Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.
Subscribe
`;
document.body.appendChild(modal);
modal.addEventListener(‘click’, () => {
document.cookie=”mos-plan-select=; Max-Age=0; path=/; expires=Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 UTC;”;
});
modal.querySelector(‘.subscribe-link’)?.addEventListener(‘click’, (e) => {
e.preventDefault();
document.cookie=”mos-plan-select=; Max-Age=0; path=/; expires=Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 UTC;”;
setTimeout(() => {
window.location.href=”https://www.independent.co.uk/subscribe/app”;
}, 500);
});
});
Almost 600 climate scientists, health professionals and conservationists have issued a fresh plea urging Prime Minister Andy Burnham to decline licence applications for the Rosebank oil field in the North Sea.
It comes ahead of Mr Burnham’s meeting with Donald Trump, which is expected to take place in New York next week.
Mr Trump has made calls for the UK to start drilling in the North Sea, saying it would become “a really rich country” as a result.
But in a letter dispatched to Mr Burnham and Energy Secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh, the 575 experts warned that sanctioning the project would defy climate science and lead to the UK breaching both its national and international climate obligations.
The intervention follows reports that the UK Government intends to greenlight new North Sea drilling, beginning with the Jackdaw gas field, located 150 miles east of Aberdeen, potentially as early as this month.
According to the BBC and The Guardian, Ms Fahnbulleh is also expected to grant approval in the coming months for Rosebank – the largest untapped oil field in the North Sea, situated roughly 80 miles north-west of Shetland.
Deciding whether to authorise these ventures will pose a major environmental test for Mr Burnham.
He has been under pressure from climate campaigners to “stick to the spirit of Labour’s manifesto commitment” and withhold permission since assuming office as Prime Minister in July.
In their letter on Thursday, the group of experts said: “We believe that approval of Rosebank would be ignoring the warnings of scientific research on climate change and would be the wrong decision for the UK, sending a dangerous message on the international stage.”
It comes as Rosebank’s resubmitted application says the field would produce more than 250 million tonnes of planet-heating greenhouse gas emissions – equivalent to 70% of UK annual emissions.
The experts cited a recent report that said the estimated cost of the damage caused by the fossil fuels produced at Rosebank would be between £119 billion and £336 billion over the coming decades, compared with £28.7 billion in value to the UK estimated by Adura – the developer behind Rosebank.
The letter read: “Our conclusions are that Rosebank is not compatible with the UK Government’s national and international obligations to protect communities from the adverse effects of climate change.”
The experts pointed to how the past 11 years have been the warmest on record and this summer brought record-breaking heatwaves, devastating wildfires and widespread drought to the UK, and that this extreme weather is estimated to have cost the UK more than £4.4 billion.
They also warned that Rosebank would not lower bills or meaningfully impact UK energy security, with most of the fossil fuels extracted planned for export.
“Communities are already facing rising costs because of drought, excess deaths because of heatwaves, and loss of land due to wildfires,” the experts said.
“This is a matter of national security and approving Rosebank would be adding fuel to the fire.
“A Government’s first responsibility is to prioritise above all else the best interests of the people it serves and protects – approving Rosebank would be completely going against this principle, by knowingly triggering more devastation on the people of the UK.”
Emeritus Professor Joanna Haigh from Imperial College London; Professor Elizabeth Robinson, director of Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change; and Professor Paul Behrens from the University of Oxford are among the signatories.
Prof Haigh said: “The science is clear. If we are to meet our international and national targets on the climate and nature emergency, we cannot allow any additional oil and gas extraction.
“Rejecting Rosebank gives the UK an opportunity to once again show global leadership and be a positive example for other nations to follow.”
Prof Robinson said: “This summer, thousands of people died prematurely. British households faced rising costs and communities had to suffer severe heatwaves, wildfires and now drought – all because of human-induced climate change.
“Approving Rosebank would only lock communities into that same cycle.”
In a separate letter last month, a group of 150 climate scientists argued the Government should at the very least require fossil fuel firms to remove some of the carbon emitted by burning oil and gas extracted from the North Sea as a condition of new drilling licences.
An Energy Department (Desnz) spokesperson said: “We do not comment on speculation. The North Sea remains a vital national asset and oil and gas will continue to play an important role in our energy system for decades to come – alongside transitioning to clean power to protect jobs and tackle the climate crisis.
“Any decision will take into account all relevant evidence, including environmental assessments and public representations received during the consultation process.”