{"id":747812,"date":"2026-08-24T03:50:30","date_gmt":"2026-08-24T03:50:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/747812\/"},"modified":"2026-08-24T03:50:30","modified_gmt":"2026-08-24T03:50:30","slug":"more-drilling-wont-lower-bills-scotlands-top-energy-experts-take","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/747812\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018More drilling won\u2019t lower bills\u2019: Scotland\u2019s top energy expert’s take"},"content":{"rendered":"

\n The timing was perfect. Dr Ewan Gibbs from Glasgow University is one of Scotland\u2019s leading experts on energy. We met on the day the public consultation over new North Sea<\/a> drilling closed.\n<\/p>\n

\n Andy Burnham faces a big decision. Whatever call he makes will be politically divisive.\n<\/p>\n

\n The issue centres on the Rosebank and Jackdaw oilfields.\n<\/p>\n

\n So we get right to the point: will more drilling save people money on their bills?\n<\/p>\n

\n \u201cThe simple answer is no,\u201d says Gibbs. North Sea oil is \u201coverwhelmingly exported, 80% is sold on the world market\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n Gas prices are set internationally. Gas, says Gibbs, is \u201cthe key swing fuel\u201d. When it comes to electricity, gas \u201cdetermines the overall cost\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n We\u2019ve seen \u201cvolatility in gas prices\u201d through events like Russia invading Ukraine. \u201cGas prices are subject to market forces.\u201d\n<\/p>\n

\n Dr Ewan Gibbs from Glasgow University (Image: Robert Perry)\n<\/p>\n

\n Britain\u2019s oil and gas industry is privatised. The state doesn\u2019t \u201cown the major gas burners in the power station sector\u201d. Additionally, Britain \u201cgot rid of our gas storage facility about 10 years ago \u2013 which was a big mistake\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n Gibbs adds: \u201cOil and gas<\/a> is part of a world market in hydrocarbons. The idea that we can expect energy security from the oil and gas sector as it\u2019s currently set up isn\u2019t a go-er. I\u2019d go so far as saying our continued reliance on oil and gas is a clear cause of energy insecurity for Scots.\u201d\n<\/p>\n

\n He adds: \u201cHigher prices are being fuelled by our continued dependence on oil and gas.\u201d\n<\/p>\n

\n Energy insecurity means both higher prices and \u201cvolatility around supply\u201d. The Iran war \u201ccreated potential shortage concerns about Britain\u2019s access to jet fuel. So it\u2019s not just about access to oil \u2013 it\u2019s also access to products made through refining.\n<\/p>\n

\n \u201cThis isn\u2019t helped by the fact we have only four major refineries left. Grangemouth was allowed to close. Scotland doesn\u2019t have any refineries.\u201d\n<\/p>\n

\n Britain has \u201can inbuilt dependency on gas\u201d, especially as most homes use gas boilers.\n<\/p>\n

\n So, if more drilling won\u2019t reduce bills why is Burnham even thinking about it? Until early 2022, Gibbs explains, both the British and Scottish governments \u201cwanted to be seen as leading advocates\u201d of decarbonisation. There was cross-party support, including from Boris Johnson\u2019s government.\n<\/p>\n

\n However, the Ukraine war panicked politicians.\n<\/p>\n

\n \u201cThe argument became: we have these fields domestically, we should be burning them.\u201d\n<\/p>\n

\n Lobbyists\n<\/p>\n

\n THAT political pivot echoed the 1970s, a time of \u201cwar in the Middle East, inflation and worries about Britain\u2019s economy\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n Gibbs adds: \u201cNorth Sea oil and gas was seen then as a major part of the solution. Oil and gas were politically safe in a volatile world. In the 2020s, that perspective has been resurrected.\u201d\n<\/p>\n

\n However, today \u201cthe North Sea industry is much smaller in terms of production\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n Lobbyists, Gibbs says, have \u201csuccessfully projected the sense that the regional economy of north-east Scotland continues to be heavily reliant on oil and gas employment\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n The political right, he adds,\u201chas successfully demonised environmental legislation\u201d, linking lower petrol prices to more drilling.\n<\/p>\n

