Blair backs off from Kyoto 27 September 05

Again, I have no insight into Blair’s mind.

I thought I might share two other observations. I posted previously about Blair helping to sink the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and I worry greatly that both actions may be related.

Two weeks ago, I went to a meeting addressed by a former MP and defence specialist. I asked him whether he thought that Blair was now destroying the NPT (something George Monbiot had previously alleged in an article). He gave me a long talk about the Blair government having spent years working to strengthen the NPT, against Bush and said it was totally unfair to misrepresent this legacy. Next day I emailed him a Downing Street press release about Blair agreeing to civil nuclear cooperation with India, in clear breach of the NPT. He replied that he was absolutely horrified. This spring, Blair was working hard to rescue the NPT from the neocons. This month, he went out of the way to endorse the neocon position and help to sink the treaty. No debate with government, no discussion, just single-handed action.

Now people puzzle why Blair will not allow a eulogy on Robin Cook which contains reference to the need for an international order based on international law and agreements, saying this reference is too ‘political’ – surely nobody would want no international law and agreements?

I fear that the comments about climate change exactly mirror the other two u-turns. On their own, they make no sense at all. His reported position threatens to destroy all the good work his government have done internationally on climate change, his commitment at Gleneagles, etc.

Mark suggests that he is defeatist. Maybe. Maybe Blair is getting the wrong end of things. The alternative, nightmare, view is that he (not his party or government) has quite suddenly become a neocon who does not want to see any international treaties, least of all on climate change, who now believes the opposite of what he believed even in July. I hope I am wrong!

Dont you think we all get too hung up on Mr Blair. I was interested to read you thought he made a commitment at Glen Eagles. What was that?

On aid and debt relief, they put in a whole bunch of new conditions. ie. Privatise your water, let us sell you our goods (but dont even think of trying to sell us anything, our markets are protected) and we will give you a little bit of cash that you must spend with us. Starting in 2010.

As Kumi Naidoo: Head of the global call for action against poverty said “It would be like waiting five years to respond to the tsunami”

If you dont like that sighn the co-op’s trade thing.

URl is: https://apps.co-operativebank.co.uk/cgi-bin/tradejusticevote/vote.cgi

On climate change. errr. we will have a conference in Canada in december.

All it was, was a three day jolly with Bonio and Gandalf. His rock star mates, young and trendy and very vote winning.

He has lied, taken us to war illeagaly, lied some more, enter Hutton, preferably with a red hot poker. Has smashed the BBC in a simillar style to Thatcher and the unions.

Remember about a million folk (me included) marched in London asking us to not go to war. Did he listen..No..He had to save us from WMD.

So do we get to hung up on Blair. Too right. When it comes to GW, we have to take responsibility our selves. He is going to do nothing. If you want to nknow what you can do. I am sure Lynn can give you a million ideas.

My advise, given what we know of him, just dont vote for him or his mates again.

Best Ian.

Bush is not smart enough to understand climate science to be concerned. Blair, by contrast, seems smart enough to understand science. So, I wonder if he thinks the climate problem is less of a concern that he once thought before.

That is what I am most curious about. If Blair thinks the problem is less severe, then I would like to know what changed his mind.

At face value, I ask this question because Blair has shown some level of commitment all this time on climate issues and it seems that something at a core level must have influenced him.

What could that be?

All the best,

Dan

Dan

Just a follow-up point Mark.

Are you thinking that technology is not important and not necessary? I sure hope not!

The only way we could “not” employ technology in the solution focus is if a few billion people commit suicide to reduce the earth’s population.

Do you think fuel cells, wind turbines, solar panels, and even farming are natural systems? They are not! Only if we became hunter-gatherers would we be in natural balance and that requires a quick population shift downward. Nature may do that for us anyway.

I agree with you that Kyoto is important but Kyoto even if fully implemented will still insure that the sea level will rise and that we loose in the end unless we employ enough of the “correct” additional technology.

Technology is required to make Kyoto work anyway. So, why even argue against it?

The real solution focus will be what sorts of technology we can use to get us to where we need to be and prevent disaster. Which technology is most economical and which has the best impact to reduce earth’s heat imbalance and which technology causes the least environmental harm. How do we prevent runaway conditions so we can be enabled to create a better balance decades and centuries from now?

What is your plan and what are the precise details of it that will prevent sea-level rise, eliminate fossil fuels, and keep people alive in the process and can you insure that your plan will succeed and prevent coastlines from being inundated world-wide? Can you guarantee success?

Do you have the solution answer that also will work in the present paradigm of modern civilization? Only a solution focus which does that will ultimately succeed.

Best Regards,

Dan

“The truth is no country is going to cut its growth or consumption substantially in the light of a long-term environmental problem,”

He’s right. He’s just mouthing a political reality. No leader is strong enough today to articulate a vision that people will follow, so this is true.

Until everyday folk get the connection, nothing will happen.

Best,

D

I sometimes go through that myself, when my thinking turns to “nobody’s really going to do anything about this, we’re doomed, and all we can do is try to remain civil while the world goes down in a tail-spin.” Then I think about what Dan said, “Failure is not an option,” & I gather courage to keep struggling against the forces of evil once more.

It’s clear Tony Blair understands the problem. It seems hard to believe he has “written off” the world. I think Bush & the contrarians may also understand it, but figure they want to amass as much wealth as possible for the hard times ahead – so they can survive while others suffer & perish.

