Tuesday, August 01, 2023
Sunak strikes match while the world burns
Who could have predicted that the UK Government's response to climate change disasters, currently engulfing large sections of the world, would be to make matters worse? Well, okay this government is all about short term political initiatives, so it wasnt that big a stretch.
Nevertheless, Rishi Sunak's decision to authorise more than 100 new North Sea licences on a visit to Scotland does seem an extreeme response even by his standards. It's almost as if he is flailing about looking for an electoral holy grail, while slowly sinking into a swamp of his own making.
According to the Guardian, Sunak insisted the announcement was compatible with net zero commitments because of the country's anticipated part-reliance on fossil fuels for years to come, saying it was more carbon-intensive to ship oil and gas from other countries. But his argument does not hold water.
The paper quotes experts, who say Sunak's plan ignores the fact that much of the UK’s imported gas comes by pipeline and tends to be produced more cleanly than its British equivalent. Environmental groups said Sunak’s plan would “send a wrecking ball” through climate commitments:
Tory and Labour MPs said Sunak’s “economically illiterate” announcement was “driving a coach and horses” through previous promises, and warned the prime minister he was “on the wrong side of history” and that modern voters wanted leaders who “protect, and not threaten, our environment”.
Kicking off a week of announcements intended to highlight the distance between the Tory stance and Labour’s pledge to bar any new North Sea projects, Sunak criticised the latter’s policy as “bad for energy security, bad for the British economy [and] actually bad for the environment”.
He said: “My view is we should max out the opportunities that we have here in the North Sea, because that’s good for our energy security.
“It’s good for jobs, particularly here in Scotland, but it’s also good for the climate because the alternative is shipping energy here from halfway around the world with three or four times the carbon emissions. So any which way you look at it, the right thing to do is to invest into back our North Sea, and that’s what we’re doing.”
In fact, 80% of the oil we produce in the North sea is exported, while despite the fact that the UK is a net importer of gas, only 4% of that comes from Russia, most of it comes from our near neighbour Norway. And increasing production will not even lower domestic energy prices.
Prices certainly went up because of the Ukraine war, but these are set by international traders not local producers. The chances are that the additional licences will have little or no impact on price.
In summary, there are no national security or market reasons for granting more licences, while the impact on climate change and the government's drive for net zero could be catastrophic. This is another misstep by Sunak in his hunt for votes.
Nevertheless, Rishi Sunak's decision to authorise more than 100 new North Sea licences on a visit to Scotland does seem an extreeme response even by his standards. It's almost as if he is flailing about looking for an electoral holy grail, while slowly sinking into a swamp of his own making.
According to the Guardian, Sunak insisted the announcement was compatible with net zero commitments because of the country's anticipated part-reliance on fossil fuels for years to come, saying it was more carbon-intensive to ship oil and gas from other countries. But his argument does not hold water.
The paper quotes experts, who say Sunak's plan ignores the fact that much of the UK’s imported gas comes by pipeline and tends to be produced more cleanly than its British equivalent. Environmental groups said Sunak’s plan would “send a wrecking ball” through climate commitments:
Tory and Labour MPs said Sunak’s “economically illiterate” announcement was “driving a coach and horses” through previous promises, and warned the prime minister he was “on the wrong side of history” and that modern voters wanted leaders who “protect, and not threaten, our environment”.
Kicking off a week of announcements intended to highlight the distance between the Tory stance and Labour’s pledge to bar any new North Sea projects, Sunak criticised the latter’s policy as “bad for energy security, bad for the British economy [and] actually bad for the environment”.
He said: “My view is we should max out the opportunities that we have here in the North Sea, because that’s good for our energy security.
“It’s good for jobs, particularly here in Scotland, but it’s also good for the climate because the alternative is shipping energy here from halfway around the world with three or four times the carbon emissions. So any which way you look at it, the right thing to do is to invest into back our North Sea, and that’s what we’re doing.”
In fact, 80% of the oil we produce in the North sea is exported, while despite the fact that the UK is a net importer of gas, only 4% of that comes from Russia, most of it comes from our near neighbour Norway. And increasing production will not even lower domestic energy prices.
Prices certainly went up because of the Ukraine war, but these are set by international traders not local producers. The chances are that the additional licences will have little or no impact on price.
In summary, there are no national security or market reasons for granting more licences, while the impact on climate change and the government's drive for net zero could be catastrophic. This is another misstep by Sunak in his hunt for votes.
Comments:
<< Home
I reluctantly believe we will need SOME oil after 2050 but not the amount Sunak is chasing (say 10).What I have not heard is that the fuel will be sold on the open market at international prices NOT for only UK to utilise.All the UK will get in benefit is tax return and some jobs.Even those may be taken by 'forinners'.If Sunak really wanted the UK to profit out of these new plans he should instal a Soveriegn Wealth Fund.
Post a Comment
<< Home