\n The North Sea has become \u201ca form of culture war\u201d with suburban motorists and Aberdeen<\/a> oil workers pitted against \u201ceffete, smug, superior people\u201d and \u201cthe green vote in Glasgow\u2019s southside\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n Gibbs adds: \u201cReform, the Tories, and even parts of the SNP<\/a> are clearly playing off that narrative.\u201d\n<\/p>\n

\n Equally, however, Scotland\u2019s oil and gas workers are suffering \u201creal pain\u201d. The industry \u201chas been in contraction\u201d for most of this century. In the North Sea, \u201cthat\u2019s primarily because the largest fields have been drilled\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n The contraction is down to decisions made by private industry. \u201cThe big players have been getting out of the North Sea for a very long time. BP recently announced it\u2019s selling off the last of its North Sea assets.\u201d\n<\/p>\n

\n This contraction has been \u201cseized on\u201d by lobbyists to claim the government taxes oil and gas companies too hard. However, Gibbs says \u201cBP sold their iconic Forties oilfield in 2003\u201d. BP also sold Grangemouth to Ineos in 2005, and Shetland<\/a>\u2019s Sullom Voe Terminal in 2017.\n<\/p>\n

\n Given the flight of big players from the North Sea, says Gibbs, \u201cthe idea this is some sudden decision provoked by tax policies is unlikely\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n \u201cEmployment and production\u201d in the North Sea peaked many years ago, he adds.\n<\/p>\n

\n There has also been \u201cvery visible longstanding job losses in carbon-intensive sectors of the economy in other parts of Scotland\u201d, like Grangemouth.\n<\/p>\n

\n The truth is that, from the perspective of big oil companies, the \u201cbenefits\u201d of the North Sea \u201care declining\u201d and internationally there are simply \u201cricher provinces\u201d to explore.\n<\/p>\n

\n Gibbs says: \u201cRegardless of what happens with licensing decisions for Jackdaw and Rosebank, the long-term trend of contracting production and employment isn\u2019t going to change in the North Sea.\u201d\n<\/p>\n

\n That\u2019s particularly the case due to the control of the North Sea by private companies and foreign governments, he adds.\n<\/p>\n

\n The North Sea has become \u201ca form of culture war\u201d with suburban motorists and Aberdeen oil workers pitted against \u201ceffete, smug, superior people\u201d and \u201cthe green vote in Glasgow\u2019s south-side\u201d (Image: WPA Pool)\n<\/p>\n

\n Norway\n<\/p>\n

\n THE national debate about the North Sea would be very different if oil and gas hadn\u2019t been privatised under Margaret Thatcher, Gibbs says.\n<\/p>\n

\n Norway, which has a similar history in the North Sea to Scotland, established a Sovereign Wealth Fund. It\u2019s valued at $2.3 trillion and covers around one-quarter of Norway\u2019s annual expenditure.\n<\/p>\n

\n Norway saw oil as a windfall and finite resource and believed the proceeds should be put into a \u201cfund for future generations\u201d. In Britain, Gibbs adds, \u201cobviously that decision wasn\u2019t taken\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n For a time, the North Sea wasn\u2019t all in private hands. The British National Oil Corporation (BNOC) was based in Glasgow, prior to privatisation. BNOC was partially privatised as BritOil in 1982. BP then bought it in 1988.\n<\/p>\n

\n When there was some state involvement, the ethos was to make rigs and infrastructure, with much of the work in Scotland.\n<\/p>\n

\n Then, however, Thatcher stated that the North Sea would be a \u201csea of private enterprise\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n Labour, during the 1979 general election, said the North Sea should be used to finance \u201cmanufacturing and research and development\u201d to reconfigure the economy. Despite recent job losses caused by private companies, however, \u201cthe renewable sector isn\u2019t picking up the slack\u201d, Gibbs says.\n<\/p>\n

\n Under the so-called \u201cjust transition to net zero\u201d, oil and gas workers should move into secure jobs in the renewables industry, avoiding repetition of the agony caused by Thatcher shutting industries like coal.\n<\/p>\n

