The fossil fuel sector has come under fire for seeking special treatment on greenhouse gas emissions, with industry lobbyists arguing that emissions from oilfields should be considered differently from those of other industries.
The UK government is facing a major dispute over whether to approve the massive Rosebank oilfield. Some ministers believe the project could boost economic growth, while others warn it could make achieving net zero emissions by 2050 impossible. The Labour government had pledged to stop issuing new North Sea oil and gas licences, but Rosebank and several other projects had already been licensed before the election and are now awaiting final approval.
Documents reveal that Offshore Energies UK (OEUK), an industry group, has requested that emissions from Rosebank and similar projects—specifically “scope three emissions,” which result from burning extracted oil and gas—be treated differently from other sectors. The argument is that producing fossil fuels naturally leads to emissions since their primary purpose is combustion for energy.
A recent court ruling found that the previous government’s approval of the Rosebank licence was unlawful because it failed to consider these scope three emissions.
Government Faces Key Decision on Emissions Regulation
Energy Secretary Ed Miliband is now deciding how companies should respond to a landmark Supreme Court ruling, which established that oil and gas firms must account for emissions from the burning of extracted fossil fuels, not just those produced during site construction.
A government consultation is currently underway to determine guidance for oil and gas firms on this issue. The decision will be crucial in determining whether previously issued licences, including Rosebank, can proceed.
OEUK’s submission argues that oil and gas businesses should be treated differently because their end products inevitably generate emissions. It states that current draft guidance does not acknowledge the “unusual nature” of fossil fuel projects, whose purpose is to extract hydrocarbons for combustion. The industry claims that, unlike car manufacturers that can reduce emissions with more efficient engines, fossil fuel producers cannot change the emissions produced when oil and gas are burned.
The sector also argues that since gas will continue to be used for energy in the coming decades, its production should not be restricted based on scope three emissions.
Climate Experts Reject Industry Arguments
Environmental experts have dismissed these claims, arguing that the purpose of scope three assessments is to address carbon emissions from fossil fuel use, which is the primary driver of climate change.
Patrick Galey, a senior investigator at Global Witness, said: “The fossil fuel industry is the leading cause of climate breakdown, and scope three emissions account for most of its pollution. This is an industry that already benefits from massive government subsidies and tax breaks worldwide, yet it is now demanding even more exemptions.”
He added that oil and gas companies are attempting to avoid responsibility for the emissions caused by their products. “If the industry truly cared about reducing carbon emissions, it would be shifting rapidly to cleaner alternatives. Instead, it is focused on bending the rules to continue polluting.”
Tessa Khan, founder of the group that successfully challenged the Rosebank licence in court, echoed these concerns. She stressed that courts have already acknowledged that emissions from burning oil and gas are inevitable and should be a key factor in environmental impact assessments.
“The entire purpose of projects like Rosebank is to extract and burn fossil fuels,” she said. “Any credible assessment of their environmental impact must focus on the climate damage caused by this.”
With the government set to release new guidance, the decision could have major implications for future North Sea oil and gas projects and the UK’s climate commitments.
For more updates on the UK’s fossil fuel policies and climate commitments, visit London Pulse News.
