urge leaders to keep up the ambition of
limiting global warming.
>> I'm proud that the UK has now enshrined
in law our worldleading net zero
commitment.
>> Green is good. Green is right. We're
confident we're on track to deliver net
zero.
>> 14 years of Tory rule, 14 years of
commitment to tackling climate change.
But Chem Badenog had already signaled a
different approach earlier in the year
when she said it would be impossible to
reach net zero by 2050. She's now
pledged to remove all climate targets
for oil and gas drilling if elected.
>> There is a real danger that all we're
going to do in pursuing the 2050 target
is put additional costs on businesses
and on families and on public services
whilst having an absolutely minimal um
uh impact on global emissions.
>> Successive UK governments have been
obliged by law to reach our net zero
target by 2050 since it was written into
law by Theresa May in 2019. Labour has
committed to banning new exploration of
oil and gas licenses and claims to have
the biggest ever investment in offshore
wind as well as putting billions into
carbon capture technology.
>> The jobs of the future will come in
areas like along the coast where we see
expansion of wind farms and brilliant
jobs for young people. And there was
once a time when they were in government
that they believed also that actually we
need to in order to maintain energy
security to build on our security and
not be so dependent on the fluctuations
in the fossil fuel market. We've got to
invest in homegrown renewable energy.
>> This all comes after a record-breaking
summer. The Met Office said it was
almost certainly our hottest ever.
Droughts have been declared across the
UK while deadly wildfires have raged
across southern Europe. Opinion polling
suggests climate targets remain popular
with the public. But with Reform UK also
pushing back on green policies, the
Tories seem willing to ignore the polls
and drill.
A little earlier I spoke to David White
House, who's chief executive of Offshore
Energies UK, the trade association for
offshore energy industry, and the
environmental lawyer Tessa Khan. I put
it to Tessa Khan that Chem Bednok's
assertion that the UK should follow
Norway's lead and drill for oil and gas
in the North Sea is simple common sense.
>> There is a geological difference between
what the UK can produce from the North
Sea because of the nature of the part of
the basin that we have access to.
>> Our oil is further out and a lot deeper
than the Norwegians. Well, most of it's
been extracted and also in Norway, you
know, they have access to not just the
North Sea, but to the Barren Sea as
well, which has been subject to recent
licensing attempts by Norway. But the
other thing to say is that the Norwegian
government, unlike the British
government, has for decades been
managing in in fact very interventionist
in the way that oil and gas extraction
happens, whereas the UK has been much
more hands-off. And so if the
Conservative Party was going to do
something about this challenge, it
should have been 50 years ago. But the
reality now is that it is a mature
basin. There's barely any gas left. We
export the vast majority of the oil. So
if you're looking for a solution to UK
energy security, you've got to look at
offshore wind in particular. Oil and gas
is not the solution.
>> So David White House, the geology is
against us. Reserves are against us. We
haven't managed it anyway. So this
Norway is doing it we must is nonsense.
So the ge the geology in the UK and
Norway is the is the same. So So let's
be clear. Um we all recognize we need to
deal with emissions. Um that path to to
net zero. Today though 75% of our energy
in the UK comes from oil and gas. Um we
forecast uh there are forecasts that say
that the UK will need between 10 and 15
billion barrels of oil and gas between
now and 2050. And we're on target to
produce just four of that, less than a
third. And with supportive um policy,
the basin could produce almost half of
that demand. What does that mean? That
means we support jobs. We support real
value in our economy. That adds over 150
billion pounds to our economy. I think
that is important. It supports some of
the very companies that we need for that
um broader energy transition. And it all
comes with a lower carbon footprint than
importing. So the choice we have as a
country, we recognize we will need oil
and gas. We recognize we need to build
out at pace our worldclass renewables.
And our choice is do we support
homegrown energy? Do we support our
jobs? Do we support our own economy? Or
do we choose to sacrifice all of that
and rely on imports?
>> Right, Tessa Khan, we are going
therefore to need oil and gas, which
everybody agrees for a long time to
come. It is better for the planet to get
our stuff out of the North Sea than
import it. So that's manifestly untrue
in so far as when the oil and gas
industry makes that argument they are
looking at the dirtiest kind of import
into the UK which is LNG uh rather than
the source of most of our gas imports
which is Norwegian gas which is actually
cleaner than what we produce here
because here in the UK we continue to
use outdated practices like flaring and
in fact other attempts by the North Sea
oil and gas industry to clean up their
act are failing and what's totally clear
is that if we're going to stay within a
safe climate, burning the oil and gas in
existing fields would take us well past
safe climate limits. So, we can't afford
to be adding massive new oil fields like
the Rosebank oil field to that already
unburnable oil and gas.
>> But the but but Ke Bay is saying very
clearly we need to bring our gas bills
down, our energy bills down. So does so
does the government. The way to do that
surely is to use oil and gas reserves
which we will need which are within our
grasp and close by. That's
>> so the first thing to say is that if
you're concerned about energy bills, the
thing that sent our household energy
bills skyrocketing in 2022, it is our
dependency on gas and the fact that that
is a volatile commodity that we will
never be able to control the price of
because we don't produce enough of it.
What we need is more investment in by
the UK government in domestic
manufacturing, more incentivization of
offshore wind companies to build their
kit here. But more oil and gas is not
going to make a difference given more
oil and gas has happened while we've
seen those jobs decline.
>> David White House,
>> what happens is people are not looking
to those who work in our industrial
communities in our industrial heartlands
here in Abedine, but in Humbersside,
T-side, across the country. What we need
is for politicians and policy makers to
come and speak to those who work in the
sector. The argument that we make is
yes, we're on this journey together, but
you need to do it with us and not to us.
>> Let me bear that in mind, put one
comment today from Kimmy Badnock. She
says we need quote all our oil and gas
from the North Sea. That isn't possible,
is it? I I think what we need to try to
do is maximize the amount of oil and gas
that we produce ourselves and maximize
the opportunities for jobs, value in our
economy, and do that.
>> That's not what I'm asking, David. I'm
not I'm asking. I'm asking is it
possible what she is saying that we can
get all our oil and gas from the North
Sea
>> in terms of meeting that total demand?
No. I think I think what we recognize is
is between 10 and 15 billion barrels uh
the UK will need. I think with
supportive policy we can meet I think at
least half of that demand and we're not
on track to do that but it's so
important that we make sure that we are
providing sufficient oil and gas to meet
as much as our of our need as possible.
Tessa Khan David White House thanks very
much indeed for joining us.
>> Thank you.