Reform UK Leader Nigel Farage speaking at a Reform UK press conference on 3 June 2024. Credit: Reform UK / YouTube
The Reform UK leader is a vocal opponent of net zero policies, and has questioned the basis of established climate science.
Pro-Brexit campaigner Nigel Farage has announced that he will be standing to be an MP at the upcoming general election and will be replacing Richard Tice as leader of the populist party Reform UK.
Farage, who says that he hopes to become “the voice of opposition” in Parliament, has long been a vocal opponent of climate action and a critic of climate science – campaigning for a referendum on the UK’s 2050 net zero emissions target.
When he was the leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), the party’s 2015 and 2017 election manifestos pledged to rip up green measures, repeal the UK’s Climate Change Act, withdraw from the 2015 Paris Agreement – the flagship deal to tackle global emissions – and support fossil fuel extraction.
These reflected Farage’s personal views on climate action. In 2015, he told the libertarian website Spiked: “I think wind energy is the biggest collective economic insanity I’ve seen in my entire life. I’ve never seen anything more stupid, more illogical, or more irrational.”
Farage is a presenter on GB News, the right-wing broadcaster that has regularly provided a platform to climate science denial and attacks on green reforms since it launched in June 2021.
Speaking on GB News in August 2021, Farage said that he was “very much an environmentalist” and that he couldn’t “abide things like plastics in our seas, pollution in our rivers.” However, on the issue of climate change, he added: “What annoys me though, is this complete obsession with carbon dioxide almost to the exclusion of everything else, the alarmism that comes with it, based on dodgy predictions and science.”
The world’s foremost climate science body, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has stated it is “unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land”, while scientists at NASA have found that the last 10 years were the hottest on record. Earth’s average surface temperature in 2023 was the warmest since records began in 1880.
The IPCC has also stated that carbon dioxide “is responsible for most of global warming” since the late 19th century, which has increased the “severity and frequency of weather and climate extremes, like heat waves, heavy rains, and drought”.
Farage has been a vocal critic of net zero. He has claimed that the policy is an “act of self harm” and has called for it to be scrapped.
He has said: “It will not bring economic benefits. It will make everybody a whole lot poorer. And yet the lemmings in Parliament are taking us towards an economic cliff,” adding: “I can’t think of an issue on which the public and politicians are more divided.”
In fact, politicians are markedly less in favour of climate action than the general public. New polling by YouGov for the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU) has shown that almost two-thirds (62 percent) of the public believe the best way to achieve energy security is to reduce the use of fossil fuels and instead expand the use of renewable energy, compared to 48 percent of MPs.
The Climate Change Committee, which advises the government on its net zero policies, has estimated that the cost of achieving net zero will be less than 1 percent of UK GDP, while the government independent spending watchdog – the Office for Budget Responsibility – has said that, “the costs of failing to get climate change under control would be much larger than those of bringing emissions down to net zero”.
Farage has also claimed that, “If green technology is going to work, it ought to work without ordinary folk subsidising it” – referring to the government grants and investment dedicated to developing clean energy sources. The UK government has given £20 billion more in support to fossil fuel producers than their renewable energy peers since 2015.
Farage has also spread conspiracy theories about anti-pollution measures being used to control people’s lives.
In a video posted on Twitter, he argued that Mayor of London Sadiq Khan’s calls to reduce air pollution by cutting car engine use would pave the way to “climate lockdowns”.
He said: “Mark my words this isn’t going to end with 20mph zones and low-traffic neighbourhoods. No no. This is the beginning of climate lockdowns. We will have, in years to come, days where we’re told we can’t drive, we can’t do this, you can’t do that while Sadiq Khan is leading the way. Remember you heard it here first. Climate lockdowns.”
The Institute for Strategic Dialogue has highlighted how climate lockdown claims are part of “a conspiratorial narrative which claims that global elites are using climate change as a pretext to restrict individual freedoms and civil liberties.”
Farage and Reform UK
Farage used his announcement to state his belief that Labour will win the general election, which will be held on 4 July, and that the Conservative Party has “crushed itself”. With the Tories predicted to lose in a landslide, Farage appears to believe that he can lead a new right-wing movement.
The Reform leader was already a key figure in the party prior to today’s announcement, effectively owning the party as well as serving as its president. Reform operates as a private company without a democratic structure, so Farage’s majority shareholding meant that could have appointed himself as leader at any time.
