3 min read
Speaking to Times Radio following the publication of a detailed essay, the former Prime Minister was direct about the flawed logic underpinning current UK energy policy:
“The three biggest emitters in the world today are China, America and India. Together they account for just over 50% of global emissions. All of them are pursuing cheap energy and electrification. Does this mean to say they’re not doing renewable energy? China builds more renewable energy than the rest of the world put together.” As Blair observed, all of them are pursuing cheap energy and electrification as the organising principle of policy. That's not a reason for complacency. It is a reason for strategic clarity.
On Britain’s position:
"Britain's emissions are around 1% of global emissions. So we can't solve climate change. And to impose costs on our own business and consumers in order to accelerate to net zero, when the rest of the world is not doing so, is, I don't understand the logic behind it."
He went further on North Sea:
"Or shutting down our own North Sea oil and gas industry in circumstances where again, I don't know of another country in the world that's doing that if there's still a requirement to import energy from oil and gas."
And on the real lens governments should apply:
"It's not a question of ripping up the idea of clean energy. It's a question of abandoning what is an unnecessary, accelerated target to fulfil that, which both imposes a cost burden and in respect of our own North Sea oil and gas industry, means that we're leaving stuff in the ground we could take out and use."
I agree with all of this.
Not because it's Tony Blair saying it. Not because I'm against clean energy – I'm viscerally supportive. Not because climate change isn't real and urgent – it evidentially is.
But because net zero cannot be an 'at any cost' endeavour.
It must be balanced against the equally serious obligations of economic growth, industrial competitiveness, and the long-term security of the people and industries of this country.
A secure, resilient, and genuinely affordable energy system isn't in conflict with the energy transition. It is a precondition of it.
Blair also noted the fiscal dimension, too often treated as secondary:
"If our fiscal position is tough, and it is tough, that's why we've had to raise taxes."
The cost of getting this wrong isn't abstract. It falls on households, on businesses trying to compete globally, and on public finances already under strain.
Britain's energy policy must be built around what works for people, for industry, and for a credible long-term transition that the country can actually sustain.
