I was surprised to read Nils Pratley’s recent column arguing for more North Sea gas (The UK needs more North Sea gas, not greater reliance on US imports, 14 April).
Nils rightly questions reliance on costly and highly polluting imported US liquefied natural gas, but I think the analysis gives insufficient weight to the scale and immediacy of the climate and nature crisis.
Even on energy terms, the case for expanding North Sea output is weak. Analysis from Uplift suggests that 14 years of new licensing have delivered only around one month’s worth of gas demand. Once climate and nature risks are factored in, it becomes very hard to see how further expansion can be justified.
This is not simply an environmental concern. It is increasingly understood as a systemic risk to food security, economic stability and national security. Recent research on accelerating climate impacts and Earth system tipping points suggests that the window for avoiding severe disruption is narrowing rapidly.
The Guardian has long been one of the few outlets to report consistently and seriously on these issues. That makes it all the more important that this context is reflected across its coverage, not only in specialist environment reporting.
Many people feel they are not being given clear, joined-up information about these risks. In response, civil society groups up and down the UK are organising screenings of The People’s Emergency Briefing, a new film bringing together leading experts on climate and nature risks. You can see the number of screenings building on our interactive map.
Simon Oldridge
Co-founder, National Emergency Briefing
Nils Pratley claims that there would be an environmentally beneficial outcome from more North Sea drilling. Such a conclusion can only be reached if the additive effect of every nation pursuing the same strategy is ignored. His approach leads to the tragedy of the commons and climate collapse. Such arguments have gained extraordinary traction of late, partly amplified by vested interests, but aided by a collective abandonment of internationalism.
Pratley is rightly concerned by a potential rise in our reliance on gas imports from the US. Fortunately, the numbers are not nearly as concerning as he sets out (and the irony that his numbers derive, ultimately, from a US-based private equity firm should not be lost). Wood Mackenzie, owned by Veritas Capital, is forecasting future UK gas imports around twice as high as the total level of gas demand expected by the UK government in 2045. Both the problem and the solution are off target. Analysis by the Climate Change Committee shows that even lower levels of future gas demand are possible if a government with an ambitious green agenda steps forward.
Alex Chapman
Senior economist, New Economics Foundation