The Guardian, it seems is on another mission. It’s related to its overriding “climate crisis”/net zero mission, of course. This time it’s to persuade us that despite a pending (actual?) energy crisis, thanks to Trump and Netanyahu’s war in Iran, we must not, whatever we do, allow more exploration in the North Sea (or anywhere else, for that matter) for oil and gas.
On 13th March we were treated to an opinion piece by George Monbiot (“UK energy prices are soaring – and propagandists want to sell you a false reason why – The war on Iran has put fossil-fuel prices centre stage, but don’t believe those who tout ‘maximising the North Sea’ as our salvation”). Most amusing, by the way: a media outlet responsible for daily propaganda accusing others of being propagandists.
Eleven days later it was “More North Sea drilling will put UK at mercy of fossil fuel markets, ministers say – Ed Miliband says only clean power will provide ‘energy sovereignty’ amid opposition calls for oil and gas expansion”.
On 28th March we were given this: “Hundreds of North Sea licences granted by Tories ‘produce only 36 days of gas’ – Exclusive: Findings cast doubt on claims new drilling would help cut bills and boost energy security, researchers say”.
Then it really ramped up. Three days ago they regaled us with “More drilling in North Sea ‘not the answer’ for UK energy security, say former military leaders”. Two days ago: “Would more North Sea drilling mean lower energy prices for UK consumers? – Kemi Badenoch claims increased UK oil and gas production would cut bills by £200, but critics say plan won’t work”. And today we’re offered an opinion piece by Bill McGuire: “Of course we shouldn’t drill for more oil in the North Sea – we cancelled further exploitation for a reason – We are at a critical point in the climate emergency and already struggling to meet emissions reduction targets. The UK government must hold its nerve”.
As Albert Einstein might have said: “Why six articles? If you were right, one would have been enough”.
There is a common theme running through these articles. Basically it’s that there’s hardly any oil and gas left in our North Sea reserves, and anyway it’ll be sold abroad and/or international markets mean that any oil and gas thereby produced wouldn’t bring prices down. Mr Monbiot put it thus:
We’re told that if we extracted more gas at home, electricity would be cheaper. Hello, basic economics. The price of gas is set on international markets and dominated by conditions affecting the biggest suppliers, such as the US, Iran and Russia. The UK’s remaining reserves are especially difficult and expensive to extract….The companies sell it, as everyone else does, on the international market, at the international price. Extracting every last cubic metre from the North Sea would not shift the price by one penny. And there’s another trifling reason why “maximising the North Sea” will have no impact. We’ve used almost all of it already.
The second article doubled down on the international market/prices argument:
Miliband told a parliamentary Labour party (PLP) meeting on Monday night that there was “one overriding lesson of the crisis: while we are dependent on fossil fuel markets, we are price takers not price makers, and we are exposed”.
The third of the six articles insisted that amounts of oil and gas available to the UK in the North Sea are trivial:
…20 new and relicensed fields that have the potential, over their lifetime, to produce enough gas to supply the UK for only six months. To date they have produced the equivalent of 36 days of extra gas….experts say the North Sea is a “mature basin” whose output has declined by 75% since its peak. They say 90% of its reserves have gone.
It also banged on again about international markets:
New licences would have no impact on bills because the price is set by the international markets.
More of the same in the fourth article:
Retired R Adm Neil Morisetti, a professor of climate and resource security at University College London, said attempting to eke out the remaining oil and gas from the North Sea was “not the answer” to the challenges facing the UK.
“It will not bring down the price for consumers, nor will it deliver long-term energy security. The international markets will determine the price and destination; that is not energy independence,” he said.
The penultimate article I cited above repeated the point (just in case you haven’t got it yet):
Oil and gas are sold by private companies on international markets, which set the price, so there is no discount or advantage for UK consumers.
It also stressed the paucity of oil and gas supplies available:
Analysis of government data by the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit show that more than 4bn tonnes of oil has been extracted in the UK since 1975. Only about 218m tonnes are recoverable by 2050 from existing fields, and new drilling could yield another 74m tonnes. That 74m tonnes would be equivalent to 1.7% of the total that could be extracted from 1975 to 2050. There is even less gas left – new drilling would add about 1.1% to total production. In other words, all of the new drilling possible would only put off the end of the North Sea by a year or two.
