Eight facts about air conditioning amid an overheated global debate

Spread the love

Article by Aruna Chandrasekhar, Josh Gabbatiss, Molly Lempriere and Zeke Hausfather republished from Carbon Brief under a CC license

Air conditioners on the wall of a house in Corsica, France. Credit: Dino Fracchia / Alamy Stock Photo

As successive heatwaves hit Europe, air-conditioning (AC) has emerged as a new front in the international “culture war” over climate action.

France, Germany and the UK have experienced record-breaking heat and thousands of heat-related deaths this summer, with June temperatures in many regions passing 40C.

This has drawn attention to the relatively low rates of AC use in these countries – and in Europe as a whole – especially when compared to its widespread adoption in the US.

Legacy newspapersbloggers and even Elon Musk have all weighed in on “European hostility” to AC, criticising Europe’s “cultural conservatism” and “overbearing governments”.

Right-wing politicians, including National Rally in France and the UK Conservatives, have styled themselves as champions of AC, while opposing efforts to tackle climate change.

Missing from most of these interventions is the fact that human-caused climate change has made once-rare heat far more common, in what is the world’s fastest warming continent.

Carbon Brief analysis for this article shows that, until the 2020s, it was rare for many European cities to see days above 30C, making AC an unnecessary expense.

Here, Carbon Brief explains – via eight facts – why AC rates in some parts of Europe are relatively low, as well as clarifies and contextualises some of the misleading claims circulating about the technology.

Much of Europe has not needed AC in the past

AC installation rates in northern parts of Europe are very low. The best available estimates suggest that 6% of households in Germany and just 4% in England use AC.

However, these rates are largely explained by the historical climates in these nations. 

Unlike the US, much of the housing stock and infrastructure in Europe was built at a time when AC did not exist and was not necessary.

Moreover, nations such as France, Germany and the UK have only started to regularly experience extreme heat in recent decades. 

The chart below shows the average number of days per year, in each decade since the 1950s, when maximum temperatures have exceeded 30C in major European cities. Capitals such as London and Paris have seen a significant jump since around 2000.

Average number of days per year with a daily maximum temperature of at least 30C in a selection of major European cities, for each decade since the 1950s
Average number of days per year with a daily maximum temperature of at least 30C in a selection of major European cities, for each decade since the 1950s. Source: Copernicus ERA5, Carbon Brief analysis by Dr Zeke Hausfather.

Prof Jan Rosenow, an energy and climate researcher at the University of Oxford, tells Carbon Brief:

“For most of the 20th century, northern Europe simply didn’t need cooling. Homes in Britain and Germany were built to keep heat in, not out, because winters were cold and summers rarely hot.”

Much of the commentary about the relatively low rates of European AC use focuses on cultural or “ideological” factors. (See: Some European nations have ‘resisted’ AC – but its popularity is growing.)

However, Rosenow says people’s views on AC in these countries likely stem from their historically colder climates. He adds:

“Attitudes formed around those facts, not the other way round…There is a cultural element, but it is the product of climate, not of some green ideological project.”

In the past, many in Europe relied on traditional methods to keep buildings cool. Richard Black, head of communications at Climate Analytics, made this point in a post on LinkedIn:

“Once, residents of cities such as Paris could cope with summer heatwaves by opening shutters and windows during the night, and closing them again in the morning to trap the cool air inside…We’ve reached a limit to this sort of adaptation.”

Now, with Europe around 2.5C warmer than pre-industrial levels, climate change is routinely driving record-breaking heatwaves, even in the north of the continent.

This is forcing a reappraisal of societies that were “built for a climate that no longer exists”, as the UK’s Climate Change Committee (CCC) put it in a recent report.

Experts broadly agree that much of Europe will indeed need more AC, particularly in spaces housing the most vulnerable populations, such as care homes, schools and hospitals. 

At the same time, they also emphasise broader, “passive” efforts to make cities and homes cooler alongside increased AC use. (See: AC is not the only answer to overheating cities.)

Back to top

AC is already widely used in hotter parts of Europe

During periods of extreme heat, articles criticising “European hostility” towards the technology frequently note that “only about 20%” of households in Europe have AC.

Often, this is contrasted with the US, where more than 90% of households have AC installed. (In fact, the US is something of a global outlier, matched only by Japan.) 

However, the continent-wide figure for Europe obscures the reality. In southern Europe – where temperatures are and have always been higher – AC is relatively common.

The map below, based on official EU data, shows that southern European nations use far more household energy for “space cooling” than those in the north. 

Percentage share of household energy consumption used for “space cooling”, including AC, in EU member states and the Balkans
Percentage share of household energy consumption used for “space cooling”, including AC, in EU member states and the Balkans. Source: Eurostat.

Government figures show that nearly 60% of Italian households have AC. Household-level data in many countries is patchy, but various analyses have placed that figure at 70-80% in Greece and 41% in Spain – with higher penetration in the hotter, southern part of the country.

The same pattern can be seen within France. International coverage has stressed the country’s “cultural resistance to AC”, citing a nationwide figure from 2020 that suggests “only” 25% of French households have AC.

However, polling data from customers of the Hello Watt energy app suggests that there is a distinct north-south divide in French uptake. At least 60% of households in Mediterranean regions of France are equipped with AC, according to these figures.

This can be seen in the map below, with households across northern regions, including Paris, reporting far lower AC installation rates, often below 5%.

Percentage share of households equipped with AC in departments of mainland France
Percentage share of households equipped with AC in departments of mainland France, according to polling data. Source: Hello Watt.

Finally, when making such comparisons to Europe, it is worth noting that high rates of AC use reported for the entire US also obscure significant differences between – and within – US states. This, too, aligns with differences in regional climate.

Hotter states in the US south have near-universal AC access. But in Washington, a north-western state with a climate more comparable to that of western Europe, 66% of people have AC in their homes.

Back to top

Some European nations have ‘resisted’ AC – but its popularity is growing

International commentators have written extensively about Europe’s “longstanding resistance to cooling technology”, especially when compared to the US.

Newspaper editorials in the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, alongside numerous op-eds and blog posts, have added fuel to this “culture war”. Elon Musk has even promoted an AI-generated message stating that Europeans “should just install AC”.

Often, European attitudes are attributed to “guilt” about AC’s energy demand, “cultural conservatism” or “overbearing governments”. One commentator ascribed divergent attitudes in Europe and the US to “different ideas about physical suffering and sacrifice”.

Meanwhile, right-leaning commentators and climate-sceptic groups have blamed “climate policies, which view AC as an unnecessary luxury”.

In general, these critiques often fail to consider the most obvious explanation, which is that AC adoption is low in northern Europe because the historical climate made AC unnecessary.

Critical articles have instead drawn attention to restrictions on AC use in some European countries, as well as the lack of support for AC in official heatwave guidance.

For France, in particular, polling has indeed highlighted widespread disapproval of AC, both on environmental grounds and due to alleged health impacts. Such messages have also been voiced regularly in French media and by left-leaning and green politicians.

However, across Europe there are plenty of signs that such attitudes are shifting, following successive spells of extreme heat. 

Amid the June heatwave, there were reports from GermanyFrance and the UK of “skyrocketing” AC sales. This surge was even acknowledged by the foreign ministry in China, due to the nation’s role in supplying many of these products.

The shift is taking place in politics as well. Marine Tondelier, leader of the French Green party – which has traditionally opposed AC – recently stated that “there are places where we just can’t do without AC anymore”.

Overall, AC has been on the rise across Europe, with France, Spain and the Netherlands all using more than twice as much energy for AC and other “space cooling” technologies in 2024 as they did in 2015. 

AC production in Germany has also risen by at least 75% in recent years and a growing share of German homes are being built with it installed.

Notably, there is little evidence that “climate policies” are blocking Europeans from installing AC. Polling in Germany shows that, while people are concerned about environmental impacts, the high costs of installing and running it are perceived as greater barriers.

Finally, there is an important distinction between individual AC units in people’s homes and installing them in public spaces, such as hospitals, care homes and schools. 

While neither is widespread in France, support for the latter can increasingly be found across the political spectrum, from Greens to the far-right National Rally (RN). 

Back to top

AC emissions are growing, but its climate impact could be limited

Some people have noted that a wider rollout of AC in Europe could drive up emissions. 

