Has Net Zero Caught Up to the UK’s Don Quixote Green Energy Dream? Reconsidering North Sea Oil Amid Energy Crisis

the UKs Green Energy Policies meet Don Quixoe – Created by Grok on X

CLARK SAVAGE

The United Kingdom stands at a crossroads. For years, the nation has championed its Net Zero by 2050 target, a legally binding commitment to slash greenhouse gas emissions and transition to a clean energy future. But soaring energy bills, growing reliance on imported fossil fuels, and a series of legal battles waged by environmental groups have forced the government to reconsider its stance on North Sea oil and gas, very much like Norway and Don Quixote. Norway, before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, had begun to shut down its natural gas fields, and after the invasion, discovered that the revenue and energy security of its natural gas fields were best utilized. Just as Don Quixote was an impractical idealist, the UK will soon face a regime change and financial collapse without a dramatic shift in its energy policies.

A recent shift in policy suggests the UK may be recalibrating its approach, with projects like Rosebank and Jackdaw back on the table. Is Ed Miliband’s career in jeopardy?

The Net Zero Push: A Bold Vision

The UK’s Net Zero policy, enshrined in law through the Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019, mandates a 100% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, compared to 1990 levels. The strategy hinges on phasing out fossil fuels, scaling up renewables like offshore wind, and deploying technologies such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) and hydrogen. The Labour government, led by Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, doubled down on this vision, pledging to decarbonize the electricity grid by 2030 and banning new North Sea oil and gas exploration licenses.

This aggressive stance was initially hailed by environmental groups. Greenpeace and Uplift, among others, celebrated Labour’s manifesto promise to halt new drilling, arguing that continued fossil fuel extraction undermines global efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C, as outlined by the International Energy Agency (IEA). The IEA’s 2021 roadmap explicitly stated that no new oil and gas fields are compatible with a 1.5°C pathway, a point echoed by the UK’s own Climate Change Committee (CCC).’

On a personal note, I often wonder if Ed Miliband has met with Governor Gavin Newsom? Governor Newsom has a similar track record to that of the UK in destroying an energy-independent state’s fiscal, economic, and social well-being through failed energy and social policies.

Environmental Lawfare: Blocking the North Sea

Environmental groups have not only cheered from the sidelines but have actively shaped UK energy policy through legal challenges, often dubbed “lawfare.” In 2024, a landmark Scottish court ruling struck down development consents for two major North Sea projects: Equinor’s Rosebank oil field and Shell’s Jackdaw gas field. The court found that the previous Conservative government’s approvals failed to adequately assess the “Scope 3” emissions—those generated from burning the extracted fuels. This decision, driven by lawsuits from Greenpeace and Uplift, sent shockwaves through the industry, halting millions in investments and threatening thousands of jobs.

Oceana, another environmental group, escalated the fight in early 2025, filing a lawsuit to suspend 31 North Sea licenses granted in 2022. The group alleged that the government ignored expert advice on environmental impacts, further tightening the noose around the UK’s oil and gas sector. These legal victories emboldened activists, who argued that North Sea production, if fully exploited, could release emissions equivalent to 920 million tonnes of CO2—more than many countries’ annual output.

The lawfare has been effective in slowing fossil fuel development, aligning with Net Zero’s core aim of reducing emissions. However, it has also exposed a tension: the UK’s growing dependence on imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the US and Qatar, which carries a higher carbon footprint than North Sea gas. Critics, including industry leaders and trade unions, argue that this shift undermines both energy security and the economic benefits of domestic production, which supports over 200,000 jobs and generates billions in tax revenue.

The Energy Bill Crisis: A Wake-Up Call

By 2024, UK households were reeling from energy bills averaging £1,881 annually, with electricity prices (£1,067) far outstripping gas (£814). The government’s own Public Accounts Committee (PAC) report admitted that low-carbon technologies, such as offshore wind and solar, are more expensive to operate than fossil fuels, contributing to the price disparity. This revelation, coupled with the UK’s increasing reliance on imports—75% of its energy comes from oil and gas, much of it foreign—has sparked a rethink.

