Ignoring Actuality: Tony Blair Institute’s Harmful Local weather Mirage

Final Up to date on: twenty sixth Could 2025, 03:58 pm

Just lately I printed a scathing evaluation of the current Tony Blair Institute whitepaper which claimed web zero was lifeless and that solely direct air seize and nuclear may save us. Because of this, Laurent Segalen and Gerard Reid invited me to affix them on Redefining Power to tear into Blair, the Institute and the report. The calmly edited transcript is under the embedded podcast.

Gerard Reid [GR]: In the present day on Redefining Power, we’re going to speak in regards to the Tony Blair Institute’s current report on local weather which we warmly suggest individuals to not learn.

Laurent Segalen [LS]: Becoming a member of us on the present is our accomplice in crime, the fearless and invincible Michael Barnard. The three of us put collectively essentially the most downloaded episode of the previous 12 months—our predictions episode, which was extraordinarily well-liked. And, after all, the one on Invoice Gates, the place we weren’t precisely form. Truthfully, I ponder why we nonetheless hassle with company—we’re higher off simply babbling collectively.

So, with out additional ado: Michael, welcome to the present.

Michael Barnard [MB]: Nice to be right here once more.

LS: We’re speaking in regards to the Tony Blair Institute. However first, Gerard, let’s discuss Tony Blair himself—as a result of for anybody beneath 40, or for our American listeners, he could be a forgotten title. Are you able to remind us of his profession?

GR: Tony Blair was the Labour Prime Minister within the UK from 1997 to 2007. He was vastly well-liked all through that interval—till the Iraq Warfare in 2003, which left an enduring stain on his popularity. Nonetheless, he was a cultural icon for the center-left and performed a key position in shifting the Labour Social gathering from the left towards the middle. You may argue he was essentially the most charismatic European chief of his period.

LS: Yeah, he was younger. And in the event you have a look at that interval, China was nonetheless an financial minor. The Russian oligarchs had been busy combating amongst themselves reasonably than threatening anybody else. The Gulf states had been nonetheless being constructed. Oil costs had been low. Europe was increasing, with 3% development. It was the period of Cool Britannia—we had the Spice Ladies. At my firm, the most important title was GE. The giants had been IBM, AOL, Enron, Kodak, Nokia. It was a unique period—a unique epoch altogether.

GR: Yeah.

MB: And america hadn’t but grow to be a gerontocracy. Invoice Clinton was the charismatic, younger, energetic chief—Blair’s counterpart throughout the Atlantic—till he wasn’t.

LS: After his time as Prime Minister, Tony Blair grew to become a Center East envoy—no matter that entailed, doubtless involving frequent journeys to the area—till 2015. He then based the Tony Blair Institute for World Change. Gerard, are you able to inform us what the Institute is immediately?

GR: That’s an excellent query, Laurent. Finally, they produce plenty of experiences and do lobbying—that’s what they do. They’ve an enormous funds, round $100 million. I suppose they mannequin themselves on the Clinton Basis within the U.S., and a few individuals do hearken to them.

LS: Lots of people hearken to them. They’ve a workers of 800, which is critical. If you happen to have a look at their web site, they provide authorities advisory companies—which is basically lobbying for governments. They don’t have any drawback working with any kind of regime. They’ve acquired some huge cash from Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, and main funders just like the Larry Ellison Basis and the Gates Basis. It’s a really cozy Davos world.

GR: By the way in which, they do write fairly a bit on power. They don’t write significantly effectively on it, however they do write about it.

LS: They publish two or three coverage experiences every month on matters like well being, economics, know-how, governance, and local weather change. Wanting on the knowledge, about one in 4 of their experiences pertains to power. The rationale we’re having this dialog immediately is as a result of, final month, they launched their now-infamous Local weather Paradox report. It triggered a wave of reactions. First, glowing protection from mainstream retailers just like the FT and Bloomberg—“Oh my God, Tony Blair is so good,” and so forth. Then got here a couple of essential responses, together with one from Michael Liebreich on his Substack and one other by Michael Barnard on CleanTechnica.