As noted in the Financial Times by columnist and chief data reporter John Burn-Murdoch, there is a logic to this argument, “at least superficially”. He writes: 

“AC uses a lot of energy; if the proposed defence against emissions-driven global warming means emitting more, then we have an obvious problem.” 

The emissions impact of AC depends heavily on the generation mix of a country’s power sector. 

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), “space cooling” – mostly AC, but this does include some fans – used 2,100 terawatt-hours (TWh) of power globally in 2022. 

As such, it was responsible for 1bn tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) from electricity use globally. This equates to around 2.7% of total CO2 emissions globally from fossil fuels and industry.

(As well as indirect emissions through power use, AC units can also directly release greenhouse gases – used as AC refrigerants – when they leak or are improperly disposed of. Following the 2016 Kigali Amendment, countries are progressively trying to phase down the use of potent greenhouse gases in AC units.)

In a LinkedIn post, Lauri Myllyvirta, lead analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air and regular Carbon Brief contributor, says:

“There is a lot of alarmist messaging about how much electricity AC uses. However, on an annual basis, the demand is not that substantial. Currently, AC uses about 1% of electricity in the EU and catching up to adoption rates in the US would double this.”

According to the IEA estimates from 2018, “if left unchecked, energy demand from AC will more than triple by 2050”, reaching 6,200TWh of power. 

By mid-century, households would contribute the most to the increase (70%), with at least two-thirds of the world’s households potentially having AC, according to the Paris-based agency. 

Decarbonising electricity grids and energy-efficiency improvements can reduce AC emissions and their impact on climate. 

For instance, in countries with a low-carbon electricity mix – such as France, where nuclear energy accounts for 67% of its electricity generation – expanding AC would have a more limited climate impact than in other countries. 

In countries such as India, there could be a more significant increase in emissions as AC is adopted, due to the role coal plays in the country’s energy mix, especially during the night. Demand is growing fast – following low access historically – and many AC units are inefficient, with high electricity use.

According to a new working paper from the India Energy and Climate Center (IECC) at the University of California, Berkeley, “room AC” – portable plug-in units, as opposed to those permanently installed in buildings – already accounts for nearly one-quarter of India’s peak electricity demand (60-70GW) – and this is before the majority of Indian households have bought their first AC unit. 

Dr Nikit Abhyankar, co-faculty director of the IECC, tells Carbon Brief that, as AC use is expanded across the world, it should be paired with solar and battery storage, where the “economics have completely shifted” in the last few years. This will help to cut both energy bills and emissions. 

According to the IEA, accelerating energy efficiency improvements could deliver more than one-third of all CO2 emission reductions between now and 2030. 

The global energy demand needed to run ACs alone in 2050 could be reduced by 1,300GW – the equivalent of all of China and India’s coal plants – through energy efficiency measures, it estimates.

Aditya Valiathan Pillai, a climate adaptation researcher at King’s College London, tells Carbon Brief that, as the use of AC expands, there is a conversation to be had about where and “what type of technology [is used] and who gets access” to it.

A final point is that many AC units are air-to-air heat pumps, which can efficiently heat homes, as well as keeping them cool. As such, wider AC adoption could boost the adoption of electrified heat, helping to cut emissions from gas boilers.

Back to top

Heat from AC can contribute to directly warming cities

Some critics of AC mention its electricity demands and associated CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel combustion, which contribute to raising the temperature of the entire planet. (See: AC emissions are growing, but its climate impact could be limited.)

But AC also has a localised impact. It works by removing heat from indoor air and pushing it outdoors, raising temperatures on the street and exacerbating the “urban heat island” effect.

Left-leaning French politicians are among those citing this as an argument against AC, particularly in cities. Indeed, Emmanuel Grégoire, the Socialist mayor of Paris, appeared to be making this point in an interview with Le Monde, during the June heatwave:

“[AC] can be useful for cooling collective spaces and protecting the most vulnerable populations, but individual AC is a scourge – it makes the problem worse by heating the city even more.”

One study concludes that, in a city such as Phoenix, Arizona, where the technology is widespread, AC use during a heatwave can raise night-time temperatures by 1-1.5C.

Another models a nine-day heatwave in Paris – in a future with “massive” AC use – and finds an increase in external temperature of more than 2C, due to heat emitted by the units.

Given this, some scientists argue that AC can be a form of climate “maladaptation” – referring to actions that backfire and make people more vulnerable to global warming.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has highlighted this issue, concluding:

“AC may constitute a maladaptation because of its high demands on energy and associated heat emissions, especially in high-density cities.”

Compared to the US, more people in Europe live in dense, urban areas. According to Dr Vincent Viguié, a climate change economist at École des Ponts ParisTech, this could leave Europeans more exposed to heat from AC units. He tells Carbon Brief:

“If you live in a neighbourhood that is not dense, like in a suburban neighbourhood or in the countryside, you don’t care about this…So, once again, there is a key difference between US and European cities.”

Viguié is among the experts arguing that other climate-adaptation measures should be considered alongside AC, to keep entire cities cool – not just individual homes. He says:

“It’s not to say that the heat released by AC by itself is a reason to forbid AC…It’s just that not taking that into account may lead to bad decisions.”

Back to top

More AC could help to reduce heat deaths in Europe

Heatwaves can be deadly, especially for older or vulnerable members of society. 

According to climate scientists at World Weather Attribution, “heatwaves cause more deaths in Europe than all other natural hazards combined”. 

The heatwave in June 2026 is estimated to have killed more than 20,000 people in Europe. In France – which has seen some of the hottest temperatures – the heatwave caused more than 2,700 heat-related deaths, according to analysis published by Carbon Brief. 

AC does help to protect people from the effects of extreme heat. A 2021 study found that globally, AC averted an estimated 190,000 heat-related deaths annually during 2019-21.

With its much higher penetration of AC, the US has fewer deaths due to extreme heat than Europe. 

Heat kills around 11 people out of every 100,000 in Europe, compared to around two people in the US, according to analysis by data scientist Dr Hannah Ritchie from Our World in Data.

Several publications have pointed out that “Europe’s heatwaves are deadlier than American gun violence”. While this is technically accurate in absolute terms, Ritchie says the comparison is “a bit silly” for a number of reasons, not least because on a per-capita basis, US gun deaths are higher.

Average annual deaths per 100,000 for heat and gun deaths in the US (red) and Europe (blue) to as close to the end of 2024 as possible
Average annual deaths per 100,000 for heat and gun deaths in the US (red) and Europe (blue) to as close to the end of 2024 as possible. Heat deaths are based on excess death methodology, not death certificates. Source: By the Numbers.

However, experts suggest that AC is only one part of a wider effort to protect people from extreme heat. 

A 2020 study looking at heat-related mortality in Canada, Japan, Spain and the US, found that excess deaths due to heat decreased between 1972 and 2009.

For example, the proportion of deaths due to extreme heat fell from 1.7% to 0.5% over the period in the US and 3.5% to 2.8% in Spain. 

However, an increase in AC only explained 16.7% of the drop in the US and 14.3% in Spain. 

The research concludes that “other factors have played an equal or more important role in increasing the resilience of populations”. This is supported by research that shows changes to cities, such as planting more trees, as well as behavioural shifts and public-health measures, can all protect people from dangerous heat.

Additionally, across Europe there is already a range of policies and measures in place to protect the most vulnerable from heatwaves. Many of these were brought in following the unprecedented summer of 2003, when 70,000 died from extreme heat. 

These policies were highlighted by French environment minister Agnès Pannier-Runacher, in response to the far-right National Rally (RN) party’s AC proposals:

“The incompetent RN has just found out that nursing homes need air-conditioned rooms. Thank you, but it’s actually been mandatory since 2004.”

Another study found that measures that have already been rolled out in France would cut the projected death toll of a 2003-like heatwave by more than 75%. This is in part due to the expansion of AC in places such as nursing homes, but also other approaches, such as heat action plans. 

For example, France has a multi-tiered action plan, which includes local governments ensuring access to cooled spaces and water, keeping a list of vulnerable individuals for targeted interventions, as well as national information campaigns. 

According to the UN’s office for disaster risk reduction, this French plan has led to a “significant reduction in heat-related mortality”.   

While action plans have proved successful in a number of nations, less than half of European countries have such a plan in place. 

