ED Miliband halting new oil and gas licences is a very welcome change of direction for UK politics and effectively brings the UK Government into line with what was the Scottish Government’s policy on new oil and gas in January last year.
As it stands now, though, the Scottish Government has backtracked on its opposition to new oil and has been extremely vague about the conditions under which it would support a ban. To be clear, it is one thing to state that you’d only support a licence if environmental checkpoints are met but if you don’t state what those checkpoints are or what a properly compliant oil licence would look like, then all you are doing is deferring responsibility for the decision either way.
The Supreme Court’s ruling last month that oil extraction must fully account for all oil emissions is significant here. Until then, a case was being built that a “net zero” oil rig would be one that transported workers to and from it without burning fossil fuels (Scope 1 emissions) and was powered by renewable energy instead of a fossil-fuel power plant (Scope 2 emissions) but that basically washed its hands of whatever happened to the oil it extracted (Scope 3 emissions). If you bought some of their oil and burned it, that wasn’t their problem.
This can no longer be the case and so brings into question the very possibility of a compliant oil rig. The Scottish Government should outright admit that either its support for oil must be ditched, or its remaining climate policies must.
As welcome as Miliband’s stance is, it likely doesn’t go far enough. He’s equally stated that he won’t revoke licences already granted but not yet being exploited nor will he shut down oil wells that are still economically producing oil.
Half a decade ago in 2019, Friends of the Earth’s Sea Change report found that if the world is to meet its collective climate targets, then not only must new licences be blocked and unexploited licences revoked, but at least 20% of the economic oil in wells that are currently open must stay in the ground.
A just transition for workers is vital and I sympathise with Unite’s “no ban without a plan” slogan, but I fear that the politicians will stick to the easy option of “no ban” rather than what they should do, which is to bring those workers into the room immediately and help them design the plan that grants them the just transition they want and deserve before another political deferral forces a chaotic collapse of the oil industry and sees oil workers dumped just like their predecessors in the coal industry were.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel