"Taking risks," "Having the courage for a new positive break," "Moving toward environmental improvement by taking unpopular responsibility." The series of statements on the issues of climate change and in the run-up to a COP30 in Brazil without the United States of America, coming from the mouth of Tony Blair—the Prime Minister of the "Cool Britannia" of the 1990s, and since then one of the most respected former leaders, speaking all over the world—have resulted in curiosity and interest. But the truth is that few have grasped the fact that this was not merely an interview on the subject but a reflection based on an extensive report by the Blair Foundation of more than 50 pages, ambitiously but pointedly titled: "The Climate Paradox: Why We Need to Reset Action on Climate Change."  
We decided to read it, and it was worth it. The paradox is that of non-denial, far from it, of climate change. But connected to this basic truth is the fact that the policies introduced so far, and for only a few years-—the Paris Treaty is less than a decade old—are showing the strain both among those who deny climate change but also among those who support the reasons, year by year, for the annual conference that the United Nations puts on to encourage climate action. A true paradox: more shared knowledge not matched over time by growth in consensus around the chosen actions.
 

From developing countries...

The Blair Foundation report does not skirt around the issues too much and acknowledges what has happened since the Glasgow 2021 COP, when India led a mini-revolt of developing countries calling for measures that also take into account those who have not yet reached the peak of economic and energy development that would allow them to consider renewable energy and the circular economy.
The first chapter is all about the risk of such a different vision undermining the collective effort for change and creating a rift that is difficult to overcome in the future. This rift, even when unreported has led to the growth in use of fossil fuels and spasmodic and hasty use of even coal in both India and China over the past fifteen years, while, despite declarations, air traffic emissions have kept on growing over the past twenty years. And if developing countries are asked to proceed with a necessary modernization of their cities, we cannot fail to take into account the need for more steel and cement, which in these countries would lead to production rates rising by 40-50 percent.
Obviously, under these conditions, phasing out standard policies becomes really difficult. Above all, it is hard to understand for the people in these developing countries, who are asked on the one hand to develop faster and with standards of modernization that put them on a par with others, and on the other to "de-grow" as if they had already reached peak development.  
 

 

...to policies that fail to deliver

The Blair Foundation indicts this sort of policy schizophrenia as primarily responsible for the confrontation that threatens to paralyze every political choice of energy and environmental cooperation, not only the success of the future COPs, starting in Belem, Brazil in November 2025.
Policies that fail to deliver—says the Blair Foundation—make tempers flare because the sacrifices that are imposed or self-imposed by people create exasperation and become the fuel for populist appeals that cast doubt not only on climate policies but also on the institutions that propose them. Therefore, we need a policy "reset”. Reflection, clear choices. Feasible for all.
The constructive part of the report begins by proposing to make the best policies truly viable for all countries, seeking to select carefully from all the measures proposed and introduced.
 

The role of AI and new energy

   According to the report, CO2 capture, for example, is often underestimated, while it is capable of significantly impacting the restructuring of entire industries and thus also bearers of future development, not just mitigation of climate change. The use of Artificial Intelligence to devise new tools for producing energy or controlling electrical infrastructure while ensuring savings and efficiency is a practical way, and with little rhetoric, of applying an industry that is the subject of much, perhaps too much, debate solely in terms of ethics. Human-directed AI in this field can also become a very effective tool compared to other industries.
Nation states, also working together, should invest on the whole front of clean energy without overlooking—with careful controls and new instrumentation, and on a smaller scale than in the past—energy produced by nuclear fusion; without neglecting other fields of research into new producible energy.
Land use remains a fundamental issue: forests, fields and urban restructuring must allow nature to take its course as a primary operator in capturing emissions, which also means a different idea of urban and social configuration of territories. 
For the Blair Foundation, it is very important that the strategy of adaptation and mitigation of the effects of climate change is not left on the back burner. Today they seem to be just "relief" policies but, in reality, we cannot simply wait for nature to do its thing, which we know it will, without preparing ourselves: Climate change is already here: the planet gets warmer every year, glaciers are melting, there is increasing risk of flooding or severe weather events. We cannot pretend that they do not exist; that all we have to do to stop them from happening is change policies. We must of course also build environmentally correct conditions, of resistance to these events, adjusting and reinforcing humanity's adaptation to these changes.
 

Working toward common goals

All of this implies certain collective choices by countries under real cooperation, but the Blair Foundation seems to emphasize that while the multilateral approach has been key to growing the focus on problems, global knowledge and consensus to arrive at a common vision (Rio and Kyoto Treaty, Paris Agreement etc.), we also need it to decide on certain goals, such as those mentioned earlier, and to take action towards them with as many countries as are willing. In short, kind of like when people say that the European Union should decide together on the broad lines of inspiration to achieve "enhanced collaborations" between countries that decide to explore and research together in a specific area, such as the single currency or defense. Obviously, this is in relation to the world geopolitically and to the choices that require an applied and industrial research effort that not all UN countries can handle but ensuring benefits of results for all.

T

he Foundation mentions especially the importance of rethinking the role of finance, also taking into account the tight budgetary framework of nearly all states. It was a formula that Biden's special envoy, and former secretary of state, John Kerry, had also sought to highlight in the most recent COPs, when he proposed and implemented informal and formal meetings between industries, tycoons, and foundations of strong philanthropic vocation, looking to support climate research and innovation efforts with private funding. This issue is loudly revived by the Blair Foundation, citing the example of the Bill Gates Foundation's financial commitment to vaccine research, and in particular on MRNA for the Covid vaccine. 
 There is a strong statement as early as the middle of the report, reiterated in the conclusion: "We need to create momentum for innovative solutions, not get stuck in the past, and we need to go further and faster. We need to depoliticise the climate debate, shift from climate rhetoric to climate results and focus on the future of humanity. By embracing disruption and prioritising impact over rhetoric, we can still halt global warming and secure a liveable future." The theme of "disruption" features several times in the report and at times, even in the conclusion, it is specifically described as "positive disruption." Just as the term "depoliticize" is evidently related to the idea of untying the knot of geopolitical or ideological convergences.
 

We need a break with the past

The report, which is also full of data and information, is a truly interesting reflection, which should not be reduced to a simple news story about Tony Blair, because it addresses the issue of the international debate on climate and the environment as it has developed in all international venues of confrontation.
COPs, BIO COPs, United Nations frameworks or those of internal debate within individual countries such as in the US or the European Union, or on the positions of China and India and the BRICS countries, have often started from other considerations, external to the actual facts, and often not proving useful to an overall advancement of environmental, climate or circular economy issues. And this has influenced many NGOs, and academic or intellectual thought. The call for positive disruption, far from criticism, could rather be seen as a challenge, starting precisely with COP30, so strongly advocated by Lula. It might just be that serious and earnest debate will be able to revive it by trusting the United Nations with a role not only as "master of ceremonies" but perhaps as the prime mover of a series of timely actions with satisfactory results.