But here’s the thing. While insisting that North Sea oil and gas reserves are trivial, and so insignificant as to be unable to support jobs for long and certainly unable to offer the UK any energy security, the Guardian also insists that they are so significant that CO2 emissions from them mean that they must not be exploited. To do so would be catastrophic. A Guardian article written almost three years ago assured us very solemnly:
New oil and gas licences for the North Sea that the UK government has approved in the past two years will produce as much carbon dioxide as the annual emissions of nearly 14m cars, or the entire yearly emissions of Denmark, analysis has shown.
This amount – about 28m tonnes of carbon dioxide over the lifetimes of the fields – will be increased more than eightfold, if potential licences under consideration are also granted, according to data from public sources analysed by Greenpeace….
….The three largest approved since the IEA report are Jackdaw, Abigail and Talbot, the emissions from which are the equivalent of seven coal-fired power stations, according to Greenpeace.
If Rosebank and Cambo, two other large fields under review, are approved the total will rise to about 240m tonnes of CO2, equivalent to running 64 coal-fired power plants for a year, or the annual emissions of Spain.
So which is it? Are North Sea oil and gas reserves so insignificant that they aren’t worth exploiting because they won’t make any difference whatsoever to UK energy security? Or are they so huge that exploiting them will release catastrophic amounts of greenhouse gases? It can’t be both, but apparently Guardian journalists are capable of believing both these things at the same time.
Today’s article by Bill McGuire doubled down on this. He apparently also believes both of these mutually contradictory ideas:
More sensible heads have argued that the North Sea basin is a field that is way past peak production, and that has only limited amounts of oil and gas left, and that energy security can only be reached if we move further and faster on renewables.
Yet:
The UK is already struggling to meet a 2030 emissions reduction target of 68% compared with 1990 levels, and is off track to achieve net zero emissions in 2050. Any renaissance of homegrown fossil fuel usage would blow a hole through these already shaky ambitions. [my emphasis – sounds pretty dramatic, doesn’t it?].
He also stresses a message the Guardian has repeated ad nauseam for many a long year – the need to set an example to the rest of the world:
Doubling down on the exploitation of North Sea oil and gas now would make these numbers even bigger, and would send entirely the wrong message to the rest of the world.
I wonder if Professor McGuire reads the Guardian? If he does, he might have noticed this from a couple of days ago: “Asia ramps up use of dirty fuels to cover energy shortfall triggered by Iran war”.
Governments across Asia are ramping up their use of coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel…
…South Korea said it will delay the shutdown of coal-fired power plants and has lifted caps on electricity from coal, while in Thailand the government has increased output at the country’s largest coal-fired plant. The Philippines, which has declared a “national energy emergency” as a result of the war, also plans to boost operations of its coal-fired power plants.
In South Asia, India, which relies on coal for nearly 75% of its power generation, has asked its coal plants to run at maximum capacity and avoid planned outages, while Bangladesh increased coal-fired power generation and coal-fired power imports in March.
Governments are racing to overcome shortfalls, especially in the supply of liquefied natural gas (LNG), which has been promoted as a bridge fuel in the transition from coal to cleaner energy – though research has shown exported gas emits far more greenhouse gas than coal.
Many countries in the region rely on LNG to generate electricity, as well as for industries such as fertiliser manufacturing. Demand in Asia had been forecast to double in the next 25 years.
Germany is also considering ramping up its use of coal power, despite the fact that the share of electricity produced with fossil fuels in Germany increased by ten percent between January and the end of June 2025. In short, Professor McGuire, the rest of the world has been taking no notice for quite some time of the “example” being set by the UK, and now that reality is biting, it definitely has it’s fingers in its ears and isn’t listening to anything you or Mr Miliband might have to say. It seems it has more important issues than the “climate crisis” to worry about.
As for the relentless stream of propaganda issuing from the Guardian, I suggest we heed the BBC’s advice and note that “[r]epetition makes a fact seem more true, regardless of whether it is or not. Understanding this effect can help you avoid falling for propaganda”.
Climate Scepticism 
Personally I prefer the robust common sense shown by Ian Lakin of Aberdeen in a recent letter to the Herald in Scotland:
The government’s claim that new North Sea licences would not affect domestic oil and gas prices is a narrow, dangerous argument.
Price is not the only measure of national interest.
What of the petro-dollars lost by failing to produce and export our own resources – revenues that could help offset the spiralling cost of importing energy we urgently need?
What of the 1.2 million households that could be supplied by new fields supplying gas in time for next winter?
What of the substantial tax receipts from the sector, supporting the Exchequer as the cost of living crisis escalates?