The Treasury, led by Chancellor Rachel Reeves, is reportedly pushing for a looser interpretation of Labour’s no-new-licenses pledge. Sources suggest a desire to revive projects like Rosebank and Jackdaw, which could bolster domestic supply and ease pressure on bills. Rosebank alone is expected to create thousands of jobs, while Jackdaw could supply up to 6% of the UK’s gas demand. The government’s decision to issue new environmental guidance in June 2025, requiring assessments of Scope 3 emissions, aims to balance climate goals with industry stability. Yet, this move has drawn ire from both sides: environmentalists see it as a betrayal, while industry warns that stricter rules could deter investment.

The Political and Economic Tightrope

The reconsideration of North Sea oil and gas reflects a broader political shift. Nigel Farage’s Reform UK has capitalized on discontent in oil-reliant regions like Aberdeen, vowing to reverse Labour’s drilling bans if elected in 2029. Meanwhile, Labour faces pressure from its own backbenchers and unions, such as Unite, whose general secretary Sharon Graham warned that phasing out oil and gas too quickly risks repeating the economic devastation of the 1980s coal mine closures.

The government’s response has been pragmatic but cautious. While maintaining its Net Zero commitment, it has allocated £14 billion for a new nuclear plant at Sizewell C and invested in CCS and hydrogen to diversify the North Sea’s role. A consultation launched in March 2025 seeks to transform the North Sea into a clean energy hub, leveraging existing infrastructure for offshore wind, hydrogen, and carbon storage. However, the government acknowledges that oil and gas will remain part of the energy mix well into the 2040s, with the CCC projecting that fossil fuels will still account for 23% of primary energy demand by 2050.

Has Net Zero Caught Up?

The UK’s flirtation with reviving North Sea oil and gas reveals the complexities of the Net Zero transition. Environmental lawfare has undeniably slowed fossil fuel expansion, forcing a reckoning with emissions impacts. Yet, the economic fallout—skyrocketing bills, job losses, and import dependency—has exposed the limits of an uncompromising approach. As Energy Secretary Ed Miliband prepares to decide on Rosebank and Jackdaw, the world watches. Will the UK prioritize affordability and security, or double down on its climate leadership?

For now, the government is threading a delicate needle, balancing Net Zero’s ideals with the practical need for energy stability. The North Sea, once the backbone of Britain’s energy independence, may yet play a pivotal role—not just in oil and gas, but in the clean energy future. But as energy bills continue to bite and legal battles rage, one question looms large: has Net Zero caught up to the UK, or is the UK catching up to reality? Or will they double down on the Net Zero policies and go down with their failed fiscal, economic, and ideological dreams, much like Don Quixote?

Sadly, I believe the great people in the UK are in trouble, and they are running their oil and gas companies out of business, and out of the UK. They may have done irreparable harm to their oil and gas industry through their lawfare, regulations, and reliance on grid interconnects with other nations. Energy security starts at home, and they have compromised their security by imposing Net Zero policies across all business sectors, resulting in high energy costs.

This article (Has Net Zero Caught Up to the UK’s Don Quixote Green Energy Dream? Reconsidering North Sea Oil Amid Energy Crisis) was created and published by Energy News Beat and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Clark Savage

See Related Article Below

Net Stupid: UK’s Largest Fiberglass Factory Closing Over Soaring Energy Costs

‘The UK government is standing by and watching British industry collapse.’

KURT ZINDULKA

Britain’s largest producer of fiberglass, a key component in wind turbines and electric cars, is reportedly set to shut down in part due to the high energy costs in the United Kingdom. [emphasis, links added]

The Japanese-owned Electric Glass Fiber UK factory in Wigan, which employs around 250 people, is said to be set for closure after the left-wing Labour Party government failed to organize a buyout from Tokyo-based Nippon Electric Glass owners.