\n The just transition could have been funded by a UK Sovereign Wealth Fund if the Conservative Party hadn\u2019t opted for privatisation. \u201cThat seems a very socially responsible way to use oil profits,\u201d Gibbs says.\n<\/p>\n

\n Gibbs notes, however, that today Norway\u2019s transition \u201cisn\u2019t as advanced as ours\u201d. He suggests that the \u201cflip side of having a very successful nationally owned oil industry is that the prospect of getting rid of it becomes much more difficult\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n The public are understandably worried about net zero as \u201cenergy consumers have had a terrible time in Britain, nor has it been a good time to be an energy worker or to be in a region reliant on hydrocarbons\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n Gibbs says: \u201cI understand why, if you\u2019re sitting in Aberdeenshire or Shetland, seeing politicians celebrating further job losses and closures isn\u2019t very welcome\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n Consumers \u2013 already hit with punishing energy costs \u2013 are also \u201cbeing asked to pay for the transition\u201d through our bills.\n<\/p>\n

\n This hit comes via what\u2019s called the \u201cContract for Difference\u201d. It\u2019s complicated, but broadly it\u2019s a subsidy towards developing the renewables sector. It provides financial certainty for companies developing the industry, in case electricity prices fluctuate.\n<\/p>\n

\n Dr Ewan Gibbs from Glasgow University (Image: Robert Perry)\n<\/p>\n

\n Consumers\n<\/p>\n

\n THE cost of the scheme is passed to consumers in electricity bills. Gibbs says this isn\u2019t unique to renewables as it\u2019s also seen in the nuclear industry. It\u2019s an incentive for the development of renewable industry as it requires substantive outlay.\n<\/p>\n

\n So, while transitioning to net zero is absolutely necessary, \u201cthe current model\u201d risks deindustrialisation in areas like Aberdeen, while consumers pay for the transition via their bills. A \u201cpublicly owned\u201d energy sector wouldn\u2019t operate like this, Gibbs says.\n<\/p>\n

\n Britain hasn\u2019t \u201chistorically followed this model\u201d during other energy transitions, such as the period when we switched from primarily coal to electricity.\n<\/p>\n

\n Electricity generation increased fivefold between 1950\/70. Government investment was used to fund that change.\n<\/p>\n

\n \u201cWe don\u2019t have that mechanism available now. We\u2019re asking private companies to lead the transition, then we have to provide mechanisms to finance that. Ultimately, it\u2019s all of us paying for that \u2013 people with large families, poorer people, and pensioners. They\u2019re paying more of their income proportionally to finance this. It\u2019s a very regressive form of tax.\u201d\n<\/p>\n

\n In terms of employment in Scotland\u2019s renewable sector, most jobs are \u201clow pay and insecure. They\u2019re not building wind farms. They\u2019re self-employed doing installations like heat pumps or charging stations for electric cars. These aren\u2019t particularly well-rewarded jobs\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n A \u201cjust transition\u201d isn\u2019t \u201cjust about job numbers, we should be talking about job quality and longevity as well\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n In terms of jobs losses in the oil and gas industry, Gibbs says the closures of both Grangemouth and the Mossmorran petrochemicals plant were entirely \u201cforeseeable\u201d. He adds: \u201cThe Scottish Government<\/a> was committed to a just transition replacement plan for Mossmorran but hadn\u2019t got round to it. That\u2019s incredibly frustrating.\u201d\n<\/p>\n

\n Both sites could have been reorientated for manufacturing. Scotland still needs \u201cthe broad array of chemical products made at those sites\u201d. Trade unions proposed making \u201csustainable aviation fuel at Grangemouth\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n Gibbs says: \u201cIt\u2019s about using skills and facilities \u2013 like pipelines \u2013 that have their origins in fossil fuels but could be used for renewables. That sort of planning should have been done.\u201d\n<\/p>\n

\n Such reorientation will be needed for the offshore industry to prevent suffering among oil and gas-dependent communities. \u201cYou need to provide future options \u2013 not just for workers now, but for their children and everyone in these regions.\u201d\n<\/p>\n

