailToFriend/send_friend_form.jsp?url=/debates/article.jsp&query=id*6-debateId*129-articleId*3002>
open easy read version
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-climate_change_debate/blair_3002.jsp#>
download easy read version
download printable version
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/content/articles/PDF/3002.pdf> download
printable version
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/content/articles/PDF/3002.pdf>
challenged by what you just read?
Join the discussion
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/forums/forum.jspa?forumID=179>
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-climate_change_debate/blair_3002.jsp#>
Copyright © Simon Retallack
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/author/Simon_Retallack.jsp>, Published by
openDemocracy Ltd. You may download and print extracts from this article
for your own personal and non-commercial use *only*. If you teach at a
university we ask that your department make a donation
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/registration2/donate.jsp>. Contact us
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/about/about_od_press.jsp#syndicating> if
you wish to discuss republication. Some articles on this site are
published under different terms.
home <http://www.opendemocracy.net/home/index.jsp> about oD
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/about/index.jsp> press
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/about/about_od_press.jsp> advertise
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/about/media_pack.jsp> FAQs
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/other_content/help.jsp> privacy policy
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/about/about_od_privacy.jsp> plaintext
site <http://www.opendemocracy.net/xml/xhtml/home/index.html>
contact us <http://www.opendemocracy.net/about/about_od_contact.jsp#drop>
|
