By: Richard Craig

Richard Craig — Tue, 19 Nov 2024 15:06:52 +0000

Sorry – got the last bit wrong – it should read LESS reckless than the path the courts, Greenpeace and the former Climate Change Committee chairman are trying to foist on us.

By: Richard Craig

Richard Craig — Tue, 19 Nov 2024 15:02:45 +0000

I think we need to unpack what’s happened here.
Will stopping these developments actually make a difference to the amount of carbon produced by or on behalf of the UK? Probably not. Instead of oil and gas being produced in the UK, from the North Sea, it will be produced elsewhere and imported. And this means the oil or gas will be transported over longer distances to get to our power stations (gas) or vehicles (oil) so probably will increase our carbon emissions. It is therefore escaping me why it can be unlawful. It seems the judges did not fully consider what the carbon emissions would be if the developments did not go ahead. The judges, Greenpeace and the Climate Change Committee former chairman seem to be under the misapprehension that if these fields are not developed, this will reduce the UK carbon emissions. Unless something else happens, it will not – the UK will just import more oil and gas.
And what do I mean by something else? It probably needs four big changes (leaving aside agriculture and meat/dairy production) – decarbonisation of our electricity generation, decarbonisation of heating, electrification of transportation and reductions in energy demand (be it increasing efficiency or reducing use through behavioural change). All of these require investment and a lot of that will come from the government, financed through borrowing or taxation.
And where does a lot of Government revenue come from? The North Sea – £2.6 billion rising to £9.9 billion in 2022/3 (due to oil/gas price rises after the invasion of Ukraine), £6.2 billion in 2023/4 and then falling to £2.2 billion by 2028/9 (and probably falling faster with these judicial decisions).
And if there is another oil/gas price shock? Yes, the oil/gas is sold on the international market but if we let others produce the oil/gas we use, then others will profit from the price increases and the UK will not – so how do we fund ensuring people who cannot accommodate the resultant price increases are able to keep warm?
I therefore think there is a significant body of opinion that not continuing to use the North Sea to enable a smooth and risk free transition to net zero and continuing to use the generated revenue to fund the decarbonising agenda, enabling the UK to accommodate the further likely oil/gas price shocks would actually be more “reckless” than the path that the courts, Greenpeace and the Climate Change Committee former chairman seem to be forcing us into.

Comments on: Shell and Equinor to concede Scottish oil and gas consents are ‘unlawful’ in judicial review

By: Richard Craig

By: Richard Craig