Despite Farage failing to be elected as an MP when he stood in seven previous general elections, and Reform only winning two councillors in May’s local elections, polls indicate that Farage may succeed in becoming the MP for Clacton.
If this is the case, Farage will be advocating in Parliament for the anti-climate policies that have been proposed by his party.
Reform has called for the UK’s net zero emissions target to be scrapped, and has proposed holding a referendum on the policy – a campaign launched by Farage in 2022.
The party’s policy agenda states that: “Westminster’s net zero plans send our jobs and money overseas, making us net poorer and net colder”, adding that net zero policies are “net stupid”.
The party’s former leader Tice, who will now become its chairman, is a prominent climate science denier. Tice has claimed that “there is no climate crisis”, and has also expressed the view that “CO2 isn’t a poison. It’s plant food”.
Of the £2.5 million that Reform UK has received in donations since the 2019 election, around 92 percent (£2.3 million) of that income has been given by fossil fuel interests, polluting industries, or climate science deniers.
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.Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Faster electrification is the best way to secure lower energy bills and stronger energy security, according to the Climate Change Committee (CCC).
The government’s official climate advisers have stressed the importance of electrification, noting that electric cars and heat pumps can “put money back into people’s pockets”.
Moreover, the UK’s net-zero targets face “significant risks” unless there is faster progress in electrifying cars, heating and industry, according to the CCC’s latest progress report.
The report notes that the government has closed some of the gaps to its upcoming targets and introduced more “credible” plans.
However, challenges remain in the UK’s climate strategy, including accelerating the expansion of heat pumps, cutting emissions from farms and supplying planes with “sustainable” fuels.
The CCC notes that 17% of the emissions cuts required to achieve the UK’s 2030 Paris Agreement climate target are currently not addressed by any government plans at all.
Amid political and industry pressure, the committee also says the government should “stand firm” on its climate goals, including its strategy for encouraging electric-vehicle (EV) sales.
Carbon Brief has covered the CCC’s annual progress reports in 2025, 2024, 2023, 2022, 2021 and 2020.
The report comes at a febrile moment in UK politics, with prime minister Keir Starmer having just resigned and with newly re-elected MP Andy Burnham widely tipped to take his place.
The opposition Conservatives and Reform are lobbying to scrap UK climate goals – and senior Labour figures want to row back on EVs and North Sea oil and gas drilling.
Against that backdrop, the CCC insists that it is the UK’s reliance on fossil fuels – and the secondfossil-fuelprice shock in four years – that has caused a “cost of living crisis”.
Speaking to journalists ahead of the launch, CCC chair Nigel Topping warned against any moves to weaken UK climate policies. He said:
“U-turns are really damaging to inward investment confidence…[We should] hold the course and focus on electrification…which will unlock very significant savings.”
Whereas the CCC said last year it had become “more optimistic” that UK climate goals could be met under the new government, its latest progress report strikes a more cautious tone.
It says that the UK’s emissions fell by 1.8% in 2025 and that there has been “some positive progress” in terms of delivery over the past year, but that this has been “too slow”.
There was actually an increase in emissions from transport and electricity supplies in 2025, as shown below, despite the expansion of clean power and EVs.
UK greenhouse gas emissions by sector, million tonnes of CO2 equivalent. Source: CCC 2026 progress report.
The UK’s greenhouse gas emissions are now roughly 50% below 1990 levels, the CCC notes, with the lion’s share of this having come from cleaning up the power sector.
In contrast, there has been far less progress in transport, which is now the UK’s largest emitter, as well as in buildings, the second largest.
The CCC stresses that future emissions cuts will need to come from using clean power to decarbonise other sectors – particularly buildings, transport and industry.
It puts a major emphasis on the need to electrify these sectors by more rapidly rolling out EVs, heat pumps and electric heating for industrial sites.
The CCC adds that government plans for meeting future targets, published last year, leave a “significant gap” to the UK’s international climate pledge for 2030. (See: Policy gaps.)
The most striking aspect of this year’s report is the way it centres on electrification, which the CCC says has been given “insufficient focus” to date.
Electrification has shot up the agenda in recent months, with the COP31 presidency calling for countries to back a global goal for 35% of “final” energy to come from electricity by 2035.