Back to top

‘Net-zero rules’ are not blocking AC installation in the UK

In the UK, Conservative politicians and right-leaning media have tried to pit the adoption of AC against net-zero policy. 

Writing in the climate-sceptic Daily Telegraph, columnist Matthew Lynn claimed falsely:  

“Strict net-zero rules now mean that aircon is effectively banned in the UK.” 

(Further down the article, he concedes: “AC is not strictly speaking banned in new-build homes in the UK. But tough environmental rules mean that it is very hard, and expensive, to install in practice.”)

The same narrative has been used in articles by GB News, the Sun and others. A separate article in the Daily Telegraph’s “money” section goes further, claiming that AC had been “torn from homes under net-zero clampdown”.  

blog post from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government rebuts these claims, stating: 

“There has been media coverage this week suggesting that AC is banned in homes. This is incorrect.”

For the UK, while it is true that fewer than 5% of homes currently have AC, this is largely due to the fact that it was not hot enough in the past to warrant the expense. Historically, the focus has therefore been on keeping buildings warm, rather than cool. 

Extreme heat has previously been rare in the country, so homes were built with insulation and other measures to keep heat in during the “dank winters”. (See: Much of Europe has not needed AC in the past.)

Current regulations do not ban the installation of AC outright. However – as the government’s blog post notes – there is no blanket rule, meaning there are some localised differences.  

Certain areas – or certain kinds of properties – may be subject to additional complications for installing AC.  

In a 2025 video on Instagram, shadow secretary of state for energy security and net-zero Claire Coutinho referenced the London plan, for example, which is a framework for development in the capital launched in 2021. She said: 

“[London mayor] Sadiq Khan says no. The London plan says we shouldn’t have air con because it uses too much energy. But this is mad! This is a poverty mindset that we need to get away from.”

The London Plan does not stop homes from having AC. It simply says that, for new buildings, passive design measures should be prioritised, such as the orientation of the building, the window design and incorporation of measures such as external shading and trees.

A recent response from the mayor added further measures, such as the need to “minimise the necessity for the operation of mechanical measures including AC, which would further add to the heat island effect within urban areas and add operational cost to residents”. 

Elsewhere, new-build homes across England must meet the requirements of “part O” of the 2022 building regulation updates. This includes addressing overheating in buildings through energy-efficient design and prioritising passive cooling, with AC as a last resort. 

For existing buildings, most AC units fall under “permitted development rights”, meaning no planning application is required to install them. 

Additionally, regulations were relaxed in 2025 to make it easier to install an air-to-air heat pump – which can both heat and cool air – without planning permission. 

This means that, far from blocking the expansion of AC, net-zero policy has made it easier to install specific cooling systems. 

Speaking to Carbon Brief, Andrew Sissons, director of sustainable future at Nesta, says the government must now implement its announced £2,500 subsidy for air-to-air heat pumps “as quickly as possible”, to further ensure that the technology can be rolled out efficiently. He adds:

“[The government] should also continue to expand permitted development rights for air-to-air heat pumps, with a particular focus on flats and homes in denser areas. As long as heat pumps meet the MCS [Microgeneration Certification Scheme] noise test, there are few reasons to limit their use via the planning system.”

Some properties, such as large homes, listed buildings or those in conservation areas, may still require planning permission to install an air-to-air heat pump or other AC. Sissons notes that this can add cost and delay to installation. 

While it cannot be said that AC has been blocked or banned due to net-zero, neither has it been prioritised. 

This may shift as temperatures continue to rise. UK government advisors at the Climate Change Committee (CCC) suggest that 22% of the UK’s housing stock will likely need active cooling, such as AC, to cope with 2C of global warming. 

The CCC’s recent adaptation report also calls for all new homes to be built using low-cost, passive cooling measures, alongside more AC.

Active cooling such as AC is more likely to be needed for retrofitting existing homes, the report adds.

Back to top

AC is not the only answer to overheating cities

AC has become increasingly politicised in Europe, as demonstrated by France’s RN party announcing its “grand plan for AC” in all public buildings.

As noted by Dutch MEP Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, this “far-right” embrace of AC is coming from the same people who for years have “delayed emissions reductions”.

In response, left-leaning policymakers in Europe have frequently downplayed the role of AC, prioritising programmes of urban greening and retrofitting older buildings.

Such approaches for dealing with extreme heat have already proved successful. Therefore, many experts argue that these methods, alongside AC, will be essential to prepare for a hotter world.

According to the IPCC’s sixth assessment report, adaptive infrastructure, such as urban forests and green roofs, can reduce energy use because of cooling, with co-benefits for climate, air quality, physical and mental health.

While retrofitting older buildings for heat as well as insulating them from the cold might prove challenging, urban greening and an active shade policy – one that determines how much of every street is exposed to direct sunlight – are simple measures cities can adopt. 

Some experts have also warned about the high cost of running AC, expressing concerns that excessive reliance on the technology could increase energy poverty.

In a Carbon Brief guest post published in 2025, researchers at the Basque Centre for Climate Change found that framing AC as the “default solution” can miss the opportunity to design “more inclusive, human-centred responses” to rising temperatures. 

William Lewis, a PhD candidate and one of the guest post’s authors, tells Carbon Brief it is not a case of “one or the other”, when considering AC and other options:

“We have this opportunity in European countries to choose a slightly different path [from the US], which isn’t AC in every single home.”

King’s College London’s Pillai says that, by centring the debate on AC, the far-right response to the heatwaves in Europe has “completely neglected the science of how you cool human beings”. 

There are many solutions, he adds, that are already widely used across hot developing countries, such as ceiling fans, windows that open and cross-ventilation, as well as strategies to reduce cumulative hours of heat exposure.

Pillai tells Carbon Brief that, while places reaching 42C and higher “definitely need to think about AC very seriously”, places in the “low to mid 30Cs” could rely on these alternatives. 

Behavioural change, he adds, is the “least glamorous part” of heat policy, but “pulls most of the weight” of protecting people. These include a wide range of actions and responses – from reducing heat exposure, to wearing lighter clothing and drinking more water and fluids. 

There are also workplace protections. Pillai tells Carbon Brief that these could include legislation on mandatory work breaks, cooling and shade requirements at workplaces, as well as health insurance that covers heat stress days that have been lost by heat-exposed workers. 

Back to top

Article by Aruna Chandrasekhar, Josh Gabbatiss, Molly Lempriere and Zeke Hausfather republished from Carbon Brief under a CC license

Continue ReadingEight facts about air conditioning amid an overheated global debate

Analysis: Record wind and solar saved UK from gas imports worth £1bn in March 2026

Spread the love

Original article by Simon Evans and Ho Woo Nam republished from Carbon Brief under a CC license

Aerial view of a solar farm and wind turbines, in the East Midlands, UK. Credit: Paul White – UK Industries / Alamy Stock Photo

The UK avoided the need for gas imports worth £1bn in March 2026 thanks to record electricity generation from wind and solar, reveals Carbon Brief analysis.

Wind generation hit a new record for the month of March on the island of Great Britain, up 38% year-on-year, while solar nearly matched the output of last year’s exceptionally sunny spring.

Together, wind and solar generated 11 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity in March 2026, up a combined 28% and setting a new record for the month, as shown in the figure below.

Chart showing that record wind and solar saved UK from gas imports worth £1bn in March 2026
Monthly generation from wind and solar in terawatt hours on the island of Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales), which has a separate electricity system from the island of Ireland, which includes Northern Ireland. Source: National Energy System Operator (NESO) and Carbon Brief analysis.

This record wind and solar output avoided the need to import 21TWh of gas – roughly 18 fully loaded tankers of liquified natural gas (LNG) – which would have cost around £1bn at current high prices due to the Iran war.

(This is based on gas costing 130p per therm, or £44 per megawatt hour, compared with the range of 120-170p per therm seen over the past month.)

At the same time, the record output from wind and solar saw electricity generation from gas falling 25% year-on-year in March 2026 to the lowest level ever recorded for the month.

