Is the government finally seeing sense on net zero?
The government has realised that planes will still take off, even in a lower carbon future, so they may as well do it from Heathrow. They should apply the same logic to fossil fuels and allow drilling in the North Sea, says Will Cooling
The New Year has clearly brought with it new energy from the government when it comes to the economy. They’ve called regulators into the Treasury to stress the importance of getting out of the way of business, approved key infrastructure that makes developing the Oxford-Cambridge Arc into Britain’s Silicon Valley a realistic possibility, and rolled out proposals to seize the opportunities presented by artificial intelligence.
Much of this activity is to repair the damage to consumer and investor confidence caused by Rachel Reeves doom-laden announcements and misfiring Budget. What there hasn’t been as of yet is a genuine sign that the government has fundamentally changed its mind on an issue of substance. Perhaps the closest is the question of airport expansion, with the Chancellor making it clear that the government was now minded to support not just a third runway at Heathrow Airport but similar projects around the country.
This attracted significant unease amongst her colleagues, with Sadiq Khan threatening to challenge any London airport expansion in the courts. Whilst no cabinet ministers joined the Mayor of London in placing their opposition on the record, plenty briefed journalists they worried about the impact such schemes would have on the government’s plans to create a greener, cleaner economy.
And they have a point, if you take the plans to reach net zero literally rather than seriously. While it makes sense to identify ways to reduce Britain’s demand for carbon, the reality is that few people are proposing to do away with international air travel. So journeys will continue regardless of whether Heathrow loses its status as a major hub due to lack of investment. If the flights are going to take off anyway, they may as well do so in a way that helps Britain’s bottom line.
Review Rosebank
Of course that logic applies beyond the aviation sector. One of the more baffling decisions this government has made is to ban the issuing of any more licences to drill in the North Sea for oil or gas. Now they have the chance to go further, with the Scottish Courts using a technicality to force the energy secretary to review plans to exploit the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields once fresh environmental impact assessments have been submitted. Should these projects be scrapped by Ed Miliband, it would send a clear signal that the government was determined to close the North Sea.
Again, it’s important to note that the government has no plans to stop the use of oil and gas within Britain any time soon. While tremendous progress has been made in electrifying some consumer items such as cars and home heating, most industrial processes still require fossil fuels. Likewise, while renewables make up an ever larger proportion of Britain’s electricity production, there is still the need for fossil fuels to provide a back-up on cloudy, windless days. And that is true for every other country in the world.
While renewables make up an ever larger proportion of Britain’s electricity production, there is still the need for fossil fuels to provide a back-up on cloudy, windless days. And that is true for every other country in the world
This is why countries such as Canada and Norway see no contradiction between their commitment to fight climate change and their determination to continue exploiting their natural resources. This should be Britain’s approach too. If oil and gas is still needed – and it is – better democracies produce it than allow dictatorships to exploit any shortfall in global supply. This is particularly important in the context of Russia having tried to use oil and gas exports to undermine global support for Ukraine.
There is something fundamentally dishonest about pretending to meet net zero by moving flights or fossil extraction onto other countries, so we can enjoy the benefits without the emissions being set against our ledger. It’s a-too-clever-by-half scheme that impresses few but risks costing hundreds of thousands of people their jobs and impoverishing the nation. Sir Keir Starmer should admit he made a mistake, seize the opportunities for growth in not just Britain’s skies but its seabeds too, and tell Ed Miliband to focus on getting more solar panels and wind turbines built.
Will Cooling writes about policy and pop culture at It Could be Said Substack