The text of the CCC’s latest report uses the word “electrification” far more often than previous editions, as shown in the figure below.
Number of times the word “electrification” appears in successive CCC progress reports, average per 10 pages. Source: Carbon Brief analysis of CCC reports.
Early last year, in advice on the seventh carbon budget, the committee singled out electrification as key to cutting UK emissions. It said electrification had won out over alternative options, thanks to rapid cost reductions for technologies such as EVs.
Now, the CCC says that electrification is also the best way to secure lower energy bills, stronger energy security and a host of other benefits.
Topping said these benefits include “putting money back into people’s pockets”, but also cleaner air, stronger energy security and protection from fossil-fuel shocks:
“The prize is really significant here. By 2030 alone, the UK could save up to 80m barrels of oil and 1.5bn therms of gas each year. That would cost almost £8bn at current oil and gas prices.”
The emphasis on the topic is also clear in the CCC press release for its report, which is titled: “Faster electrification would cut UK household bills, say climate advisers.”
The report fleshes this out in a dedicated chapter that explores the financial benefits of electrifying household energy use, including heat and transport.
Topping said that the “home of the future” will be equipped with an EV, a flexible “time-of-use tariff” for its electricity supplies and a heat pump for keeping warm.
Moreover, the report shows that even today, this type of household would cut its annual energy bills by around £1,200, relative to using a petrol car and a gas boiler.
Crucially, this saving, shown in the figure below, includes the high upfront costs of installing an electric heat pump and solar panels. The analysis shows that electrified homes have far lower annual running costs, which easily outweigh this initial outlay.
(Due to “modelling limitations”, the CCC analysis does not consider home batteries, which can help unlock even larger savings.)
Household energy costs for heat, power and transport, £ per year. The upfront costs of purchasing cars, heating systems, chargers and solar panels are annualised. Source: CCC progress report 2026.
The CCC says that while not everyone is currently in a position to enjoy the financial benefits of electrification, its analysis points to savings both before and after the Iran crisis, as well as for high- and low-income households, with the latter eligible for grants to cover upfront costs.
Even more homes would be able to unlock these benefits if the government acts to resolve barriers, such as high public charging costs, says the CCC.
However, the report says that the government’s current plan to electrify the economy “lacks ambition” and that there are “worrying signs” in some areas, such as heat pumps and electric vans. (See: Road transport and Buildings.)
Ultimately, says the CCC, the best way to encourage faster and wider electrification is to make electricity cheaper. This has been its top recommendation for several years.
The CBGD “projects slower emissions reductions for surface transport and buildings compared to the previous government’s plan”, according to the CCC.
This reflects both the slow rollout of some technologies – such as heat pumps – and “areas of reduced policy ambition”, including less support for low-income homes to install insulation.
The CCC says that without “sufficient progress on electrification” this year, the UK’s 2030 emissions target “may become out of reach” and future goals would face “significant risks”.
The chart below demonstrates the CCC’s view that the UK is “well on track” to meet its fourth carbon budget, between 2023 and 2027, and that there are “credible policies in place” to meet the fifth carbon budget out to 2032.
However, it also shows the “significant gap” that the CCC says still exists between projected emissions cuts (blue lines) and the UK’s international climate target for 2030, its nationally determined contribution (NDC) to the Paris Agreement (black circle).
(This is particularly notable as the NDC was the first official UK climate goal that was aligned with its 2050 net-zero target. The fourth and fifth carbon budgets were set before the net-zero goal and therefore need to be overachieved.)
Plans that are “credible” or only come with “some risks” are on track to cut emissions to 356m tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e) by 2030. This is 11MtCO2e lower than last year, but still a shortfall of 64MtCO2e.
UK greenhouse gas emissions, including international aviation and shipping (IAS), MtCO2e. Lines show historical emissions (black) and the UK’s “carbon budget indicative pathway” from the CBGD (red). Projected emissions are shown under what the CCC defines as “credible” policies (dark blue); credible policies, plus those with “some risk” (light blue); and policies that are credible, have some risk or “significant risk” (purple). The dotted black line indicates the trajectory for emissions before any net-zero policies were implemented. The dotted red line indicated an example trajectory to reach the target of net-zero emissions by 2050. Legislated carbon budget levels are shown as grey steps, including the suggested level of the seventh budget for 2038-42. The first five budgets did not include IAS, but “headroom” was left to allow for these emissions (darker grey wedges). Source: CCC 2026 progress report.