And what of the jobs and livelihoods across Britain’s supply chains, underpinning local economies?
As Stuart Machin, chief executive of Marks & Spencer, observed, “policy costs” now make up over half of domestic bills, unrelated to oil or gas – a burden unsustainable for UK businesses.
Energy policy must be rooted in realism, not net zero ideology. Raising taxes or borrowing is no solution; markets would punish such moves. A serious government would act with nothing off the table.
This would mean fully exploiting all domestic resources, prioritising refining, and using national strategic leverage, including requisitioning production of oil (if others refuse to share) to secure supply, revenue, jobs, and tackle fuel poverty.
After all, it is the government’s duty to plan for all eventualities during a wartime scenario, not to drift in a parallel universe of senseless rhetoric while the country suffers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s true that the price of gas is determined by international markets, but North Sea gas is (more or less) directly connected to our gas grid, whereas gas from (e.g.) the US has to be bought at the internationally determined price, and then liquefied, and then transported across the Atlantic, and then gasified again. This all costs money (and – for the benefit of any Guardianistas reading – adds further CO2 emissions that are unnecessary if we use our own gas).
LikeLiked by 2 people
Here’s a quick-fire 8-minute debunking of multiple green blob myths by the ubiquitous Kathryn Porter.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks Doug Brodie. Excellent stuff from Kathryn, as always.
LikeLike
Some credit to the Guardian for making this comment on Bill McGuire’s one of its “picks”:
Of course the government should not block licenses for oil and gas exploration in the North Sea. This is an exercise in self-harm.
Choking off your own supply before you have reduced demand does nothing whatsoever for the environment. Instead it means:
1) The UK is spending between £20 and £40 billion a year importing oil and gas from Norway’s part of the North Sea, while blocking development in its own. This worsens Britain’s already huge current account deficit, which is ultimately financed by continually selling off assets.
2) Blocks the creation of well-paying, highly-skilled jobs. The types of skilled labour jobs the Labour Party was originally created to protect and champion, before the party was overrun by liberal Oxbridge types who’ve never known a day’s manual labour in their lives
3) Denies Britain desperately needed tax revenue, at a time our public finances are in a terrible state. Oil extraction profits are taxed at 78%!
Importing from abroad – our current policy – does nothing to help from the environment. Indeed, turning to places like Qatar for energy – dictatorships with worse environmental, labour and human rights records than the UK – is unethical.
And no, the fact that North Sea oil reserves are relatively modest now is not a rationale for blocking companies that want to develop them. If they weren’t commercially viable then this wouldn’t even be an issue, since no-one would be asking and the ban wouldn’t be necessary.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I quite liked this comment by a Guardian reader too:
I’m confused, because according to the Norwegian Offshore Directorate, “A total of 49 exploration wells were completed and 21 discoveries were made on the Norwegian continental shelf [in 2025]. The discoveries have a preliminary total estimate of 67 million standard cubic metres of recoverable oil equivalents. This gives a resource growth that is higher than the previous year. It was discovered about twice as much liquid as gas.”
The Norwegians are expanding their exploratory drilling operations, not reducing them. It’s on the same shelf as the Scottish platforms, and we drilled no exploration wells in 2025.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And thank you tendonman99 for this comment at the Guardian:
So the author argues that there is so little o&g in the north sea that it’s not worth the bother but so much o&g that drilling it will blow a hole in UK’s climate change 2030 ambitions.
It’s inconsistent nonsense.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“You can’t look for gas, because there isn’t any.”
“You can’t look for gas, because the gas that isn’t there, will wreck the climate when you burn it.”
They used similar arguments when ordering the concreting of the fracking test well. Shame few people opposed them on that.
One of the many things they don’t get is that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a luxury. Keeping the lights on, and keeping vehicles moving, is not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark,
As you know, my thesis is that there is no genuine kettle logic on either side of the climate debate. That said, I have to say that this example comes perilously close to blowing that thesis out of the water. Nevertheless, I will stand my ground by saying that no one here is simultaneously insisting that there is little North Sea oil to be exploited and yet there is lots. Instead, we have the classic merchant of fear tactic (don’t worry, AI assures me I am not pathologizing) of claiming that, at this stage, even a little bit of fossil fuel burning will do untold damage. So, I don’t think we are dealing with kettle logic so much as a triumph of ideology over physics. Also, keep in mind here that we are dealing with McGuire, the vulcanologist who jumped onto the climate angst bandwagon by claiming that climate change will increase the number of deadly earthquakes (or, to work properly, should that be that it has already done so?).
