In an interview on Sky news yesterday, Tony Blair was asked if he would give up his long haul holidays to help fight climate change. His surprisingly frank response was:

“I personally think these things are a bit impractical actually to expect people to do that… I think that what we need to do is to look at how you make air travel more energy efficient, how you develop the new fuels that will allow us to burn less energy and emit less… Britain is 2% of the world’s emissions. We shut down all of Britain’s emissions tomorrow – the growth in China will make up the difference within two years… So we’ve got to be realistic about how much obligation we’ve got to put on ourselves.”

It’s striking how honest he’s being here. His attitude can be summed up as:

What’s the point in tackling UK emissions? China and India are the real problem and any action on the UK’s part is an empty gesture.

People are not willing to change their behaviour to mitigate climate change and anyone who proposes they do will be slapped down. People must be free to consume and any limitations on this freedom would impinge on their right to a good time.

Energy efficiency is only feasible insofar as it has no effect on people’s lifestyles. Market driven technology will provide the solution to climate change. This technology will appear when triggered by market events, which haven’t yet occurred.

And by implication:

The Kyoto accord is good PR but because China and India aren’t in, it’s not useful for much else. Because of the dash for gas, we’d already met our Kyoto targets before we signed up so it’s no skin off our nose anyway. Carbon emissions continue to rise year on year. We won’t meet the Government targets set out in the Energy White Paper (20% reduction in CO2 by 2010 relative to 1990 levels) because there are no sufficiently effective measures in place and the UK will only meet the longer term targets (60% reduction by 2050) if a technological solution can be found.

The Stern Review says the UK can tackle its emissions now at a cost of 1% of GDP or continue business as usual and risk a reduction in global GDP of up to 20%. Whether or not the conclusions of the Stern Review are true is immaterial. There is no point in tackling UK emissions because they are a drop in the ocean; we should only tackle our climate change if the US, China, and India do as well. If the Stern Review is correct and we take action while other countries do not, we’ve needlessly cost ourselves 1% of our GDP.

While it’s nice to hear him speak so plainly, the implications of what he is saying are frightening. We are in the prisoner’s dilemma and the PM’s strategy is to rat out the other guy. Considered in another way, carbon is the new arms race and Britain under Blair will not be the first dismantle its bombs. It’s apathy on a global scale. It is cynical and uninspired and contrary to his usual public statements. It’s not leadership. It’s not visionary. And he shows no faith in people’s ingenuity and sense of social responsibility.

Given the choice between a) a 1% reduction in consumption, gaining the high ground from which to apply pressure on other countries, and boosting energy efficiency and the renewables industry, and b) carrying on as usual despite the stakes, secure in the dismal view that no one else will take action so why should we, I know which one I choose.