The case of May 2026: Oil and Gas Exploration vs. Climate Change Mitigation

Wendy Horton calls for the LibDems to up their game on climate change campaigning.

Share

A thermometer half buried in sand in front of a blue sky.

Most people are well-aware of Reform UK’s energy policy, which is to put it bluntly, drill-baby-drill. The public may be less aware of the Conservative Party’s slide in recent years, from following the general consensus on net zero to being the voice of fossil fuel lobbyists. Kemi Badenoch and her ministers regularly appear on broadcasting media promoting the maxxing out of North Sea oil licences.

The reality of climate change and the need for mitigations is rarely mentioned in these presentations. In fact, the Conservatives have received significant donations from oil and gas investors, and in January 2025 were in receipt of £50,000 from Net Zero Watch, the campaigning arm of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. The party no longer supports the Climate Change Act (2019), the aim of which is to reach net zero emissions by 2050. This was confirmed in a recent tweet by Claire Coutinho, the Shadow Energy Secretary, who in response to the recent heatwave, advocated fossil-fuel powered air conditioning.

The impact of climate change is becoming disturbingly real

The heatwave at the end of May this year was unprecedented, with UK temperature records broken by over 2°C. The graph of climate variables published by the Met Office shows the average temperature in May increasing continuously since 1975 with recent large spikes. During this Spring heatwave, the temperature reached 35.1°C in Kew Gardens, Greater London, exceeding the previous UK May record of 32.8°C in 1944. On 1 June 2026, the Met Office confirmed that Spring 2026 was the warmest on record in England and Wales for mean temperature.

While many people enjoyed basking in the Bank Holiday sunshine, we also saw reports of farmers with desiccated seedlings and written-off crops. Meanwhile, in Ynysybwl, near Pontypridd, the local council imposed a Compulsory Purchase Order on 16 properties (the 19th-century Clydach Terrace) due to a threat to life from increasingly frequent flooding events. These are just snapshots from the last week of May 2026, but they are symptomatic of the realities of climate change in the UK and abroad.

The public is conflicted

It was concerning to view a recent poll by YouGov in which 46% of the public were in favour of allowing new oil and gas developments to be opened in the North Sea. 23% would allow existing oil and gas field extractions to continue, whilst 10% believed that they should be shut down. Amongst Liberal Democrat supporters, 31% were in favour of new developments and 37% would allow existing extractions to continue. This suggests that fossil fuel lobby messaging, that oil and gas are cheap, is getting through to the general public. The fact that increasing the amount of oil pumped from the North sea would not reduce prices at the pump is carefully glossed over, whilst ‘climate change’ is a phrase which is never mentioned.

While the Labour Party can be commended for starting to roll out more infrastructure for renewable energy developments, it is most unhelpful that volatile natural gas, one of the most expensive forms of energy, is still being used to set the price of wholesale electricity.

Home-grown renewable energy is much cheaper, but consumers never see the benefits, handing the fossil-fuel lobbyists a propaganda coup on a plate. As a matter of urgency, the government should disconnect electricity produced by renewable energy from fossil fuel prices. Funding required for investment in green energy infrastructure, such as electricity pylons and sub-stations, should be taken from general taxation, the fairest way to proceed.

Reversing our fossil fuel exit is not a viable strategy

On 31 May 2026, while unofficially campaigning for the Labour leadership, Wes Streeting announced to the press that he supported new oil and gas licences being issued in the North Sea. Perhaps he felt that Tony Blair’s recent intervention legitimised this approach. Short-term political expediency is likely to be the reason for Streeting’s proposal, but there are long-term consequences in continuing with oil and gas extraction, as renewable energy requires a complete system change in transmission and infrastructure which is not compatible with fossil-fuel fired power stations and delivery.

Of the new North Sea oil and gas licences issued in 2010-24 by the Conservative-led administration, the equivalent of 36 days of extra gas and 64 days-worth of oil has been produced, most of the latter exported. This is because there are few reserves left in the North Sea: One of the largest undeveloped gas fields is Jackdaw, but this would produce just 2% of the UK’s requirements. Why is there so much focus on extraction of ‘our’ oil and gas in the North Sea when there is so little remaining? The answer must be to promote a reliance on fossil fuels in general and the retention of the accompanying power stations and infrastructure.

