Approving Rosebank risks deepening distrust and will backpedal progress

Rosebank is a highly contentious project. Last year, Scotland’s Court of Session ruled that consent for development was given unlawfully as it did not take into account emissions from burning the field’s oil. These CO2 emissions are projected to top 200 million tonnes – more than the annual emissions of all 28 low-income countries combined, say Uplift.

This is a real litmus test for the UK’s leadership on climate change. If granted consent, it will be incredibly detrimental to our progress in moving away from oil and gas – and risks further fragmenting the nation’s trust in leaders doing what’s right for climate and nature.  

So what do people across the UK think and feel about fossil fuels and renewables as an alternative? And what does that mean for how climate communicators should be framing the debate in the coming weeks?

British people feel largely worried and concerned about the world’s dependence on fossil fuels such as oil and gas. 

In Scotland, more people take pride in the offshore wind industry than in the North Sea oil and gas industry. More broadly, when asked about the shift away from fossil fuels to renewables, people are far more likely to say it is fair for them rather than unfair, with most people saying it would be neither fair nor unfair to them. This indifference is significant when considering the probability of public backlash were the Government to transition further away from fossil fuels. 

We know that people think it’s the sign of a strong leader to take on businesses that pollute the environment. Overruling Rosebank is a key opportunity to show robust leadership.

People across the country are far more excited by the future of clean energy than they are enraged or appalled by the ‘dirty’ energy we’re moving away from. However, for many there’s a strong sense of pride and identity in the fossil fuel industries that have long powered our country, forged communities and provided jobs. 

Brits’ support for renewables shouldn’t be conflated with a dismissal of fossil fuel industries. People who value the past can – and do – recognise the need for change, but need to see more jobs in the clean energy sector that are well-paid and well-supported. 

Signifying stability in the shift to renewables goes a long way. Let’s start telling a story that leans on nostalgia, and talk more about how clean energy is a good investment in a more secure and self-sufficient future for our society. 

Holyrood’s role in the Rosebank decision is viewed as vital by many people in Scotland. 

When asked whether the Scottish Government should support or oppose Westminster in ending new offshore drilling licenses in the North Sea, 44% of people say they should oppose it.

In terms of the call on Rosebank, people will very likely be seeking reassurance that Holyrood and the Scottish Parliament have been appropriately consulted. So,  sufficiently incorporating their perspective is absolutely recommended.

Last year Secretary of State Ed Miliband announced that no new oil and gas field licences will be explored; taking this a step further and halting Rosebank would be a landmark win for rebuilding trust nationwide and for our transition away from fossil fuels. 

Chris Stark, head of the UK government’s mission to deliver clean power by 2030, recently spoke to Carbon Brief: “The problems and woes of this country, in terms of the cost of energy, are due to fossil fuels.”

Renewables chart a clear path to cheaper and cleaner energy. How we talk about this transition has the power to shift both the narrative and our overreliance on fossil fuels. 

Check out Britain Talks Climate & Nature for further insights, and get in touch to discuss how our insights can help you frame a fossil-fuel free future.