Climate experts urge rejection of Rosebank oil field licence
Almost 600 climate scientists, health professionals, and conservationists have issued a fresh plea urging Prime Minister Andy Burnham to decline licence applications for the Rosebank oil field in the North Sea, reports BritPanorama.
This appeal comes ahead of Mr Burnham’s meeting with Donald Trump, expected to take place in New York next week.
Mr Trump has publicly called for the UK to enhance its drilling activities in the North Sea, claiming that doing so would significantly boost the nation’s wealth.
In a letter dispatched to Mr Burnham and Energy Secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh, the 575 experts warned that approving the Rosebank project would contradict climate science and result in the UK breaching both national and international climate obligations.
The intervention arises amid reports that the UK Government plans to greenlight new North Sea drilling, starting with the Jackdaw gas field, located 150 miles east of Aberdeen, potentially as soon as this month.
According to the BBC and The Guardian, Ms Fahnbulleh is also expected to grant approval for Rosebank, the largest untapped oil field in the North Sea, situated roughly 80 miles north-west of Shetland.
Thus, deciding whether to authorise these ventures will pose a considerable environmental test for Mr Burnham.
Since taking office as Prime Minister in July, he has faced pressure from climate campaigners to adhere to Labour’s manifesto commitment and deny permission for such projects.
The group of experts stated, “We believe that approval of Rosebank would be ignoring the warnings of scientific research on climate change and would be the wrong decision for the UK, sending a dangerous message on the international stage.”
Rosebank’s resubmitted application indicates that the field could yield more than 250 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions, akin to 70% of the UK’s annual emissions.
The experts referenced a recent report estimating that the environmental damage from the fossil fuels produced at Rosebank could cost between £119 billion and £336 billion over the coming decades, compared to just £28.7 billion in estimated value to the UK posited by Adura, the developer behind Rosebank.
The letter further asserted, “Our conclusions are that Rosebank is not compatible with the UK Government’s national and international obligations to protect communities from the adverse effects of climate change.”
The group highlighted that the past 11 years have been the hottest on record, with this summer seeing unprecedented heatwaves, devastating wildfires, and widespread drought impacting the UK, cumulatively costing the nation over £4.4 billion.
They cautioned that Rosebank would not contribute to lowering energy bills or meaningfully enhance UK energy security, as most of the fossil fuels extracted would be earmarked for export.
“Communities are already facing rising costs because of drought, excess deaths because of heatwaves, and loss of land due to wildfires,” the experts noted.
“This is a matter of national security and approving Rosebank would be adding fuel to the fire.”
“A Government’s first responsibility is to prioritise above all else the best interests of the people it serves and protects – approving Rosebank would be completely going against this principle, by knowingly triggering more devastation on the people of the UK.”
Among the signatories are Emeritus Professor Joanna Haigh from Imperial College London; Professor Elizabeth Robinson, director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change; and Professor Paul Behrens from the University of Oxford.
Prof Haigh commented, “The science is clear. If we are to meet our international and national targets on the climate and nature emergency, we cannot allow any additional oil and gas extraction.”
“Rejecting Rosebank gives the UK an opportunity to once again show global leadership and be a positive example for other nations to follow.”
Prof Robinson added, “This summer, thousands of people died prematurely. British households faced rising costs and communities had to suffer severe heatwaves, wildfires and now drought – all because of human-induced climate change.”
“Approving Rosebank would only lock communities into that same cycle.”
In a separate letter last month, a group of 150 climate scientists argued that the Government should at least require fossil fuel firms to offset some of the carbon emissions resulting from the extraction of oil and gas from the North Sea as a condition of issuing new drilling licences.
An Energy Department (Desnz) spokesperson stated, “We do not comment on speculation. The North Sea remains a vital national asset, and oil and gas will continue to play an important role in our energy system for decades to come – alongside transitioning to clean power to protect jobs and tackle the climate crisis.”
“Any decision will take into account all relevant evidence, including environmental assessments and public representations received during the consultation process.”