Meanwhile, the Green party under Zac Polanski has left the pitch when it comes to environmental and climate issues, being overwhelmed with entryism from the far left and pro-Gaza activists.

Green shoots from the LibDems

It was heartening to read that the Liberal Democrats are to champion nature conservation and environmentalism as a prime policy area, offering a space to disaffected former Green supporters, particularly those in rural areas. I hope that action on climate change will be included within this plan, which would additionally appeal to younger voters. 

The link between carbon emissions and climate change needs to be reinforced

If we are to reduce our carbon emissions and benefit from secure home-produced renewable energy, we must keep the public informed and on board. Climate change seems to have fallen away from public discourse during the last few years. The current strategy of the denial lobby appears to be that anthropomorphic climate change must be ignored, shut down and kept out of minds; the burning of fossil fuels must be disconnected from the well-presented climate data which we can easily access (e.g. from the Met Office), and from the evidence of our own lives.

Much of the mainstream media have discussed the recent heatwave in some detail, but have not linked such events with the burning of fossil fuels. Now is the time for Liberal Democrats to use their voices in a measured and evidenced way, putting the C-word back on the podium, centre stage.


Links and references

https://www.desmog.com/2025/06/10/conservatives-kemi-badenoch-ditched-net-zero-2050-commitment-while-receiving-250000-from-oil-investors-and-climate-deniers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation

https://x.com/ClaireCoutinho/status/2059677691729875165, 27 May 2026

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-temperature-rainfall-and-sunshine-time-series; https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/blog/2026/record-breaking-heat-rewrites-may-temperature-records-across-the-uk; https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news-and-media/media-centre/weather-and-climate-news/2026/warmest-spring-on-record-for-england-and-wales–third-warmest-for-uk

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgz3zj1d99o, 25 May 2026

Also, BBC Wales Today.

https://x.com/YouGov/status/2060388488483069976, YouGov polling, 29 May 2026

https://www.upliftuk.org/post/just-one-months-gas-supply-from-14-years-of-licensing-by-previous-government

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/05/30/lib-dems-become-eco-warriors-as-greens-give-up-on-nature/ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cz7220e44dgt https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cz7220e44dgt

Share

Comments

8 responses to “The case of May 2026: Oil and Gas Exploration vs. Climate Change Mitigation”

  1. Simon Robinson avatar
    Simon Robinson

    Totally agree. Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss remains the greatest threat to humanity, and the betrayal of the Conservatives and desertion of the Greens on this issue leaves a huge opening on what has traditionally been one of our strongest areas. Baffling that Ed Davey and the leadership aren’t taking advantage of that.

    One thing I would though add is that you don’t say anything about nuclear power. Developing more nuclear energy is going to be a crucial part of weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels, alongside renewable energy.

    1. Wendy Horton avatar
      Wendy Horton

      I do feel conflicted about nuclear energy due to the radioactive waste, often with half-lives of thousands of years. In France, they are now successfully recycling and reusing uranium and plutonium waste, so that is one to watch.
      Another renewable technology at the experimental phase is tidal power, which could provide up to 5% of the UK’s energy.

      1. Simon Robinson avatar
        Simon Robinson

        Yes the radioactive waste is a problem that people have been concerned about. I guess the reason I don’t see it as a huge issue is that it’s generally solid (or can be converted to solids) and it’s therefore possible to bury it/shield it where it is not going to do anyone (or the wider environment) any harm (which of course is what we already do).

        The problem with relying only on renewables is they are time-dependant: For example, you generate wind power when the wind is blowing and so on. That’s not necessarily when you need to use the power, and it’s not yet feasible to store the energy for later use in the quantities that would be required without a non-renewable backup. Tidal energy, which you mention, is more reliable and I’m happy to add it to the mix, but it is disruptive to local ecosystems, and there isn’t enough of it available to meet more than a small fraction of global energy requirements (although as an island, the UK is a lot better off than other countries from that point of view)

  2. Kayed Al-Haddad avatar
    Kayed Al-Haddad

    Nice and succinct article, Wendy! Only concern is the massive government subsidy required to bring our home-grown renewable energy, to a much higher proportion of our current energy mix, at a time when government budgets are tight anyway. Kind regards, Kayed

  3. Mohammed Amin avatar
    Mohammed Amin

    I completely disagree.