This meant that gas was setting the price of electricity roughly 25% less often in March 2026 than in the same month in 2022, when fossil-fuel prices spiked after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Original article by Simon Evans and Ho Woo Nam republished from Carbon Brief under a CC license

Nigel Farage urges you to ignore facts and reality and be a climate science denier like him and his Deputy Richard Tice. He says that Reform UK has received £Millions and £Millions from the fossil fuel industry to promote climate denial and destroy the planet.
Nigel Farage urges you to ignore facts and reality and be a climate science denier like him and his Deputy Richard Tice. He says that Reform UK has received £Millions and £Millions from the fossil fuel industry to promote climate denial and destroy the planet.
Donald Trump urges you to be a Climate Science denier like him. He says that he makes millions and millions for destroying the planet, Burn, Baby, Burn and Flood, Baby, Flood.
Donald Trump urges you to be a Climate Science denier like him. He says that he makes millions and millions for destroying the planet, Burn, Baby, Burn and Flood, Baby, Flood.
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Continue ReadingAnalysis: Record wind and solar saved UK from gas imports worth £1bn in March 2026

Analysis: CO2 from UK data centres could be ‘hundreds of times’ higher than thought

Spread the love

Original article by Josh Gabbatiss republished from Carbon Brief.

Aerial view of the Google AI data centre in Waltham Cross, UK. Credit: Amazing Aerial.

Emissions from the new data centres set to drive the UK’s AI “revolution” could be hundreds of times higher than government estimates, according to analysis by Carbon Brief.

There are dozens of data centres being developed across the country, potentially driving a surge in electricity demand.

Amid uncertainty about the scale and pace of this expansion, there are mounting concerns that new data centres could pose a threat to the nation’s climate goals.

UK government analysis concluded that the emissions from data centres would be negligible, even if they expand rapidly – a finding one campaigner tells Carbon Brief is “nonsense”.

In contrast, Carbon Brief analysis finds that emissions from powering data centres could be far higher than the government figures suggest, if at least a small amount of the electricity they need is generated by burning gas.

Data centres could run entirely on low-carbon electricity, but some in the sector have argued that the government’s AI ambitions require the UK to use more gas power.

If new data centres source a large amount of their power from gas, it could cause carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions equivalent to at least Denmark’s annual total.

‘AI superpower’

Data centres are energy-intensive computing facilities that are required to train and run complex AI models, among many other things.

The UK is one of the top-ranking nations for data-centre capacity, with roughly 1.8 gigawatts (GW) of facilities consuming more than 2% of national electricity. This could grow rapidly in the coming years as the government aims to make the UK an “AI superpower”.

Companies have already “achieved financial commitment” to invest in 71 new data centres that, if built, would require around 20GW of electricity, according to energy regulator Ofgem.

(For reference, the UK’s average electricity demand in 2025 stood at around 37GW.)

This potential increase in electricity demand has raised concerns from campaigners and some MPs about the impact of data centres on the UK’s climate targets. 

Last year, the government’s plan for meeting its 2035 climate target noted that AI growth was “not factored into” emissions projections, although energy secretary Ed Miliband has said new data centres are captured in modelling of “overall electricity demand growth”.

The government is targeting a “clean power system” by 2030, with just a small amount of gas generation remaining. Extra demand from new data centres could require a rollout of clean power that is even faster than the growth already underway.

If clean-power growth does not keep pace, data centres could, therefore, prolong the use of gas power, either by requiring more gas to remain on the grid or by facilities building their own on-site gas generation.

There is significant uncertainty around future emissions from UK data centres, which will depend on the number of centres built, how clean their power is and when they come online.

The government published an analysis of its AI strategy’s climate impact last year, alongside a data-centre “roadmap”. 

The analysis, released by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) suggests emissions from future data centres will be minimal – reaching a maximum of 0.142m tonnes of CO2 (MtCO2) from 11.2GW of AI-related computing power by 2035. 

(There is an additional 2.4GW of data-centre demand in this scenario that is not associated with AI, for which emissions are not calculated.)

This figure is based on what DSIT describes as a high-emissions, high-AI growth scenario. Yet it implies that each unit (kilowatt hour, kWh) of electricity supplied to the 11.2GW of AI data centres would be associated with less than 2g of CO2. In other words, their electricity supply would need to be almost completely decarbonised. The government aim is for 50gCO2/kWh by 2030.

In addition, the DSIT figure – for emissions associated with the entire UK data centre fleet in 2035 – is much lower than the emissions estimates reported in planning applications for individual UK data centres made by Google and other companies.

Gas power

The chart below, based on Carbon Brief analysis, shows how data-centre emissions could be far higher than the government’s figures suggest. 

Even if gas-fired electricity only accounts for 5% of their supply – indicated by the smallest blue column below – emissions from 11.2GW of data centres would be around 2MtCO2. This is more than 10 times higher than the government’s top estimate for 2035. 

If the same data centres rely more heavily on gas, emissions could be hundreds of times higher, exceeding 30MtCO2. This is roughly equivalent to the annual emissions of Denmark. Emissions could rise even higher if capacity increases in line with the extra 20GW of data-centre demand that Ofgem says is in the pipeline, as indicated by the red columns

Emissions from powering future UK data centres, MtCO2, under different scenarios. The UK government figure is based on a modelled estimate for total AI-related data-centre computing power in 2035. The blue bars combine the government capacity figure of 11.2GW with increasing shares of gas power. The red bars use the Ofgem estimate of 20GW of “mature” projects that may be built in the future, combined with existing capacity of 1.8GW, to reach a figure of 21.8GW. Source: DSIT, Carbon Brief analysis.

If data-centre expansion reaches 20GW and those centres rely heavily on gas power, then the figure could be as high as 70MtCO2, the annual emissions of Sweden. This would also be nearly 500 times higher than the government’s upper estimate, which it says is based on a “pessimistic decarbonisation” scenario.

(The numbers are not directly comparable as, unlike the AI-specific 11.2GW figure, it is unclear how much of this 20GW would be for AI, specifically.)

The government’s modelling states that AI emissions in 2035 would be “equivalent to below 0.05% of the UK’s projected total emissions”. It also says “this could be equivalent to the annual emissions of approximately 5,000 to 23,600 UK households”.

On the contrary, Carbon Brief’s analysis suggests data centres could, in fact, be equivalent to as much as 20% of the UK’s projected total emissions in 2035.

As for the number of households, Carbon Brief estimates that future data centres could result in emissions equivalent to as many as 11.4m homes, roughly a third of all UK households.

Dr Tim Squirrel, head of strategy at Foxglove – part of an NGO group calling for more government scrutiny of data-centre emissions – tells Carbon Brief the DSIT figures are “nonsense and threaten to derail our carbon budgets”. He says:

“The figures that DSIT projects here wildly downplay data-centre emissions, even by the standards of the most optimistic energy transition scenario. There is no way that the amount of compute they anticipate can be built and produce the miniscule emissions they’re calculating.”

In its analysis, the government attributes the low emissions figures to “more efficient models and hardware” and “the UK’s ambitious targets for electricity grid decarbonisation”.

When asked by Carbon Brief, DSIT declined to provide any more information about its analysis. 

Clean growth

While the UK is prioritising data centres for AI, there is mounting industry pressure to allow gas-power expansion for this “critical” infrastructure, as is happening in, for example, the US and Ireland.

Developers in the UK have reportedly already “turned to gas” via private electricity supplies, due to struggles securing a connection to the public network.

Yet, new data centres could be completely emissions-free if they are powered entirely with on-site clean energy or using electricity from a decarbonised grid.

As it stands, most data centres are connected to the electricity grid. Some enter power purchase agreements (PPAs) in which they financially support renewable-energy operators, allowing them to describe their electricity as clean.

Katie Davies, head of energy and infrastructure policy at techUK, a trade association representing the technology sector, highlights this expansion of PPAs as important for driving the growth of wind and solar power:

“In doing so, data centres actively contribute to additionality by unlocking extra carbon-free capacity that might not otherwise come online.”

report last year by Aurora Energy Research found that data centres could provide a “route-to-market” worth up to £35bn for 19GW of UK renewables. However, it added:

“If renewables capacity and networks don’t keep pace, additional data centre demand will likely be met by carbon-intensive sources of generation.”

The UK’s “AI opportunities action plan” includes the establishment of “AI growth zones“, which the government says will be in areas with “available clean energy”. It is also overhauling the grid connection queue, which Davies says is important:

“Reducing this queue through strategic alignment and the removal of speculative applications will be vital to ensuring [data-centre] operators do not have to turn to higher-carbon energy sources as a last resort.”

