Sunak takes a big dive into the North Sea

Rishi Sunak claimed that his controversial new energy plans are “entirely consistent” with reaching net zero by 2050, after announcing today a major expansion of oil and gas drilling in the North Sea.

Even when Britain reaches net zero, “a quarter of our domestic energy needs will still come from oil and gas”, said the PM, speaking in Aberdeenshire. 

In addition to giving the green light for hundreds of new drilling licenses, Sunak also unveiled £20bn of funding for Scotland’s first carbon capture scheme. The Acorn Project at St Fergus in Aberdeenshire will take greenhouse gas emissions and store them under the North Sea and, according to the government, is set to create over 200,00 new jobs. 

The PM was at pains to stress the importance of domestic energy security: aside from boosting the local economy, the drilling expansion will reduce the UK’s reliance “on foreign dictators”. He had no need to spell out which foreign dictators. 

It’s a point that resonates after Putin’s weaponisation of gas saw households and businesses in Britain – and across Europe – coping with skyrocketing energy bills. 

Yet Sunak’s carbon capture declaration wasn’t enough to stave off criticism from environmentalists. The Scottish Greens attacked Sunak’s “utterly reckless decision” to expand drilling as one that “will leave a long and destructive legacy” while Scottish Labour labelled his carbon capture plan “a smokescreen.”

Carbon capture is both expensive and still a fledgling science. As Ted Christie-Miller wrote in Reaction, the industry needs to undertake one of the steepest technology innovation curves in history. If mastered, it could be a promising way to drive growth and level up Britain, he adds. Yet critics describe this as greenwashing and warn that it will be many years before the technology is capable of trapping carbon dioxide on a large scale.

Even some MPs within Sunak’s own ranks are concerned that North Sea gas and oil expansion risks alienating the electorate. Chris Skidmore, the Tory MP and former energy minister who led an independent review of net zero, warned today that the government is on the “wrong side of history”, since modern voters want a party that will “protect, not threaten, our environment.”

That said, after anger at Sadiq Khan’s ULEZ expansion helped the Tories to secure a by-election victory in Uxbridge, Sunak may be wondering if taking a softer stance on environmental issues could, on the contrary, draw a beneficial dividing line between him and other parties. 

Both Labour and the SNP have said they would impose a moratorium on all new North Sea drilling if in power.

And, as Maggie Pagano wrote previously in Reaction, Starmer’s position has drawn criticism from two of Labour’s biggest funders: Unite and GMB. 

Gary Smith, the general secretary of the GMB union warned that Starmer’s proposed ban of all new exploration would be “calamitous in terms of jobs,” and indeed on the economy, particularly the Scottish economy.  

Similarly, Sharon Graham, the general secretary of Unite, the UK’s second biggest union which includes oil rig workers as members, urged Labour not to “let workers pay the price for the transition to renewable energy.”

Ironically, Sunak’s decision to open up new North Sea oil and gas supplies may have done Starmer a favour. While Labour policy is against issuing any new exploration licences, Starmer has said that, if elected, he would allow any existing fields to continue operating. So giving the green light to new North Sea gas and oil expansion may have saved Starmer from having to make yet another U-turn further down the line to appease the likes of GMB and Unite while facing the wrath of environmentalists.

Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life