Overall, the CCC says there are “credible” plans in place for 44% of emissions reductions by 2030, including those linked to renewable energy, EV sales growth and electrification of steel production at Port Talbot in Wales. Another 15% of reductions come with “some risks”.
The report concludes that there are “significant risks” attached to 19% of emissions cuts, including the expansion of heat pumps, future “sustainable aviation fuel” (SAF) supply and agricultural policies.
There are also 4% of required emissions cuts for which the UK has “insufficient plans”, including much of the electrification of the UK’s heavy industry.
The chart below shows how this assessment compares to previous CCC analysis of government plans, with the share of “credible” government plans increasing.
(As the latest report is based on the new CBGD rather than the previous 2023 plan, the assessments have different levels of baseline emissions and are not directly comparable. However, this chart shows the rough direction of travel.)
Share of emissions cuts needed to hit the UK’s 2030 climate goal that are rated by successive CCC reports as being backed by “credible” policies, or that face “some” or “significant” risks to delivery, or where there are “insufficient plans”, %. The chart also shows the share of emission cuts required that are “not covered” by the government plans. Source: Carbon Brief analysis of CCC reports.
As the chart shows, a substantial chunk of the required emissions cuts need to meet the 2030 pledge – 17% of the total – are not covered by the CBGD.
This reflects the fact that the new plan simply does not achieve the 2030 target, according to the CCC, despite the government’s stated commitment to its NDC goal.
(The government’s plan had also acknowledged that it fell short of meeting the 2030 NDC.)
The CCC emphasises that “the government will need to bring forward additional policies and plans to make up this gap”.
The new report suggests several areas – including faster EV growth, more heat-pump installations and more ambitious recycling rates – that would close 17MtCO2e of the 26MtCO2e gap to the 2030 goal.
Unlike the 2030 NDC, the government’s plan does achieve the sixth carbon budget, between 2033 and 2037. However, the committee says “this is largely achieved through additional measures where we have assessed there to be significant risks or insufficient plans”.
Only around three-fifths of the required emissions cuts for the sixth carbon budget are covered by “credible” plans or plans with “some risks”.
According to the CCC, the government is relying on a rapid scale-up of engineered removals beyond 2030, but has provided little detail about how it will achieve this. (See: Other sectors)
“This approach carries substantial risks,” according to the committee.
Road transport remains the UK’s highest emitting sector and its emissions increased by nearly 3% last year, according to provisional data in the CCC report.
Electric-car sales have continued increasing, reaching nearly a quarter of new sales last year. The number of electric cars on the road surpassed 2m in May 2025.
However, the emissions benefit of this rollout of electric vehicles (EVs) “is likely to have been offset by other factors”, such as driving rates returning nearly to pre-Covid levels, according to the CCC.
The report notes that EV costs “continue to fall” and have met price parity in some parts of the market, with grants providing an extra boost to sales.
The committee’s pathway to net-zero assumes faster emissions cuts from road transport than the government’s pathway. This is largely because it assumes an imminent “tipping point” will be reached, when EVs reach upfront price parity with petrol cars.
Nevertheless, the report says that sales will still “need to accelerate fast” over the next few years and that this will require consistent government support.
There have been reports that the government is planning a “U-turn” after a review of the ZEV mandate. The CCC says it is “essential” that the review “does not lead to further concessions”:
“Doing so would severely undermine prospects of achieving the UK’s 2030 NDC, exacerbate the UK’s dependence on imported oil, and leave more households paying the higher costs of petrol or diesel cars.”
As well as “stand[ing] firm” on the ZEV mandate, the committee says it is important that the government “remove[s] barriers to EV adoption”.
One key policy highlighted by the report is increased access to cheap EV charging, so the one-third of UK homes without off-street parking access can “benefit from lower running costs”.
(CCC analysis suggests that while the average home would save at least £660 a year by switching from a petrol car to an EV, their running costs could actually increase if they have to rely on public charging infrastructure.)
The report also stresses the use of EV “time-of-use tariffs”, which it says can help people save even more money. It notes that “measures to support consumer awareness” of this “could drive further uptake”.