Blair reminds me of Allie Fox from Paul Theroux’s Mosquito Coast. A charismatic can-do sort of leader who you suddenly realise has morphed from a hero to a self-obsessed fanatic.

http://www.paultheroux.com/fiction/the.mosquito.coast.htm

He seems unable to make any sort of break from Bush, no matter how it affects Britians standing in the world for international law, Iraq & I could imagine, Kyoto. I think it is time for Blair to go – but I doubt he will any time soon.

In the Sunday Telegraph, I was stunned. The next morning, Jonathan Porritt, (Chair of the sustainable development commission) was interviewed on Radio 4’s Today programme. I don’t remember hearing such quiet disbelief in his voice before. He said that Blair had been ‘passionate’ about Climate change as a major issue for years and when asked if the comments caused surprise, he paused for a long while and then said quietly. ‘yes’.

His sense of betrayal was palpable.

He also said, as Dan pointed out, that we need both urgent action to cut emissions, and we need technology and we need sequestration: all of them, not an either/or scenario.

I agree with Dano: as I’ve said before, are we not wasting our breath on politicians? All communities need to become informed and take lots of small individual actions. We know lots of businesses want to do something now to meet growing demand, but are begging the government for a regulatory framework so that all manufacturers have to play by the same rules.

Woops! we’re back the WTO and dear old ‘free’ trade again. Can’t have any nasty eco-labelling on food/appliances/cars that would spoil the mega-corps fun. In the meantime, dear old John ‘two-Jags’ Prescott is planning to buldoze hundreds of perfectly viable terraced houses in northern cities and replace them with ‘sustainable communites’, as well as Concreting over most of what is left of the ‘Garden of England’. The Recent CPRE report makes this abundantly clear.

There we go, heads back in the sand again.

best to all

Colin

I was equally surprised at the time.

However, I gather there is some method in the madness.

This is basically to ensure that both the USA and China get on board – And that’s the most important thing we can do to ensure climate change is combatted.

Granted, there will be a number of years with fewer cuts than would be hoped for, but the idea being that at the end of the next period technology will have developed to such an extent that large take up is pallatable worldwide – no point in us making large cuts at huge expense when USA would not do likewise.

However, this will only work if ther is significant funding for R&D and demonstration.

Lowering the targets means that it is uneconomic to demonstrate, so these will have to be fully or VERY heavily funded – and we’re talking large scale projects running to hundreds of millions each – and then we come to EU state funding laws, international collaboration, questions over who owns the intellectual property for such heavily funded international projects, and who will actually be tasked with developing these technologies.

Method in the madness, but Tony may well have just shot himself in the foot.

Lets hope it works, for all our sakes

Martin

Interesting piece – it looks like things are progressing well for renewables; but is the government having a change of heart?

http://www.newbuilder.co.uk/news/NewsFullStory.asp?ID=968

“Despite the obvious benefits and proven track record of renewable energy the industry continues to face growing uncertainties as the government deliberates over the latest grant programme. The Major Demonstration Programme, which provides grants for solar photovoltaics, was originally scheduled to run from 2002-2012 but is now set to finish as early as April 2006.”

I suspect that part of Blair’s wish to keep the US on-board is quite noble & correct. I received an email this morning in line with the content of this site saying “Robbin William’s peace plan”.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/r/robinwilliamspeaceplan.htm

It’s clearly ignorant rubbish, but sometimes this kind of xenophobic material catches popular appeal & it is very dangerous for everyone.

I’d certainly believe we need to foster closer links between the US and Europe; and appreciate the value that many Americans bring to our understanding of GW etc.

This is my first addition to this site and I am a self confessed amateur when it comes to global environmental issues. I have read High Tide and it has led me to read more and more on the subject, which has led me to writing this.

I think that if we are going to be practical about how any government is going to actually face the massive problem of climate change, then, we also have to be realistic about the circumstances that government are facing. Mr Blair is faced with a hugely powerful President who, as we know has no real intention to spoil the glory days of oil. He is also faced with a Euro sceptic public who believe that any change from Brussels is a negative, especially on maters of climate change. And mixed into all of this he is facing a leadership struggle with in his own party.

Kyoto has been something that Blair has been behind for a very long time, but it is unrealistic for us to believe that little bit of politicking is going to have to be dealt out before he or anyone can get anywhere on it. I can imagine what he says to one audience will have to change when in front of another one, in order to get the job done.

I will watch the conservative party conference this week and see if there is any real words spoke on climate change from the more right wing party in the country. My hunch is, if you think Blair is not doing enough then imagine where the Tories would be on the issue. I can imagine the Euro sceptic population would find itself in power along side the oil hungry America and that combination spells catastrophe

He is trying to put hydrogen cell technology on the map. Visit http://www.lhp.org.uk/home-lhp.fcm?subsite=1676

Good post Jake. Most mainstream politicians fill me with despair. They are in a trap of sorts. They need votes to get elected. Broadly and crudely speaking they promise us more (consumption) to win these votes.

The only party which consistently talks any sense on GW/CC and related issues is the Green Party (I joined recently). But it is still in embryo form.

There are a number of pressure groups active on the issue and there will be a (big?) demo in London on the 3rd of December to Stop Climate Chaos.

But we need more. I think the situation is so serious and urgent that cross party co-operation is necessary. There are some mainstream politicians who seem to “get it” on GW/CC. Tim Yeo (Cons), Norman Baker (LD) and Michael Meacher (Lab) come to mind immediately. How do we pull all this together and build a movement which starts to look more mainstream than marginal?

Douglas Coker