In the year he promised climate change would be one of his big priorities, Blair's belief in economic growth at the expense of humans being able to survive strengthens by the day.
"People fear some external force is going to impose some internal target on you ... to restrict your economic growth," he said. "I think in the world after 2012 we need to find a better, more sensitive set of mechanisms to deal with this problem."
And we know that 'more sensitive' means less drastic, less enforcable.
Can we get away with that? Was Kyoto perhaps a bit stringent?
It promised a 5.2% cut in CO2 emissions (with loopholes for some of the most polluting industries like transport). The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - hardly a bunch of alarmists - say we need 60%-90% cuts now or climate change will kick in hard.
The prime minister said that legally binding targets to reduce pollution made people "very nervous and very worried".
We can either:
A) take the only route to sustainable living, or
B) encourage global weather patterns to change so that we're unable to feed a serious proportion of humanity within a generation or two and quite possibly make the planet uninhabitable to humans and a significant number of other species within a couple of millennia.
Which one should make you 'very nervous and very worried'?