The creator of the report is Lindy Fursman, head of power coverage on the Tony Blair Institute. She has a PhD in Sociology from UC Berkeley and has labored throughout academia, authorities, and NGOs. I believe she by no means labored in an organization in her entire life, however I’m positive she’s very gifted. Okay, let’s return to the report. Gerard.

GR: Nicely, on the finish of the day, it’s a report stuffed with phrases. Why do I begin there? As a result of no one reads experiences like that anymore. I believe there have been solely two graphs in the entire thing. You must do a phrase search simply to know it.

However let me take a step again. The primary advice of the report is about accelerating the scaling of carbon seize applied sciences. Then it talks about harnessing the facility of know-how, together with AI, investing in breakthrough and frontier power options, and scaling nature-based options. The general message is that we don’t but have the applied sciences in place to unravel the problem.

What annoys me about that is—and I’ll discuss extra in regards to the applied sciences later—we truly do have the applied sciences. And by the way in which, these applied sciences are additionally low price. So once I listened to this, learn it, and noticed among the commentary within the newspapers, I assumed, okay, this can be a typical blocking technique.

What we’re seeing proper now’s a fossil gasoline business closely financing anti-renewable and anti-electrification messaging. And there’s a purpose for that—as a result of they’ve large belongings in play. If electrification and renewable adoption speed up, it’s unhealthy for his or her enterprise.

That’s clearly mirrored within the media. So once I noticed this report, I assumed, that is simply propaganda.

However Michael, I don’t know—you wrote one thing on this. What was your preliminary response?

MB: Nicely, I’m going to lean into the first power fallacy. These persons are in the identical camp as Vaclav Smil—arguing that we will’t get there from right here in lower than a century, which merely isn’t true.

A fast primer on the first power fallacy: immediately, a big portion of the power in our economies comes from fossil fuels. We burn them and solely get 15 to 50% of the power as helpful output—the remainder is wasted as warmth. In an electrified financial system, we waste a lot much less. Wind generators powering warmth pumps truly give us extra power by drawing it from the atmosphere. With electrification, we’ll want about 40% much less power coming into the financial system to ship the identical financial advantages, consolation, and comfort.

Anybody who’s pushed an electrical automobile is aware of this. They speed up quicker, they’re quiet, they don’t stink, they’re absolutely charged within the morning, and you should use an app to heat them up. That future entails far much less waste than immediately’s system.

Smil missed that time. In his influential books—Invoice Gates learn all 37 of them, apparently—Smil didn’t account for the fallacy. It wasn’t till 2021 that he wrote a three-page monograph acknowledging the first power fallacy, and even then he didn’t revise his assumptions.

The Tony Blair Institute is making the identical mistake. They declare power use has at all times gone up throughout power transitions, calling them “additions,” whereas ignoring that we now not burn whale oil in lamps. The first power fallacy is the massive one.

Individuals have finished substantial work on this. Mark Z. Jacobson explored it within the 2000s. Saul Griffiths labored on it beneath contract to the U.S. Division of Power within the 2010s. I’ve finished my very own serviette math—it’s not difficult. And but, apparently, each serviette math and a long time of analysis are past the capability of the Blair Institute. That’s my first statement.

GR: Laurent, what had been your ideas on it?

LS: Nicely, my ideas had been fairly easy. I did a phrase rely: the time period “DAC” or “direct air seize” appeared 11 occasions, CCS 9 occasions, “seize” 17 occasions, “nuclear” 8 occasions, “wind” 4 occasions, and “photo voltaic” 6 occasions. That offers you a way of the emphasis.

The second factor that triggered this episode was the duvet picture—that includes the now-famous, or notorious, Climeworks direct air seize plant in Iceland. Only a week after the report was printed, the poster baby for direct air seize—which I’ve described as deception, amateurism, and a con—began releasing its precise seize numbers. And it’s an absolute joke.

Michael instantly wrote one other op-ed on CleanTechnica in response. Michael, are you able to discuss a bit about Climeworks, which Tony Blair appears to have adopted as his poster baby?

