The sudden return of a global energy crisis, driven by the war in Iran and a severe tightening of oil supplies, has intensified debate over the UK’s energy security and the future of the North Sea. But are we having the right conversations? What does Britain need to do to move forward confidently? How can it best make the most of its own resources and people? And who are the real winners? These questions and many more were put to a group of industry leaders and commentators at a recent event, hosted by Prospect editor Philip Collins in collaboration with Offshore Energies UK (OEUK).
The event featured two panels: one on fixing Britain’s energy debate and another on who holds power in shaping energy’s future. The first debate opened with some discussion around the public’s feelings around climate action. It was noted that the polarisation of the conversation isn’t helpful if we’re trying to achieve a general consensus.
“It is a culture war,” said Jillian Ambrose, energy correspondent, the Guardian. “One of the more bad-tempered, nastiest issues we’ve seen. This makes it difficult to have a realistic, honest debate around the UK’s energy future. We’re seeing a victory of ideology over pragmatism and it has never been more important to be pragmatic, particularly around oil and gas.”
The role of politics in the debate was acknowledged as critical yet problematic. “Climate change requires big political action at a time when big politics is deeply distrusted,” explained Peter Kellner, pollster and former president of YouGov. “That may be as significant a barrier as the policies themselves. Is there a way to take some of the heat out of the politics, to build broader consensus, so that public support can grow rather than shrink?”
Indeed, OEUK’s chief executive, David Whitehouse, agreed that the nature of the debate as it stands is holding us back: “We are polarising the debate, and I fear we’ll miss the opportunity for Britain to lead the charge, win the argument, and secure the future.”
For Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science, Oxford University, there needs to be a reframing of the challenge to expedite a solution. “The climate is not an energy problem, it’s a carbon management problem,” he said. “It could be addressed with a straightforward law: after a certain date, you cannot sell products that cause global warming unless you deal with the emissions they create. It wouldn’t happen overnight, but at some point we’ll need to require that any CO₂ generated is captured and permanently disposed of.”
Could better legislation and policy enable a more intelligent approach to energy transition? “We have strong regulators, and I’m not criticising the system,” said Whitehouse. “But in some cases, we’re regulating carbon storage and hydrogen in ways that risk slowing them down rather than helping them grow. We need to work more closely with the government to unlock these opportunities instead of holding them back.”
Working together was a theme that emerged strongly across both conversations. If we are to achieve progress, we need to move as one towards a goal—with a general consensus, and aligned policies that have been shaped with all parties in mind.
Oil and gas jobs are not symbols; they are livelihoods
As it currently stands those gaining most from our transition are the likes of China, agreed the second panel. “The big winner is every country that exports energy to us as we become increasingly dependent on others for our energy needs,” said Gary Smith, general secretary, GMB.
To increase the UK’s self-sufficiency, skills were front and centre in the discussion, presented as both a challenge and an opportunity for the country. “The UK has an amazing energy workforce, and we need a plan that is people-focused and regionally aware, otherwise we risk putting infrastructure in the wrong place,” argued Adam Morrison, UK country manager, Ocean Winds.
For Smith, there needs to be a great focus on utilising the skilled talent here in the UK, both in the manufacturing and maintenance of energy solutions. “A lot of the work has been subcontracted out and the stuff they’re installing is not manufactured here because we’re operating with a plan driven by net zero. We all want to see net zero. But there needs to be a plan to achieve energy security, marrying up our needs for skills and also developing a manufacturing base at the same time.”
The supply chain for offshore wind, carbon storage, hydrogen and decommissioning overlaps heavily with oil and gas, argued Morrison. The same welders, pipefitters, engineers and subsea specialists are required. Skills transition is possible, but only with continuity in projects, investment and political support.
For communities in Aberdeen, Teesside and elsewhere, the argument is not abstract. Oil and gas jobs are not symbols; they are livelihoods. The prevailing narrative that there are dirty jobs and clean jobs isn’t helpful, Morrison stressed: “Labelling people and placing a value judgement on whether their job is clean or not is appalling. It does a disservice to a sector we’re incredibly proud of.”
Ultimately, climate and energy policy require both political leadership and broad consensus. Markets need durable rules. Industry needs clarity. Communities need continuity. The public needs honesty about trade-offs.
Britain possesses rare advantages: geology suited to carbon storage, engineering expertise, established regulation and renewable potential. But if the debate remains polarised and short-term, the UK risks losing both industrial capacity and climate credibility.
“For me, the number one thing is an all-energy approach,” said Katy Heidenreich, people and supply chain director, OEUK. “We need to stop talking about clean jobs, clean energy. We need to talk about all energy and energy security. A pragmatic, balanced approach will enable the companies building these projects to have faith that this is really going to happen in the UK.”
