27 New Oil and Gas Licences in North Sea
On the day the UK govt give the disgraceful go-ahead for 27 new oil and gas licences in the North Sea it’s worth hearing this interview from Zack Polanski, Green Party Deputy Leader in England.
Some highlights:
“Rosebank has the carbon equivalent of 700 million people around the world – and Keir Starmer doesn’t think its within his need to say ‘No Labour wouldnt do that we’d cancel it’ …”
“I think it’s clear that Keir Starmer is to the right of where David Cameron was in 2010”
“Betting firm puts the chances of a Labour Govt (Uk) at 90%”
‘The UK government’s minister for Scotland, John Lamont, added: “These new licences will help ensure the UK’s energy security’
Any benefit to Scotland perchance? No thought not.
The oil is there and the world needs it. If we don’t meet demand someone else will. It really is that simple.
Net-zero transition is important but we can’t just turn the taps off without a significant economic impact.
Listen to the IPCC. The science is clear. The economy does not triumph the ecological reality. What is wrong with you?
I’m not denying the science but a bridge is needed to reduce emissions from the oil and gas sector while sustainable and affordable alternatives are in place. Ridiculous to think wenshutvdown the sector for a bunch of green poshos to feel good about themselves.
Oil heading to $150 a barrel. You suggesting our moribund economy shouldn’t benefit from something we have a clear advantage in.
You are denying the science. You are either in denial or deeply stupid.
You are also being extremely rude. You can either change your tone or be removed.
Oh dear. There are none so blind as those who will not see…
And they are many.
“The world needs it”. What do you think the “significant economic impact” of runaway climate catastrophe is?
Take a guess.
‘The oil is there and we need it’ and we need to meet net zero targets in same comment.
Any climate scientist or any with a passing knowledge of climate science would recognise these two statements as being utterly contradictory!
not only that but the money(s) involved is huge and although
perhaps heading for the exit in life still has legs and miles to go.
Witness Chevron and Exxon lately, big commitment, big one way bet.
is EV’s technology in its infancy? yes. like all of us takes a while to grow and get wiser. In the meantime
profit while you can, and profit big.
Biden has authorised 6430 gas and oil drilling permits on public land – even more than Trump!
Maybe a campaign protesting against the big producers and emitters would be more meaningful.
In government, you get what you vote for. And if you accept that, you keep on getting it.
The majority of voters in UK (mainly England, of course) have voted for and repeatedly accepted the kind of government and governance that we’ve had through Thatcher and Blair, and the most recent run of chancers, liars, and self-interested rip-off merchants.
You can’t want a more caring, fair, just and equitable society and keep on voting for, and living with, that.
And clearly, a cleaner, healthier, better world is something that people don’t want bad enough.
Otherwise we’d all be on the streets now, demanding it. We’d be changing how we live and how others live.
We wouldn’t be accepting this mess and we certainly wouldn’t be voting for it.
This isn’t true and, frankly, you are demeaning many Indy supporters who recognise the importance of oil and gas to Scotland. A transition is needed and underway but it would be act of stupidity to stop extraction. The reality is that demand would be met by other oil producers.
Madeleine, your responses here amplify the problem: let’s not change:
1. Because it’s too difficult
2. Because others aren’t doing it
The environmental catastrophe is not just imminent, it’s upon us now.
It is nigh impossible for us to contemplate a life without the products of ‘fossil fuel’ exploitation – not just oil and gas for fuel/energy but the ubiquity of plastics in almost every aspect of life, and pharmaceuticals and agriculture-chemicals which we also depend on.
So, it’s not about stopping oil and gas suddenly, it’s about stopping/limiting NEW exploration/exploitation….while running down existing extraction/production alongside working flat-out to to find, develop and employ better alternatives.
Listening to people in the media (and on the street) casually talk about…cotton buds, plastic straws, the price of petrol, flood defences, etc etc…it’s ‘fiddling while Rome burns’.
I’ve seen the efforts of the Scottish Government to do better than Westminster – what else can they do? Hands tied – but governments tied-in with big business are not going to do anything radical…unless huge numbers of people demand it.
Ever wondered what’s going to happen when millions of people across the world start to migrate not only because of the oppression and war we see just now, but because of shortages of food and water, and because they’re forced to by floods, droughts, environmental destruction?
Scotland has already reduced greenhouse gas emissions by a huge amount since the 90s. Continued transition in the power sector to wind and solar provides a good platform to continue this as does electrification and hydrogen use for transport. Should more be done…yes.
What the Greens suggest though is economic hara-kiri that will disproportionately impact working and industrial communities (or what remains of these communities). It will also not make a jot of difference to global consumption. Large scale technological transition needs to taken forward by the US, India and China. Stopping North sea production would be like chopping your leg off to avoid a stubbed toe. Ruinous for Scotland.
As for the Scottish Government, Sturgeon’s conversion to stopping production was a political sop to the Greens. Terrible politics from an increasingly obvious terrible person.
Madeleine- we are not stopping oil production just like that it is no longer term future oil exploration.
The future is greener energy and the earlier countries switch to its production the bigger the longer term advantages to their economies.
Scotland has massive renewable potential in wind and wave to mention just two and properly developed this could reduce citizens energy bills, be of massive economic benefit to country, big export potential and secure the country’s future energy security just as oil did for Norway in 20th century.
As for your last sentence about Nicola Sturgeon all I will say is better to concentrate on the subject of discussion
and avoid descending to personal attacks if you wish to persuade people of your point of view.
It is not ‘the Greens’ who are demanding the end of Fossil Fuels. It is the international scientific community and the IPCC. What world are you living in where you do not know this?
Gosh, Madeleine, isn’t that the Nuremberg excuse?
Godwin’s Law
I hear the sound of straws being grasped at.
Hitler wasn’t around by Nuremberg; furthermore he couldn’t use the excuse of “superior orders”, if he were, could he? Double fail, because logically you weren’t being compared to Hitler for 2 reasons; Godwin’s Law does not apply.
As for your earlier comments, nobody is arguing that current production should cease; just that further exploration and exploitation should stop. It’ll take between 10 and 15 years for these fields to come onstream, if at all; so your transition argument falls. The only reason “transition” is still part of the conversation is because big oil spent billions suppressing what they knew as far back as the 70s.
Makes a mockery of the old argument that “the oil is running out”