Also, with a new 3p per mile EV tax due to start from April 2028, the committee says it is “essential that this new tax is implemented in a straightforward manner” to minimise the “hassle factor” that could disrupt the EV transition.
While electric-car sales have so far remained slightly ahead of the level needed to hit the ZEV mandate, the CCC notes that both electric van sales and prices are “significantly off track”. Unlike cars, electric vans still cost considerably more than their combustion-engine equivalents.
The committee says government support, including improved access to fast charging and “regulatory reforms”, is also “key”. As an example of the latter, it notes that certain licensing and testing requirements are based on vehicle weight, which puts heavier battery-powered vehicles at a disadvantage.
Finally, the CCC criticises recent policy decisions that incentivise sales of plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) “based on emissions factors which underestimate real-world emissions”. It notes:
“Providing incentives for emissions savings that PHEVs do not deliver distorts the market and risks eating into the demand for EVs.”
The CCC says that the rate of growth in heat-pump installations in homes slowed last year, rising just 7%, compared to the 56% jump seen in 2024.
Around 52,000 heat pumps were installed in 2025, according to the report. Of these, 31,200 were installed with the support of grants from the “boiler upgrade scheme”.
This was not enough to meaningfully reduce emissions, says the CCC, only delivering around 0.1MtCO2e of extra savings in 2025.
(To eliminate emissions from homes by 2050, heat pump installations in existing homes need to reach 1.4m per year by 2035, according to the CCC.)
Overall, emissions from the buildings sector fell by 1.2MtCO2e in 2025, amounting to a reduction of 1.3% for non-residential and 1.6% for residential buildings compared to 2024.
This was despite the winter months being colder in 2025 than the previous year, generally meaning greater heating demand. This suggests factors other than weather are driving the reduction, it says, such as higher energy prices leading to lower heating use.
The CCC notes that while emissions did drop, this “does not indicate progress on decarbonising home heating”. It adds:
“Without further actions to decarbonise buildings, it is likely that emissions will rebound if energy prices fall or weather conditions revert to average.”
The slowdown in the rate of heat pump installations was largely due to the closure of the ECO scheme, which delivered around one-third of heat pump installations in existing homes over the last three years.
In terms of government policy, the CCC notes that there has been some “positive progress” for buildings, due to the new “warm homes plan” and the “future homes standard”.
The former provides support to help people install electric heat pumps, rooftop solar panels and insulation. In total, 5m homes are expected to benefit from £15bn of grants and loans earmarked by the government for these upgrades by 2030.
While installation rates in the UK in 2025 were significantly below this level, the CCC report says that growth rates in other European markets – and indeed, in the UK between 2023 and 2024 – suggest that higher rates could be achievable.
The CCC notes that while there is £1bn a year earmarked for supporting upgrades of low-income households under the warm homes plan, this is still a “significant decrease in investment” from that provided by ECO.
The future homes standard, meanwhile, is an update to existing regulations in England. From March 2028, new-build homes in England will be required to have on-site renewable energy generation and a low-carbon heating system.
From then on, newly built homes will produce 75% less greenhouse gas emissions than under previous regulations.
The CCC report notes that the installation of heat pumps in new homes, specifically, is currently on track to achieve targets, with 25% of new homes built with a heat pump in 2025. However, it says retrofit installations of existing homes are significantly below where they need to be and “urgently need to accelerate”.
The CCC notes that while there has been some progress in removing policy costs from household electricity bills, the ratio of electricity to gas prices remains a major barrier to heat pump take-up. (See: The electrification ‘prize’.)
It also notes that there has been no action to address this barrier for non-residential buildings.
Fewer than 2% of homes have a heat pump in the UK, it says, placing the nation among the lowest rates of installation in Europe, as seen in the chart below.
Heat pump market share vs electricity-to-gas price ratio in Europe in 2024. Credit: CCC.
Industry accounted for the largest share of emissions reduction in the UK in 2025, according to the CCC, with a 5.4MtCO2e (12%) drop from 2024.
As such, sectoral emissions for industry are now 56% lower than they were in 2008.
This was largely due to the closure of blast furnaces at the Port Talbot steelworks towards the end of 2024, ahead of reopening with new electric arc furnaces. Emissions from iron and steel production therefore fell by 3.2MtCO2e year-on-year in 2025, according to the CCC report.
