I see it's already open season on the new PM at The Guardian. This is, the lead story, is the most obvious nonsense I've ever seen. There are environmental arguments against fossil fuel extraction, most people accept that, and economic arguments at global level. But we're supposed to accept that Rosebank and Jackdaw are massively negative for the British economy.
The climate damage caused by developing the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields under consideration by the UK government would destroy their economic benefits many times over, according to an analysis.
It estimates the economic damage caused by the carbon pollution from the oil and gas produced would be between £119bn and £336bn in the coming decades, compared with the £28.7bn in value to the UK estimated by Adura, the fossil fuel company promoting the new fields.
You might think that an analysis that has that range is pretty worthless and send the analyst back to do better. It's done by one bloke at Imperial, no peer review, despite a cunning attempt to say it's "based on peer reviewed methods". But no, straight on the front page it goes. The bloke is a mechanical engineer, not a climate economist. His thing is surely technical solutions, not the substance of this report.
Has anyone told Norway, they're actually losing money by extracting oil and gas (while funding transition from it)? Perhaps the fossil fuel market should be left entirely to countries that don't give a fuck.