\n There is \u201cabsolutely\u201d a risk of repeating the mistakes of Thatcherism. However, Gibbs explains that, prior to Thatcher, the coal industry was shedding jobs without it leading to mass unemployment.\n<\/p>\n

\n More Scottish miners lost their jobs in the 1960s than the 1980s. However, they \u201cwere directed by government policy\u201d into safer, better-paid manufacturing jobs.\n<\/p>\n

\n Many miners, for example, were found employment at Uddingston\u2019s Caterpillar tractor factory. Energy transition doesn\u2019t need to tell a \u201cpessimistic story\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n Dr Ewan Gibbs from Glasgow University looks at the energy sector in Scotland and North Sea oil (Image: Robert Perry)\n<\/p>\n

\n Unjust\n<\/p>\n

\n IN terms of coal, there was a \u201cjust transition before the highly unjust transition\u201d under Thatcher. Understandably, many oil and gas workers fear becoming \u201cthe coal miners of the 2020s\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n Memories of the assault on coal \u201creinforces arguments on the political right around retaining oil and gas\u201d. Gibbs stresses that \u201cwe need to remember who is closing down the oil and gas industry. It\u2019s not red bureaucrats or green activists, it\u2019s oil and gas companies. Oddly, they\u2019re very absent from the discussion\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n A publicly owned energy industry would give Britain control over \u201ca rapid, fair and just move towards an electrified society\u201d. Full electrification is the government objective, though transport \u2013 especially aviation \u2013 and home heating makes the task complex.\n<\/p>\n

\n Big changes are possible, though. In the 1960s, Britain shifted from what was called \u201ctown gas\u201d \u2013 dirty gas derived from coal \u2013 to natural gas. Remnants of town gas can still be seen in places like Glasgow\u2019s Provan gasworks. The switch to natural gas is why most homes now have gas boilers.\n<\/p>\n

\n Read more\n<\/p>\n

\n This switch happened at a time of public ownership. \u201cIt was very rapid, effective and made people\u2019s lives better.\u201d The gas industry was privatised in 1986. \u201cMany European countries have publicly owned energy systems. It\u2019s not some wacky socialist suggestion,\u201d says Gibbs.\n<\/p>\n

\n Indeed, many foreign state-owned energy companies \u2013 including French, Irish and Norwegian \u2013 own parts of Scotland\u2019s energy systems, including nuclear power stations and wind farms.\n<\/p>\n

\n Gibbs suggests the Scotland Act be updated. \u201cIt effectively says the devolved administration isn\u2019t allowed to own electricity generation.\u201d The Act was written by the Blair government which was \u201ckeen to be seen at peace with the changes Thatcher\u2019s government made to Britain\u2019s economy\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n The Burnham government seems \u201cfar more likely to be sympathetic to the case for publicly owned electricity. It\u2019s the UK Government<\/a> which has the financial firepower to invest in offshore wind farms\u201d. Local government should be given \u201cstakes in electricity generation\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n The creation of GB Energy under the Starmer government \u201cheld out hope\u201d of more state involvement, especially, says Gibbs, when then energy secretary Ed Miliband said he \u201cwanted British people to own things and make things again\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n GB Energy failed to live up to expectations, though. Gibbs says the government doesn\u2019t have to go for \u201coutright nationalisation. It could begin with GB Energy taking more significant stakes in joint-venture projects\u201d. More state control would allow government to prioritise reducing bills for homes and manufacturers. Energy costs, Gibbs warns, are causing \u201cfactory closures\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n Foreign\n<\/p>\n

\n MOST wind turbines in Britain are imported. Lower energy cost would make homegrown manufacturing easier. So it\u2019s \u201cforeign governments and privately owned multinationals\u201d making cash from UK citizens.\n<\/p>\n

\n However, Gibbs notes that, given the North Sea has a \u201climited life\u201d, there\u2019s understandable \u201cwariness\u201d within government of \u201cpublic intervention\u201d. However, there is a case to be made that the government could handle North Sea decline better than corporations.\n<\/p>\n