    Climate change is a real and serious issue for the UK, as it is for the rest of the planet. We need action to make carbon emitting more expensive, by levying (even more) taxes on it, and do everything possible to encourage decarbonisation.

    None of that requires banning new fossil fuel exploration or extraction. Ed Milliband’s policy on this is simply foolish, does nothing to help decarbonise UK energy consumption, and harms our economy. If private sector companies wish to develop North Sea oil and gas resources that may become stranded assets, they should be free to do so.

    1. Wendy Horton avatar
      Wendy Horton

      In order to have true market choice for consumers and companies, upfront investment in electricity transmission systems is essential. Once the renewable capacity is there, then carbon pricing could be substantially inreased.

      1. Mohammed Amin avatar
        Mohammed Amin

        I agree about the need to invest more in the grid, so that it can cope better with renewables, householders selling into the grid etc.

  4. Andrew MacGregor avatar
    Andrew MacGregor

    This is an interesting article with solid grounding on climate change, but it takes a rather single-track approach. Oil and gas aren’t simply about energy and carbon emissions. The sector also produces fertilisers, bitumen for roads, plastics, and clothing materials. Simply calling for its end without assessing the broader impact is short-sighted.
    The comments here suggesting nuclear waste isn’t a problem deserve a closer look, because it very much is. Nuclear currently contributes around 20% of baseline generation, but new reactors, especially the small modular reactors derived from submarine technology are expensive and would need to be networked roughly 25 miles apart across England to meet current and growing demand. That means significantly more waste, and each site, despite housing a smaller reactor (or clusters), would still require substantial land, a large water supply, and extensive security staffing and systems.
    Then there’s reactor lifespan: 40–60 years operational, plus around 15 years to decommission (an expensive process). And it’s not just fuel rods that become waste. Metals within the reactor itself become irradiated, turning from stable metals into isotopes that must be treated as intermediate-level waste.
    The two biggest concerns are water and cost. The UK’s planned Light Water Reactors (LWRs) use far more water than the old Magnox graphite models, and demand is enormous. Sizewell C was initially refused planning permission partly on those grounds, though the decision was overridden. Hinkley Point C, which while it does have adequate water supply, illustrates the cost problem starkly: originally budgeted at £18bn with a 2027 commissioning date, it now stands at £48bn with completion pushed to 2031. You and I as consumers will ultimately bear the cost throughout its lifespan.
    On renewables, the picture is more encouraging than often acknowledged. Solar, wind, hydro, and tidal are all operational today. Offshore wind alone roughly matches gas for generation, and together solar, wind, and hydro already account for 51% of UK electricity. Hydro-electric in particular deserves more attention, it produces minimal waste, is highly recyclable, and outperforms both onshore wind and solar on environmental footprint.
    It’s also worth noting that the upstream oil and gas sector accounts for only around 3% of the UK’s 409 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent annual emissions. A far less-discussed threat is data centre growth, which is on track to surpass that figure, based on current projections, and it’s worth noting that the HFC refrigerants used in cooling systems carry a global warming potential potentially thousands of times greater than CO2.
    The government’s solar expansion plans are sensibly targeted at England’s sunnier regions, but the two most recent National Infrastructure Projects (approved by Milliband) will already cover 9 square miles of productive farmland. Scaled up to match offshore wind capacity, that figure could exceed 200 square miles, seriously undermining food security while ironically, increasing dependence on imported goods transported using fossil fuels.
    Germany offers an alternative model worth considering. Alongside phasing out nuclear, they’ve classified waste to energy and sewage to energy as renewables, and invested heavily in emissions treatment systems that convert harmful gases like sulphur into solid form for safer disposal.
    The UK, by contrast, seems reluctant to invest in such infrastructure, preferring instead to hand private companies tens of billions of pounds for electricity that consumers then pay over the odds for.

Leave a Reply

Comments are reviewed before publication. You will receive a notification by email when your comment is approved. Contributions that breach our guidelines will not be published. See our Comment Policy.

To display a profile photo next to your comments, register your email address with Gravatar.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *