Burnham Risks Labour Backlash if He Reverses Ban on New Oil and Gas Drilling

The North Sea’s oil and gas reserves have long been a contentious issue in British politics. When Andy Burnham takes office as prime minister on Monday, he will face his first major test: whether to lift the ban on new drilling licences.

Rumors of a potential U-turn on oil and gas production have sparked outrage among party MPs, environmentalists, and trade unions who fear it will undermine the UK’s climate goals. While new drilling might provide a temporary boost to energy security, this short-term thinking has contributed to the UK’s predicament. The country’s heavy reliance on fossil fuels leaves it vulnerable to global price fluctuations and environmental disasters.

At stake are the Rosebank and Jackdaw sites off Scotland’s north-east coast. Despite being approved by the Conservatives, their licences were overturned last year due to environmental concerns. Ed Miliband, an ally of Burnham’s who may soon take on a senior role in his cabinet, has described the Rosebank licence as “climate vandalism.” However, some Labour MPs and trade unions are urging Burnham to support the oil and gas industry, which they argue will create jobs and stimulate economic growth.

This argument is flawed. The North Sea’s remaining reserves are dwindling, and new fields like Jackdaw would only marginally impact the UK’s energy needs. In fact, 80% of the oil produced in the North Sea is exported, not used domestically. Approving new licences would be a “huge mistake,” according to Tessa Khan from Uplift, ignoring the interests of ordinary people and prioritizing those of “very profitable oil and gas companies.”

The science on climate change is clear: burning all existing fossil fuels will exceed safe limits. New drilling licences would send a devastating signal that this government is not taking the climate crisis seriously. Given the recent heatwaves and their associated suffering, this decision would be catastrophic.

Some argue that new oil and gas production will help reduce energy prices, but experts have debunked this claim. With the UK’s high integration into European and global markets, new North Sea gas licences would have little influence on prices. As Bob Ward from the Grantham Institute noted, “The remaining oil and gas is in more inaccessible places… requiring higher operating costs.” This means that new drilling would only be economically viable if consumer prices remain high – a perverse outcome given the need to reduce electricity bills.

As Burnham sets out his policy agenda on Monday, he must choose between a short-term fix that prioritizes corporate interests or a long-term strategy that puts people and the planet first. Labour’s commitment to reducing carbon emissions and investing in renewable energy cannot be compromised by a desire for quick political gains. The party has a unique opportunity to redefine its stance on fossil fuels and set an example for other nations.

The consequences of Burnham’s decision will be far-reaching, not just for the UK but also for global climate negotiations. Will he seize this moment to chart a new course or succumb to the pressures of the past? The fate of his government and the future of the planet hang in the balance.

Lee Hunter’s words from Saturday’s protests remain haunting: “It would pour more fuel on the fire while doing nothing to bring down people’s energy bills or improve our energy security.” Burnham must listen to these voices and remember that his government is not just a caretaker of corporate interests but also a guardian of the public good. The choice is clear: will he choose the long-term liability of fossil fuels or the promise of a cleaner, greener future?