A new paper by the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change argues that strategies for addressing climate change must acknowledge demand for fossil fuels.

“Despite the past 15 years seeing an explosion in renewable energy and despite electric vehicles becoming the fastest-growing sector of the vehicle market, with China leading the way in both, production of fossil fuels and demand for them has risen, not fallen, and is set to rise further up to 2030,” Blair observes in the report’s foreword. “Leaving aside oil and gas, in 2024, China initiated construction on 95 gigawatts of new coal-fired energy, which is almost as much as the total current energy output from coal of all of Europe put together. Meanwhile, India recently announced they had reached the milestone of 1 billion tons of coal production in a single year.”

Blair seems to take issue with environmentalists who wag their finger at developing countries for leveraging fossil fuels rather than relying entirely on green energy, saying that these countries “believe, correctly, that they have a right to develop and that those who have already developed using fossil fuels do not have the right to inhibit them from whatever is the most effective way of developing.”

But finding ways to address emissions from developing countries will be key to mitigating climate change, Blair stresses. “Though action by the developed world is still vital, by 2030, almost two-thirds of global emissions will come from China, India and South-East Asia,” he explains.

Africa is also growing. While it is only responsible for 4 percent of global emissions today, Blair says its population will double over the next three decades. Airline travel will also double 10 years earlier, contributing to global energy demand, he says.

“These are the inconvenient facts, which mean that any strategy based on either ‘phasing out’ fossil fuels in the short term or limiting consumption is a strategy doomed to fail,” Blair writes.

Blair says energy demand does not invalidate “the inconvenient truth that the climate is changing, and to our detriment,” and says addressing that change is “one of the fundamental challenges of our time.”

Those who seek to meet that challenge “need to recognize that without turning some of the emerging technologies into financially viable options, the world will choose the cheapest option. This applies to everything from nuclear fusion to sustainable aviation fuel, to green steel and low-emissions cement.

“We should put carbon capture—directly removing carbon as well as capturing it at source—at the center of the battle,” he continues. “At present, carbon capture is not commercially viable despite being technologically feasible—but policy, finance and innovation would change this. The disdain for this technology in favor of the purist solution of stopping fossil-fuel production is totally misguided.”

Impact

While there are editorials in response to the Blair Institute’s paper—written by Lindy Fursman, the Blair Institute’s director of climate and energy policy—it is difficult to assess its influence on discussions among climate change strategists. However, a 2023 article in The Guardian noted that the Institute advises governments around the world and pondered whether it has given Blair more influence than he had while he was serving as the United Kingdom’s prime minister.

It’s also worth emphasizing that while the paper recognizes the role that fossil fuels and energy in general play in economic development, it is not advocating broader fossil fuel adoption. The Institute envisions the world eliminating coal entirely and calls for a dramatic increase in carbon capture financed by the fossil fuel industry.

“Governments should collectively agree to shift towards a goal of capturing and permanently storing every ton of CO2 generated by the coal, oil and gas industries—or removing an equivalent amount via other methods—making this part of these industries’ licenses to operate,” it asserts.

The paper goes on to say that “fossil-fuel companies should be required to invest in and scale this technology, and are well-positioned to do so, having the infrastructure, expertise and capital to develop this solution.”

Even if carbon capture ends up widely deployed, it will not be enough on its own, the paper argues. “The world faces significant warming from historical emissions already in the atmosphere and the inevitable continued emissions in the near term,” Fursman explains. “With fossil fuel use persisting and demand increasing, we need a dual approach: CCS to minimize new emissions and engineered carbon-dioxide-removal (CDR) solutions to address existing atmospheric carbon.”

According to the paper, engineered CDR involves using chemical processes “to extract CO2 directly from the air and then store it permanently underground or utilize it in various applications, including the production of synthetic fuels or sustainable plastics.” The paper acknowledges that CDR is “prohibitively expensive, often costing hundreds of dollars per ton of CO2 removed.” However, “with increased investment in research, development and deployment, these costs could decrease substantially—similar to the magnitude of cost reductions seen with solar panels and wind turbines over time.”

The paper also calls for advancing and deploying other technologies to “streamline and speed up both climate adaption and mitigation.” As an example, it points to AI, saying that AI could “lead to better climate modelling, infrastructure deployment (including grid design and improved resilience), energy-cost optimization and innovation for decarbonization.”

Satellites are among the technologies the paper highlights. “Satellites have revolutionized the detection of methane leaks by enabling global, continuous monitoring of emissions that were previously difficult to identify,” the paper praises. “Advanced sensors aboard satellites can detect methane’s unique ‘spectral signature,’ pinpointing leaks with increasing precision including at the facility level.”

Companies and regulatory agencies are using that data to find leaks and prioritize repairs, the paper observes. “The technology also provides accountability by making emissions data more transparent and accessible, encouraging industry to address these highly damaging emissions promptly,” it says.

Political Will

While the paper calls for urgent action, it admits that rallying support will be tough. “Political will is receding just as the crisis accelerates,” the paper assesses. “Governments are backtracking, businesses are dropping climate targets and voters are electing leaders who deprioritize the planet’s future.”

Part of the problem, it says, is the reality that past efforts to address climate change have failed to deliver the promised benefits. “In many economies, the promise of green jobs has not materialized at the scale expected,” it says. “Meanwhile, industries in many developed economies face rising costs and are losing competitive ground to countries like China.”

Building support in one country is not enough, the paper finds. “The global reality is that no country can afford to pay the price of decarbonization as well as the cost of climate disasters caused by others’ inaction,” it says. “The worst of all worlds for any country is to invest heavily in domestic decarbonization but also be faced with the high costs of adapting to climate impacts due to the failure of others to similarly decarbonize.

“We need international cooperation far beyond the current frameworks and a collective commitment to fast decisive action, especially from the leaders of major emitting economies,” it states.

Rather than relying on multilateral processes, such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the paper suggests forming agreements between smaller groups that target the most significant emission sources. “China and India need to be the focus of this approach—not only because of their role in emissions both now and in the future, but also because they will drive many of the technological solutions that can solve the climate crisis,” it says.

The Blair Institute also urges countries to target emissions beyond their borders rather than focusing solely on decarbonization inside them. “For example, actions to remove coal from the global energy system will have significantly greater impact than investment in last-mile decarbonization in economies where renewable energy already provides the bulk of generation,” it says.

The paper, The Climate Paradox: Why We Need to Reset Action on Climate Change, includes a history of winning and then losing public support for climate change mitigation, more detailed looks at technological solutions, and potential strategies for financing high-impact decarbonization efforts and research and development.