Tony Blair has exposed an inconvenient truth about net zero

Most politicians will not dare say that the net zero emperor is naked – so the former prime minister is brave to admit there is a ‘credibility gap’ at the heart of it, says John Rentoul

I never thought of Tony Blair as playing the part of the young boy in the story of the emperor’s new clothes – but that is the role he has adopted in the debate about climate change.

He has cut through the assumptions that have built up over the decades – assumptions that everyone knew were not quite right, but which it had become dangerous to question.

“Political leaders by and large know that the debate has become irrational,” Blair writes, but are “terrified of saying so, for fear of being accused of being ‘climate deniers’.”

There is a “credibility gap” at the heart of climate-change policies, he argues, because while voters are worried about the sustainability of human life on the planet, they are coming to the point at which they feel “that they’re being asked to make financial sacrifices and changes in lifestyle when they know that their impact on global emissions is minimal”.

Everyone can see that, while some countries in the West, including Britain, have succeeded in reducing their use of fossil fuels, the world as a whole is likely to go on increasing consumption for the foreseeable future. In such a situation, vague support for action to stop climate change will turn into opposition if citizens are asked to make expensive changes to try to cut consumption to zero. The easy and affordable changes have already been made, and the next stages are hard and expensive.

But while everyone can see that the net zero emperor is naked, most politicians do not want to say so, either because, as Blair says, they will be accused of suggesting that climate change isn’t a problem, or because questioning current policy sounds like a counsel of despair.

That is why Blair is the right person to do it. He has the experience of government, and an understanding of how to deliver change, but he isn’t looking for votes and can confront the assumptions of Labour supporters in particular more directly than members of the government can afford to do.

He is used to being accused of betrayal by those on his own side, but he has always had the ability to persuade, to lead and shape opinion. His foreword to his institute’s policy paper on resetting climate policy is typically thoughtful, calm and incisive. The aim is right, he says, but “we need to alter where we put our focus and resources”.

He knows how to seek advice and on this occasion he has taken the precaution of lining up two scientists who support his demand for a change of course. David King, the UK’s former chief scientific adviser, and Myles Allen, the Oxford professor of atmospheric physics who invented the term “net zero” in 2009, both support Blair’s argument – but in terms that make it absolutely clear that they regard climate change as a global emergency.

We know that Keir Starmer listens to advice from Blair. This is one of the most important issues on which the former prime minister can act both as a candid friend and as an outrider to make an argument that needs to be made.

Blair performed a similar public service by advocating “first doses first” at a critical stage of the coronavirus vaccine rollout – in an article in The Independent. He saw that, as most of the protection came from the first dose, it made sense to delay the second dose and prioritise getting first doses to as many people as possible.

That was not so much a question of science as of organisation; and in many ways the problem of climate change is similar: the science is not in doubt, the question is what is the most effective way of dealing with the problem.

Blair is right that setting an unrealistic target for net zero in one country is the wrong way to go about it, and increasingly risks alienating the public. He is right, too, that the annual circus of climate summit meetings has diverted too much international effort into drafting statements rather than driving action.

People may not agree with Blair’s own seven-point action plan, but he has broken the dam that has held back open and honest debate in the green movement.

The parallels with what Blair did for the Labour Party ought to be obvious. He persuaded it that it could not advance the cause of social justice without the broadest possible support from the people – and then he delivered progress during his time in government.

Now the green movement needs to understand that effective action against climate change needs the support of the peoples of all the countries of the world. The emperor’s fine green clothes are no use if only the most righteous can see them.