Tony Blair: You Ask The Questions

Aren't your climate opinions about five years behind the times for someone who was supposed to be a leader?

Richard Scott

by email

The UK is recognised as being a leader in this field not least because it was the G8 in 2005 – when the UK was in charge – that put climate change on the agenda properly for the first time. Five years ago, there was still real debate about whether climate change was real and man-made. The key question now is not whether we take action but how. In particular, it's about how we craft a political deal that brings all nations together in a way which enables them to meet their goals on prosperity for their citizens. This is what I hope I am addressing with the "Breaking the Climate Deadlock" initiative.

Will you apologise for the increase in the UK's carbon emissions during your 10 years as prime minister?

Caroline Kennedy

by email

Actually, the UK is one of the very few countries on course to meet its Kyoto targets. And we put in place a whole range of policies and support measures to encourage a reduction in carbon emissions which are beginning to show rewards. Through our domestic emissions trading scheme, target for 2050 and Climate Change Bill we have set the foundations for long-term reductions and contributed to policy development in Europe and beyond. Gordon Brown is continuing this. CO2 emissions rose slightly over the last years of my premiership as a result of strong economic growth but we still have a record of which the UK can be proud when compared with other nations.

When you're not jet-setting around the world, what do you do to help save the planet?

Jon Bosworth

Hants

The best way I can help is to work out a way through what is an incredibly difficult and politically sensitive issue – how we get a global deal with developed nations like America and developing nations like China in the same agreement and that requires talking to people in different parts of the world. The best way of helping is to use my experience and my contacts to edge the international community towards agreement on reducing greenhouse gases. It is true that airline emissions are growing but they are still responsible for four times fewer emissions than deforestation.

How can we wean ourselves off oil when governments do everything in their power to keep us supplied with the stuff?

Dan Whale

Norwich

Look there's no point in blaming governments for this. If they weren't keeping people supplied with petrol they would have a rather big issue with the public. At the moment we still need fossil fuels. But I don't think any government is basing the strategies for energy security solely on fossil fuels. We do have to be realistic and accept that fossils fuels like oil and coal will remain a major part of our energy mix for some time. That's why we need to develop and deploy technologies like carbon capture and sequestration quickly. But we also need to put far more effortinto renewable energy like solar power, nuclear and sustainable biofuels. The good news is that there are plenty of ways to cut carbon emissions. A study by McKinsey suggests that by 2020 energy use could be cut by up to 24 per cent through energy efficiency investments.

You have said yourself that even if we reduced our emissions to zero, the savings would be eaten up by China in a year. So what's the point?

June McCormack

Sheffield

That is the very reason why we need a global deal and why Britain should play a part in the negotiations. And you shouldn't be too pessimistic. China is also concerned about climate change, can see the impact it is having on their environment. The Chinese have put forward very bold energy intensity targets. But nor are they going to give up the ambition to become wealthier. The challenge is to get away from the idea that there is a choice between tackling climate change and prosperity. It is important for the UK to show this is possible.

You did not make environmentalism one of your strengths. Why do you think you are in a position to talk about climate change?

Peter Dawson

by email

Go to tonyblairoffice.org, have a look at the report and let me know what you think of it.

As you are in favour of Heathrow expansion and David Cameron isn't, haven't the Tories now got the most credibility over green issues?

Tony Jenkin

by email

I don't think the expansion of Heathrow is a litmus test for whether you are concerned about climate change. If all that happens is that people go to Paris or Amsterdam rather than Heathrow to catch flights, it will do nothing to reduce global greenhouse gases but could have a damaging impact on Britain's economy. But aviation still only makes a tiny contribution to climate change. So I think knee-jerk reactions are misguided. We need to bring aviation into the European ETS [energy trading scheme], which will help drive efforts to make the industry as efficient as possible, speed up development of alternative fuels and expand the potential for IT to substitute for business travel.

Can you persuade me that we are doing enough, soon enough, to solve the problem?

Hugh Croft

Netherlands

It would be naive to claim that the world is doing enough. We will need a full-scale energy revolution within 20 to 40 years. If, as projected, the world population rises to nine billion people, we will have to reduce per-capita emissions to two tonnes of CO2e per year by 2050. It is on average eight tonnes – with over 20 tonnes for the US and 10 tonnes for Europe and Japan. But I do see positive signs that global leaders are aware of the scale and urgency of the challenge.

Eighteen per cent of greenhouse emissions come from farm animals raised for meat, while rainforests are destroyed for cattle ranching. Will you go vegetarian and lead by example?

Nitin Mehta

Croydon

The destruction of tropical rainforests for conversion to farmland – for meat and crops – must be halted, and reversed. This is why I have called for G8 leaders to support efforts to reduce forest destruction and degradation. Minimising emissions from agricultural sources will be an important part of efforts to limit climate change. This does not mean the world has to give up meat. Technological advances such as methane capture and NOx inhibitors, and support for sustainable agricultural practices, offer ways to reduce the climate impact of animal agriculture.

How large a part of climate change do you think is due to human activities, and how large a part to non-human processes?

Erik Carlquist

Sweden

Over 2,500 scientists from over 100 nations participating in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded in November 2007 that warming of the climate system is unequivocal and human activity was "very likely" (more than 90 per cent) responsible.

How can we ensure that renewable energy initiatives do not have adverse knock on effects for other areas of the environment?

Alex Hare

London

Yes, it is important that while we attempt to solve one problem, we don't create another. However, given the magnitude of the climate change problem we cannot afford to ignore measures because they have some knock-on effects in other areas. We will need, for example, a vastly more diversified energy supply, based on wide mix of resources, including renewable, nuclear, clean coal and others. All of these will have some kind of impact. What we have to do is minimise it.

Why have alternative fuels and energy sources not been developed more rapidly in the UK?

Dylan Mitchell

Watford

In recent years, the UK has shown a rapid growth in clean energy resources and the use of biofuels. With Europe's Climate and Energy package and the measures introduced by Gordon Brown recently – reinforced by the high prices of oil and other fossil fuels – this trend is set to accelerate. I am confident that Britain will become a world leader in clean energy technology.

Why is it that our leaders are not talking as one but are crazily jockeying for position instead of uniting and leading by example?

Michael Leighton

by email

First, the scale and complexity of the problem. It is as technically and scientifically complex, as politically sensitive and as institutionally fraught as any the international community has known for half a century. Second, our knowledge of the issue is evolving. We know the general direction of change, but not the speed. And third, and probably above all others, developed and developing countries alike fear that a comprehensive and efficient global regime could harm their economies. This is not the case. The Stern review, which I commissioned while Prime Minister, showed that the benefits of action vastly outweighed the costs. And those costs are small relative to other economic costs, such as oil price rises.

With the Middle East peace process making no progress, were you given any cause for optimism while there?

Elizabeth Bryant

Leeds

There is some progress but not nearly enough. There is a political negotiation. The Palestinian economy on the West Bank is growing, though slowly. There is a ceasefire, however fragile, in Gaza. But of course, much more needs to be done. But as I learned in Northern Ireland, you cannot afford to give up.

Why do you spend so much time in the US? Don't you like us any more?

John Richard

Newcastle

The majority of my time abroad is actually in the Middle East.

Is there any way Labour can win the next election?

Matt Wandelai

by email

Yes.

Uniting religions, solving the Middle East and now climate change. What's next?

Don Jevans

by email

Newcastle winning the Premiership. I'm also helping the governments of Sierra Leone and Rwanda. I like big challenges!

What's your most memorable moment from the Downing Street days?

Victoria Lockhart

by email

In Downing Street itself? First time walking in and last time walking out.