The oil debate is dishonest

The campaign to pump more and more oil out of the North Sea is now relentless. There is no day in which we do not have a selection of articles in the Scottish media (and right across the British media) making once simple claim – its time to pump the oil, because that's the way to get to net zero. Here’s one of today’s.

Here is the mathematics used: the people who want more oil take for granted that net zero by 2050 will 'just happened' and that the important thing is that between then and now we will have an petrochemical import deficit. There is a notional amount of barrels that we are 'short' before we get to 2050 and so it would be better if we produced it than if someone else did.

This is simply a long-standing lobbying line that comes from the oil and gas sector and didn't have that much traction until the right-wing immigration-and-net-zero backlash that has been promoted by almost all the political parties and newspapers. Even liberal commentators are now starting to use this line.

But there are so many problems with this whole question that the line only works if you don't look at it too hard. By far the biggest need for oil and gas products predicted in this model is for gas for heating. It is perfectly feasible to decarbonise most transport and all electricity production by 2050 but we've left it very late to insulate houses properly and replace gas central heating.

Except the UK doesn't produce much gas. We are not and never have been a large producer of heating gas in relation to our needs and we have exhausted most o the fields we had. The North Sea is famous for its 'Brent Crude' which was much in demand because it is the purer, cleaner, lighter 'fraction' which is particularly good for petroleum (and chemical manufacture).

What we do not produce so much of is gas and heavier fractions that are used for diesels and particularly very heavy fractions such as bitumen. We have depleted much of our available gas and never had a lot of heavier petrochemicals and so have been importing oil and gas products ever since we discovered oil.

It's not only about volume but type. If we keep pumping North Sea oil and keep exporting it to the rest of the world for petrol when we have decarbonised our transport then we are simply fuelling climate change and are absolutely not displacing existing use.

But there are more fundamental questions – if we have an energy deficit while transitioning to a new energy system, why would you invest in the declining system rather than accelerate the transition to the emerging system? If we are short of petrol, we should invest in a much better electric car charging network and ban petrol cars faster.

We are not short of electricity but we are short of energy storage. We should not want the market to run backwards to invest its capital in the dying system but to invest in the system to come. That would be the rational investment.

But this is not about energy at all. This is about corporate profits (which somehow always get called 'jobs'). There are plenty jobs in transitioning to a new energy system, but there is upfront investment required in the capital. This is a short-term nation with a short-term mindset and we simply can't countenance investing for the future.

Then again, this isn't really what is happening in this debate anyway. It is notable that the people who are currently 'pro-net zero, pro-oil and gas' are the same people who were very recently 'anti-net zero'. I have not heard any of them offer sensible commentary on how to get to net zero at all.

They behave like 2050 is a century away and that the decisions that need to be made can wait while we rake in the profits and stop worrying about it. They will always write and say things like 'there is zero possibility of a fossil-fuel-free 2050'. That isn't true, but it indicates the real direction of travel here.

It is inevitable that the pro-net zero people will soon discover that because we've redirected our investment into maximising oil and gas extraction we have not invested enough to get to net zero in 2050. At which point they will be lobbying hard for a 'ten year delay'. That will continue.

The arguments being made are not sensible economic arguments because if they were they would be presented along with a coherent transition plan. They have not done that. They are arguing against the future and in favour of the past.

There remains only one costed, comprehensive plan for getting to zero and it is the Common Home Plan by Common Weal. It is costed, feasible and practical and it shows that we don't need to worry about energy supply if we accelerate transition. That debate has now been completely lost. A fightback must resume. Soon.