In my last post I noted that I worked at the Labour Party during Tony Blair’s time. He is easily the best UK prime minister of my lifetime, so I really wanted to be positive about his institute’s report on climate change. The approaches outlined are quite sensible, but the overall report is just plain bad. It was released a couple of days before the local elections in the UK and given it implicitly criticizes the Labour government this was — rightly — seen to be bad form on Blair’s part. Beyond the bad timing, the report itself is just a big disappointment. Cliches about disruption aren’t public policy advice
Approach And Tone
The tone of the report is negative. Tone is always a challenge — too positive and you seem glib, too pessimistic and it isn’t constructive. This report has a special challenge because the sort of people who probably like its generally negative tone (e.g., people who think we need to reduce economic output to help nature) are exactly the sort of people who will not like the approaches advocated. (Or for that matter such people tend not to have any fondness for Tony Blair himself). I doubt the gloomy tone won anyone over.
In their writing the people at the Tony Blair Institute obviously want to motivate the need for radical approaches. Yet, they really need to careful in their writing. For instance, they highlight a real problem — lots of people coming out of poverty will generate energy demands. This is a long-term problem for climate policy if the energy used by these people in the second half of the century will be provided using fossil fuels. The challenge is that the way it is discussed risks confusing the problem we that have now. The report says:
… population growth and accelerating development in the Global South is driving rapid increases in energy demand.
Fursman, 2025, page 23
Note the “is” not “will” in the statement. Then note that currently population growth and energy demand are currently two different issues. I know that China is often put in the global south but why use the term if you don’t mean poorer countries with growing populations? That just doesn’t describe China. More critically, it is simply wrong, to imply that countries where the population is growing are the ones causing the current problems. (This is not meant to imply this isn’t a valid concern long-term — the “will do” — but it isn’t the urgent problem that we need to address now — the “is currently”). Indeed, the problem we have now is lack of accelerating development in many parts of the world with high population growth.
Population And Increasing Energy Demand
Where is population growth happening? The easy answer is Africa, see dark blue in the map below. This is where we expect to see population growth in the coming century.
Where are greenhouse gas emissions bad? Pretty much everywhere but Africa. Dark red is where the emissions per person are highest.
It risks playing into some of the nastier elements of the environmental movement — the racist/anti-foreigner wing — to imply that population growth is the fuel for emissions growth. Climate change isn’t a problem being caused by African children. We need to solve the problem of emissions for high and middle-income countries as a matter of urgency. If we do that, then we’ll have plenty of low-carbon ways to help assist high population growth countries move out of poverty without a massive increase in emissions. If all Africans are still powering their energy needs using fossil fuels later in the century we are in big trouble. Still, that concern needs to get in line behind addressing what the rest of world, e.g., people in the US, Russia, China and the gulf states etc…, are currently doing
Careless Or Foolish?
Probably the most controversial phrase was used by Tony Blair himself in the Foreword.
…any strategy based on either “phasing out” fossil fuels in the short term or limiting consumption is a strategy doomed to fail.
Tony Blair in Fursman, 2025, page 24
He surely knew he was being provocative, but did he predict how provocative? Part of the challenge is in interpretation. On one level, this statement seems to merely state accurately where we are in the world. For example, most cars run on petrol (gas). Any politician telling people that they need to all buy new cars in the next couple of years isn’t going to happen.
Unfortunately, Blair’s phrase to some might suggest that there cannot be a strategy to reduce fossil fuel use as soon as is deliverable. Yet, we obviously need this reduction now. Even a generous interpretation — that Blair was simply stating the truth about the short term but is committed to change in the longer term — does suggest he really needs to think more about how he conveys his point. Blair was a brilliant communicator — and, at best, this isn’t brilliant communication.
Global Advice
Throughout the report the problem is that the Blair people are taking a global perspective. “We” means the world, which is great but… it also means no-one in particular at times. There wasn’t enough specificity at times about who should do what exactly.
The creation of new insurance products and risk-sharing mechanisms will be essential to managing climate risks that affect multiple industries and nations.
Fursman, 2025, page 39
I agree but who should do what to make this happen? If disasters are more common this is a fundamental threat to the insurance industry’s business model. They can’t make money if they have to pay out all the time to disaster victims so who is planning to help the industry? We need a few more specifics on the new insurance models and who funds them.
I appreciate the global ambition, but I can imagine that specific advice for the UK, US, Chinese or whatever government would have been more useful. Some of the good things the report wants are already happening, so some places are actually doing much better than others. Does the same advice apply to all?
Cliches About Disruption Aren’t Public Policy Advice
My main stylistic complaint about the report is that it is just so badly written. The worst bit of the report is chapter 06. This is helpfully entitled: “The Future Is Disruption”. The great thing about this chapter header is that you already know it is going to a bullshit before reading further. If you just skipped the chapter, you wouldn’t lose anything and would not be 5 minutes nearer your death. The chapter starts:
We are entering the Era of Disruption.
Fursman, 2025, page 26
Honestly, do I need to say anything else? The whole section, mercifully quite short, reads like it was written by an AI given the prompt ‘say something pseudo-profound about technological change, try and score as many points as you can with your use of cliches and buzzwords’.
Positive disruption in climate action will come from leaders seizing the narrative of technology and its potential to address the climate challenge, harnessing the transformative potential of bold innovation and systemic changes to reshape the world’s approach to decarbonisation.
Fursman, 2025, page 26
How do you seize the narrative of technology? Is there a cream to apply if you accidently catch something contagious while seizing it?
Achieving this positive disruption thus calls for visionary leadership and coordinated international efforts to drive transformative action.
Fursman, 2025, page 26
Now we know that all we need is visionary leadership and coordinated international efforts the whole problem of climate change is surely solved.
Resetting Action Around Climate Change
The Tony Blair Institute wants a reset on action around climate change. There is certainly reason to think that things are not going as well as we might hope, especially in the last few years. If you want to know what to do you could do a lot worse than look at the recommendations in the report. For your own sanity though don’t try and read the rest of the report. Especially don’t try to seize the narrative of technology, you will only disrupt yourself.
For more see Are Only Stupid People Positive?, Denial, Doom, Or Informed Optimism, Are We Making Any Progress On Sustainability?, Limits And Self-Limits, An Ineffective Defense Of Degrowth, and Messaging About Sustainability.
Read: Lindy Fursman, Tony Blair Insitute for Global Change, (2025) The Climate Paradox: Why We Need to Reset Action on Climate Change