Monbiot's Critique of Burnham's North Sea Oil and Gas Drilling Approval
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/georgemonbiot. "Is Burnham trying to appease Trump? Or Reform? What other reason is there for these North Sea oil plans? | George Monbiot | The Guardian." September 10, 2026. www.theguardian.com
The Gist
Monbiot argues that the UK government's plan to approve new North Sea oil and gas drilling makes no sense: it creates very few jobs, won't lower energy bills, will worsen climate damage more than it helps the economy, and will alienate Labour's own voters — with the only plausible motives (appeasing Trump or countering Reform) being fundamentally flawed strategies that won't even work.
Conclusion
Andy Burnham's decision to approve further North Sea oil and gas drilling (Jackdaw and Rosebank fields) is irrational policy that will cause significant political and material harm to Labour and the public while delivering negligible economic or energy benefits.
Premises
- The job creation from these fields is minimal (27 direct jobs from Jackdaw, 450 from Rosebank) compared to the much larger and growing green economy (300,000+ jobs currently, 400,000 more planned, 600,000+ in the wider green sector).
- The gas and oil produced will make negligible difference to UK energy bills or energy security, and Rosebank oil is unlikely to even be refined in Britain due to lack of domestic refining capacity.
- A recent economic estimate suggests the climate damage from these fields' extra emissions would outweigh any economic benefits several times over.
- The decision undermines UK diplomatic credibility on climate action, weakening its negotiating position in international climate agreements that depend on mutual trust.
- The policy carries enormous political risk, alienating Labour MPs and voters who may defect to progressive alternatives like the Green party, exemplified by the vulnerability of Starmer's vacated seat.
- Neither appeasing Trump nor countering Reform/Conservatives is a plausible motive, since Trump is unappeasable and the drilling decision won't neutralize Reform's political attacks.
- The government's broader failure to prepare for climate-related catastrophe (e.g., inadequate food security planning) reveals a pattern of not taking the climate crisis seriously despite its severity.
Assumptions
- Economic and political decisions should be evaluated primarily on cost-benefit rationality rather than symbolic or short-term political positioning.
- The transition to a green economy is achievable at the scale and speed needed to offset job losses from fossil fuel industries.
- International climate diplomacy meaningfully depends on the perceived consistency/credibility of individual nations like the UK.
- Voters who might defect to the Green party represent a electorally significant and predictable bloc.
- The cited economic estimates about climate damage outweighing benefits are reliable and should be decisive in this policy calculus.
- Burnham's stated rationale ('there is a resource there... people are struggling') is either about workers or consumers, with no other plausible interpretation.