Responding to Carbon Brief’s analysis, a government spokesperson said:

“We want the UK to be at the forefront of AI, but we are clear this must be done sustainably. That is why our AI growth zones are supporting development in areas with access to clean power, while the AI Energy Council is exploring how AI can be powered by responsible, clean-energy sources.”

Update: After Carbon Brief contacted DSIT about this analysis, it deleted its emissions assessment and replaced it with text stating: “We keep analysis under routine review, and are updating this modelling to ensure it reflects the most up to date assumptions and analysis.”

Methodology

There is considerable uncertainty around data-centre power demand and emissions, with much of the relevant information not in the public domain. Carbon Brief has performed some rough calculations based on available data.

The government figure comes from an annex to DSIT’s UK compute roadmap. DSIT analyses the emissions impact of expanding the UK’s data-centre capacity to between 7.4GW in a “low compute-demand scenario” and 13.6GW in a “high compute-demand scenario” by 2035. (The majority of the demand in each scenario is from AI.)

DSIT also uses an “AI environmental impacts model” to estimate the greenhouse gas emissions from AI compute, only covering the 11.2GW AI component of data-centre capacity. It concludes that AI emissions in 2035 could range from 0.025MtCO2 to 0.142MtCO2. This includes both “direct” and “indirect” emissions, indicating that it covers more than just emissions from the electricity used to power the data centres.

widely reported consultation by the energy regulator, Ofgem, found that there are proposals for around 140 new data centres in the UK, which would require 50GW of electricity if they were all built.

In reality, it is highly unlikely that all of these data centres will be completed, with a “significant number” expected to fail when trying to secure funding or planning permission. 

The 20GW figure used in this analysis is based on the 71 “mature” projects that have “achieved financial commitment with final investment decision”, according to Ofgem.

Carbon Brief used the top government figure of 0.142MtCO2, even though it represents a “pessimistic grid decarbonisation” and “high compute demand” scenario. 

To calculate the emissions from powering data centres in the future, Carbon Brief assumes a data-centre “load factor” of 90%, which is in line with other analyses. The analysis uses different shares of gas in the centres’ power supplies to indicate a range of future possibilities, assuming emissions from gas power are 0.4MtCO2 per terawatt hour.

Original article by Josh Gabbatiss republished from Carbon Brief.

Continue ReadingAnalysis: CO2 from UK data centres could be ‘hundreds of times’ higher than thought

Factcheck: Nine false or misleading myths about North Sea oil and gas

Spread the love

Original article by Daisy Dunne, Josh Gabbatiss, Molly Lempriere & Simon Evans republished from Carbon Brief.

Credit: Joe Goodman

The Iran war has triggered another fossil-fuel energy crisis, with surging global prices and increasing concerns over energy security.

In the UK, many newspapers, opposition politicians and other public figures have used the crisis to argue in favour of issuing more licences for oil and gas drilling in the North Sea.

These arguments have also been amplified in AI-generated posts on social media, shared by fake accounts that usually post anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim content.

However, many of these arguments rest on false or misleading claims about the impact that further drilling could have on the UK’s bills, energy security, emissions and tax revenue.

The North Sea is a “mature basin” where production has been falling for decades, because most of the oil and gas it once contained has already been extracted.

While it would be possible to slow the rate of decline in oil and gas output from the North Sea, the quantities that would be economic to extract are disputed.

Overall, the transition to clean-energy supplies is expected to be far more effective at boosting UK energy security and reducing reliance on imports.

Moreover, the climate-change arguments for limiting fossil-fuel production, which have been made by scientists, the UN secretary general and even the Pope, remain as valid as ever.

Below, Carbon Brief factchecks some of the most common claims about North Sea oil and gas.

FALSE: ‘Reopening the North Sea would lower bills’

Many right-leaning newspapers and commentators have falsely argued that opening up new oil and gas fields in the North Sea would lower energy bills in the UK.

There is no evidence to support such claims. Indeed, numerous experts have explained that new drilling would make no difference to bills in the UK. 

For example, the Daily Express carried fact-free assertions from the hard-right, climate-sceptic Reform party on its frontpage under the headline: “Get drilling to stop bills soaring.” Despite the UK not using oil to generate power, it claimed:

“Open[ing] up the UK’s biggest oil field [would] stop power bills soaring.”

At the beginning of March, US president Donald Trump told the Sun that his advice to UK prime minister Keir Starmer would be: 

“Open up the North Sea. Immediately. Your energy prices are through the roof.”

In the Daily Telegraph, an “energy consultant” called Kathryn Porter, who has authored “papers” for climate-sceptic lobbyists, listed why she thinks more drilling could cut energy bills under the headline: “Reopening the North Sea would lower bills.”

On Twitter, Reform said the Labour and Conservative governments had “failed the British people” by “refusing to drill in the North Sea”. It added that more drilling would make “Britain energy independent once again” and “bring down bills”. 

Contrary to these claims, numerous experts have said that further drilling in the North Sea would do nothing to cut bills, because UK energy prices are set on international markets.

In 2022, the Climate Change Committee (CCC) wrote that increased UK extraction was not expected to “materially affect global oil or gas prices, as the UK energy market is highly connected to international markets and the potential supply [is] relatively small”.

It added that, even if all proven UK reserves and resources of gas from new fields were extracted, this would only meet about 1% of European demand each year up to 2050.

Jack Sharples, senior research fellow at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies (OEIS), tells Carbon Brief that “you’re not going to bring prices down versus the current level, because you’re not going to be able to produce very much more [from the North Sea]”.

The Labour government has made similar arguments, saying in a “factsheet” on the Iran crisis that the UK is a “price-taker…not [a] price-maker”. It said:

“Future exploration in the North Sea is too marginal to make a difference to the overall supply in an international market…New licences to explore new fields wouldn’t make any difference to the prices set by international markets and paid by UK billpayers.”

Even shadow energy secretary Claire Coutinho, who has advocated strongly for further drilling, admitted in 2023 that new licenses “wouldn’t necessarily bring energy bills down”.

The North Sea is a “mature basin”, with around 90% of what it contained “already drained dry”. Most of what is produced for the basin is now oil, around 80% of which is exported.

In addition, oil and gas reserves are owned by private companies once licences are issued and the fuel is sold at international rates. Therefore, whether it is produced in the North Sea or elsewhere, its price is driven by the global market.

Moreover, the limited quantity of gas left in the ageing North Sea basin would do little to impact international markets and, thus, little to impact international prices.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/cfoXB1i9riI?feature=oembedClimate YouTuber Simon Clark discusses whether more North Sea oil and gas drilling could lower energy bills in the UK.

Recent analysis by the Smith School at the University of Oxford found that, even if the UK maximised North Sea oil and gas and used all revenues from the sector to subsidise lower energy bills, the impact would be limited. Under this unlikely scenario household bills could fall between £16 and £82 per year, or 1-4.6% a year. 

The fact that further oil and gas production in the North Sea would have a limited impact on energy bills has been noted repeatedly, even by those in favour of drilling in the North Sea.

For example, in a separate comment piece in the Daily Telegraph calling on the UK to “max out on both renewables and North Sea oil and gas”, world economy editor Ambrose Evans Pritchard wrote: 

“Reopening the North Sea would not make any difference to the current crisis, nor any difference to gas and petrol prices in the UK, since the volumes are too small to shift the traded global market.”

As such, the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) explained in a recent note:

“Squeezing additional oil and gas production from the UK may be technically possible, but it will have [a] negligible impact on the UK cost of living”.

Back to top

MISLEADING: ‘Energy from the North Sea generates a lot less CO2’

Many North Sea advocates argue that drilling more in the basin would mean lower carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, due to the high emissions from imported fossil fuels.

This is a line often used by the oil-and-gas industry, with the trade body Offshore Energies UK (OEUK) stating that “LNG cargoes…are four times more carbon intensive than homegrown gas”.

Additionally, it is an argument that is sometimes used by commentators who – in other circumstances – would not be making the case for low-carbon policies. 

For example, in a Mail on Sunday column, the climate-sceptic journalist Andrew Neil wrote that “giving the North Sea a new lease of life” would:

“Even lower carbon emissions (because piping in energy from the North Sea generates a lot less CO2 than importing it).”

