(Brighton, Pavilion)
(Green):...When it comes to the UK’s ongoing diplomatic
responsibilities as COP President to strengthen climate ambition
internationally, it is clear that any domestic policies that
increase the fossil fuel market undermine that ambition and open
us to the accusation of gross hypocrisy. Of course, I understand
that the Government have other responsibilities too and that this
debate is happening in the midst of a cost of living crisis.
While companies such as BP and Shell are raking
in eye-watering profits, millions of households are pushed into
poverty. Yet only a tiny proportion of the oil and gas industry’s
total capital expenditure is going into renewables—just 1% in
2020 and still only in single figures today. I wholeheartedly
support efforts to cut the UK’s reliance on Russian fossil fuels
and to shield families from the effects of high global gas
prices. What I do not support is the pursuit of policies that
will end up exposing people to more costs in the long term...
The Government are fond of saying that it is better to produce
gas at home than to rely on imports but, of course, it is not our
gas: it belongs to private companies and will be traded on global
markets to the highest bidder. Contrary to what the Government
often claim, the carbon intensity of oil and gas produced in the
UK is pretty average and in fact higher than that of Norwegian
gas, which is our main source of imports. Ministers need to scrap
the very notion of the climate checkpoint and the outdated legal
duty to maximise the economic recovery of North sea oil and gas.
They need to rule out once and for all the possibility of
drilling at Cambo to signal
clearly, right now, that Shell will not be given
approval for the new Jackdaw gasfield.
Jackdaw will not lower bills or make our energy more secure, but
it will produce pollution equal to half of Scotland’s annual
emissions. No Government in their right mind would consider such
a move, and nor would they continue to support the fossil fuel
industry through tax breaks and financial support for exploration
and for research and development, yet that is happening, to the
tune of £12 billion a year. I know the Treasury does not consider
a penny of that to be a subsidy, but New Economics Foundation
analysis found that around £10 billion-worth is indeed covered by
the subsidy definition used by, for example, the International
Monetary Fund.
In fact, the UK’s tax regime makes it the most profitable country
in the world for oil and gas companies to develop big projects.
Shell alone received a £92 million tax rebate
from the UK in 2021—the largest total from any country in which
it operates. Yet when I have challenged Ministers previously, I
have been met with arguments about how much tax the sector pays,
or a refusal to recognise the definition of a subsidy that I use.
I stress that that definition follows exactly the principles used
by the World Trade Organisation, the IMF, the OECD and the
Overseas Development Institute. It is at best quibbling and at
worst dissembling...
For context, CLICK HERE