\n As renewables is a \u201cnew sector that will play a defining role in our economic future, there must be a case for much more public ownership\u201d. If railways can be renationalised, says Gibbs, \u201cthen I don\u2019t see why not for electricity generation\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n Public ownership goes to the heart of issues like \u201cenergy sovereignty, and the feeling of insecurity that key decisions aren\u2019t in our hands when they clearly ought to be. We\u2019re talking about our wind, our public spending, our budgets, our future\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n Currently, Scottish wind farms are on track to generate \u201cseveral times the electricity demand. It\u2019s not a story of us becoming energy poor, but energy abundant\u201d. The problem centres on what to do with this abundance of electricity.\n<\/p>\n

\n Some claim it should \u201cpower data centres\u201d \u2013 a move that would be deeply unpopular with many voters, create few jobs, line the pockets of tech tycoons, and have negative environmental impact due to water consumption.\n<\/p>\n

\n Using abundant renewable electricity for cheaper energy in manufacturing, especially in green industries which create jobs, would fit with the SNP\u2019s claims of wanting \u201creindustrialisation\u201d. However, says Gibbs, \u201cthat hasn\u2019t happened\u201d. Scotland still imports most wind-farm infrastructure from China, Denmark and Germany. Along with the cost of energy, \u201cthat\u2019s a considerable problem in the transition story\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n Gibbs says the \u201chuge levels of growth in the output of renewable electricity in the last 15 years\u201d has meant Scotland could close the last coal-fired power station at Longannet and Hunterston nuclear power station. The way the electricity grid works means it\u2019s difficult to manage \u201cthe build-up of electric renewable capacity that we\u2019re seeing\u201d. There are problems in how to \u201cdistribute\u201d that power. Parts of Scotland where the energy is generated \u201cbenefit least and pay the most\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n When it comes to wind, \u201cthe benefits aren\u2019t being reaped in Shetland, Orkney<\/a> or the Highlands as they ought to be\u201d. More infrastructure, like pylons, is needed.\n<\/p>\n

\n Unless the infrastructure is fixed, \u201cyou end up with wind farms paid to not operate and surplus capacity not being used \u2013 which is perverse\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n Gibbs adds: \u201cBritain in some ways led the way on offshore wind, and Scotland was at the apex of that. But we didn\u2019t see the gains from that in terms of our economy \u2026 We didn\u2019t create a system conducive to the interests of consumers and communities.\u201d\n<\/p>\n

\n Tidal energy is still a developing technology. Gibbs hopes the same mistakes aren\u2019t replicated when it eventually matures.\n<\/p>\n

\n Sturgeon\n<\/p>\n

\n THE ScotWind deal under Nicola Sturgeon<\/a>, which saw large swathes of the seabed auctioned off to foreign and private investors for a relatively low price was, says Gibbs, \u201cone of the worst sets of policies adopted in the devolved era\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n First Minister Nicola Sturgeon at the opening of the European Offwhore Wind Deployment Centre in Aberdeen Bay in 2018 (Image: Jeff J Mitchell)\n<\/p>\n

\n Economists have claimed billions more could have been raised on the deal. Gibbs says other benefits \u2013 such as Scottish companies making money from supply chains \u2013 haven\u2019t been realised.\n<\/p>\n

\n The penalties for failing to bring about these \u201cvalue-added\u201d benefits are far too insignificant, says Gibbs. Giant corporations can just absorb the relatively small fines. He is also concerned that \u201csome of the developments simply aren\u2019t going to go ahead ultimately\u201d. The SNP just \u201cgave the operators what they wanted\u201d as they were keen for the deal to be seen as a success. \u201cThat was a real mistake.\u201d\n<\/p>\n

\n While the Scottish and UK governments claim they are still committed to net zero, Gibbs doesn\u2019t see \u201cthe urgency required in rushing that transition forward\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n Both governments are essentially trying to \u201cnudge consumers and private companies to do the right thing. Do we really feel we\u2019re living in a society where petrol cars and gas boilers are on the way out in the next decade? If we want to achieve net zero that must be the case\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n The goal is for Scotland to reach net zero by 2045 and the UK by 2050. Gibbs doesn\u2019t believe the targets will be met.\n<\/p>\n