The rest of the reduction was due to a fall in the output of energy-intensive, which the CCC says is in line with the longer-term trend in UK manufacturing seen since the 1990s.
However, the CCC notes that while some specific progress has been made to decarbonise industry, barriers to further progress remain.
It urges the government to set a clear plan for how electrification can become the economically rational choice for a wide range of industries.
As for buildings, the CCC points to the high electricity prices, relative to gas, as a major barrier to the decarbonisation of UK industry.
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) has taken some “positive steps”, according to the report. This includes the government allocating £9.4bn of funding to support its development.
There has also been a final investment decision for the first CO2 storage facility at a UK manufacturing site and the construction of transport and storage infrastructure for the nation’s first CCS industrial “clusters”.
The CCC’s report states that “many countries are responding” to the current global energy crisis triggered by the Iran war by “rapidly reducing dependency on fossil fuels”.
It continues that emissions from the UK’s fossil-fuel supply sector fell by 1.5MtCO2e in 2025, in line with the “significant historical decline seen over the last three decades”.
Emissions in the sector are now 45% lower than 2008 levels, it adds.
Key drivers of emissions decline from 2024-5 were a fall in emissions from oil refining of 0.9MtCO2e, mostly due to the closure of Grangemouth and Prax Lindsey refineries in 2025, according to the CCC.
Aerial view of industrial complex with towering chimneys and storage tanks under a hazy sky, Grangemouth, Scotland, United Kingdom. Credit: Andy Smith / Alamy Stock Photo
Declines in production emissions associated with oil and gas were due to the closure of North Sea fields “as they reach the end of life”, says the report.
It adds that this is a “continuation” in a longer-term trend. Production emissions from oil and gas have fallen by 58% since 2008 and by 75% since their peak in 2000. The CCC continues:
“The decline in oil and gas production is expected to continue as oil and gas reserves in the mature North Sea basin are increasingly depleted – the NSTA [North Sea Transition Authority] projects a further decline in combined oil and gas production of 93% by 2050.”
The report does not directly address the Labour government’s policies on oil and gas production in the North Sea.
Labour has ruled out new oil and gas licences – a manifesto commitment that has been subject to intense lobbying from the oil and gas industry and right-wing media. (See Carbon Brief’s factcheck on nine false or misleading myths about the North Sea.)
Speaking at a briefing for journalists, CCC chair Nigel Topping noted that oil and gas production is projected to continue to plummet in the coming decades, regardless of whether the government issues new drilling licences, adding:
“The real road to energy security is not through some marginal drilling decisions, but through electrifying the economy.”
Emissions from electricity supply rose in 2025, following a 5% increase in unabated gas generation year-on-year.
According to the CCC, this offset the reduction in emissions from coal, with the closure of the UK’s last coal-fired power plant in 2024.
This is in line with Carbon Brief’s analysis from January, which similarly found that there was a small increase in emissions per unit of generation in 2025.
This bucks the trend seen in the UK since 2008, over which period emissions from electricity supply have fallen by 82%.
The CCC says the rise in gas generation was likely due to a combination of factors, including a 12% drop in nuclear generation, an 11% decrease in net imports, underutilisation of wind capacity due to grid constraints and lower-than-average wind capacity additions.
Last year, offshore wind capacity increased by 0.7 gigawatts (GW), bringing the UK’s total to 16.6GW, according to the CCC.
This is expected to more than double to around 37GW by 2032, once the existing pipeline of new projects is built – including those that secured subsidies in the most recent auction for “contracts for difference” (CfDs).
The CCC notes, however, that further additions will be needed to reach the government’s “stretching goals” for offshore wind.
An additional 0.3GW of onshore wind capacity was added in 2025, bringing the national total to 16.4GW. It says between 2.1GW and 2.5GW will need to be added annually up to the end of the decade to meet government targets.
The UK installed more solar capacity in 2025 than in any year since 2015, adding 2.8GW to bring the national total capacity to 21.7GW.
To reach government targets, the CCC says installation of solar power still needs to increase, with around another 5GW required by the end of this decade.
The CCC highlights that faster progress is needed on expanding and modernising electricity networks, as well as deploying storage.
