Energy secretary says a 'common sense' approach to climate can beat the Greens after Green leaders attack the Jackdaw approval

Deep dive · bridging the paradox

The story in brief

On 21 October the government approved Shell's Jackdaw gas field in the North Sea, a re-decision after Scotland's Court of Session quashed the earlier consent in 2025 for ignoring emissions from burning the gas (GOV.UK, decision document). The Greens called it "climate vandalism". Energy Secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh replied that the Greens are being "ideological" and that Labour can win the argument with a "common sense" approach to climate (PoliticsHome).

What the left sees

At its strongest: the climate crisis is here now. Scotland's Green co-leader Ross Greer calls the approval "a devastating betrayal of our children's future" that "won't even lower energy bills" (The National). Labour's own manifesto said new licences "will not take a penny off bills" (BBC). Zack Polanski points out that the industry's own figure is 27 new jobs: "a victory for Shell over the people." Friends of the Earth Scotland says "every fraction of a degree matters" (The National) and calls Jackdaw a distraction from planning "a fair and fast transition" for workers (Scotsman). The deeper point is integrity. Every country can say its own field is small. If a self-described climate leader keeps approving new fields, who will stop?

What the right sees

At its strongest: Britain will burn gas for decades whatever happens, so it should come from home waters, with British jobs and tax, rather than from imported LNG. Russell Borthwick of the Aberdeen & Grampian Chamber of Commerce calls it "pragmatism wins over ideology", warning against "importing energy while exporting jobs" (GB News). Kemi Badenoch says ministers "dithered" for two years: "We have the resources, the expertise and the people… What we have lost is the confidence to make tough decisions" (Daily Mail). The BBC notes that the Conservatives, Reform, the SNP and the Lib Dems all back Jackdaw, as do most Labour MPs; the Greens oppose it.

Other voices

Fahnbulleh herself sits in between. She calls the field a "no-brainer", yet finds it "painful and tragic to watch that consensus burn" (PoliticsHome). Andy Burnham says he will not repeat the "careless" deindustrialisation that left places behind (Guardian).

What each is protecting

• Greens and the climate left: the safety of people not yet born, and of people abroad already living with heat; and keeping faith with promises made.
• Government and the right: a secure supply, the dignity of work in communities like Aberdeen, and a country able to provide for itself.

Each is protecting people. They are thinking of different people, on different time scales.

Common ground

Jackdaw won't lower bills: the government's decision document says so (para 194). The UK will use gas for years. North Sea workers deserve better than being dropped. Both sides even claim the same word: Greenpeace says "true pragmatism means severing our reliance on expensive oil and gas" (Guardian).

Where the evidence sits

• "It won't cut bills." Supported. The UK is a "price-taker" (decision doc), and the Climate Change Committee says more UK extraction has "at most, a marginal effect" on prices (CCC).
• "It boosts energy security." Supported, but small. At peak it supplies about 6% of UK North Sea gas output, enough for about 350,000 homes on a cold day, yet under 1% of peak-day supply over its life. Greenpeace's claim that it "won't boost energy security" goes too far. So does the idea that it changes import dependency much: the decision doc puts the cut at about 2%.
• "It's cleaner than imports." Partly supported. Production intensity is 18.5 kgCO2e/boe against 85 for imported LNG, but burning the gas is most of the footprint whatever its source. The government and the CCC agree the net global effect "cannot be established".
• "Only 27 jobs." Accurate but incomplete. That's 27 new jobs plus 273 safeguarded that would otherwise go when the Shearwater hub closes.
• "Every molecule displaces imports." Contested. The decision doc says it's "not certain" which supplies Jackdaw displaces.
• "£16.1bn damage, 8,000+ heat deaths." Greenpeace's own estimate, using government carbon values (Novara). We couldn't verify it independently.

What each side leaves out

The Greens rarely mention the 273 safeguarded jobs, or that someone's gas fills the gap until demand falls. The pro-drilling side rarely mentions that the North Sea workforce more than halved in a decade, even with new approvals (Express). Nor does it mention that cleaner production doesn't change emissions at the burner.

The paradox: holding the tension

Both are true at once. Jackdaw is too small to move prices or the planet's temperature on its own, and that is exactly why it matters as a signal. Each "small" yes makes the next one easier to justify, and Rosebank is next. The time scales differ. For a welder in Aberdeen the cost is this decade, concrete and local. For a child in 2060, or a family facing extreme heat abroad, it is diffuse, delayed and global. Neither side is imagining its people. The either/or framing hides the fact that the real decision isn't one field. It's how the decline of North Sea gas is managed, and who carries its cost.

The bridge

What could both sides recognise as a shared question? Perhaps: how do we bring gas demand down fast enough that new fields stop being needed, while making sure the places that powered Britain aren't left behind again?

Each side holds half of that. The Greens hold the urgency; the right and the unions hold the people on the ground. What might shift minds: for the left, evidence that Jackdaw genuinely replaces higher-emission LNG and that its revenue really funds the transition (the new £2bn Energy Wealth Fund is a test). For the right, evidence that approvals don't keep jobs, as the halved workforce suggests, or that demand is falling faster than forecast.

We don't think this resolves neatly. Holding it open may be more honest than either a cheer or a jeer.

Sources: right-rated outlets barely covered the Fahnbulleh–Greens exchange in today's sample, so right-leaning views come from the wider Jackdaw coverage on 21–22 October. Telegraph, Sky and Reuters pieces were paywalled or blocked, so they weren't quoted.