\n The Scottish Government has already \u201camended its own supposedly legally binding targets on the way to net zero as it wasn\u2019t going to meet them.\n<\/p>\n

\n \u201cAnd now Scottish Government ministers talk about the case for new drilling \u2013 which is clearly outwith the objectives they set themselves\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n Gibbs finds it \u201cstaggering\u201d that Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch wants to purge anyone who supports net zero from the party.\n<\/p>\n

\n He\u2019s also \u201castonished that politicians, not just on the right but even on the left, or nominally centre-left in the SNP\u201d, have criticised windfall taxes on multinational oil companies \u201cmaking huge amounts of money on escalating prices\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n He adds: \u201cThe oil and gas lobby has been pretty effective. But the public should be seeing benefits too. That money should be spent in Aberdeen supporting the transition.\u201d\n<\/p>\n

\n Donald Trump<\/a> has also interfered in UK energy policy in ways never seen before, calling for more drilling. That has increasingly made the debate ideological.\n<\/p>\n

\n Nuclear\n<\/p>\n

\n GIBBS says that nuclear power remains \u201cthe dog that hasn\u2019t barked\u201d in the net-zero debate. There were hopes in the 1960s that nuclear would be the power of the future. However, \u201cunder privatisation it was very difficult for nuclear to prosper\u201d. Both the Scottish Labour<\/a>-LibDem coalition and then the SNP government opposed extending nuclear power in Scotland.\n<\/p>\n

\n Gibbs says \u201ca balance of technologies\u201d is needed for net zero, but if nuclear is going to be used then \u201cwe need a very, very rapid rollout and that isn\u2019t on the cards\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n We also need to work on \u201cvery large battery and storage construction\u201d as currently electricity has to be consumed effectively as soon as it\u2019s produced.\n<\/p>\n

\n One of the most \u201cfoolish mistakes\u201d made in terms of energy policy was mothballing Britain\u2019s gas storage facilities. Gibbs called this a case of \u201cknowing the price of everything and the value of nothing\u201d when it came to\n<\/p>\n

\n \u201clong-term security\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n It leaves Britain vulnerable to \u201csudden movements in price\u201d, and even \u201cpetrol rationing\u201d in the worst case scenario. Closing Grangemouth was \u201cincredibly damaging on an economic level. A significant oil-producing country closed its only oil refinery. It\u2019s absurd\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n The facility that remains at Grangemouth now imports fuel from overseas. \u201cThat\u2019s what we\u2019ve done. It\u2019s not about transition, it\u2019s about a new form of dependency.\u201d\n<\/p>\n

\n Due to the Iran war, concerns arose about jet fuel shortages in Britain. \u201cGrangemouth used to make jet fuel. There\u2019s been a real loss of national capacity. It\u2019s bad for national security, economic activity and employment. It\u2019s a very visible failure of the just transition story.\u201d\n<\/p>\n

\n Meanwhile, wealthy landowners \u2013 called \u201cGreen lairds\u201d \u2013 get richer renting land for wind farms. \u201cWhoever owns the lands decides what happens on that land,\u201d says Gibbs.\n<\/p>\n

\n When it comes to Green lairds, he sees echoes of the dominance of private companies in the energy sector. It underscores the fact that it\u2019s the wealthy benefiting from the current system, not ordinary people.\n<\/p>\n

\n Governments should focus on what citizens want, he says, like warm homes and reasonably priced, dependable energy. \u201cBut that involves a level of public intervention and control which is either not available or considered desirable by those who control the political status quo in London and Edinburgh<\/a>.\u201d\n<\/p>\n

\n Governments seem either too weak or indecisive to take the steps needed, like \u201ca massive rollout of heat pumps that will make life better because it\u2019s going to make energy cheaper\u201d. Much of the communication from government on issues like heat pumps is ill thought-out and confusing. \u201cThat antagonises people,\u201d Gibbs says.\n<\/p>\n

