The idea that Rosebank gives Britain energy security is completely false - Olivia Blake

My constituents in Sheffield Hallam - like Lord Deben and a growing consensus of parliamentarians, over 700 scientists, the UN Secretary General, the IPCC, governments of various countries such as Denmark, Wales and Ireland - are absolutely clear in their opposition to the approval of Rosebank.

They see it for what it is. A bad deal for Britain. A deal that rips off taxpayers, does nothing for energy security, undermines our climate leadership and risks destroying nature. All whilst stuffing the pockets of profiteering energy giants, who for decades have cashed in at the expense of a safe climate.

Let’s take each of those points individually.

Approving Rosebank would be a rip off for taxpayers because although it won’t do anything to shed even a single penny off UK energy bills, the Norwegian owned energy giant, Equinor, would receive a tax break to the tune of £3.75bn for developing the field.

Rosebank would be a bad deal for energy security because the field is almost completely all oil. Given the UK exports 80 per cent of its oil, developing Rosebank won’t help to shore up energy supplies in the UK.

Instead the oil will be sold on the international market to the highest bidder. What's worse is recent reports show that Equinor is considering using a wind farm in Shetland which could provide affordable, clean power to hundreds of thousands of homes to power their climate wrecking project. The idea that Rosebank gives Britain energy security is completely false - the only security it provides is economic security to its private owners.

Rosebank’s development would be a completely hypocritical move for the UK on the world stage - not my words, but those of Chair of the Committee on Climate Change. It is foolish to think we can ask other countries to accelerate their climate action plans whilst we continue to approve new fossil fuel infrastructure at home.

And finally, let me be clear. Rosebank is effectively an attack on nature. Rosebank runs through the Faroe-Shetland Marine Protected Area and poses a serious threat to this already fragile ecosystem, and even more worrying is that an oil spill from Rosebank could risk serious impact to at least 16 other UK Marine Protected Areas.

Saying no to Rosebank is not ‘turning off the taps’ and it will not make the UK vulnerable.

Instead what it will do is send a clear signal that the North Sea’s future is one based on renewable energy and that the UK government understands the science: new oil and gas developments are not compatible with a 1.5C world or net zero by 2050.

Olivia Blake is the Labour MP for Sheffield Hallam.