Bill Esterson MP
Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Select CommitteeWhat to make of last week’s overreaction to a constructive foreword by former Prime Minister Tony
Blair?
Rather than welcoming a serious intervention on a defining national and global challenge by the Tony Blair Institute, too many rushed to sound the alarm – which perhaps reveals more about their own political insecurities, than about the substance of the message itself.
The 1,594 word foreword – published on 29th April by Labour’s greatest election winner – caused quite
the stir in Westminster. But dig a little deeper and we find that the stirring came from our party’s
opponents, no doubt desperate to weaponise the Tony Blair Institute report and sow the seeds of division within Labour’s ranks.
Our party and the government must not take the bait of gross mischaracterisations. Behind the hysteria,
there are valuable insights in the Tony Blair Institute’s report. To learn the right lessons on an issue as vital as net zero, we must separate the wheat from the chaff.
Media Distortion and the Misrepresentation of the Tony Blair Institute report
First things first, let’s get what was said right. Blair has not – as the leader of the Green Party said –
“decided to mimic Nigel Farage.” In fact, as CarbonBrief points out, Blair has been a victim of some
dodgy headlines in an attention-seeking media, that is let’s face it, hostile to the energy transition.
Blair did not say – as was splashed on the front page of The Times – that ‘Net zero is doomed to fail’.
Rather he said, “any strategy based on either phasing out fossil fuels in the short term or limiting
consumption is a strategy doomed to fail.”
The two statements are wildly different. The Tony Blair Institute’s article calls climate change “one of the fundamental challenges of our time”. He’s right. It is. His foreword is not debating the ends, it is debating the means.
Getting into the substance, the Prime Minister whose government introduced the draft Bill that became
the Climate Change Act, is right to argue that for the decarbonisation movement to succeed it
must—like all great political movements—be willing to evolve as it shifts from ambition to pragmatic
policy delivery.
It should not be controversial to argue that if we want to reach net zero as quickly as possible, we must
take the public (in the UK and around the world) with us. That means answering the question, will this
change make me better or worse off? It means demonstrating the financial benefits already available
such as cheaper driving for those with an electric vehicle, it means policy changes to reduce energy
prices in the short term and it means being prepared to invest more money in emerging technologies,
including in nuclear and carbon capture in addition to established renewables.
There are practical recommendations for the government here: turbocharge the Nuclear Small Modular
Reactor competition. Don’t limit the UK to two reactor designs. Speed up regulatory approvals by
allowing greater alignment between UK, US, Canadian and Korean regulators to stop needless
duplication of work.
We can be first movers in a new nuclear market if we seize the opportunity. Blair is right, we can’t simply shout “no more fossil fuels” and hope to solve everything. We have to offer pragmatic answers to bridge the gaps in our energy system, including how we take oil and gas businesses and workers with us.
Working With the Fossil Fuel Sector: A Tony Blair Institute Priority
In 2015, building up to the historic U.N Paris Summit, the “keep it in the ground” campaign served its
purpose in galvanising action. Ten years later as we continue to make hard yards, we must accept that
the issue is more complex than that. We need the skills and the investment of the fossil fuel sector to be
partners in the transition.
At home, we can’t hope to maintain the broad support for action on climate, while simultaneously
restricting the ability to take charter flights to holiday destinations, or as unions like the GMB have
warned – rush to shut down fossil fuel industries before our plans for a clean energy transition are in
effect. People working in the North Sea have to have good jobs to go to.
We cannot repeat the mistakes of the 1980s rushed deindustrialisation when political dogma saw the closure of much of industry while workers were thrown on the scrap heap and communities abandoned to decline and hardship. The now infamous Tony Blair Institute foreword calls for policy leadership on new technologies from the world’s major economies—and we need look no further than the UK.
Clean Energy Innovation and the Tony Blair Institute’s Call for Leadership
The Labour Government has invested in carbon capture, created Great British Energy, and backed floating offshore wind—exactly the kind of action needed to develop exportable energy technologies. Its industrial strategy—sharing risk with innovative British firms—shows the global leadership Blair advocates and marks a clear shift from past policy. Perhaps we do have a song to sing after all.
Another uncontroversial conclusion of the report is that there must be a reinvigorated focus on climate
adaptation. This was supported by a recent report from the Climate Change Committee (CCC) who
warned adaptation progress has “stalled”. Chair of the CCC adaptation committee, Baroness Brown,
said it was frightening that the government was considering cuts to flood defences. Even if we reached
net zero tomorrow – a certain amount of climate change is still baked in, and we need to be ready.
The energy transition is one of this government’s top priorities. It must take the public with them on what
is a major growth and jobs opportunity for British workers and communities. It must demonstrate as
clearly and effectively as possible self sufficiency in energy generation is linked to the energy transition
and will keep bills down.
The majority of the British public care deeply about this issue. So let’s stop being so twitchy when
someone, especially someone who knows a thing or two, offers advice. Why not show the confidence
necessary to build Britain’s clean energy future?
Featured image via 360b/Shutterstock.
