The Tony Blair Institute’s call to reverse the UK’s ban on new North Sea exploration licences raises questions about whether its recommendations are grounded in scientific evidence or influenced by its close relationships with fossil fuel producers.
Industry ties versus scientific consensus
The TBI has worked closely with petrostates the United Arab Emirates and Azerbaijan. The Institute has signed multimillion-pound deals with Saudi Arabia and received over £200 million from Larry Ellison, a tech billionaire and Trump ally. It has also provided advisory work to Azerbaijan, which hosted COP29.
A spokesperson for TBI said its work on net zero and energy was grounded in facts and data, adding: “Global fossil fuel demand has not disappeared, and energy security, affordability and decarbonisation must be addressed together”.
However, the think-tank’s position sits at odds with international scientific bodies. The International Energy Agency states there is no need for investment in new oil and gas projects to meet global energy demand. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has stated with high confidence that new fossil fuel exploration and production would lock in global warming exceeding 1.5°C. The UN Environment Programme found that governments’ current production plans would lead to about 57% more oil and 71% more gas in 2030 than would be consistent with keeping warming to 1.5°C.
The energy security argument
The Blair Institute said new oil and gas exploration was needed to protect workers and slow down the decline of the basin. It argued that current energy policy is pushing up costs and making Britain uncompetitive.
But independent analysis contradicts these claims. The London School of Economics states that “increasing North Sea oil and gas extraction will make no contribution to UK energy security”. Parliamentary research shows that 83% of UK oil is exported, meaning additional North Sea production would be sold into world markets and the UK would need to buy back what it needs at prevailing market prices.
The Climate Change Committee concluded that while the UK will continue to need some oil and gas until reaching net zero, “this does not in itself justify the development of new North Sea fields”.
A spokesperson for the government’s Department for Energy and Net Zero said: “The route to energy sovereignty, lower bills and thousands of good jobs in our communities is becoming a clean energy superpower”. They argued that issuing new licences to explore new fields would “not take a penny off bills, cannot make us energy secure and will only accelerate the worsening climate crisis”.
Climate and economic implications
The UK government’s current policy “puts the UK at the forefront of global efforts to tackle the climate crisis, reflecting the science of new fossil fuel exploration being incompatible with limiting warming to 1.5C”. Reversing course would undermine the climate leadership established at COP26 in Glasgow. The world’s highest international court recently gave a landmark opinion stating that granting new fossil-fuel exploration licences “may constitute an internationally wrongful act”.
There is no evidence that new UK production will displace other oil and gas production from elsewhere; rather, it will add to an already large oversupply in relation to Paris Agreement targets. North Sea oil production peaked in 1999 and gas production in 2000, with a 72% reduction between 1999 and 2023.
The think-tank’s paper puts it more closely aligned with the energy strategy of the Conservative Party, which has also said it will scrap the windfall tax, allow new exploration drilling and take a slower approach to decarbonising the power sector.
So what do young people think?
For young people facing the climate crisis, the Institute’s position appears troubling. Youth-led climate movements have consistently demanded an end to fossil fuel financing and transition to renewable energy. Young climate activist Aklima Akter said: “I want to see an end to fossil fuel financing and the promotion of a transition to renewable energy… I simply want a livable Earth for everyone. That is my right.”
Critics like Patrick Galey of Global Witness have questioned Blair’s independence on climate matters given the Institute’s relationships with petrostates and fossil fuel billionaires.
Pushing back against the Blair Institute claims
There are several reasons to challenge the Blair Institute’s recommendations. Multiple authoritative bodies conclude new fossil fuel exploration is dangerous as the world continues to face extreme weather impacts that are forecast to get much worse. The UK has legally binding net-zero targets and made pledges to ban new exploration. Energy security and bill reduction claims lack supporting evidence and contradict government and academic research. Countries agreed to transition away from fossil fuels at COP28, and new licensing may constitute wrongful acts under international law.
The current ban on new exploration licences in new fields in the North Sea was an election manifesto pledge of the current Labour government as part of its push to move the UK towards lower carbon forms of energy, primarily offshore wind turbines.