Why Labour's Ed Miliband is moving too quickly towards end of North Sea oil and gas
Shutting down the North Sea now might seem like the best way to ensure net zero, but it brings a host of obstacles to overcome
In the days before he was Secretary of State for Energy, Ed Miliband once described me to a group of people as his “lift buddy”. As his office was then directly above mine, it was where we bumped into each other.
Our conversations were generally about energy, and while we agreed on the need for change, we tended to differ on how, and how quickly. For me, energy security and employment, never mind keeping the lights on, are key.
I think it’s fair to describe the Energy Secretary as favouring a speedier end to all oil production. In recent days, the topic has begun to dominate the airwaves as golf course entrepreneur and US President Donald Trump, and then environment charities, threw scorn on developments of offshore wind farms. Unlikely bedfellows, and although their reasons are very different, they reflect a growing unease.
For Trump there is the dual scourge of spoiling the view from his controversial golf developments on a previous Site of Special Scientific Interest on the Aberdeenshire coast, and going against his “drill baby drill” philosophy.
For his former environmental opponents, it is about protecting wildlife. While I have a lot of sympathy with the latter, I also agree with those pointing to the irony of our growing dependence on gas imports rather than using our own.
Add that to the concerns that Chinese involvement in, and control of, windfarm facilities might threaten our energy security and it seems the future picture is far from universally agreed.
Oil and gas supporters have long warned that premature shutdown of the North Sea would mean importing carbon fuels from countries with fewer safeguards and damaging our carbon footprint in the process.
This week their argument has been given fresh impetus as government figures show UK gas imports grew by 20 per cent between January and March this year.
With damaging price increases caused by our dependence on Russian gas supplies at the outbreak of war in Ukraine still fresh in the public memory, reliance on any foreign source feels risky and even unnecessary.
Will this autumn’s Budget signal a change of direction from Downing Street? The Climate Change Committee has estimated that between 13 and 15 billion barrels of oil and gas could still be needed while we work towards net zero.
Experts reckon that our domestic production could only fulfil about one third of that. If it could be doubled, it would not only reduce our foreign dependence, but industry lobby group Offshore Energy UK claim it could raise more than £160 billion of useful revenue.
There is no simple or cheap solution. Shutting down the North Sea now might seem on the surface like the best way to ensure net zero, but it brings a host of other obstacles to overcome. Conversely, continuing to depend too heavily on a naturally declining basin would not only delay net zero but wouldn’t guarantee cheaper energy.
Getting the balance right will be the key and right now I am not sure that we have it right, either to protect the climate or help the Exchequer stabilise our economy and create growth. Once the UK Parliament returns, I will be looking to my lift buddy to navigate the best route forward.
Christine Jardine is Liberal Democrat MP for Edinburgh West
Comments
Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.