MB: Let’s discuss the issue they’re attempting to unravel: eradicating CO₂ from the environment. The analogy I take advantage of is a seashore stuffed with black sand—one million grains—and amongst them, simply 430 grains of darkish grey sand. Your job is to seek out and take away the darkish grey ones, whereas another person is concurrently scattering extra of them throughout the seashore as you sift. It’s an entropic nightmare. A waste of time.

From a materiality perspective, you’d must seize round 100 million tons of CO₂ per yr simply to make a dent within the 40 billion tons we emit yearly. These are large numbers.

Now, Climeworks—this was their second plant. Their first was Orca, which was presupposed to seize 10,000 tons per yr in idea [sic, actually 4,000] however hasn’t hit that quantity. Then got here Mammoth, which made headlines when an investigative journalist discovered that though it was designed to seize 40,000 tons per yr, it had managed solely 105 tons in 2024.

They’ve all types of excuses for that.

However what actually stood out is that this: I went to their sustainability web page on the lookout for metrics. You’d anticipate them to obviously state how a lot CO₂ they’ve sequestered—in any case, that’s their total goal. However they don’t say. They by no means present a quantity on their web site for the way a lot CO₂ they’ve truly saved. That’s a outstanding omission for a corporation whose sole purpose for present is everlasting sequestration.

It’s fascinating—and I’ve adopted direct air seize for a very long time. What was it you known as it? Deceptions, amateurs, and cons.

LS: Yep.

MB: I checked out Carbon Engineering again in 2019, and I spoke with the founders of World Thermostat—I believe that was round 2010. I’ve talked to individuals throughout this area, together with David Keith, and I’ve by no means discovered something in it that’s price doing. None of those approaches scale to the extent of materiality required. Climeworks is not any completely different.
They’ve raised $800 million, have round 500 workers, and now they’re laying individuals off—as a result of, unsurprisingly, thermodynamic and entropic realities are proving that this may by no means be dust low cost. And it must be dust low cost to be related.

LS: Now, 105 tons—simply to offer our listeners some context—in the event you fly a Boeing from London to New York, that’s about 165 tons of CO₂. So Climeworks didn’t even compensate for one flight. And we’re speaking about $800 million invested. Positive, lab analysis is okay, however that is severe cash. And severe individuals have been backing it.

Let’s discuss who financed them. Their Sequence A in 2022, in the course of the heydays, included Companions Group. Individuals say, effectively, Climeworks is Swiss, so after all they introduced in Swiss Re and Companions Group. The one who signed off—it’s public, it’s within the press launch—was Alfred Gantner, vice CEO, and Esther Peiner, head of infrastructure. These are normally severe individuals. I do know Esther—she does actual investments. However what’s she doing in Climeworks?

Then they introduced in others who, frankly, in all probability didn’t have time to dig deeply into it. GIC, the Singapore sovereign wealth fund, additionally got here in. So did Swiss Re—Christian Mumenthaler was CEO on the time, although he’s since left. The man who led the funding, Mischa Repmann, continues to be there. And naturally, the position was finished by J.P. Morgan. It’s all within the public document. Individuals like Brian DiMarino and Heather Zichal had been concerned—they’re world heads of sustainability and so forth.

Many of those persons are nonetheless round. The large query now’s: are they going to be requested to pony up for the subsequent spherical? As a result of, to me, this smells like tuna bones. And other people in finance know precisely what I imply.

GR: Guys, it’s straightforward to criticize—and we’re proper to take action—however I wish to discuss in regards to the actuality of what’s taking place in electrification.

Take photo voltaic, for instance. Final yr, 600 gigawatts had been put in. By way of energy produced, that’s equal to Japan’s annual electrical energy demand. That’s the size we’re speaking about—this know-how is arriving at large velocity.

Now have a look at lithium-ion batteries. In 2020, world manufacturing was 200 gigawatt-hours per yr. We’re now over 1,100. A fourfold enhance. That’s a transparent signal of technological innovation and acceleration to market.

As for what you stated about Vaclav Smil—he doesn’t grasp the size or tempo of technological change taking place proper now.

One factor I did admire within the report was the point out of AI. It’s essential, as a result of AI helps handle this rising complexity in a much more environment friendly—and lower-cost—method than earlier than.

