In letters responding to a recent article on Andy Burnham's apparent support for North Sea drilling, two readers offer contrasting views on the issue, framing it as a test of the prime minister's credibility.
Oil as a necessity for green tech
John Barstow from Fittleworth, West Sussex, argues that North Sea oil expansion is a necessity, even as an environmentalist. He states that oil is a feedstock, not merely fuel, and is essential for the day-to-day maintenance of wind turbines, nuclear plants, and rail. Thus, oil is integral to supply chains for green technology, and a domestic oil base brings those supply chains closer.
Barstow also underscores the case for approving coking coal extraction in Cumbria, as green tech requires high-grade steel, which in turn requires coking coal. He suggests better environmental measures, such as increased tree planting and preventing plastic waste in seas, would help the carbon sink factor.
Economic and political implications
A major expansion of the UK's North Sea oil sector, he argues, would make the UK more cohesive, with more jobs in Scotland and northern England, including in supply manufacturing chains. He concludes that full approval of North Sea oil expansion is an absolute litmus test of Burnham's credibility, given his talk of reindustrialising.
In contrast, David Parker from Holmfirth, West Yorkshire, expresses disappointment in Burnham's pragmatism regarding North Sea oil. He suggests new drilling would bring insignificant gain while denting the renewed optimism and support Burnham has generated.
Perception and the planet
Parker warns that Burnham will be perceived as bowing to the oil and gas lobby, which is intent on burning the planet. He challenges Burnham's reported statement: “The question isn’t whether Britain will still be using oil and gas, the question is where does it come from,” arguing instead that the question is which side the prime minister is on: the planet's or the fossil fuel industry's.
