Правительство Великобритании должно решить вопрос о выдаче лицензий на добычу газа и нефти в Северном море

Have you noticed that some TV weather presenters seem faintly conflicted as they forecast soaring temperatures in the south of these islands? Is it glorious news for a gloomy population? Or a calamity for crops and the countryside? Should they smile and predict “scorchio?” Or look solemn? The latter, of course. Much of England and Wales is facing a disastrous drought – with a concomitant threat to life. Yet it still fails to register entirely. Faced with the magnitude of this global, apocalyptic challenge, it is perhaps unsurprising that the political reaction seems to fall short. Our new Prime Minister Andy Burnham says he will address climate change. The opening gambit? A temporary ban on disposable barbecues. Perhaps with statute to follow in time. I appreciate the dilemma. Our species wrestles ineffectively with climate change. After decades of indecision, we have learned not to look for easy answers. But disposable barbecues? It sounded glib and insufficient. Not least because the devastating blaze in the New Forest was apparently caused by a van catching fire. To be fair, there is a degree of vacillation in the wider political sphere. And that carries over into a big decision about to be confronted by the UK government. Read more by Brian Taylor: - Why Scottish Labour's leadership contest has come too early - Andy Burnham’s big ideas and the huge, yawning gap in his plans so far The PM and his Ministers have to determine whether to grant production licences for the Jackdaw gas field 150 miles east of Aberdeen and the Rosebank oil field 80 miles northwest of Shetland. Consultation on Jackdaw has just closed. For Rosebank, the cut-off date is next week. Supporters of development – including in Aberdeen where the operator Adura is based – say production from these two fields could reduce the UK’s dependence on imports and so help enhance our energy security. Opponents say that development simply extends our reliance upon climate-harming fossil fuels, that we need instead to accelerate the move towards renewable energy. Beneath these two statements of fundamental conflict lie complex calculations. Labour’s 2024 manifesto said no new licences in the North Sea. But Jackdaw and Rosebank were given the go-ahead by the Tories. Production was halted by environmental objections. In the event, the Court of Session in Edinburgh ruled in January 2025 that government consent had been unlawfully given. Ministers and officials had failed to take account of the greenhouse gases which would be created by using the fuel extracted from the two fields. Again, opponents of drilling say that factor still weighs heavily – they argue, incontestably – against extraction. But supporters say that the UK will continue to need oil and gas for decades, that the alternative to North Sea production is further importing which, of itself, involves damage to the environment through transportation. Further, they argue that global uncertainty means the UK needs to sustain domestic production in order to protect energy supplies. Critics say the enhancement to energy security would be minimal – while sending entirely the wrong signal about addressing the climate crisis. And always there is politics. I believe that Andy Burnham’s instinct would be to grant the two licences. It fits with his narrative of reindustrialising the UK. Advisers will remind him of that point about global security. Further, there is the question of relations with the White House. In his first talk with President Trump, the PM apparently indicated he was ready to be “pragmatic”. Supporters of development say: why risk poor relations with America when giving the go-ahead is in Britain’s interests? Opponents say Trump is an unreliable ally – and that “drill, baby, drill” can never be the UK motto. Any decision to grant licences has been eased by promoting Ed Miliband from energy to foreign affairs. He was decidedly sceptical, if not hostile. But there is still division within the Labour Party. Some oppose development on grounds of environmental principle. Others fear that the Greens will gain more votes from Labour as a consequence. Against that, some in Labour say that a bigger long-term threat is posed by Reform UK – and by the seemingly renascent Tories. Both parties would attack Labour ferociously if consent were to be refused, arguing that British jobs and interests would have been sacrificed. And then there is Scotland. Take a straw poll in Aberdeen’s Union Street – if, that is, you can find enough shoppers in that sadly diminished boulevard. Aberdonians would argue that their area’s oil industry needs support, not least to sustain jobs and skills during the transition to renewable energy. Strictly speaking, the First Minister John Swinney does not need to pronounce. Under the Scotland Act 1998, this is Whitehall’s call. This is one for the Prime Minister to decide. But Mr Swinney will be expected to comment. And he has already signalled that he is ready to take a step away from the position adopted by his predecessor, Nicola Sturgeon, which was to oppose any new development in the North Sea. Mr Swinney has indicated that he is minded to factor that point about global energy security into his calculations. Losing the Aberdeen South by-election to the Tories helped concentrate minds. Constitutionally, the choice is Andy Burnham’s. But the political consequences may be more significant for the First Minister. John Swinney may need the Greens to sustain support for his government at Holyrood, not least over the Scottish budget. Which is why there may be a nuanced response from Bute House should Andy Burnham give the go-ahead to the two fields. Then there is Nicola Sturgeon herself. Already, she has expressed discontent with Swinney governance. There was apparently “a lack of vision and big-picture thinking”. By contrast, the Greens received warm praise. Ms Sturgeon might be expected to amplify her criticism if Mr Swinney gives even a tentative nod to the two fields. How would the First Minister respond? He might be tempted to follow the example of Clement Attlee who told his party’s voluble chair that “a period of silence” from his direction would be welcome. Then again, I expect John Swinney would reflect that Ms Sturgeon has been under enormous personal pressure, increased by the incarceration of her estranged husband. The FM might sensibly counsel calm contemplation on this and other matters. As might the Prime Minister. This decision, though, remains a tough one. Brian Taylor is a former political editor for BBC Scotland and a columnist for The Herald. He cherishes his family, the theatre and Dundee United FC.