Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had
with the Climate Change Committee about (1) the impact newly
licensed oil and gas infrastructure will have on domestic and
global emissions, and (2) the design of their ‘Climate
Compatibility Checkpoint’.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy
Security and Net Zero () (Con)
My Lords, the Government work closely with the Climate Change
Committee and are grateful for its expert independent advice. The
committee provided advice on 24 February 2022 in relation to both
new licensing and the climate compatibility checkpoint; the
advice was published on the committee’s website. Officials also
had several discussions with the committee throughout the design
process for the checkpoint. Its advice was considered in the
final design, which has now been published on the GOV.UK
website.
(LD)
My Lords, the climate compatibility checkpoint, in reference to
new oil and gas fields, is, quite frankly, doublethink in
Orwellian proportions. Can the Minister confirm that the IEA, the
IPCC, the vast bulk of UK scientists and the Government’s own net
zero tsar, , have all stated that the
opening of new fields is incompatible with keeping global warming
within the 1.5 degree scenario necessary to protect us and the
natural world from catastrophic climate breakdown?
(Con)
I do not agree with the noble Baroness. She is dead wrong about
these matters. The reality is, whether the Liberal Democrats like
it or not, that we get about 75% of our energy from oil and gas.
That is declining, and the North Sea is a declining field. Unless
she is proposing to tell voters that they should disconnect their
gas boilers or not drive their cars anywhere, we have a
requirement for oil and gas in the future, albeit for a declining
amount. Therefore, the only question is whether we get them from
our own fields and employ British workers, paying British taxes,
or whether we import them from abroad, which usually has a higher
carbon footprint. That is the choice that faces us.
(Con)
Is my noble friend aware that the Government asked for the
Climate Change Committee’s advice and then ignored it? First, the
Climate Change Committee said that it was perfectly possibly to
do this if there were a proper checkpoint. The checkpoint is not
what we asked for. Secondly, the committee said that the
Government should make sure that all extraction from the North
Sea should be of the highest environmental level. We have not
insisted on that. Norway has a much higher level. Thirdly, the
committee said that the Government should accept that they should
not increase the amount of oil being produced on the excuse of
the war in Ukraine. Why have the Government not accepted the
CCC’s advice?
(Con)
Let me give my noble friend some other quotes from the letter
from the Climate Change Committee, with which he is of course
closely associated:
“UK extraction has a relatively low carbon footprint (more
clearly for gas than for oil) and the UK will continue to be a
net importer of fossil fuels for the foreseeable future, implying
there may be emissions advantages to UK production replacing
imports”.
I think he should read the letter that he sent.
(Lab)
My Lords, what steps are the Government taking to reduce the
impact of flaring? I am sure the Minister is aware that routine
flaring, which incidentally has been banned in Norway since 1970,
has a very bad effect on the environment, as it releases methane
80 times more potent than CO2 over a 20-year period. As a result,
if Rosebank goes ahead, we will exceed our carbon budget.
(Con)
As the noble Baroness is aware, we have a plan to reduce our
flaring. We had a Question on that a few weeks ago. We have
committed, along with many other countries, to eliminate flaring
by 2030. The amount of flaring is declining rapidly across the
North Sea and action is being taken.
(CB)
My Lords, can I follow up on the last question? The Rosebank
oilfield, which has just been licensed, is the largest
undeveloped field in the North Sea. It is going to create 200
million tonnes of CO2, which is more than the combined annual
emissions of all 28 low-income countries in the world. Most of
the oil is going to be exported; it is not going to lower our
domestic bills. Can the Government tell me what the benefits from
this are? How on earth is this showing global leadership, at a
time when all the institutions are saying that we have to stop
extracting oil and gas to defeat climate change and temperature
rise?
(Con)
I refer the noble Baroness to the answer I gave to the noble
Baroness, Lady Sheehan. We still have in this country a
requirement for oil and gas. Some 80% of our space heating comes
from gas. We need to phase that out in a transition. Over the
years, we need to electrify more, but in the short term we have a
requirement for oil and gas. The question is whether we want to
get it from Qatar or Saudi Arabia and pay taxes abroad, or employ
our own people in the North Sea to extract those same
reserves?
(Lab)
My Lords, the Dasgupta review commissioned by the Treasury warned
against the continued use of subsidies towards fossil fuels
because they are driving biodiversity loss. Before the Minister
says that they do not subsidise them, there are tax breaks,
investment allowances and decommissioning loopholes—all of which
are subsidies. What can the Minister say today about dealing with
biodiversity loss and ending those subsidies towards fossil
fuels?
(Con)
I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness but the Minister is
going to say that we do not subsidise fossil fuels, because that
is the case. In fact, the opposite is true. We gain billions of
pounds per year in tax revenues from fossil fuels.
(GP)
My Lords, would the Minister agree with the right honourable
Member in the other place , the chair of the
independent review of net zero, who has come out in opposition to
the new Rosebank field development? He recently said:
“We must not let the industries of the past dictate our
future”.
(Con)
I actually agree with him on that particular statement. Of course
we need to move towards phasing out fossil fuel use; nobody
disagrees with that. We have a legal commitment to do that and we
are doing so through a transition. As I said in response to
previous questions, the question is where we get those reserves
from in future. Even with new licensing, UK production in the
North Sea will continue to decline at a rate of about 7% per
year. At the moment we are importing LNG to satisfy our domestic
demand, which has about twice the carbon footprint of that
produced in the North Sea. I really do not understand the point
the noble Baroness is making.
(Lab)
My Lords, as we have heard, the CCC’s report last month
emphasised the need for decarbonising and expanding the
electricity system to rapidly reduce the UK’s demand for fossil
fuels. As mentioned in the report, the Government still have not
provided a coherent strategy or essential details on how they
will achieve their goal of decarbonisation by 2035. When will
these be provided? When will the Government accept that the
quickest and cheapest way to offer the required supply of
variable renewables to do so will involve onshore wind and
solar?
(Con)
Decarbonising our electricity system, which we are doing at the
fastest rate of all G7 countries, will require much more
electrification. Renewable generation capacity is currently six
times greater than in 2010. We are expanding to deliver up to 50
gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030. We have said that we
will also consider onshore wind in future CfD rounds. We have one
of the highest solar capacities in Europe as well—in fact, we
have more solar capacity than even countries such as France.
(LD)
My Lords, the Minister’s defence of new exploration and
production in the North Sea is that the carbon footprint of the
oil and gas produced will be less because it will be consumed
here. This goes against all the evidence. Can the Minister
therefore give the House an assurance that all future production
of oil and gas in the North Sea will be consumed in the UK in
order to reap the benefits which he so repeatedly announces?
(Con)
The reason I said it was lower carbon intensity is that that is a
fact. There are lots of studies being done on it. Imported LNG
has about twice the carbon footprint of domestic production. Of
course I cannot give him a guarantee that it will all be consumed
within the UK, because it is an international market. We have
pipelines, for instance, interlinking our gas supply with the
continent, as the noble Lord well knows. If the Liberal Democrats
really believe that we should stop our production tomorrow, I
look forward to all the focus leaflets—which are being
distributed at the moment—telling people that they have to stop
using their gas boilers or driving their cars. Lots of leaflets
are being produced but I have not noticed the Liberals saying
that in public.
of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister did answer the question on the impact on
biodiversity of fossil fuel extraction. Could he have another go
now?
(Con)
Of course it has an impact on biodiversity, but we have very
strict climate and environmental studies that need to be done
before any fields are licensed. This is the subject of court
action at the moment, as the noble Baroness probably realises, so
I cannot comment on it in detail. We follow all the required
biodiversity protocols.
