UnEarth Magazine.

_{Writing by Hannah Tuinman – Art by Jessica Nunn}

Scottish comedian, Kevin Bridges, jokingly stated that for the Scottish and Irish it’s hard to “really give a f*ck” about climate change as warmer weather is not necessarily a high priority problem for these countries. He jested that COP26 happening in the chilly atmosphere of Glasgow’s November in 2021 was a “tough crowd to spread alarm about the planet heating up”.  

This joke, of course, is just satire which emphasizes that Scotland does not relatively feel the current large-scale effects of the climate crisis, apart from the gradual change in rainfall patterns and heavier downpours. It is often assumed that those living in regions where climate change does not frequently affect citizens may be less likely to see the appeal of engaging in climate legislation to mitigate the crisis.  

Scotland, however, may be a special case. Scotland is actually a hotbed for protest and climate change awareness, being the first nation globally to declare a climate emergency in 2019 and having one of the most ambitious climate change legislations. The reason why Scotland must maintain an awareness of climate change and its impacts is because it has a large oil and gas industry which is central to its economy, representing 11.8% of its GDP in 2022. Scotland’s North Sea first became a site of oil extraction in 1851, and is the largest oil resource in Western Europe, transforming Scotland’s economy and, last year, exporting around 80% of the oil produced. Current oil extraction activities taking place in the North Sea are regulated by the independent North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA), which consistently engages with up-to-date environment protection laws.  

However, in 2021 the International Energy Agency (IEA) determined that in order to accomplish net zero by 2045, which Scotland has pledged to achieve, no new oil and natural gas fields should be approved for development. This is because oil and gas are types of fossil fuels responsible for 90% of the carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere which causes global warming. This contention between Scotland’s climate goals and the current economic prospects of extracting more oil from the North Sea has manifested itself amongst climate activists, international oil companies and Scottish lawmakers. 

The discourse relating to the development of the Rosebank North Sea Oilfield is a perfect exhibition of this current debate. Rosebank is a relatively new oilfield production project which aims to target an untapped oil source in Scotland’s North Sea. When you look up online the phrase ‘Rosebank North Sea Oilfield’, the first website that appears is a page titled Here’s Why Rosebank is Part of the Broader Energy Picture for Britain. The website argues that the project will support the “UK’s net zero target” and is owned by the Norwegian company Equinor. Equinor has an 80% stake in the Rosebank project, positing that the electrification of the oilfield and the jobs that will be generated as a result will be beneficial for Scotland’s employment rates and keep their sustainability levels on track.  

However, there is debate regarding how much the oil would actually benefit Scotland as the oil produced by Rosebank would not cut energy prices for UK citizens, rather the oil would be sold on the world market. Stop Rosebank, an activist campaign group  that wants Scotland to reach it’s 1.5C target and thus discourages new investments in oil, argues that the UK is “locked into using fossil fuels and forced to pay extortionate heating and fuel bills, all the while knowing that the UK has the best renewable resources in Europe”. Allowing Rosebank to go forward would prevent this goal from being achieved, and as Lauren MacDonald, a member of the Stop Rosebank campaign, stated, climate change will get worse “as long as companies are allowed to open huge new drilling sites”.  

The NSTA approved the Rosebank project, arguing that it complied with Scotland’s net zero emissions aims and the former UK government, the Conservatives, were supportive of its development. For example, in September 2023 the Conservative’s Energy Security Secretary, Claire Coutinho, argued that oil and gas production companies are “part of the mix on the path to net zero”. The IEA responded to these claims, saying that large projects like Rosebank “should not be needed because demand for fossil fuels is forecast to fall towards 2050”; their input was ignored, and Rosebank’s development was greenlighted. 

Protesting became a tool for rejecting Rosebank’s approval, with environmental activist groups such as Greenpeace and Uplift helping to organize protests. Alongside these protests, the debate manifested in the Scottish high courts, with activist campaigns hiring lawyers to argue that the NSTA and former Conservative government had failed to take into account the millions of tonnes of CO2 that would be produced by the project and that it was unlawful to support a project which had ignored these environmental implications. To put it in perspective, the case argued that Rosebank would release more CO2 than the “annual emissions of the world’s 28 poorest countries combined”. 

Earlier this year, the decision to approve Rosebank was finally declared unlawful by the Scottish courts, meaning that the ruling will go back to Westminster for revision. The nuance of this victory lies in the fine print: although the owners of Rosebank can “continue preparatory work, … no oil and gas may be extracted”. Unfortunately, the fight over stopping Rosebank has not yet been won as UK Prime Minister, Kier Starmer, argued that the license for the oilfield’s development was granted prior to the country’s commitment to stop all new oil extraction; he stated that “we did say that where a license had already been granted, we wouldn’t interfere”. The future of Rosebank is still uncertain, however, as Starmer faces internal and external pressure to resist Rosebank’s approval.  

The Rosebank case demonstrates the importance of independent climate activists holding the government accountable while also being aware of the laws and climate agreements that the government has signed. Rules on the UK’s licensing regime, meaning the policies surrounding the approval of a new oil or gas extraction project, are particularly important for climate activists to understand and legally threaten when oversight or poor leadership decisions are made that are uncommitted to Scotland’s climate objectives.  

As the countdown towards 2050’s net zero emissions target continues, the emphasis of legal, combined with activist intervention, will become increasingly important to hold the government accountable and on track. This is particularly instrumental as domestic laws are the only legal force behind policies reducing emissions; as Daria Shapovalova (2023), a senior lecturer in energy law at the University of Aberdeen, notes in her article in the Journal of International Economic Law: “although international law sets out the general rules of energy development and use, the sovereignty over resources places primary decision-making over energy production and use with States”. Legal accountability and regulation methods thus manifest in areas of the law involving licensing, health and safety regulations and labour laws. Focusing on the laws in place and how those can be creatively employed to fight for climate justice and government/corporate accountability will be crucial in the upcoming decade for protestors and climate activists to apply additional pressures in preventing Rosebank and further oilfield developments.