9 October 2025- The Conservative leader's pledge to 'get all of our gas out of the North Sea' appears designed more for the politics of opposition than the realities of government, as it crumbles under scrutiny, writes CISL’s Chief Systems Change Officer, Eliot Whittington.
The Conservative leader's pledge to 'get all of our gas out of the North Sea' appears designed more for the politics of opposition than the realities of government, as it crumbles under scrutiny, writes Eliot Whittington from the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL)
Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch has set out her plan to get "all our oil and gas out of the North Sea". It's just a shame that such an ideologically-driven policy would achieve little other than wasting time and money and delaying progress towards a sensible UK energy strategy.
Standing in Aberdeen, the Conservative leader declared it "absurd" to leave fossil fuel resources untapped, promising to scrap the North Sea Transition Authority entirely. But here's the uncomfortable question: what problem is she actually solving?
She claims this is about the UK's economic health but the reality is that extracting every last drop will need public subsidy. The UK has secured massive tax revenues in the past from North Sea oil, but every indication now is that those days are over – and instead of getting money out of the North Sea we'll be putting it in, in subsidies and tax breaks for exploration, decommissioning and more.
Right now even oil and gas giants are pulling back from more expensive and hard to secure reserves. You would expect, given the rise in oil prices, that exploration investment is climbing, but it remains at low levels. And British oil and gas fields have high running costs – making them unattractive. When private investors with deep pockets and inside knowledge get cautious, why should taxpayers throw good money after bad.
While Badenoch talks about yesterday's fuels, the world races toward tomorrow's. Solar is now the cheapest electricity in history. Britain's solar output jumped 42 per cent this summer alone. Battery technology advances daily. China steams toward becoming the world's first 'electrostate'. And it is no surprise that the leader of the world's biggest fossil fuel producer, President Trump, wants us to remain dependent on what he has to sell, whether or not it makes sense for us or the future.
Chasing after declining oil and gas reserves is not likely to significantly help build new competitive industries and secure a position as part of the future energy sector. Nor will it significantly affect energy security – the amounts available will still leave us exposed to global fossil fuel markets.
Britain's problem isn't finding more oil. It's building and replacing creaking energy infrastructure that has been underinvested in for years. That needs cash, just at the moment that the country is struggling to invest in improving public services, scaling up defence and paying heavy borrowing costs. Whether the tax payer or the bill payer if the UK wants to have a strong future energy system – of whatever design – someone has to foot the bill.
And if we direct that investment to reduce our exposure to volatile fossil fuel markets we can deliver a more affordable energy system overall.
We have incredible assets: world-class wind, brilliant universities, a strong market economy and sophisticated finance. Britain could be a leader in the clean energy revolution. But that requires long-term thinking and short-term sacrifice – the opposite of conference season soundbites.
This is, after all, where China has succeeded. They have used the process of inward investment to develop new industries and corner the market in the growing energy sectors of the future.
Of course the politics of energy transition are undeniably difficult. Communities that have depended on oil and gas for generations understandably worry about their future. Workers face uncertainty about where their skills will fit in a changing economy. They deserve more than empty promises about extracting resources that may never be economically viable, but their concerns should receive serious attention and thoughtful solutions. Solutions that learn the lessons from the deep social and economic scars caused by the way the UK's coal mining industries were closed.
Badenoch's pledge appears designed more for the politics of opposition than the realities of government. It's the kind of policy that sounds decisive but crumbles under scrutiny. What happens when the subsidies required become politically toxic? What happens when the environmental costs become impossible to ignore? What happens when the global market moves decisively away from fossil fuels?
Business thrives on certainty, not populist gestures. Companies making billion-pound investment decisions need to know that government policy will be consistent and forward-looking. They need infrastructure that works, skills that match their requirements, and regulation that provides clarity rather than confusion.
As the party conference season unfolds, politicians will be competing for voters' attention. The question facing all parties is whether they can offer the kind of good politics that business actually needs: long-term vision, honest trade-offs, and the courage to invest in the future rather than trying to recreate the past.
The question facing many business leaders is what they are doing to make sure that the political debate is fuelled by insight and understanding of the actual choices facing the country rather than by easy answers and hot air. That shouldn't mean getting party political but it may mean getting more engaged in politics than many businesses are comfortable with.
