Americans admire Tony Blair. The British Prime Minister is probably more popular in the States than at home, where his policies on Iraq and his detested liaison with George W. Bush have cost him dearly at the polls. Progressive British voters, once the core of Blair’s two landslide victories, have deserted him in droves, shocked at their leader’s betrayal of British liberalism to an arch-conservative American president.
Bush’s reputation has undergone a dramatic transformation in Britain. Once ridiculed as a slow-witted cowboy, he is now feared as a militaristic, religious loony who is leading America and the rest of the world toward Armageddon. In America, by contrast, there are many who adore this change, seeming to prefer that the US lead by fear rather than diplomacy and wisdom. This pseudo-religious machismo plays well to a depressingly large number of otherwise apparently sane American voters, but this aggressive, narrow-minded fundamentalism has little to do with the Christianity they so stridently espouse. At least Blair’s oft-expressed Christian faith, while unpopular with British voters, is a more gentle, forgiving variety.
Britons watched in dismay as their leader subjugated UK foreign policy to America’s reckless pursuit of war without a plan for peace. Blair tried and spectacularly failed to convince the British public that there was a national interest to be served by his duplicitous and dishonorable dealings on Iraq. At the mid-term elections for local government and the European parliament, British voters gave Blair a bloody nose.
Having totally lost the public’s confidence on Iraq, the Prime Minister has sought another important issue to woo back his disaffected supporters in time for next year’s general election. And he might have found it: he wants to save the world from the ravages of global warming, and in particular from America’s rampant pollution of the planet we all share.
In January, Britain assumes the rotating presidency of the G8 group of leading industrial nations, and in a recent speech, Blair unveiled a “green offensive” to change US policy on climate change and the environment.
Speaking to a conference organized by Prince Charles’ “Business and the Environment Programme,” Blair stopped short of a direct attack on President Bush, but made it clear that Britain expects America to belatedly recognize its responsibilities on global warming. Blair wants the US to ratify the Kyoto Treaty so the 189 other nations that have signed the protocol are not betrayed by “free riders” like America.
Blair also urged businesses to be in the forefront of change. He argued there’s no conflict between “protecting the environment and a strong economy, and that “green’ scientific advances can help to boost growth.” He insisted that “economic development, social justice and environmental modernization must go hand in hand.”
In Charlotte, developers and business leaders who are fighting modest local proposals for improving our air quality should read the speech from America’s closest ally and favorite foreigner. They should be ashamed of their negativity and blinkered vision. Do they lack the wits to see the urgency of the situation, and the potential for new economic development presented by this challenge? Or are they just selfish and greedy, getting rich today and leaving our children to suffer the environmental and economic consequences tomorrow?
Whatever their reason, they’re out of touch with the new reality of environmental economics. Even a traditional supporter of business and free markets like British Conservative leader Michael Howard is positioning himself to be “greener” than Blair, and is equally critical of Bush’s cavalier hostility to the environment.
Britain’s attempt to galvanize change in America was reinforced recently by Stephen Byers, a close Blair ally. In talks in Washington, Byers said, “The reality is that the United States is responsible for a quarter of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions, and any hopes of successfully tackling global warming will be doomed to failure unless we can get America engaged.”
He continued, “I know there is a considerable body of opinion in America that believes the introduction of measures to tackle global warming will adversely affect the American way of life. But for millions of Americans, climate change is already having a damaging and disrupting effect . . . Time is running out if we are to win this battle . . . and we need America to join the international effort.”
Stripped of polite political nuance, little Britain’s message to her big, bullying ally is clear: Americans are screwing up the world for themselves and everybody else, and they must change their ways. As Michael Meacher, another senior British politician noted, “Climate change is a worse risk than terrorism — 3,000 people died in 9/11 but 160,000 die each year because of climate change. Bush has let down the whole world. (Britain) has had no return for kowtowing to Bush over Iraq. It’s time we had some pay-back.”
Amen!
This article appears in Sep 22-28, 2004.
