The evidence is clear, the Rosebank oilfield would do nothing for the UK – Inside track

This post is by Caroline Lucas, MP for Brighton Pavilion 2010-2024, former leader and co-leader of The Green Party, and co-president of European Movement.

Last week, it was leaked from the top of government that the prime minister is considering approving a project that would go down in history as a landmark moment of “climate vandalism”: the Rosebank oil field. Not my phrase this time, but that of the UK energy secretary Ed Miliband, who described the project in those words back in 2023, the same year Rachel Reeves declared her intention to become the first ‘green chancellor’. How long ago that seems today.

If the leaks are correct, and Reeves also wants to approve the UK’s largest undeveloped oil and gas reserve, this would amount to an unforgiveable trashing of our climate goals. This field’s operational emissions alone would exceed the UK’s entire carbon budget allocated to oil and gas production.  And that’s before we even get to calculating the full impact of burning the fossil fuels extracted, which now, thankfully, have to be included in the assessment too.

The Finch judgment paved the way for bold action Last year, we celebrated the Finch judgment as a watershed moment for the climate. This Supreme Court ruling, won by local Surrey resident Sarah Finch and a steadfast group of campaigners, challenged Surrey County Council’s decision to expand the Horse Hill oil site. It set a historic precedent: when assessing the environmental impact of extracting fossil fuel, the emissions from burning it must be considered too.

Today, when laid out in basic terms this seems like common sense. And yet, before the Finch judgment, it wasn’t.

Thanks to this ruling, the legal precedent set in the Finch case opens the door for the government to take an ambitious approach to ending offshore oil and gas developments, which brings us to the Rosebank decision.

Rosebank is a climate disaster in the making On 30 January, the court ruled that Rosebank’s approval was unlawful, forcing the project back to the drawing board. Equinor, the Norwegian state developer, must now apply for development consent once again, the final decision resting with the secretary of state for energy security.

In the face of the current wave of environmental backlash and net zero scaremongering, stirred by right wing populists on both sides of the Atlantic, rejecting Rosebank is a golden opportunity for the UK to draw a line in the sand against the myths and misinformation.

The case against Rosebank is overwhelming. This project alone would produce more than the combined emissions of the 28 lowest income countries in the world or 56 coal fired power stations running for a year.

These emissions exceed the maximum allowance for oil and gas production laid out by the government’s own independent advisers, the Climate Change Committee, by 17 per cent. If approved, Rosebank will push the UK beyond safe climate limits.

In attempts to control the narrative, a No 10 spokesperson came out this week to ‘clarify’ the government’s stance, stating “our priority is a fair, orderly and prosperous transition in the North Sea in line with our climate and legal obligations, which drives towards our clean energy future of energy security, lower bills and good, long term jobs.”

Approving Rosebank undermines any notion of a fair transition.

There’s nothing fair about a decision that locks in fossil fuel emissions for decades while the rest of the world bears the brunt of worsening climate impacts. A truly fair transition is one that limits global temperature rises, provides pathways for secure jobs, invests in local economies and is driven by local people.

This won’t deliver domestically either While the government claims to be prioritising growth, they’re failing to listen to the very industries they aim to support. We know businesses are backing the transition. Recent polling shows that 70 per cent of UK business leaders – including a majority in Scotland – support ending new North Sea oil and gas licences. Let’s call this what it is: a bad business decision.

Here’s why.  Rosebank’s oil is overwhelmingly for export and will do nothing to strengthen the UK’s energy security or its resilience to shocks. Most of it would be sold on the open market, probably in Europe, to the highest bidder at international market prices. It will make no difference to UK energy bills, as former Conservative government ministers have themselves publicly admitted.

Moreover, it’s been estimated that the UK public will effectively carry 84 per cent of the cost of developing Rosebank, while the field’s owners, Equinor and Ithaca, stand to rake in billions of pounds in tax breaks.  Meanwhile, Equinor – which trousered £24 billion in profits in 2024 – and its partner Ithaca would take the profit.  Quite simply Rosebank would make the UK poorer but the Norwegian state, which owns the majority of Equinor, richer.

In fact, there’s nothing British about Rosebank except that it’s in our waters. All phases of this project, from beginning to end, will do more to create jobs in, and strengthen, foreign economies than it will in our own.

In December, trade unions condemned Rosebank when it emerged that the site’s main offshore vessel will be manufactured in Dubai, not creating a single domestic job during the construction or design phases of the project. Despite attempts to counter this narrative, with Equinor claiming Rosebank will generate 1,600 jobs during the development phase, these figures have been drastically inflated. Analysis reveals that just 255 direct jobs will be created in the UK throughout the entire project.

Clean power can deliver the future that Rosebank cannot Rather than clinging to outdated oil projects that leave us exposed to ongoing price shocks and fail to address the cost of living crisis or impending green transition, the government should be focusing on what will truly secure our future: clean power.

Scotland boasts some of the most abundant wind resources in the world, presenting a major opportunity to build a world leading wind manufacturing sector. Through targeted government intervention, this sector has the potential to create tens of thousands of jobs and help oil and gas workers transition to new industries. A clean power system – in line with the government’s Clean Power by 2030 mission – driven by offshore wind, could also lower household electricity bills by more than £200 per year should the government adopt key reforms. These are real and tangible benefits, exactly what Rosebank won’t give us.

So, in summary, “The evidence is clear: Rosebank will do nothing to cut bills, is no solution to our energy security, and would drive a coach and horses through our climate commitments.”

Again, not my words, but those of the current secretary of state. We have to make sure he sticks by them.