So I’m going to put this one into the same rhetorical class as saying masturbation will make you go blind.
LikeLike
John,
I thought you might say that. It’s part of the reason why I added a question mark to the sub-title. 😊
LikeLike
Mark,
Yes, I noticed the question mark. Question marks are good. 👍
LikeLike
The ‘logic’ of Labour and the Green Blob’s current stance has held rock steady for several decades, across Tory and Labour governments. It goes like this:
Limit or prevent the UK from exploiting its own natural resources and thus make the UK more and more dependent upon other countries in order to function and less and less wealthy, and more and more deindustrialised.
That’s it. To this end, the Tories and Labour closed down coal mines, mothballed coal fired power stations, blew up coal fired power stations, ‘transitioned’ perfectly good coal fired power stations into burning wood pellets imported from the US, shut down North Sea oil and gas extraction, taxed North Sea oil and gas extraction so punitively, it drove away investment, banned fracking, poured concrete down the fracking wells to stop them ever being used and eventually put the mockers on the potential opening of one single coal mine in Whitehaven. Successive UK governments have notably encouraged, emboldened and even funded activist groups like Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil to lawfully and unlawfully obstruct the extraction and use of UK hydrocarbons.
Forget the climate, forget zero carbon ‘cheap homegrown clean’ energy aka ‘renewables’. The real story is the destruction of Great Britain’s capacity to independently energise its own economy via the exploitation of its own rich natural resources. The real story is the complete reversal of the Industrial Revolution. The fact that various actors are having to indulge in lies, propaganda, and logic so contorted it hurts to look at it in order to justify the continuation of this reversal means that we are fast approaching the make or break end game.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Put like that, Jaime, it’s a pretty shocking story. I confess I worry greatly for the future of this country. Successive decades of establishment groupthink have caused terrible problems, whether wittingly or unwittingly (like Robin, I prefer to think it’s the latter, but sometimes it’s difficult to hold that thought).
LikeLiked by 3 people
I get a little fed up when climate alarmists suddenly become experts on economics and cost accounting when it suits their narrative.
Claim – Oil and gas are set by international markets
Whilst oil prices globally are pretty much in line, natural gas prices are not. For instance, two major measures of crude oil prices are WTI (West Texas intermediate) and Brent.
Yesterday’s WTI close of $111.54 barrel was 68% higher than 27.02.26 and 81% higher than 30.12.19.
Yesterday’s Brent close of $109.03 barrel was 67% higher than 27.02.26 and 62% higher than 30.12.19.
The US wholesale price for natural gas is taken from the Louisiana Henry Hub and measured in USD/MMBtu. British wholesale prices are measured in GBp/thm. Note that the figures are from Trading Economics. Historical figures are approximate.
Yesterday’s Henry Hub close of $2.84 MMBtu was around 5% higher than 27.02.26 and 36% higher than 30.12.19.
Yesterday’s Natural Gas UK close of 126.8 GBp/thm was 86% higher than 27.02.26 and 350% higher than 30.12.19.
Whereas at the end of 2019 UK natural gas prices were maybe 1.25-1.65 times higher than Henry Hub, they are now 5.5 times higher.
The US market is independent due to the rapid development of natural gas through fracking. The UK has shut down fracking, despite being massive deposits across the North of England. They have also discouraged new deposits from being exploited.
LikeLiked by 2 people
There is a lot of talk about how UK electricity prices are highly affected by fluctuations in the natural gas price. This is mostly due to gas becoming the dominant source of electricity where generation can be easily varied to match demand. The other source is now 3GW capacity from burning wood chips in a former coal-fired power station. Gas carries the burden of supply when the wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine.
As recently as 2014 the biggest source of electricity was from coal. The UK is reaping the consequences of following the climate alarmists.
Note – 2026 is only to last Sunday. There is less sun and more wind in the winter.
https://grid.iamkate.com/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Those who have newly found expertise in proclaiming that UK oil and gas production has little or no impact on international markets. That is, the marginal impact of UK production will be near zero. However, they have not assessed the marginal impact of the UK on global “climate” targets. I will give them a helping hand in understanding their collective asymmetric thinking.
According to UNIPCC AR6 WG3 SPM, “historical cumulative net CO2 emissions from 1850 to 2019 were 2400 ± 240 GtCO2” (at the 68% confidence interval). Double the range at the conventional 95% confidence interval.
In round figures.