\n The state should \u201ctake control of the development of wind farms\u201d, and establish a \u201cmuch stronger cap\u201d on energy prices. \u201cIt\u2019s effectively not a cap at all as it rises and falls with energy price.\u201d However, it\u2019s hard, Gibbs says, to imagine a fairer system \u201cunder private ownership\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n Closures\n<\/p>\n

\n THERE will be more closures like Grangemouth and Mossmorran, he warns, so this time governments need to plan for that eventuality unless they want another \u201cdevastating story\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n There are concerns around Sullam Voe, Flotta, Hound Point and Kinneil terminals, he believes. A tipping point could come with North Sea contraction when a \u201cdomino effect\u201d begins and privately owned sites are judged \u201cno longer viable\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n Aberdeen has suffered \u201c10 years of sustained contraction\u201d, leaving a \u201cprosperous region no longer prosperous\u201d. There is negative equity and falling tax receipts. Cumulative UK-wide job losses in oil and gas are estimated at 200,000, with Scotland the epicentre.\n<\/p>\n

\n Gibbs\u2019s advice to Burnham, as he prepares to decide on whether to allow more drilling, is this: he must avoid \u201cgetting sucked into the false idea that if we licence these fields it will bring a new lease of life for Aberdeen and energy security to Britain. It\u2019s not going to do that\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n He doesn\u2019t buy the idea that taxation from more drilling will help fund the transition. Such claims must be approached with \u201csignificant caution or at least a sense of realism\u201d as the North Sea is in such a state of dire contraction driven by private companies.\n<\/p>\n

\n The notion of more drilling after a summer which caused wildfires at Arthur\u2019s Seat in Edinburgh is \u201castonishing\u201d, he adds.\n<\/p>\n

\n Until recently all parties were \u201csigned up to net zero and agreed climate change was the key problem. That\u2019s clearly not true any more. The disconnect between the climate change discussion and these actual experiences of climate change in Britain are jarring\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n Is he optimistic for the future? Not on \u201cthe current trajectory\u201d, Gibbs says. \u201cAs long as we accept that we\u2019re going to devolve key decisions to profit-making private companies I don\u2019t think there will be a very positive transition \u2013 there might not be much of a transition at all.\u201d\n<\/p>\n

\n Just look at the \u201cslowdown in the reduction of carbon emissions\u201d, he says. \u201cIt\u2019s frightening if you\u2019re concerned about society and the economy.\u201d\n<\/p>\n

\n Currently, however, Gibbs believes Burnham \u201cprobably\u201d will back more drilling thanks to \u201cintensive lobbying by the oil and gas industry\u201d. He\u2019s also concerned about the \u201crepeal or watering down\u201d of the windfall tax.\n<\/p>\n

\n There are claims that while Burnham wants more drilling, he\u2019s worried about \u201coptics\u201d given heatwaves and wildfires. \u201cThat really sums up the problem,\u201d says Gibbs. \u201cEven politicians of the centre-left in Scotland and Britain lack a commitment to a decisive strategy for either addressing climate change or devising a more just and secure energy system owned by, and run for, us.\u201d\n<\/p>\n

\n If Burnham does fall in line behind the oil and gas industry, then, says Gibbs, \u201cyou have to ask where that takes Britain\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n He worries that the Scottish Government \u201cseems intent on pursuing data centres as a way to absorb the large electricity surpluses we may be on the verge of producing \u2026 and taking the hit when it comes to our valuable water supplies\u201d.\n<\/p>\n

\n Right now, he fears, \u201cthe transition, in so far as we have one, sees us replicating the worst features of the carbon economy: a model run for the benefit of large multinational corporations secured by government all too often leaving consumers, citizens and workers vulnerable and poorer\u201d.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The timing was perfect. Dr Ewan Gibbs from Glasgow University is one of Scotland\u2019s leading experts on energy.…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":747813,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[84,59,56,54,55],"class_list":["post-747812","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-business","tag-business","tag-gb","tag-uk","tag-united-kingdom","tag-unitedkingdom"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/747812","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=747812"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/747812\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/747813"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=747812"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=747812"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=747812"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}