For example, in 2025, some 9.4 terawatt hours (TWh) of wind generation was “curtailed” – when windfarms are paid to turn off – up 77% on 2024.
The CCC’s report says “emissions in agriculture and land use have not fallen significantly in recent years” and that progress addressing this has been “too slow”.
Cattle and sheep numbers fell by 1% and 2% respectively in 2025, continuing a longer-term trend, with livestock numbers at their lowest since 1990, says the report.
This has led to a reduction in methane emissions from 2022-24, but this was offset by an increase in CO2 emissions in these sectors. It continues:
“This was in part driven by a smaller forestry sink due to an ageing woodland profile and removal of trees for habitat restoration priorities.”
The report adds that household beef and lamb purchases fell by 5% in the last year and have dropped by 9% since 2021, likely “driven by high beef and lamb prices and cost-of-living pressures”.
It continues that one area of “positive progress” is an increase in peatland restoration rates.
Some 21,400 hectares of peatlands were restored in 2025 – a 26% increase on the previous year and around three times the level in 2020, according to the CCC.
It adds that there is grant funding in place for peatland restoration across the country “until at least 2027”.
Tree-planting has seen “more mixed” progress, says the report. Planting rates fell by 25% from 2024-5, following a large boost to forest creation the year before.
The reduction was “driven by funding cuts in Scotland, which continues to lead in the establishment of new woodlands for the UK, planting more than half of the total in 2024-25”, says the report.
It adds that planting rates increased in England and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) is expected to launch a woodland creation strategy this year.
Despite this mixed progress, the chart below shows how the UK government is “on track” on most key agriculture and land use indicators, when compared to the CCC’s central pathway to net-zero and the government’s own ambitions.
The UK government is “on track” on most key agriculture and land use indicators when compared to the CCC’s central pathway to net-zero and the government’s own ambitions. Credit: CCC (2026)
The report says that another area of “positive progress” is the publishing of England’s long-awaited land-use framework in March of this year.
The framework used “high-resolution modelling” and found that there is enough land in England to meet climate and nature goals, while also producing more food and building new homes.
To increase progress, the report says that the government should “put policies and incentives in place to ramp up tree-planting and peatland restoration”.
One key upcoming policy development will be the “25-year farming roadmap”, the government’s long-term direction for farming in England. This is due to be published later this year, according to the CCC.
Emissions from flights fell by 0.5% in 2025, despite a 3% increase in overall distance flown by UK passengers.
The CCC says this is likely due to fuel-efficiency improvements within the nation’s aircraft fleet and “a small contribution” from the use of “sustainable aviation fuel” (SAF).
The report concludes that fuel-efficiency improvements are “almost on track” compared to the CCC’s net-zero pathway. The share of jet fuel provided by SAF reached 2.5% in 2025, which is above the level set by the government’s SAF mandate.
While people flew more last year, the overall distance travelled via planes is still below the projected levels in the CCC’s pathway for 2025.
The committee says emissions growth from aviation has “slowed down”, but notes that “it is too early to say whether aviation emissions will grow, plateau or decrease in the future”.
Overall, the CCC says there has been “mixed progress” in the aviation sector. This year’s SAF Act included a mechanism designed to drive domestic production of SAFs, but the report stresses that “significant challenges remain around scaling up supply”.
Meanwhile, for the first time, the government plans to use international carbon credits under CORSIA – the UN’s aviation emissions scheme – to deliver its sixth carbon budget. According to the CCC:
“This introduces significant risk, including uncertainty over the availability and quality of high-integrity credits.”
As for shipping, the CCC says this has seen “limited progress”. It welcomes the inclusion of domestic shipping in the UK emissions trading scheme (ETS) as “an important step”, but points out that this is only a small fraction of the sector.
Most emissions come from international shipping. The committee says delays to the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) net-zero framework – following opposition from the US and big fossil-fuel producers – has “significantly increased” the risk of hitting emissions targets for this sector.
The CCC report highlights “significant risks” with the use of engineered removals in the coming years.
The government’s plan for achieving emissions targets over 2033-37 relies on a “rapid ramp-up” of technologies that suck CO2 out of the atmosphere, the report says, but there is still a lack of detail on how this will be achieved.
During this period, the amount of CO2 removed through these technologies is expected to reach an average of 17.4MtCO2e per year.