For a >50% chance of achieving the 2100 1.5 °C target, cumulative CO2 emissions 2020-2100 need to be not more than 320 GtCO2. That is 510 GtCO2 of emissions to global net zero and -190 GtCO2 thereafter.
For a >50% chance of achieving the 2100 2 °C target, cumulative CO2 emissions 2020-2100 need to be not more than 800 GtCO2. That is 890 GtCO2 of emissions to global net zero and -90 GtCO2 thereafter.
In 2019 UK CO2 emissions were 0.354 GtCO2 and GHG emissions were 0.455 GtCO2e.
Note
My summary of the IPCC pathways is below. Blue is GHG emissions, green CO2 emissions and orange my calculations.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If I had waited a day, I could have added yet another Guardian article to it’s tedious repetition of propaganda:
“New North Sea drilling would barely reduce UK gas imports at all, data shows
Exclusive: research finds Jackdaw field would provide only about 2% of current demand, and Rosebank only 1%”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/apr/04/new-north-sea-drilling-jackdaw-rosebank-uk-gas-imports
I won’t bother adding any extracts from the article, since it doesn’t add anything new to the discussion (or, rather, monologue).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime, you say that over several decades the ‘logic’ (plan) of Labour and Tory governments and the Green Blob has been to ‘limit or prevent the UK from exploiting its own natural resources and thus make the UK more and more dependent upon other countries in order to function and less and less wealthy, and more and more deindustrialised‘.
Well it certainly looks like that, but I don’t for a moment think that outcome was/is the objective. No, my view (echoing a recent comment by the excellent Tilak Doshi) is that what’s been and is happening is a combination of educated incompetence/stupidity, unquestioning adherence to a cult (a lot of politicians really believe that by cutting emissions Britain is, by setting an example, ‘saving the world’ – with the inevitable pain of so doing an unfortunate but necessary side-effect), virtue signalling and ‘luxury belief’, terror at the prospect being described as an evil ‘denier’ and simple short-sighted rent-seeking: renewable energy getting subsidies, and politicians getting campaign donations back from them. To that can be added a constellation of supporting interests that get mutual benefit from the climate agenda. For example, academics get grants, billionaire leftists get kudos for financially backing ‘green’ institutions and the media attract audiences with excited cries of crisis.
LikeLike
Robin, Jaimie,
Do I risk getting locked away by suggesting you are both right?
I can’t find anything to disagree with in Robin’s analysis but I do feel that there is a good deal of anti-capitalism, preference for global governance, seeking of social ‘justice’, and naïve and romantic environmentalism mixed into the pudding. I think this results in enough people involved who are quite on board with the idea of making the UK less wealthy, internationally dependent and somewhat de-industrialised.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John, I’ve no doubt that you’re right about anti-capitalism etc. being a part of the mix. But I don’t think it’s anywhere near a big enough part to make Britain’s dependence on other countries (and deindustrialisation etc.) the principal objective of Labour and Tory governments’ in their pursuit of the green agenda.
LikeLike
Irrespective of who is correct in this debate I wonder how much further punishment the economy is to be subjected to until either the policy or the government falls. But the bigger question is, perhaps, how can that change be hastened? Or can’t it? Or will the local elections next month be sufficient opportunity for the electorate to chastise the current government and thereby lance the boil? Regards, John C.
LikeLike
John C,
I really don’t know what to hope for from the May elections. On the one hand I would like this awful government to perform dreadfully, as the electroate shows its contempt. On the other hand, even if it finally unseats Starmer as PM, it won’t unseat the government, and I don’t think it will lead to any change in the policies that matter. If not Starmer as Labour PM, who? There was a time when I wondered if Streeting might not be too bad, but I no longer think that. Rayner? Phillipson? God help us, Miliband? Poor Britain.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“The lost gas fields that could power Britain for decades
Ed Miliband’s ban on exploration has put the UK’s wealth of unexploited energy assets in limbo”
https://archive.ph/4auHN#selection-2241.4-2245.98
There are two versions out there. First the line pushed by Guardianista activists (George Monbiot, Tessa Khan, Bill McGure et al), to the effect that the North Sea oil and gas reserves are so small they’re not worth bothering about, would do nothing to enhance UK energy security, and won’t shift UK fuel prices. Then there’s the version put out by the trade body via reporting in the Telegraph, as per the above headline, and this:
Far out under rough Atlantic waters lies the Glendronach gas field.
