David Sheret, Co-Founder of Archer Knight. Offshore Energy Transition Sensibility Evangelist

The UK government’s stance on hydrocarbons and its broader energy policy is a classic case of short-sightedness. At a time when the global demand for hydrocarbons is not only persisting but growing, the UK’s approach to energy policy appears to be in direct conflict with economic realities. The government’s determination to transition away from fossil fuels, while admirable in its intentions, is being executed in a manner that undermines the country’s economic stability and energy security.

The juxtaposition of the UK’s policies against the undeniable global demand for hydrocarbons is stark. While the world continues to rely heavily on oil, gas, and coal, with developing economies ramping up consumption to fuel their growth, the UK is pursuing a path that seems increasingly disconnected from this reality. This dissonance is creating a dangerous situation where the country risks sacrificing its economic well-being on the altar of environmental virtue signalling. And let’s not forget that this is not just Labour’s doing. Even before the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the Conservatives were already taking steps that significantly slowed the hydrocarbon industry, causing a near standstill. The SNP/Green alliance, meanwhile, went even further, adopting policies that have placed an even greater strain on this crucial sector. These actions highlight a broader political trend that transcends party lines, reflecting a fundamental shift in how energy policy is approached across the UK.

What is particularly concerning is the government’s apparent blindness to the limited impact that UK policies will have on a global scale. The UK accounts for a minuscule percentage of global carbon emissions, yet it is imposing some of the most stringent regulations and targets in the world. This disconnect reveals a certain hubris, an overestimation of the UK’s influence on global climate change efforts. While leading by example has its merits, doing so in a way that inflicts economic harm on one’s own population is self-defeating. The reality is that unless major emitters like China, the United States, and India make similar commitments, the UK’s efforts will be little more than a drop in the ocean.

Moreover, the government’s focus on domestic environmental policies overlooks the broader, more destructive global realities. There are nearly 110 armed conflicts ongoing around the world, each contributing massively to carbon emissions through military operations, the destruction of infrastructure, and long-term environmental degradation. These conflicts not only leave behind devastated landscapes but also create conditions of chronic poverty, further exacerbating environmental harm as displaced and impoverished populations turn to unsustainable practices to survive. The carbon footprints of these conflicts dwarf the emissions reductions that the UK’s stringent policies might achieve, highlighting the futility of unilateral action in a world marred by widespread violence and instability. The UK may not be able to resolve global conflicts single-handedly, but it can prioritise addressing the most urgent issues first.

The government’s approach, in my opinion, is leading to a series of counterproductive measures that could ultimately harm the country more than they help the planet. By pushing for rapid decarbonisation without ensuring that viable, cost-effective alternatives are in place, the UK risks creating energy shortages, driving up prices, and making life more difficult for ordinary people. The drive to phase out hydrocarbons without a clear plan for what will replace them is not just risky; it’s reckless.

This self-harm is manifesting in multiple ways: higher energy bills for households, increased costs for businesses, and a growing reliance on energy imports from politically unstable regions. These outcomes are the opposite of what a rational energy policy should achieve. Instead of ensuring security, affordability, and sustainability, the UK’s current path is leading to vulnerability, higher costs, and questionable environmental benefits.

In conclusion, the UK government’s energy policy is not only at odds with the global economic context but is also blinkered in its understanding of its own influence. By pursuing a course that prioritises well-meaning but ultimately counterproductive measures, the government is risking the country’s economic future while ignoring the far greater environmental impacts of global conflicts. It’s time for a more pragmatic approach that balances the need for environmental responsibility with the realities of economic and energy security. 

I reiterate: the UK should not harm itself in an ineffectual attempt to lead the world, especially when the world is not following.

KeyFacts Energy Industry Directory: Archer Knight