But the CCC says that 94% of removals planned for 2033-37 have “significant risks or insufficient plans”.
There is greater confidence in achieving planned removals over 2028-32, the report says, but this is due to scaled-back plans and policy progress.
The CCC says it is “essential” for the government to develop a strategy for delivering and monitoring engineered removals, along with “sufficient contingency plans…for any shortfall”.
The report also looks at emissions from waste, which are expected to reduce by an average of 1.1MtCO2e per year between 2024 and 2037.
The CCC has greater confidence in the government’s ability to meet waste goals compared to last year’s assessment.
But the report notes that there has been “little improvement” in recycling rates in UK homes. It says that further policies will be needed to meet plans to reduce waste, boost recycling and prevent waste going to landfill.
Looking at hydrogen, the CCC says there has been “good progress” in developing low-carbon hydrogen, but risks remain due to tight timelines and delays in funding.
The report mentions missed or upcoming deadlines to award contracts for some hydrogen projects and to update the UK hydrogen strategy. It notes that progress on hydrogen “must continue on the ground” in the meantime.
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.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.UK Conservative Party leader Kemi ‘not a genocide’ Badenoch explains her reality that the Earth is flat, the Moon is made of cheese and that she was born from Unicorn horn dust
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 notedrepeatedly, 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.”
“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”.
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. 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.
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.
“[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. 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.
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, 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.
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’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. 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. 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.”
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 publishednews 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.”
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.”
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 Ireland, France, Portugal 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.
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.
A 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.
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.
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”.
Responding to the Climate Change Committee’s (CCC) finding that the cost of Net Zero is less than the cost of the 2022 Ukraine oil price shock, the Green Party has today said we need to transition to clean energy as quickly as possible to protect people and the economy from future oil shocks.
Contrary to Reform UK’s unfounded claims about the cost of Net Zero, the CCC has today confirmed that the benefits of Net Zero outweigh the costs: “for every £1 spent there will be £2 to £4 in benefits” they conclude.
Green party leader Zack Polanski (Green Party of England and Wales). Image: Bristol Green Party Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication.
Green Party leader Zack Polanski said “Our dependency on fossil fuels is a strategic vulnerability for the UK – as evidenced by the war between Russia and Ukraine and the now the war on Iran. We need to make the transition to clean energy as fast as we can to protect people and our economy from the price shocks and instability that come when oil prices spike.”
Green Party’s Bristol Central MP Carla Denyer on BBC Question Time.
Green Party MP Carla Denyer, who leads on energy security and net zero, said “This report makes a compelling case: that cutting carbon emissions makes sense for our economy, as well as for the safety of our climate.
“The numbers speak for themselves – investing in Net Zero pays dividends, avoiding the billions of pounds in climate damages that we would face as the cost of not acting, while also giving us warmer homes, cheaper bills, cleaner air and healthier lives for us and future generations.”
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.
The Ras Tanura oil refinery in Saudi Arabia. Eliminating the UK’s reliance on fossil fuels would be the most cost-effective option for the UK economy, the CCC said. Photograph: Ahmed Jadallah/Reuters
Climate change committee finds move to renewable energy would also bring health, economic and security benefits
Achieving the UK’s net zero target by 2050 will cost less than a single oil shock and bring health and economic benefits while insulating the country against future costs, the government’s climate advisers have forecast.
Eliminating the UK’s reliance on fossil fuels by adopting renewable energy and green technologies, such as electric vehicles and heat pumps, would be the best and most cost-effective option for the future economy, the Climate Change Committee (CCC) found.
Reaching net zero would cost about £4bn a year, the CCC found, or close to £100bn by 2050, which was roughly equivalent to the energy-related costs of the fossil fuel shocks that followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The findings contradict widespread claims made by rightwing thinktanks and populist politicians including the Reform party that net zero would represent a crippling cost of £9tn to the UK’s economy. As well as exaggerating costs, these estimates failed to take into account the cost of paying for the fossil fuels needed for energy if we do not reach net zero.
Nigel Topping, chair of the CCC, said the real costs were not only manageable but offered protection against future fossil fuel supply crunches and against the impacts of the climate crisis. “In light of current world events, it’s more important than ever for the UK to move away from being reliant on volatile foreign fossil fuels, to clean, domestic, less wasteful energy,” he said.
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.Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