Discovered eight years ago off the coast of Shetland, the reservoir has the potential to start pumping gas into the system within two to three years, heating homes and supporting industry.
However, the reality is radically different.
Despite being one of the largest unexploited energy assets in UK waters, Glendronach’s fate is far from secure.
The gas is there, as is the technology to extract it.
But Britain’s politicians have pushed Glendronach and others like it into a limbo that could prove permanent….
...Glendronach is just one of dozens of gas and oil fields lying under British waters that are now at risk.
Hundreds of miles away in the southern North Sea, the Glengorm gas field – which could provide Britain with millions of cubic metres of gas – has also faced difficulties. Today, its economics are too uncertain for it to be progressed.
Jackdaw and Rosebank, the UK’s most controversial virgin fields, are similarly in doubt. Last week, Miliband put operator Adura’s permit applications on hold. Jackdaw is capable of providing 6pc of the UK’s gas within months.
According to Offshore Energies UK, there are 51 known fields in British waters that could feed gas into UK pipes. Their progress has been halted not by geology but by politics and taxes.
Another 60 projects – mostly extensions to existing fields – have been held back for the same reason, says Ben Ward, market intelligence manager at the trade body.
It means, in total, an equivalent of 3.25 billion barrels of oil have been left to languish in the ground, accounting for both oil and gas projects.
Oil is largely exported, so its main benefits are in jobs and taxes. However, the gas would be flowing straight into our pipes, supporting us through the latest energy crisis….
Industry spokespeople represent businesses that are prepared to invest and hope to make money out of it. Experience will have taught them not to throw money at fields that aren’t economically worth exploiting. And so I am much more inclined to believe their version of events than that of Guardian activists. However, like all good sceptics, I am prepared to acknowledge that both sides might be exaggerating and the truth may lie somewhere in the middle. What I do know, however, is that the Guardian version of events – reserves too insignificant to make any difference to UK energy security are nevertheless so significant that their exploitation would blow a hole in the UK’s “carbon budget” – can’t be true. It makes no sense. It doesn’t stop them pushing that line, though, and judging by the comments under the articles, plenty of Guardian readers lap it up (though happily quite a few are pushing back and pointing out that this is logically nonsensical).
LikeLiked by 1 person
John, Robin,
Robin and I are both right, in the sense that yes, Net Zero is a cult, and yes, many of its adherents, including politicians, are too stupid, ignorant, and ideologically obsessed to realise that Net Zero is in essence a wrecking ball being swung squarely at the UK economy and industry, for NO benefit whatsoever. But I maintain that those at the top, and the authors who wrote the Climate Change Act, were well aware of the fact that the UK’s contribution to alleged ‘global warming’ was insignificant, that the idea was for the rest of the world to ‘follow our lead’, but that for over a decade, it has been painfully obvious that the rest of the world was not, and would not follow, or be following our lead. Yet senior politicians persisted in the CCA and then Net Zero destruction of our industry and economy. That is “Premeditated Industrial Destruction” and I’m pretty sure that David Turver and his colleagues would agree:
https://davidturver.substack.com/p/coal-not-cold
LikeLike
Catherine McBride, one of the co-authors of the report cited above by David on his substack:
LikeLike
Oh dear, I didn’t post GIANT emoticons!
LikeLike
Neither did Catherine:
https://x.com/CeeMacBee/status/2040705557699416534
Perhaps the editors can get rid of them.
LikeLike
Perhaps the editors can get rid of them.
Done.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Climate Change Levy started in 2001, but I don’t know who pushed for it.
LikeLike
Robin, Jaimie,
What significance, if any, do you attribute to Starmer’s former membership of the Trilateral Commission?
https://www.declassifieduk.org/keir-starmer-joined-secretive-cia-linked-group-while-serving-in-corbyns-shadow-cabinet/
It is, after all, a private members club dedicated to international cooperation, and it appears to believe that sovereign democracies are an impediment to its private club aims:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crisis_of_Democracy
I’m not trying to be a conspiracy theorist here. The commission is, after all, just a think tank populated by an influential elite having both commercial and political backgrounds. But I think you can tell a lot about a person’s ideological leanings from the think tanks they join. It might, for example, explain Starmer’s dogged persistence with the idea that a UK-led international cooperation is just around the corner, despite the glaring evidence to the contrary. It might explain his blind deference to international agreements, even when they carry no legal imperative. It might also explain his ready willingness to allow international law to overrule the will of his own people – not that they were ever properly consulted. It could also explain the continued acceptance of self-inflicted, restrictive sovereign laws to bolster the internationalist agenda. At the very least it could explain why Mandelson, a fellow commission acolyte, was appointed by Starmer as US ambassador despite all the advice given to him. And don’t even get me started on the Fabian Society!
