Activists in the climate movement have launched two separate legal challenges against the government’s plans to open a significant new oilfield in the North Sea, known as the North Sea oil project.Greenpeace and the advocacy group Uplift contend that moving forward with the Rosebank development, the largest untapped oilfield in the UK, contradicts the nation’s legally binding climate commitments. They argue that the government’s initial analysis overlooked the detrimental effects of burning oil from the site.
Tessa Khan, Uplift’s executive director, emphasized that if the Rosebank North Sea oil project proceeds, it will undermine the UK’s efforts to stay within safe climate limits. She asserted that if the government disputes this claim, it must present evidence and substantiate its position in court.
The approval for the Rosebank field was granted in September, and it has the potential to yield 500 million barrels of oil over its lifespan. However, the burning of this oil would result in carbon dioxide emissions equivalent to operating 56 coal-fired power stations for a year.
The project has encountered strong opposition, with hundreds of climate scientists, academics, and over 200 organizations, including the Women’s Institute and Oxfam, joining tens of thousands of people across the UK in opposing it. This opposition contradicts warnings from scientists about the climate impact and the International Energy Agency’s repeated statements that new oil and gas exploration should not occur for the world to limit global heating to 1.5°C above pre-industrial temperatures.
Areeba Hamid
Co-executive director of Greenpeace UK, Areeba Hamid, asserted that the approval of the Rosebank development falsely claimed compatibility with the UK’s legally binding climate commitments.She accused the government of using a manipulated climate assessment to endorse the project, deliberately ignoring the emissions resulting from burning the 500 million barrels of oil it contains.
Campaigners contend that the UK public will bear most of the development costs, while Rosebank’s owners stand to gain approximately £3 billion in tax breaks. They also assert that the project will not reduce household energy bills since the oil sold on the world market would have no substantial impact on the prices paid by UK consumers.
A government spokesperson rejected these claims, affirming that it would “robustly defend” against the legal challenges. The spokesperson highlighted the UK’s leadership in achieving net zero and the necessity of oil and gas in the energy mix during the transition. The government maintained its support for the oil and gas industry, citing its role in energy security, job support, and the contribution of around £50 billion in tax revenue over the next five years.
In a June report, the Climate Change Committee acknowledged the ongoing need for some oil and gas until achieving net zero but emphasized that it does not justify the development of new North Sea fields. Greenpeace and Uplift have both submitted applications to the Court of Session in Edinburgh for a judicial review of the decision by the current energy secretary, Claire Coutinho, and the North Sea Transition Authority. Anticipated to decide early next year is the court’s granting of permission for a full hearing of the case.