Conservative shadow energy secretary, Claire Coutinho, has also used this approach to question the government’s supposed opposition to North Sea drilling, writing in the Daily Telegraph:

“Doing so in the name of climate change when our own gas has four times fewer emissions than the LNG we’ll need to import instead? Unforgivable.”

The claim that UK gas from the North Sea produces “a lot less CO2” – and particularly the commonly cited “four times fewer emissions” figure used by Coutinho and OEUK – is misleading.

It references the fact that imported LNG has higher overall emissions than North Sea gas, due to the energy-intensive processes needed to liquify, transport and regasify it. 

However, as the chart below shows, the vast majority of emissions from gas result from burning it to produce energy. 

When CO2 from gas combustion is taken into account, North Sea gas emissions are not four times lower than LNG emissions, but 15% lower.

Emissions (grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour) from North Sea gas v LNG imports.
Emissions (grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour) from North Sea gas v LNG imports. Source: Carbon Brief analysis

The UK is reliant on LNG imports from a handful of countries, notably the US and Qatar. However, at present these imports make up only around 15% of the UK’s gas. 

Of the remaining gas used in the UK, roughly half is produced domestically and the rest comes via pipeline from Norway. Norwegian pipeline gas has even lower emissions than UK supplies.

More broadly, analysis by the Climate Change Committee in 2022 found that, despite the small “emissions advantage” of UK domestic production replacing imports, this could be wiped out if increased UK production led to more fossil-fuel production overall.

Back to top

FALSE: ‘Britain is a resource-rich nation that has chosen dependency’

One frequent false claim is that the UK has “chosen” to become reliant on fossil-fuel imports, as a result of policy decisions made by successive governments.

In fact, import dependency has primarily increased because most of the oil and gas in the North Sea has already been used up. It is a “mature basin” with falling output.

In the Daily Telegraph for example, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former climate director at the Heritage Foundation, a US-based climate-sceptic lobby group, stated that the UK has “chosen dependency”. She wrote:

“[The UK] is not a resource-poor nation forced to depend on foreign suppliers. It is a resource-rich nation that has chosen dependency through planning rules, regulatory obstruction and a net-zero framework that treats domestic oil and gas production as a moral failing rather than a strategic necessity.”

It is true that the UK has become increasingly reliant on fossil-fuel imports. The country was a net energy exporter in 2000, but, by 2010, was dependent on imports for 30% of its energy supplies. On the same metric, the UK’s net import dependency reached 44% in 2024.

This is largely because UK fossil-fuel production peaked decades ago. Gas production in the North Sea fell by 74% between 2000 and 2025, while oil output fell by 75%.

Gas production is set to fall to 99% below 2025 levels by 2050 and oil is set to fall 94%, according to the government’s North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA). Even with further drilling, the NSTA expects gas output to fall by 97% and oil by 91%, as shown below.

North Sea oil (right) and gas production (right), million tonnes of oil equivalent, under the baseline NSTA projection or with further drilling.
North Sea oil (right) and gas production (right), million tonnes of oil equivalent, under the baseline NSTA projection or with further drilling. Source: NSTA.

Production has been in an inexorable decline for decades despite strongly supportive government policy through most of the period, including tax breaks and new licensing.

Contrary to the narrative that rising import dependency has been a policy choice, the main reason why production is falling is that the North Sea is a “mature basin”. In other words, most of the oil and gas it once contained has already been extracted and burned.

Simon Evans on Bluesky: Apropos of nothing in particular

According to the thinktank Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), around 90% of the oil and gas that is likely to be produced from the North Sea has already been burned.

A related argument, aired on Sky News in mid-March 2026, is that the NSTA projections have been revised downwards over time, as a result of government policy. The idea is that there is more oil and gas available, but the government has “chosen” to ignore it.

Yet for gas, there is little difference between the NSTA projections published before and after the government’s 2024 election win and its decision to ban new licensing, as shown below.

Past and projected North Sea gas output, million tonnes of oil equivalent
Past and projected North Sea gas output, million tonnes of oil equivalent, under the NSTA baseline or with new drilling. Left: 2023 projection. Right: 2026 projection. Source: NSTA.

While the NSTA projections for oil have shifted more noticeably between 2023 and 2026, this largely relates to output from existing fields, rather than the potential from new drilling.

There are a variety of other reasons why the NSTA projections have changed, notably including the economic viability of North Sea production.

Until the recent Iran war, UK oil prices had been declining steadily since the highs seen in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

This will have eroded the economics of North Sea production, particularly as the cost of extraction has gone up by roughly 40% since 2019.

A final claim relating to government policy choices is that the UK has, in the words of a recent Sun editorial, become “heavily dependent on imported energy because of unreliable wind and solar, and the government’s obsession with net-zero”.

This makes no sense – it is the opposite of the truth. Wind and solar generated more than 100 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity in the UK last year, meeting a third of total demand.

Carbon Brief analysis shows that generating the same electricity from gas would have required around 200TWh of fuel, equivalent to three-quarters of UK imports of liquified natural gas (LNG).

In other words, without its fleet of what the Sun calls “unreliable wind and solar”, the UK would have needed to nearly double its LNG imports.

Back to top

FALSE: North Sea is ‘best way to protect us from volatility and provide energy security’

The effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz has triggered the worst energy crisis since the 1970s and has reignited debate over how best to ensure the UK’s energy security.

Many politicians, newspaper editorials and comment articles have argued that getting more oil and gas out from under the North Sea would cut UK fossil-fuel imports and boost energy security.

Some have gone so far as to argue that the North Sea is the “best way” or “the” answer to ensuring UK energy security. This is clearly false. So too is the idea – promoted by the hard-right, climate-sceptic Reform party – that the UK could become “energy independent” by expanding North Sea production.

For example, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch wrote a comment piece for the Sunday Telegraph under the headline: “Drilling the North Sea is the answer to the energy crisis.”

Meanwhile, Enrique Cornejo, energy policy director at North Sea industry trade association Offshore Energies UK (OEUK), told the Times:

“Current events demonstrate that the best way to protect us from volatility and provide energy security is to maximise our homegrown energy resources.”

The potential for extra oil and gas output is disputed, but not even the North Sea oil and gas industry claims that it could reverse the decades-long decline in production.

Analysis by the National Energy System Operator (NESO) shows that the transition to clean energy would boost UK energy security by significantly reducing fossil-fuel imports. In contrast, it says that imports would rise if the UK boosts domestic oil and gas production but fails to decarbonise.

The UK has been increasingly reliant on energy imports since 2003. This is because UK oil and gas production from the North Sea has fallen by roughly three-quarters since 2000. (See: FALSE: “Britain is a resource-rich nation that has chosen dependency.”)

The UK’s reliance on fossil-fuel imports is set to increase even further, as North Sea production continues to decline. The NSTA says oil output will fall to 94% below 2025 levels by 2050 – or 91% with new drilling. For gas, the figures are 99% and 97%, respectively.

OEUK and other advocates for the oil and gas sector dispute these figures, claiming that higher production would be possible if there are changes in government policy.

For example, a report commissioned by OEUK put forward a “high case” for North Sea production over the coming decades, predicated on what it calls “significant changes to tax, licensing and regulatory approvals”. Notably, this still showed steep declines in output.

North Sea oil and gas production under an industry-backed “high case”, thousands of barrels of oil equivalent per day.
North Sea oil and gas production under an industry-backed “high case”, thousands of barrels of oil equivalent per day. Credit: Westwood Energy.

The OEUK-commissioned report also looked at an even more optimistic “no constraints” case for higher North Sea. However, the report authors, consultancy Westwood Energy, described this as “beyond realistic assumptions”. It said:

“The ‘no constraints’ case is considered to be beyond realistic assumptions given the current regulatory and fiscal conditions and investor sentiment. For this case to be realised, major industry change would be required.”

Similarly, OEUK has published a scenario for North Sea gas production that it calls “upside potential”, in which output is held close to current levels for the next decade.

It has used these scenarios to argue that the decline in North Sea gas output is “not inevitable”. However, the details behind these claims are opaque.

The “upside potential” scenario is based on what OEUK describes as “data provided by OEUK members” and it assumes that the government immediately scraps the “energy profits levy” (EPL, known as the windfall tax, see below).