Obviously, none of this explains Miliband’s positioning, nor indeed the previous government’s machinations, including Boris’ green enrapture.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Gordion Brown, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, introduced the Climate Change Levy:
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn00235/
LikeLike
Mmm, that would be Gordon Brown, the other prominent Labour member of the Trilateral Commission.
LikeLike
Actually, I’m having second thoughts regarding that Gordon Brown comment. I seem to remember reading it somewhere but I can’t now find any corroboration. There was a Gord Brown; so maybe that’s where the confusion comes from.
LikeLike
Jaime, you say ‘That is “Premeditated Industrial Destruction” and I’m pretty sure that David Turver and his colleagues would agree‘. Obviously you’d think so, but strangely I cannot find the term anywhere in the text of that most interesting McBride et al report. And even in the title it’s qualified by a question mark.
LikeLike
Robin / Jaime, is this the premeditation you are seeking? It is the preamble to David’s Eigenvalues post today?
“This week’s article is adapted from a section of a new paper by the new think tank the Great British Business Council. I am a co-author of the paper, although it should be noted that Catherine McBride did most of the work. The new paper shows how Net Zero has resulted in Premeditated Industrial Destruction and what to do about it. The paper is recommended Easter reading and can be found on this link …”
Regards, John C.
LikeLike
Thank you for the link Mark.
The research note at that page says that Gordon Brown made the CCL cost neutral by reducing the employers’ rate of National Insurance from 12.2% to 11.9%. [Looking back, it was 10% in 1997-98, rising to 12.2% in 1999-2001, before the 0.3% cut came in; I don’t know whether the rise from 10 to 12.2 was part of the plans of the previous government.] The rate of National Insurance is now 15%.
The note includes opposition criticisms of the CCL’s effect on manufacturing, which would these days be considered trifling, considering how much energy costs have gone up in recent years.
LikeLike
Robin, the question mark does NOT appear in the “Premeditated Industrial Destruction” header to the pages that I perused.
https://gbbc.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Premeditated-Industrial-Destruction-Final-31-March-2026-with-a-plan.pdf
Regards, John C.
LikeLike
John C: I suggest that you open that link and look at the heading at the top of the first page. And then go to page three – the heading at the beginning of report itself. In both cases the question mark appears. But what I believe is most significant is that the term ‘Premeditated Industrial Destruction‘ appears nowhere in the report’s text – with or without a question mark.
LikeLike
Doug Brodie and Kevin Marshall, the Kathryn Porter video on renewable myths was great, and she also gave another talk on Why Your Energy Bill is so High, Included was a discussion why nat gas prices are not to blame. Quotes:
I was just checking the prices now and from yesterday’s close we’re now 87 percent down from the highs in 2022. Now has anybody seen an 87 percent reduction in their bills, hands up, anybody? Oh that’s a huge shock. Next year gas analysts expect that the gas price will return to its long-term average pre-2021.
Gas was cheap, in fact the cheapness of gas was what enabled the energy transition to even begin. I wrote a report earlier in the year about the cost of renewables, if you do a chart that shows the wholesale price of gas, the wholesale price of electricity and then the domestic price of electricity what you find is that the wholesale gas price was low and stable until 2021.
But from 2006 this relationship started to break down and what we saw was a steep increase in what households were paying despite a flat trajectory for wholesale prices. Why was this? It was because we were adding on policy costs. We’re subsidizing renewables, we started using suppliers to do all sorts of other social programs, wealth redistribution, literally the warm homes discount is suppliers.
Now, imagine that we only had renewables on our grid. And when you’re setting prices, normally, the price at which you sell your goods is linked to your short run marginal operating cost, which for wind and solar is close to zero. Essentially, you’d be giving it away. How are you going to recover your capital costs for that expensive equipment if you have to give away your products? You’re never going to be able to do it. So basic economic theory will tell you that renewables will never be built without subsidies. They are always going to require subsidies because you will never be able to recover the capital costs to selling the electricity at the short run marginal operating cost of that electricity.
