The United Kingdom ties itself to the 20,000 million of its oil industry while promising 'Zero' emissions in 2025
The British Government's environmental commitment has conflicted with its energy sovereignty and the result has been to grant hundreds of licenses to explore and extract hydrocarbons from the North Sea in order to “maximize” national reserves and cut reliance on “hostile states”. » to secure power supply. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak coincided last Monday his revalidation of polluting fossils with the announcement of the government's approval of two new carbon capture and storage centers (CCS).. The dual strategy drew strong criticism from the political opposition, environmental groups, and academics.
Sunak visited the East of Scotland last Monday as a symbol of his Government's support for the oil industry, with its central nerve in the city and county of Aberdeen and a contribution to the British economy of almost 20,000 million euros per year, according to official data.. In facilities of the oil company Shell Sunak confirmed the commitment of the conservative administration in the next round of hydrocarbon exploration contracts, which will result in the issuance of approximately one hundred licenses in the fall. The exercise would be repeated successively if the conservatives renew their mandate in the elections scheduled for 2024.
“Now more than ever it is vital that we strengthen our energy security and capitalize on this independence to deliver cleaner, more affordable energy to British businesses and homes,” the Prime Minister said.. Experts questioned his argument that squeezing oil and gas production out of the maturing North Sea is “entirely consistent” with Britain's commitment to create a net zero economy by 2025.
Sunak reaffirmed in Scotland his commitment to the goal of reducing emissions that, according to what he told the BBC, he wants to achieve in a “proportionate and pragmatic way, without necessarily adding burdens or costs to families' receipts”. Particularly, he added, in this phase of inflationary pressure and high cost of living. On the other hand, he defended that the extraction of hydrocarbons is “two, three, four times” less polluting than shipping fuel and transporting it “half the world.”
The Conservative Party is the only majority political formation that supports the extension of the exploitation of the North Sea. Opinion polls project the government's defeat in elections scheduled for 2024, but a recent upset victory in the vacant seat by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson has elevated green politics and managing the climate emergency into a priority focus for Sunak.. The electorate expressed their discomfort with the extension by the Labor mayor of London of the ultra pollution area – which financially penalizes the oldest and most polluting vehicles – and deprived the opposition of a parliamentary seat that the polls took for granted.
Sunak has since lowered his green horizons and tries to make a difference with Labor, in addition to stopping his recovery in Scotland. Thus, during his visit to Aberdeenshire, he gave the green light to the development of a CCS center in the region, with Shell among the operating partners, which had lagged behind in previous calls. It also endorsed the Viking CO2 capture and storage project, under the control of the EIG investment fund and with the participation of BP, which is located in an unfavorable region of north-east England.
Labor's climate change official, Ed Miliband, criticized the government's “weak and confused” strategy, which “will do nothing for energy security and flout our climate commitments but still leaves us at the mercy of fossil fuel dictators like Putin». The Green Party, a minority partner in Scotland of the nationalist SNP government, denounced the “absolutely senseless” support for the opening of hydrocarbon deposits in the North Sea, which “will leave a long and destructive legacy.”
Critical voices even arose among conservatives. Chris Skidmore, who led a review of climate change targets, lashed out on Twitter at his leader and prime minister's risky strategy.. “It's a wrong decision, taken at the wrong time.. You are on the wrong side of the modern voter who will vote in the next election for the party that protects and does not threaten the environment.”. Experts questioned the legitimacy of announcing in the same package the investment in technology to capture carbon emissions and the commitment to maximize the benefits of the hydrocarbon industry.