Bjorn Lomborg chortles “Wow, Tony Blair institute saying the UK Climate policy is now unsuitable”. For our part, after suggesting that naming your institute after yourself smacks of conceit, we note that Blair as so often is on both sides of an issue and neither, saying “If Clean Power 2030 was ever fit for purpose, that is no longer the case: the world has changed economically, technologically and geopolitically.” So should we change course? Yes. As long as we stick to the present path. The piece says “The UK needs a reset. Not to take it away from climate ambitions (the Net Zero by 2050 target must stand firm)…” but in some magical way that actually allows you to have energy while getting rid of it. Which to be fair was the essence of Blairism in so many ways. But also of “pragmatism” more generally and the newfound kind on energy in particular. With the Green Energy Transition in retreat everywhere and politicians reconsidering their zany enthusiasm for it, Reuters reports that “EU countries give final approval to 2040 climate target for 90% emissions cut”. As Steve Milloy sneered of this development, “You can’t fix stupid”. But they might at least try. And calling yourself older and wiser while doing the same dumb stuff does not qualify.

It’s extraordinary the degree to which the rhetoric, and thought, of self-proclaimed pragmatists is devoid of solid content. For instance:

“Cheaper Power 2030 should become the organising objective of electricity policy. This means a relentless focus on making the system work – through market reform, planning reform and strategic grid development – and ensuring that any renewable capacity supported by the government demonstrably lowers electricity bills based on realistic assumptions. This is what will ultimately unlock the electrification that is needed to deliver net zero between now and 2050.”

Bwa bwa bwa. Not least because it apparently supposes that a relentless focus on making the system work is not what Tory and Labour climate alarmists alike have had, or thought they had, over the last 20 years. They were just wrong about what would make it work, indeed they soundly rejected any option that might have done so.

As for planning reform, nice work if you can get it. But the history of central planning since the invention of central planning suggests that a centralized plan for better central planning is easy to say and impossible to do. Whereas “strategic grid development” is precisely what, again, the British government has been engaged in for decades. Just badly. What makes you think they’ll suddenly get good at it because you said good is better than bad, let alone said it as though it was as deep as it was original?

Or consider “ensuring that any renewable capacity supported by the government demonstrably lowers electricity bills based on realistic assumptions.” Is it not exactly what they’ve said they were doing all along? Which means they are exceptionally poor judges of what demonstrably drives energy bills, or of what constitutes realistic assumptions.

Finally, the telling “This is what will ultimately unlock the electrification that is needed to deliver net zero between now and 2050.” Notice the “orphan this” at the outset, a kind of vague arm-waving to try to wrap up an incoherent argument into a tight package. We need a noun here. But whatever noun you substitute, from “plan” to “fantasy”, the idea that it will “ultimately unlock” this magic electrification that is needed immediately, with 2050 only 24 years away, is absurd.