Synopsis and link to video:
https://rclutz.com/2026/04/05/why-your-energy-bill-is-so-high-kathryn-porter/
LikeLiked by 1 person
A comment today on X:
“Schrödinger’s gas field: too small to boost supply yet a “climate catastrophe” if it is exploited.”
https://x.com/Ponz55/status/2040754269733703878?s=20
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin, the report prints the header ‘Premeditated Industrial Destruction’ (minus a ? mark) on every single page. But even more to the point, the report documents in excruciating detail what can only be described as a deliberate, determined and well planned destruction of British industry and manufacturing by both main parties pursued consistently and cumulatively over many decades, long before even the Climate Change Act, beginning with the the early post war governments, and with only one significant interruption (Liz Truss’s premiership). I think it no coincidence how quickly they got rid of Truss! Deindustrialisation accelerated under Thatcher’s Tories, and then took off again under Blair and Brown, after which we got another 14 years of Green Conservatism, then Sunak unnecessarily called an early general election and deliberately threw it in favour of Labour, effectively handing power to an unhinged eco-Marxist who would finish the job of dismantling British industry in haste and with added zeal.
LikeLike
Robin, I wonder if our old friend Lady Bracknell might not remark that to lose one question mark may be regarded as a misfortune, while to lose a whole report’s worth looks like carelessness.
It could, of course, simply be a typo. However, it would be a most unfortunate one in a most unfortunate place since it occurs in a major template for the report, a report which deals with widespread industrial destruction (with or without a question mark).
Whatever the cause of this ambiguity, the many perpetrators of current UK energy policy seem to accept deindustrialisation as, at best, collateral damage in pursuit of their objectives. And that, to me, is not a pretty sight – and not at all good for ordinary people. Regards, John C.
LikeLike
Possibly my favourite comment on the Guardian’s Bill McGuire article (reflecting Joe Public’s observation about a comment on X above):
According to the anti-drill activists, we have a Schrödinger’s North Sea: one in which the oil and gas is already spent or too expensive to extract; yet the same North Sea resources will have catastrophic climate consequences if we opt to refill it. These arguments are incompatible – choose just one and run with that please.
We will need oil and gas until at least 2050 and relying on US, Qatar or any other source while applauding our paper contribution to carbon targets is folly against the backdrop of an international energy crisis and struggling economy. Drill the stuff now, even frack some on the mainland if economically viable (would require a long-term energy shock…) and reduce our chronic insecurity.
This is not the time to sacrifice the country’s highly limited freedom of manoeuvre in a dangerous world to virtue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime, to repeat the point I’ve already made: where it matters – the top of the first page and the title of the report itself – the words ‘Premeditated Industrial Destruction‘ are followed by a question mark, indicating uncertainty. But it’s yet more significant that the words appear nowhere in the text of the report itself nor do the authors indicate anywhere that they believe the dreadful things that are happening to our economy as a result of ‘green’ policies are somehow premeditated or done intentionally – or, as you put it, by the ‘deliberate, determined and well planned destruction of British industry and manufacturing‘.
You insist that the latter is the only possible explanation of the disaster we face. But, again as I’ve said before, I believe it’s far more complex than that and that we’re facing a combination of educated incompetence/stupidity, unquestioning adherence to a cult (many politicians believe Britain has a moral imperative to set an example by cutting emissions and thereby contributing to ‘saving the world’ – with the pain of so doing an unfortunate but unavoidable side-effect), virtue signalling and ‘luxury belief’, a need to tackle ‘social injustice’, terror at the prospect being described as an evil ‘denier’, short-sighted rent-seeking (renewable energy getting subsidies, and politicians getting campaign donations back from them) and, in some cases, an ideological determination to destroy capitalism. To that can be added a constellation of supporting interests that get mutual benefit from the climate agenda: for example, academics get grants, billionaire leftists get kudos for financially backing ‘green’ institutions and the media attract audiences with excited cries of crisis.
LikeLike
John C, I agree with your third paragraph – see my reply to Jaime just now.
LikeLike
Further to my reply to Jaime above, Catherine McBride, the lead author of the paper we’re discussing, has an article in TCW this morning. She writes that, in view of the debate about the Jackdaw gas field, the paper – of which she cites the Title (complete with question mark!) – ‘couldn’t be better timed. It explains everything that the policy-makers surrounding Mr Miliband ought to know about UK oil and gas, but probably don’t.’ She goes on to describe in detail why for Britain the exploitation of Jackdaw and other gas and oil fields is practical and essential. Her conclusion:
Nowhere does she provide even the slightest hint that she believes the real problem is politicians’ determination to destroy Britain’s economy.
Worth reading in full.
LikeLike