OEUK claims that this scenario is “not speculative” and that it “clearly demonstrate[s] that the decline in potential supply indicated by NSTA forecasts is the result of policy choices”.

On this point, it is worth reiterating that the NSTA forecasts for gas barely changed in response to the election of the current government in 2024, as illustrated above.

Ultimately, while it is clear that most of the oil and gas that was once under the North Sea has already been burned, significant resources do remain.

The key question is how much of this remaining oil and gas is both technically and economically recoverable under current policies and prices – and if policies were changed.

OEIS’s Jack Sharples tells Carbon Brief that the North Sea is a “very mature basin” and that “nobody’s talking about increased production versus current levels”. He continues:

“Even if licences were to be made available for further exploration and production, that would result in a little bit of extra supply over the next 12 months, let’s say, but obviously not a huge amount…We’re just talking about slowing down the rate of decline.”

Sharples adds that, nevertheless, he thinks it is “worth maximising whatever we can produce in the North Sea”.

Recent Carbon Brief analysis found that expanding clean-energy supplies would have a larger impact on UK gas imports than an increase in North Sea drilling, as shown below.

(This analysis was based on NSTA projections of possible extra North Sea gas output, which amounted to 16TWh in 2030. If the OEUK “upside potential” scenario could be realised, the extra gas would amount to further 108TWh, equivalent to around 90 LNG tankers.)

The number of LNG tanker deliveries of gas that could be avoided in 2030, either due to clean technologies replacing the gas or by additional North Sea supplies replacing the imports
The number of LNG tanker deliveries of gas that could be avoided in 2030, either due to clean technologies replacing the gas or by additional North Sea supplies replacing the imports. See below for methodology. Sources: Carbon Brief analysis of data from the North Sea Transition Authority and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.

An additional aspect to this relates to timescales. It takes an estimated 28 years for new licenses to result in new oil and gas production, according to official figures.

The industry says fields that already have licenses, such as Rosebank and Jackdaw, could be developed more quickly, if they receive planning consent. The previous Conservative government had consented to these fields being developed, but this was overturned in the courts. The Labour government is in the process of considering whether to approve them.

(The new wind and solar projects from the latest renewable auction, which concluded in February 2026, are set to be operating by or around 2030.)

In a March 2026 note, the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) said that drilling for oil and gas “will not reduce bills or deliver energy security”. Instead, it said that “demand reduction should be a core focus of UK gas security”.

In the longer term, the National Energy System Operator (NESO) says that meeting the UK’s net-zero target would cut the country’s dependency on imported gas to 78% below current levels, whereas failing to decarbonise would see imports rising by a third as production falls.

At a recent parliamentary hearing, Miliband told MPs that this illustrated why “decarbonisation is essential for energy security”. He added that turning away from net-zero would leave the UK “really, really exposed”.

Octopus boss Greg Jackson said in a recent government press release: “Every solar panel, heat pump and battery cuts bills and boosts Britain’s energy independence.”

Back to top

MISLEADING: ‘The head honchos of the green lobby say we should drill’

Numerous media outlets have picked up on supportive comments from what the Daily Telegraph has called “net zero’s champions”, backing the use of North Sea oil and gas. 

Writing in the Daily Telegraph, shadow energy secretary Claire Coutinho said: 

“From the wind lobbyists at RenewableUK to the chair of Great British Energy (Miliband’s ‘clean energy’ propaganda outfit), the head honchos of the green lobby say we should drill.”

This point was similarly made in an editorial in the Sun, which stated that “Octopus energy chief Greg Jackson…and even the head of RenewableUK have called for North Sea reserves to be reopened urgently”.

These comments were in reference to a handful of specific interventions that, in reality, were far more nuanced than simply calling for more drilling. Indeed, some of the so-called “net-zero champions” have clarified that they are not calling for new licenses at all.

In the Daily Telegraph, Tara Singh, chief executive of RenewableUK, wrote that “it is entirely sensible to support continued domestic oil and gas production in the North Sea”.

Similarly, Jackson wrote in the Daily Telegraph that “we should use what’s available from the North Sea”.

The Daily Telegraph published news stories to accompany both of these articles with the headlines “wind industry chief urges Miliband to restart North Sea drilling” and “Miliband must reopen the North Sea, Octopus boss says”.

On LinkedIn, Juergen Maier, chair of the government’s publicly owned, clean-energy company Great British Energy, set out several arguments in favour of more North Sea production.

These included slowing job losses in the region, the lower carbon intensity of North Sea oil and gas compared with imports and extra production supporting tax revenues. 

His comments were picked up by the Financial Times and the Daily Telegraph, with the latter saying the comments from “Miliband’s clean-energy tsar” will “raise eyebrows”. 

However, neither Singh, Jackson nor Maier called for new oil and gas licences – and they stressed that North Sea oil and gas will not bring down energy bills. 

In fact, their position is similar to that of the UK government, which sees domestic fossil fuels playing an “important and valuable role” into the future.

Singh wrote: “Being serious about the UK’s important role in gas also means being honest about its limitations. The North Sea is a mature basin, not a limitless national asset.”

She added that politicians should not imply that more domestic drilling would bring down energy bills, as “it will not”. Instead, she wrote that new renewable generation offers “better value” for consumers, both when gas prices are normal and at “crisis levels”. (See: FALSE: “Reopening the North Sea would lower bills.”

Expanding on her piece on Twitter, Singh clarified “we don’t represent the [oil and gas] sector and we’re not arguing for or against new licences”, adding: 

“Before anyone gets too excited: I’m calling for a depoliticised conversation about energy in the UK – not an overhaul of policy to favour oil and gas.”

Tara Singh on X: To conclude

In his comment for the Daily Telegraph, Jackson added

“We’re kidding ourselves if we think this is a panacea – it’s 20 years since the North Sea could meet all our needs – we’ve depleted the most abundant reserves and the remainder will be less productive and more expensive. But it makes sense to use what we have whilst we’re so dependent on gas.”

His article, titled “My plan to safeguard Britain’s energy supplies”, only briefly mentioned the North Sea and stressed the importance of “reduc[ing] our dependency on gas”.

He continued to set out other potential steps for increasing energy security and bringing down bills, including building nuclear efficiently, cutting energy waste, reforming the electricity market, rolling out domestic renewable generation and breaking the link between gas and electricity that “lets global chaos dictate our prices”.

In a follow-up interview with Jackson in the Independent, which emphasised these alternatives, he added that the UK was “deluding” itself if it thinks it can “get enough out of the North Sea and in a market where the price is set internationally”. 

For his part, Maier clarified on LinkedIn that he was a supporter of a “ managed energy transition” making use of all available energy sources, but adding that this includes “the end game being mostly renewable energy generation”.

He also explicitly rejected the notion that more North Sea oil and gas would bring down bills, noting: “It doesn’t; indeed, energy costs are rising at this very moment because of fossil fuels.” Again, this mirrors the view expressed by government ministers.

Maier also subsequently pushed back against the media coverage of his original comments, writing in a follow-up post on LinkedIn that the claim he was pressuring Miliband over North Sea drilling was “wrong” and that he is “fully supportive of the government position”. He added: 

“I see this as consistent with an ‘all energy’ approach to the transition. That the end game is renewables and that we need to give supply chain companies enough time to transition. I have said this numerous times in many speeches and posts here.”

Back to top

FALSE: ‘The UK is the only country in the world banning new oil and gas licenses’

On LinkedIn, Conservative politician and shadow energy secretary Claire Coutinho claimed that the “UK is the only country in the world banning new oil and gas licenses”.

Her comment was made in response to a post about Denmark, which, in 2020, made a landmark decision to stop issuing new oil and gas licences and end all fossil-fuel extraction by 2050.

The post noted that Denmark is now considering “extending one or more production licenses” in the Danish North Sea, in response to the energy crisis.

However, as Coutinho surely knows, this is not the same as issuing new licences – and is more comparable to Labour’s move to allow some additional “tieback” drilling at existing fields, announced in 2025.

Denmark and the UK are not the only countries to end new oil and gas licences. Other nations to do so include IrelandFrancePortugal and Colombia.

In fact, there is an international coalition of nations that have pledged to end new oil and gas production, known as the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance (BOGA).

