Uploaded August 2026 | Updated September 2026, 16 hours ago
On the "Catch Up" programme on Times Radio, hosted by Neil Breakwell standing in for Carole Walker, I was asked to exchange views with Angela Knight, former chief executive of Energy UK, on whether or not Prime Minister Burnham should approve new drilling in the North Sea.
My answer was that this shouldn't be on the agenda at all. Labour policy is not to do this kind of drilling, and I can only surmise that to do so would be only chasing a quick buck in tax revenue: an incredibly poor deal, set against the loss of this country's reputation, the breaking of a manifesto commitment, and the plain betrayal of our children and grandchildren.
Angela framed this as a simple question of substitution: we'll be using oil and gas through the transition, so do we produce it here or import it from Qatar or the US? I'm afraid that's far too simple a binary. Everything in politics and economics is a matter of priorities and opportunity costs, and the money and the political capital that would go into Rosebank and Jackdaw could instead go into the no-brainers we are still failing to do. Say, a massive rollout of solar on roofs, solar shading over car parks (which the government has just ruled out, an absolutely stupid mistake), and a huge national programme of insulation and retrofit, which stops us heating the sky every winter and protects people from extreme heat every summer.
We also went several rounds on how to keep the lights on. Angela's answer was small modular nuclear; mine is that SMRs are not a proven technology — not rolled out at scale anywhere, with real long-term financial and ecological hazards attached. The solutions to intermittency are mature and ready now. Battery storage is coming on by leaps and bounds, and gravity storage, including elevated reservoirs and newer small-scale local systems, can be paired with a balanced basket of renewables to meet our needs. That last part matters: it works provided we stop endlessly ratcheting up demand, which is why granting planning permission to data centres that will have us burning gas to power them — and draining our water besides — is the opposite of joined-up thinking. If we're serious about bequeathing a liveable world and a workable civilisation to our children, this is the direction we have to turn in.
youtube.com/@ClimateMajorityProject-Earth
RupertRead.net
RupertRead.substack.com
twitter.com/GreenRupertRead
https://bsky.app/profile/rupertread.bsky.social
instagram.com/RupertRead
tiktok.com/@GreenRupertRead
facebook.com/GreenRupertRead
Edited excerpt from August 17th "Catch Up", courtesy of TimesRadio thetimes.com/radio/show/20260817-34799/2026-08-17
On the "Catch Up" programme on Times Radio, hosted by Neil Breakwell standing in for Carole Walker, I was asked to exchange views with Angela Knight, former chief executive of Energy UK, on whether or not Prime Minister Burnham should approve new drilling in the North Sea.
My answer was that this shouldn't be on the agenda at all. Labour policy is not to do this kind of drilling, and I can only surmise that to do so would be only chasing a quick buck in tax revenue: an incredibly poor deal, set against the loss of this country's reputation, the breaking of a manifesto commitment, and the plain betrayal of our children and grandchildren.
Angela framed this as a simple question of substitution: we'll be using oil and gas through the transition, so do we produce it here or import it from Qatar or the US? I'm afraid that's far too simple a binary. Everything in politics and economics is a matter of priorities and opportunity costs, and the money and the political capital that would go into Rosebank and Jackdaw could instead go into the no-brainers we are still failing to do. Say, a massive rollout of solar on roofs, solar shading over car parks (which the government has just ruled out, an absolutely stupid mistake), and a huge national programme of insulation and retrofit, which stops us heating the sky every winter and protects people from extreme heat every summer.
We also went several rounds on how to keep the lights on. Angela's answer was small modular nuclear; mine is that SMRs are not a proven technology — not rolled out at scale anywhere, with real long-term financial and ecological hazards attached. The solutions to intermittency are mature and ready now. Battery storage is coming on by leaps and bounds, and gravity storage, including elevated reservoirs and newer small-scale local systems, can be paired with a balanced basket of renewables to meet our needs. That last part matters: it works provided we stop endlessly ratcheting up demand, which is why granting planning permission to data centres that will have us burning gas to power them — and draining our water besides — is the opposite of joined-up thinking. If we're serious about bequeathing a liveable world and a workable civilisation to our children, this is the direction we have to turn in.
youtube.com/@ClimateMajorityProject-Earth
RupertRead.net
RupertRead.substack.com
twitter.com/GreenRupertRead
https://bsky.app/profile/rupertread.bsky.social
instagram.com/RupertRead
tiktok.com/@GreenRupertRead
facebook.com/GreenRupertRead
Edited excerpt from August 17th "Catch Up", courtesy of TimesRadio thetimes.com/radio/show/20260817-34799/2026-08-17
