More than 140 environmental and social justice organisations have warned that opening new oil and gas fields would lock the UK into higher energy bills for longer.
In a letter to the Labour leader, Keir Starmer, the organisations, which have millions of UK supporters, said new oil and gas exploration would not improve UK energy security and would make securing a liveable planet much harder.
The organisations, including RSPB, the National Federation of Women’s Institutes, Save the Children, Friends of the Earth, WWF-UK and UNISON Scotland, welcomed Sir Keir’s commitment to end new oil and gas developments.
They dismissed claims by the oil and gas industry that the North Sea remained central to UK energy security.
Last month, Labour confirmed it would block all new domestic oil and gas developments if it became the next government.
A signatory of the letter to Sir Keir was GMB for a Green New Deal, a branch of the GMB union, which represents people in the oil and gas sectors.
But today, the GMB general secretary, Gary Smith, who has often supported fracking, said the oil and gas industry needed “plans not bans”.
He told his union’s annual congress today:
“We have to fix and secure our energy supply if we are to face down threats from authoritarian regimes in the world and find a workable way to achieve net zero.”
He said:
“our future requires a mix of energy sources – new nuclear, renewables, hydrogen, and oil and gas. It would be a huge mistake to put all the nation’s eggs in one energy basket.”
In response to Mr Smith’s comments, Friends of the Earth’s head of climate, Japie Peters, said:
“Ending new gas, oil and coal developments is a no brainer and should be a key policy for any party that’s serious about our nation’s wellbeing and future prosperity.
“There’s no debate that workers’ rights must be part of the move to a zero carbon energy system. Investing in renewables and energy efficiency measures will boost the economy, create hundreds of thousands of new jobs, increase energy security and help bring down our energy bills for good. It is vital that Labour’s policy comes with plans to support a fair transition and supports oil and gas workers to move into secure and well-paid jobs in the green industries of the future.
“We can be a world leader in the race to a net-zero future by moving away from the fossil fuels of the past to scale up our huge potential for homegrown renewables. Onshore wind and solar energy is cheaper than gas, quick to build and popular with voters of all parties.”
“Accelerate domestic renewable energy”
The letter to Sir Keir was signed by a grassroots section of the Unite union.
But last week, the union’s general secretary, Sharon Graham, said the UK needed a properly-planned transition that would “guarantee jobs, pay and conditions for all the tens of thousands of workers in the North Sea and supporting industries”.
The letter said the only way to ensure secure affordable energy was to “accelerate domestic renewable energy production and improve the energy efficiency of our buildings”.
It said:
“New oil and gas fields put more money in the hands of rich energy companies and foreign governments whilst leaving Britain colder and poorer.”
The letter also pointed to international agreement on the need to phase out oil and gas. This is now supported by the International Energy Agency, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the World Health Organisation, the UN Secretary General and the government’s net zero advisor, Chris Skidmore MP, the letter said.
Tessa Khan, executive director of Uplift, which campaigns against fossil fuels, said:
“Labour have clearly looked below the surface and seen that new North Sea drilling is a terrible deal for the UK public. It won’t lower energy bills because the companies that own the oil and gas either export it or sell it back to us for enormous profit; and we’re giving oil and gas companies billions in subsidies at a time they’re making record profits.
“Countless scientists have also made it clear that any new oil and gas fields will mean we blow past safe climate limits, so focusing on renewable energy rather than doubling down on oil and gas production is the obvious solution to our energy affordability crisis and the climate crisis.
“At a time when a record number of oil and gas workers are also going on strike, it’s clear this isn’t an industry that provides the sustainable, decent jobs we need either.”
DRILL OR DROP? 
I have to agree with Gary Smith when he says we need “Plans not Bans.” We must always remember that real people are affected when industries close. It’s not enough to say “This Is For The Good Of The Planet” and then abandon those whose jobs are lost, whose communities are destroyed. We must ensure that whilst we move in the right direction we carry everyone with us. Only then can we claim to be doing wha.ts right.
There are just so many factually incorrect statements within this, that it makes it worthless.
For example the leaving Britain colder and poorer, with the obligatory dig at someone making a profit. How about the many people receiving their support from the Windfall Tax who decide they are wealthy enough to pay their own way and donate their support directly to others or charity? There are many who have done exactly that. Then, stupid remarks about how much tax Shell pay in the UK from the Labour Party, without any understanding that many will understand if a company has ALREADY decided that the UK is not a good place to invest and has transferred much investment elsewhere, there ain’t much left to tax for the UK! Goodness, the Laffer Curve has caught out so many one would think the lesson should have been accepted by now.
The Plan bit makes some sense. There has been little sensible planning for the transition. It has been taken over by the zealots and this is another example. The first bit towards Net Zero was the easy bit yet it is riddled with costly errors. Now, the full costs of Net Zero have to come out, and it will no longer be enough to cough up that the alternative would be worse. This generation will pay the costs, on top of Covid costs, the alternative will not be in their time, and there will be few who will be that saintly that they will sacrifice their future for some other generations future, especially when they see the costings emerge.
The last bit from Uplift reads like a Student Union debate where the students have been locked away from the outside world since infancy. Someone needs to remember that rather than speak to their own limited audience they need to consider that others know about Drax etc. (£6B subsidy yet 84% earnings hike!) All key industries that contribute huge amounts of tax receive support to get them to do so in reach of local taxation. Don’t do so and the tax is not gained and the individual tax payer is expected to pick up the tab. Oh yes, just like the UK is doing already. An error that many youngsters make, until they start being taxed! Try taking tax for activity over the horizon and the result is counter action and a trade war.
Higher energy bills for longer? Hmmm, when gas had risen to $7 in USA, it was $47 in Europe. No, wind is hardly cheap when the insurance policy that has yet to be paid will cost £200B. Most parents know already not to be caught with that one when the child starts looking to get into a car. Why has the £200B been stuffed down the sofa so long? Because it is £200B, and has been known about for years, but denied by the same party this letter has been directed to! Doesn’t exactly create confidence, does it?
Yet all these 140 ‘organisations’ consume vast quantities of oil and gas products, and although they complain and bash the fossil fuels industry they cannot offer solutions to the energy mix!
These supporters of virtue signalling organisations are aware there is an energy transition and that transition is going to take time, and while that is happening we are importing vast quantities of fossil fuels products from other countries, so in essence increasing their carbon footprint while we look to the UK in being renewable ?!?
Renewable Energy is NOT low intensive, it is hugely energy inefficient, to perceive to Green agenda! Solar panels and Turbine are not easily recycled!!
There is so, so much more to renewable energy than slogans. If the answers were available we would have adopted them.
(1) The oil and gas companies are staffed by intelligent people. They want to serve their customers in years to come. They are thinking and researching and coming up with new ideas and new possibilities…. but we have been used to a “one-size fits all” solution (chemical energy from burning oil and gas). Perhaps that will not be true in the future.
(2) I am nervous about total dependence on electricity as the only source of power and on one giant European or EMEA electricity grid – cosmic radiation from the sun can and does cause severe disruption during sun spot storms.
(3) We are nowhere near making steel and cement from renewable energy at a reasonable, despite a lot of research.
I admire your optimism Una-Jane, but I believe answers might be available if denial, either of the facts or of the gravity of what the facts show had not figured so largely in our deliberations over the last few years. That said, answers might emerge, but will we continue not to implement them because of the cost, whether financial or structural? I hope your optimism is not misplaced, for the sake of us all.
I think you may have a better grasp of what a fact is Una-Jane than some who post without that knowledge and seek to patronize those that do.
It is a fact that transition has been badly managed to date. That is not the fault of the fossil fuel companies who have been expected to remove the fat from the fire on numerous occasions. Perhaps more consideration should be given to those who have plonked the fat into the fire with misguided excitement/ enthusiasm. More of that as the costs get greater is not a good recipe for anything other than disaster.
7 new nuclear power required is one fact. Suggested to cost £200B but will be greater. Why has that financial cost and structural concerns been hidden for so long? Absolutely simple fact that cheap renewables have to maintain the cheap tag and be divorced from that insurance cost. The divorce is a myth, the marriage is the fact. That is what will appear on every UK energy bill.
There is no point stopping the UK extracting its own hydrocarbon resources, if by doing so, they are replaced by hydrocarbon imports. It just makes our balance of payments even worse, reduces tax revenue & increases emissions & funds countries that do not have the environmental and /or human rights values that we have. The challenge for those who just want to stop hydrocarbons being used in the UK is to get involved in developing non-hydrocarbon energy sources & technologies that will make hydrocarbons redundant. Not posturing, nor wasting time & money in the courts, or causing protests that disrupt people going about their lawful and often essential activities.
[Extra word added at poster’s request]
But we must not drill hundreds of oil wells in the UK countryside in the most beautiful sedimentary basins. For an example of the despoliation caused by “back to back” wells (Stephen Sanderson ex-CEO of UKOG) see Odessa, Texas, USA using Google Earth. The area is pock-marked with dried-out waste water ponds containing caustic oil residues, and a huge grid of interconnected collection pipes. The main hope for anti-drilling campaigners is that the UK has been so geologically active and the strata so fractured that little oil or gas is left to extract. That is why we do not have any proper oil or gas wells on shore or near on-shore, except for Wytch Farm, Dorset. Fingers crossed. Off-shore is a different matter, and there is still oil an/or gas to exploit in the seas off Shetland (Cambo). I back off-shore exploration and exploitation. Sorry for the fish.