That’s the fact we’re in. These applied sciences are right here, and so they’re coming quicker than most individuals suppose.

MB: I wish to lean into that time, as a result of one of many key takeaways for me—past their misunderstanding of the know-how shift and the first power fallacy—is that they clearly haven’t been being attentive to what China has been doing over the previous few years. In the event that they’re claiming nuclear is the reply, whereas ignoring wind, photo voltaic, batteries, and storage, they’re lacking the larger image.

Let’s have a look at some numbers. Simply final week, an analyst who focuses totally on this area reported that China’s CO₂ emissions declined by 1% from March final yr to March this yr, at the same time as their financial system grew considerably.

GR: Wow. I didn’t see that. Wow. That’s huge information. That’s good.

MB: This isn’t decoupling—it’s a decline. Not a slowdown in development, however an precise year-over-year drop in emissions. And it’s the primary time that’s occurred with out a compelled exterior occasion like COVID. Emissions fell in 2020 and once more in 2022, however these had been as a consequence of world slowdowns. This time, we’re speaking a couple of rising, vibrant financial system—whatever the headlines. The Economist has spent 25 years predicting China’s collapse, and so they’ve been incorrect each time.

Now contemplate this: coal era dropped by 4.7% from Q1 2024 to Q1 2025, even with GDP rising over 5% and complete electrical energy demand rising. Grid demand did drop barely, however that’s not an indication of declining electrification. Fairly the alternative. China has added a lot behind-the-meter photo voltaic that decrease grid demand displays the success of packages like their “10,000 Villages Bloom” initiative, the place EPC contractors are tasked with putting in rooftop photo voltaic throughout total counties.

China can also be shopping for extra electrical automobiles than any nation besides Norway. Final yr, half of all grid batteries put in globally had been in China. They’re constructing 365 gigawatts—about 12 to 14 terawatt-hours—of pumped hydro. That features techniques already working, beneath development, or beginning by 2030. They hit their 2030 renewables targets final yr. They’re hitting their 2035 EV gross sales targets this yr.

In the meantime, nuclear—one of many pillars of decarbonization based on Tony Blair’s institute—hasn’t even reached its 2020 targets. They could lastly get there this yr. Their 2025 goal is simply 2% of era capability, and so they’re not on observe for that both. In contrast, renewables now account for 50% of China’s electrical energy era capability, and coal is in decline.

This can be a clear proof level for the long run. And but, the Tony Blair Institute—and the individual answerable for its power and decarbonization evaluation—appears to be lacking it. Why?

GR: Nicely, they’re a lobbying group, in order that tells you one thing, proper? So comply with the cash.

LS: While you Google the phrase “What does TBI stand for?” the highest reply is “traumatic mind damage.” That claims all of it.

MB: On that notice, Paul Martin—a buddy of the present—has a meme that claims, “Cease being attentive to outdated guys.” I have a look at the information about Joe Biden, and the way his handlers had been attempting to cover the extent of his decline. And now Tony Blair, who’s in an identical demographic. Clinton has principally pale right into a quiet put up–#MeToo area, in all probability for one of the best.

I simply hope that once I attain that stage, somebody pulls me apart and says, “Mike, it’s time to hold up your keyboard.”

GR: We’ll undoubtedly say that to you, Mike. Don’t fear.

LS: Okay, guys, my remaining phrases are: carbon seize is state seize. It’s that easy. And also you’re completely proper—these persons are both outdated and out of contact, or they’re employed weapons. At greatest, it’s misguided; at worst, it’s nefarious. That’s my conclusion on the Tony Blair report—particularly in the case of applied sciences like DAC, which don’t have any future.

GR: Nicely stated. Nicely stated.

MB: My final phrases are: ignore Tony Blair. Take a look at the actual story—China’s emissions are in decline.

LS: Gents, thanks very a lot. I hope we weren’t too arduous on sure individuals—however that’s how we do it right here. We’re the mavericks.

GR: Precisely.

LS: Cheers.

GR: Thanks very a lot.

MB: Thanks. All the time a pleasure.