I agree. What I was trying to say is that Blair is attempting to find a way out of unilateral emissions reductions, both nationally and internationally. By shifting the key responsibility for international climate policy-making onto the big players, he has effectively reduced UK climate policy to watching what China, India, Australia and the US are going to do. I wouldn’t be surprised if Britain (or Canada, for that matter) were to join the Asia-Pacific Partnership sooner or later.

Blair finds himself is an even more desperate situation at home. He has tried to appease his party’s increasingly rebellious left wing by accepting unilateral emission targets that go way beyond what Kyoto requires. The political consequence of this miscalculation is now coming home to roost as his government is facing a growing and politicaly damaging split on climate policy.
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-02-09T162259Z_01_L08302465_RTRUKOC_0_UK-ENVIRONMENT-BRITAIN-CO2.xml&archived=False

As things stand, Labour’s rebells don’t appear to have any qualms about bringing down the Blair government. It wouldn’t be the first time that his party’s left goes into self-destruct mode. It would be a very high price for any government to pay for ill-advised climate policies.

As I understand it, even if the U.K. somehow unilaterally returned itself tomorrow to the greenhouse emissions levels–and likely living standards–of the Bronze Age, the effect of that sacrifice on climate change over the next hundred-odd years (whatever those climate changes actually turn out to be) would be trivial.

Blair, it seems to me, has simply publicly recognized that unless and until *all* major current and future greenhouse gas emmitters agree to engage in dramatic reducutions, in concert, *no* major current or future greenhouse gas emmitters will do so alone. They would be irresponsible to do so, in fact, since unilateral emissions reductions are in almost every case both economically uncompetitive and enviromentally insufficient.

Technological advances which simultaneously burn cleaner while increasing economic productivity are one of the few competitive exceptions to the generally uncompetitive nature of unilaterally reduced emissions. So it isn’t surprising that Blair (and Bush, for that matter) prefer to highlight those win-win technologies.

“Climate change campaigning” about the emission sins of *this* industry or *that* region has always struck me as the ultimate in gestural politics. Emotionally rewarding, no doubt, but effectively pointless.

Again, the false premise inherent in Benny’s spam is that the cost of action is greater than the cost of inaction (or Business-as-Usual or no-regrets or whatever you want to call it).

Best,

D

You’re spot on. Tony Blair is perhaps the best example of why climate change policies will remain very messy for years to come.

The key problem he is facing in the UK – even within his cabinet – is a battle between green advocates who favour the precautionary principle (no matter what the cost of action) and free-market pragmatists who approach the issue of climate change from the perspective of cost-benefit and cost-effectivness.

Blair has firmly alligned himself with the second group of cabinet ministers:

“No-one is going to damage their economy in trying to tackle this problem of the environment. There are ways that we can tackle climate change fully consistent with growing our economies.”

At the Clinton Global Initiative in New York last year he stressed: “I don’t think people are going to start negotiating another major treaty like Kyoto.”

In December, when Britain’s new Tory Leader criticised Blair’s Kyoto-critical position to climate policy, the PM responded: Of course, he was still in favour of a post-Kyoto treaty. But only if the US, China and India were to agree to binding targets. Blair is very shrewed and has simply passed the buck. As long as the big players aren’t signing up to Kyoto or post-Kyoto, don’t expect Blair to become a climate change campaigner.