According to the BBC, the owners claimed that the factory operated at a £12 million loss last year due to increased competition from Chinese manufacturers, low sales, and the soaring cost of energy in Britain.

Britain currently has some of the most expensive energy prices in the world, in large part as a result of the very same green agenda, which the Electric Glass Fiber UK factory assisted via its production of the critical component to wind turbines and electric cars.

While defenders of ‘Net Zero’ in the UK, such as cabinet minister Ed Miliband, have attempted to cast blame for the sky-high energy prices on the global price shocks following the coronavirus and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Westminster’s green agenda [worsens] many of these issues, with traditional forms of energy being taxed to subsidize so-called renewable forms of energy.

Additionally, while global price fluctuations do impact the price of natural gas and oil in Britain, the country is more vulnerable to such international pressures because the British government refuses to tap into the nation’s resources, such as through the banning of fracking upheld by both establishment parties in London.

The promised financial benefits of energy sources like wind power have also been hampered by Britain’s outdated grid and inability to efficiently store excess energy during peak weather.

Thus, the taxpayer is forced to pay wind energy firms millions to turn off their turbines so as not to overload the system.

On top of demonstrating the inherent follies of the green agenda, the planned closure of the Electric Glass Fiber UK factory further undermines the Labour government’s claims of seeking to reindustrialize Britain.

The London-based Tegu investment firm said that it was in negotiations to purchase the plant from Nippon. However, their request to have the government underwrite £5 million in dancing for the deal was ultimately shot down.

Tegu chairman Jack Khan told the Financial Times: “The fundamental issue here is that the UK government is standing by and watching British industry collapse.”

Top image of fiberglass wind turbines via History Of Simple Things/YouTube screencap

Read more at Breitbart

Via Climate Dispatch

*****

Starmer Slashes Net Zero Taxes to Save Britain’s Industries

WILL JONES

Net Zero taxes will be slashed by up to 25% for thousands of manufacturers as Keir Starmer scrambles to save British industry from electricity costs that are the highest of any developed country. The Telegraph has more.

As part of the Government’s long-awaited Industrial Strategy, the Prime Minister is to cut power bills by up to 25% for some 7,000 “electricity intensive” manufacturers, including car makers, aircraft factories and chemical plants.

From 2027, they will no longer have to pay the Net Zero levies that are normally added to their power bills, such as the renewables obligation, the feed-in-tariff and capacity market charges.

This will be paid for by financial reforms to the energy market and a raid on companies that burn natural gas, through higher carbon taxes, the Government said.

However, the support was at risk of being diluted on Sunday as Iran’s threat to cut off a vital oil and gas supply route in the Middle East risked sending energy prices around the globe soaring.

It comes after repeated warnings that British manufacturers are labouring under the highest industrial electricity prices of any developed country, with output down by a third since 2021.

Sir Keir’s announcement was welcomed by manufacturers, including Derby-based Rolls Royce, as a “giant and much needed step forward”.

The Prime Minister said: “This Industrial Strategy marks a turning point for Britain’s economy and a clear break from the short-termism and sticking plasters of the past.

“In an era of global economic instability, it delivers the long term certainty and direction British businesses need to invest, innovate and create good jobs that put more money in people’s pockets as part of the plan for change.

“Our message is clear – Britain is back and open for business.”

Worth reading in full.

However, Net Zero Watch (NZW) dismissed the move as a gimmick that is “robbing Peter to pay Paul”, as the cost of the discount has to be paid somehow, with hints that gas users will foot the bill.

NZW Director Andrew Montford said:

Ed Miliband is once again merely proposing to shuffle costs from one energy user to another. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is all he has to offer, because his mad fixation on decarbonisation means he will not look at the underlying problem, namely the gross inefficiency of a renewables-based grid.

This latest wheeze will bring temporary relief for sectors favoured by the Secretary of State, but at the expense of others, who can ill afford it. And in the medium term, bills will continue to rise for everyone. The country can’t afford this madness any longer.

Via The Daily Sceptic

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.