With the UK hosting the 26th UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) in Glasgow later this year, it was curious to see the leaders of both Labour and the Conservatives both in Glasgow this August making quite different statements; in particular the fate of the estimated 800m barrel Cambo field 125km (75 miles) to the west of Shetland.
Whereas Labour Leader Sir Kier Starmer stated clearly that this oil field development “should be blocked”, Prime Minister Boris Johnston initially stated that he was not aware of the development – and why should the Prime Minister be aware of all and every development under consideration when we have the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA) in the UK? Isn’t the OGA best placed and most informed to make such a decision – rather than a London based Millionaire Lawyer and leader of the Labour Party? No doubt, Sir Kier Starmer was/is a well-qualified lawyer, and may one day make a fine Prime Minister – I am not so sure he has much knowledge of the UK energy industry.
I wasn’t aware that in 2008 Energy sector representatives (OGA came into existence 2015) questioned Sir Kier Starmer’s decision (as the then head of the CPS) to uphold not prosecuting the Police officers who shot dead Brazilian Jean-Charles de Menezes in 2005 for no apparent reason than human error. Why should anyone assume anything other than the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), of which Sir Kier Starmer became its head (November 2008) made a competent and informed decision with respects to this matter?
Whether you agree with it or not is another matter – the point is that we have such institutions and bodies for a reason. It is somewhat concerning when politicians try to circumvent such bodies for politically posturing. Politicians should let the OGA do its job impartially and without external influences. Sir Kier Starmer has no business in making such public statements as he has.
Had Sir Kier checked, he would have found that the founding principle of the OAG was “to maximise the economic recovery of the UK’s oil and gas resources, whilst also supporting the move to net zero carbon by 2050”. Either he supports them in achieving this, or he doesn’t. It is folly to think that one can achieve this 2050 target without a strong economy and (environmentalists/greens don’t want to hear this – but a fact it is none the less) the Oil and Gas industry being part of this.
I found Sir Kier’s comment in (apparent) response to Mr. Johnson’s crass quip (of which Mr. Johnson so commonly does!) about Margaret Thatcher having given the UK “a big early start” (with respects to her part in destroying the coal mining industry and the lives of so many who worked within this industry) actually informed in that he mentioned the fate of mining communities as an example of how not to manage the transition from oil and gas to renewable energy production.
Finally, a statement of truth and wisdom. One could debate who did the most damage – Thatcher or Arthur Scargill – however the damage to people, their families and the economy as a whole was immense when one “abruptly ends” rather than transitions. One would expect that the decline the coal industry was inevitable, and only has to look to Venezuela to see how Mr. Scargill’s (and seemingly Sir Kier’s) vision for a socialist utopia and “social ownership” ends up in reality with respects to a once thriving energy sector and economy.
Further irony is that since 2000 the world has actually doubled its coal-fired power capacity, reportedly (by carbonbrief.org) to be in excess of 2000 gigawatts – much of which is in China and India. Further increasing the overall carbon-footprint is that we also now buy our manufactured goods from these places and ship them back to the UK and Ireland. It is sobering that most of my own matchbox toys I passed on to my children had “Made in Britain” stamped into the base. I certainly don’t agree with Sir Starmer’s socialist ideology (unlike him, I am not wealthy, nor privileged enough to consider being a socialist), but I agree with his comment that we do need to manage any such transition – that includes the livelihoods of the many people working in these industries. In my opinion he contradicts himself somewhat in supporting the populist, socialist-green viewpoint that any oil and gas field development is bad for the environment – period.
It has to be taken within the balance of a global economy. I’d encourage critics (including Sir Kier) to take a look at the new interactive global map produced by Montreal firm GHGSat (reference: https://pulse.ghgsat.com/) – noting the particularly high methane outputs (methane being a more damaging greenhouse gas than CO2) for the Middle East, Caspian region and China. Note also the absence of “Extinction Rebellion” protests in such places – perhaps such places simply don’t serve a decent Vegan-friendly skinny-Chai latte with organic soy milk?
Image source: pulse.ghgsat.com
It is clear that our economy still needs oil and gas – and will for some time. Shutting out UKCS exploration and development doesn’t make this need disappear, it simply means that the UK imports this oil and gas from elsewhere (like those matchbox toys once so proudly stamped “Made in Britain”). Oddly, in the end it would seem that both Sir Kier and Mr. Johnson seemed to arrive at the same place later on, Mr Johnson said contracts should not be “ripped up” – but that we need to transition to renewable energy sources “as fast as we reasonably can” with respects to the Cambo field. Yes, true – Take another look at that GHGSat Methane map.
UK MET office data recently published by the BBC shows a 1.2°C rise in Global mean sea temperature since the early 1900s, the greatest rate of change occurring since the 1970s. It is somewhat disingenuous to focus upon the energy sector when ignoring the data showing that since the start of the 1970s, the world’s population of humans has grown from circa 4 billion to approaching 8 billion today. I see/hear few environmentalist pressure groups screaming about population growth as part of the problem that we clearly have with respects to climate change.
We await the report that has been compiled by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its findings with respects to the changes we are to expect to the world's oceans, ice caps and land in the coming decades. I would expect this to be one of the key documents discussed at COP26. One can hope that population growth and poverty are two topics that are contained within the report given poverty is often a driver for population growth. Climate change is in many cases compounding this poverty. It is a cycle we need to address as part of the overall, integrated solution.
With Covid still prevalent, Increasing Cyber Attacks from foreign states, and the Taliban about to once again over-run Afghanistan, we will wait and see how much focus there will be upon COP26, other than the media reporting on the many activist protests that are expected. Sadly, Afghanistan is a sobering reminder that throwing money at a “problem” (over US$800 billion in last 20 years) without the engagement of all stakeholders is doomed for failure. Our common environmental crisis is unlikely to be any different as a common vision is key.