This group is helping to convene the first meeting of nations that want to take immediate action to phase out fossil fuels, which is taking place in Santa Marta, Colombia, in April. Around 40-80 nations are expected to attend.

Carbon Brief understands that the UK will have a senior representative at the conference. 

Despite showing its support for BOGA, the UK is currently not a member. A senior official once told Carbon Brief that this is because the UK does not currently meet the required end date for stopping all fossil-fuel production.

Back to top

MISLEADING: ‘With new North Sea licences would come thousands of jobs’

Addressing parliament in March, Nigel Farage, the leader of the hard-right, climate-sceptic Reform UK party, claimed that with new North Sea oil and gas licences “would come thousands of jobs”, according to the Herald.

As noted above, the issuing of new exploration licences would only make a small difference to future production in a basin that is in irreversible decline.

Official statistics show the decline of the basin caused direct jobs in oil and gas production to fall by a third between 2014 and 2023. Indeed, according to the government, more than 70,000 jobs have been lost in the last decade alone.

This decline has occurred despite the previous Conservative government, which was in power from 2010-24, holding six new licensing rounds and issuing hundreds of new licences.

The Norwegian oil-and-gas company Equinor has claimed that, if approved, its large oil project, Rosebank, could create up to 1,600 jobs while at the height of its construction phase. (Rosebank has a licence, but has not yet obtained final consent from the government.)

However, analysis by the North Sea non-profit Uplift says that this figure is “inflated” and that the project would only create 255 jobs over its lifetime.

As part of its “North Sea future plan” announced in 2025, the current Labour government has pledged to establish the “North Sea jobs service” – a national employment programme offering support for oil and gas workers seeking new opportunities in clean energy, defence and advanced manufacturing.

However, campaigners have warned that the plan does not go far enough.

In 2023, the UK’s Climate Change Committee (CCC) published an analysis of how jobs might change as the country strives for its legally binding net-zero target.

Its review of available data suggested that the gradual phase-down of high-emitting sectors, such as oil and gas production, could lead to there being 8,000-75,000 workers “whose jobs cannot continue in their current form”. (It notes that the wide range is due to “much uncertainty in these estimates”.)

But it added that this would be outweighed by “extensive job creation”. It estimated that there could be between 135,000-725,000 new jobs created by the transition to net-zero, in sectors such as renewable energy generation, retrofitting and electric vehicles.

This job creation is not “guaranteed” and is dependent on the government implementing measures to support and upskill its workforce on the journey to net-zero, the CCC noted.

report published this week by the Renewable Energy Association, the UK’s largest renewables trade body, found that jobs in renewable energy in the UK now outstrip those in oil and gas.

According to the figures, there were 145,000 jobs in the renewable energy sector in 2025, compared with 115,000 in oil and gas.

Back to top

MISLEADING: North Sea drilling ‘would secure a rush of revenue into the Treasury’

One common argument in favour of more North Sea drilling is that the sector provides an important source of tax revenue for the government.

An editorial in the climate-sceptic Daily Telegraph claimed that “tapping” new North Sea oil and gas “would not resolve the problem of high energy prices”, but would “secure a rush of revenue into the Treasury and provide households and businesses struggling under current circumstances with a helping hand”.

The tax revenue argument is often made by North Sea proponents who try to position themselves as being even-handed and moderate, as illustrated in recent columns in the Guardian and Observer.

However, the idea that new projects would usher in significant revenue is highly misleading.

The Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR), the UK’s independent fiscal watchdog, in March forecast that total UK oil and gas revenues are expected to fall from £6bn in 2024-25 to just £0.1bn by 2030-31. (This is at baseline prices that do not consider the current energy crisis.)

Part of this decline comes from the expected end of the windfall tax, a levy first introduced by the Conservative government in 2022 in response to soaring oil-and-gas company profits fuelled by the end of Covid restrictions and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. 

(Many proponents of North Sea oil and gas have repeatedly called for an end to the windfall tax, while also frequently talking up the tax benefits from oil-and-gas production.)

However, the downgraded OBR forecast also reflects the decline of production in the basin as resources dry up, a shrinking tax base and falling prices, says Daniel Jones, head of research, policy and legal at the campaign group Uplift. He tells Carbon Brief:

“Even the windfall receipts generated during a genuine price crisis are temporary and price-dependent. At normal prices, the basin contributes very little. The structural decline continues regardless of the spike.”

As old oil and gas assets reach the end of their lives, the companies behind them are able to access significant tax relief for decommissioning costs, “further reducing the net contribution to the public finances”, says Jones.

(In some years, this tax relief has meant that far from being a source of revenue, certain oil and gas companies have been paid money by the exchequer.)

In addition, new developments “tend to be smaller and more expensive than the fields they replace”, Jones says, leading to the government offering large tax deductions for exploration, drilling and construction costs from 2014 onwards. He continues:

“These deductions can wipe out any taxable profit for years, meaning the Treasury collects nothing until investment costs have been fully offset. By the time a new field generates net tax receipts, it may be well into its production life – if prices and production hold up long enough to get there at all.”

An analysis by Uplift and NGO WWF Norway in 2025 found that the Rosebank oil field currently seeking development consent from the government could, in a “base-case scenario”, lead to £258m in net losses for the UK, due to the reasons set out above.

Back to top

FALSE: Ed Miliband is an ‘anti-North Sea’ climate change ‘fanatic’

A huge amount of the criticism of the UK government’s position on North Sea oil and gas has been personally levelled at one man: Ed Miliband.

The energy secretary has been repeatedly labelled by opposition politicians and their media allies as “dangerous” and a “fanatic” with a “cult-like conviction”, because of his reported opposition to more drilling in the North Sea. 

Miliband’s Conservative counterpart, Claire Coutinho, wrote in the Daily Telegraph:

“As the world gets more dangerous, [Miliband’s] anti-North Sea fanaticism is making Britain weaker and poorer.”

As with much of the criticism aimed at Miliband in right-leaning media, these attacks are often highly personal. The Sun’s US editor-at-large, Harry Cole, referred to Miliband as a “Greta [Thunberg]-loving Marxist, who has never seen a market he doesn’t want to destroy”. 

In fact, Miliband is simply the energy minister in a government that has explicitly prioritised climate policies and transitioning away from fossil fuels.

Labour’s 2024 manifesto for the general election in which the party won an overwhelming victory and, hence, mandate stated:

“We will not issue new licences to explore new [North Sea] fields because they will not take a penny off bills, cannot make us energy secure and will only accelerate the worsening climate crisis.”

While the government has repeatedly ruled out new licences, it is considering approving several new projects at sites that have already received licences, but not consent to begin development.

It has also announced new “transitional energy certificates”, which will allow new oil and gas production at or near existing sites.

As for Miliband, his views are far more moderate than the “fanatical” ones portrayed by his detractors. 

The energy secretary has been clear that he expects the UK to continue producing oil and gas even as it transitions to net-zero, writing in a recent Observer article:

“As we build our clean-energy future, North Sea production continues to play an important and valuable role, which is why we are keeping existing oil and gasfields open for their lifetime.”

Arguing against more expansion, Miliband noted that the North Sea is a “maturing basin” and that “new exploration licences are simply too marginal to have a meaningful impact on levels of oil and gas production”.

Original article by Daisy Dunne, Josh Gabbatiss, Molly Lempriere & Simon Evans republished from Carbon Brief.

Continue ReadingFactcheck: Nine false or misleading myths about North Sea oil and gas

Chris Stark: The economics of clean energy ‘just get better and better’

Spread the love

Nigel Farage urges you to ignore facts and reality and be a climate science denier like him and his Deputy Richard Tice. He says that Reform UK has received £Millions and £Millions from the fossil fuel industry to promote climate denial and destroy the planet.
Nigel Farage urges you to ignore facts and reality and be a climate science denier like him and his Deputy Richard Tice. He says that Reform UK has received £Millions and £Millions from the fossil fuel industry to promote climate denial and destroy the planet.
Donald Trump urges you to be a Climate Science denier like him. He says that he makes millions and millions for destroying the planet, Burn, Baby, Burn and Flood, Baby, Flood.
Donald Trump urges you to be a Climate Science denier like him. He says that he makes millions and millions for destroying the planet, Burn, Baby, Burn and Flood, Baby, Flood.
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Continue ReadingChris Stark: The economics of clean energy ‘just get better and better’