- By Chris Mason
- Political Editor, BBC News
For the second week in a row, climate politics is swirling again.
In his big green speech last week, the prime minister said his government would be “brave” in its decision-making and focus on what was in the country’s long-term interests.
But such interests, politically, are always in the eye of the beholder.
The Prime Minister welcomed the approval of the Rosebank oil and gas field.
Critics accuse the government of recklessness. Rishi Sunak argues that he is a realist.
This drilling is not expected to reduce the UK’s bills, but a state seen as rogue – Russia – which is stocking up on fossil fuels, has transformed one element of this debate.
And most accept that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine gives the energy security argument much, much more weight.
But a figure steeped in climate change policy suggested to me that Mr Sunak should be more honest about the trade-off here – improving the UK’s energy security but allowing more greenhouse gas emissions.
Scotland’s first minister, SNP leader Humza Yousaf, argues the approval reduces incentives for energy companies to switch to renewables.
The UK government claims it will boost their investment in them.
And then there is the Labor Party – whose position on all this is as important as it is fascinating.
Critics accuse Labor of weakness – not having their cake and eating it anyway – Keir Starmer insists he is responsible for both opposing this approval but saying a Labor government will respect existing licenses that have been granted.
Opposition parties, in normal times, have no agency. They can talk, but they don’t.
But a year before the general election, with Labor miles ahead in the polls, their view on it matters to whether it happens.
An outright refusal to allow the project to go ahead under a Labor government could scuttle it right now.
But the party’s judgment – in its quest for economic credibility and political stability – is that it would be wrong.