A groundbreaking report from University College London (UCL) researchers has delivered a stark warning to policymakers and the global energy sector: opening new oil and gas fields in the North Sea is fundamentally incompatible with the Paris Climate Agreement’s objectives. The study, led by experts at the UCL Energy Institute, the Department of Political Science, and the UCL Policy Lab, demonstrates that any approval of new fossil fuel developments risks pushing global temperatures beyond the critical thresholds set to curb catastrophic climate impacts.
As the world grapples with increasingly severe climate disruptions, the urgency to limit warming to 1.5°C—as articulated by the Paris Agreement—has become an imperative anchored in scientific consensus. The UCL team’s comprehensive review synthesizes the latest peer-reviewed research, including groundbreaking analyses published in top-tier journals such as Science and Nature, alongside extensive datasets that quantify the carbon emissions linked with extracting and burning hydrocarbons. Their conclusion is resoundingly clear: allowing new oil and gas extraction projects is a direct contradiction to international climate obligations.
Central to the report is the concept of “committed emissions,” defined as the carbon dioxide released from the combustion of fossil fuels already slated for extraction from existing fields. The researchers estimate this figure to be approximately 469 gigatonnes of CO₂, an amount roughly threefold the carbon budget aligned with the 1.5°C limit. This stark imbalance underscores the critical challenge facing policymakers: even fully exploiting current reserves would exceed the carbon thresholds necessitated for global climate stability, let alone opening new fields that would exacerbate the problem.
The significance of this finding resonates strongly within the context of the UK Government’s imminent decisions regarding North Sea oil and gas development. Presently, the regulatory framework separates the exploration licensing stage from development consent for production. While exploration licenses grant companies the right to seek fossil fuel deposits, development consent is required to commence extraction. The contested Rosebank and Jackdaw oilfields, having had development approvals invalidated by the Scottish courts last January due to failure in accounting for their climate impacts, are now at the heart of a renewed governmental evaluation. The UCL report urges the government to reject these consents based on scientific and legal grounds.
Authors of the report stress the broader implications of continuing fossil fuel expansion, highlighting a global energy landscape in transition. The move towards renewable and low-carbon energy systems is accelerating, driven by rapid declines in costs and technological advances. Investing in new oil and gas infrastructure today poses a significant financial risk, as such assets may rapidly become “stranded”—that is, economically unviable given future climate policies and market shifts. This risk translates into potential losses for investors and destabilization of energy markets.
From a technical perspective, the report draws attention to the carbon budgets grounded in atmospheric chemistry and climate modeling. The planetary carbon budget quantifies the maximum cumulative emissions consistent with limiting temperature rise, reflecting the interactions between greenhouse gases, radiative forcing, and climate sensitivity parameters. Within this framework, fossil fuel combustion remains the dominant source of anthropogenic CO₂, and additional extraction projects directly diminish the remaining allowable budget. Consequently, any decision to approve new fields effectively commits future emissions incompatible with climate targets.
Moreover, the report’s analysis engages with recent advancements in climate impact assessment methodologies. By integrating lifecycle emissions from extraction, processing, transportation, and end-use combustion, the research provides a holistic view of each project’s greenhouse gas footprint. This systemic approach informs the court rulings cited in the report and strengthens the argument against granting development consents absent rigorous climate evaluations.
The investigation also highlights the policy implications of recent judicial findings and their potential to reshape governance structures governing fossil fuel development. The Scottish court’s annulment of previous consents under the duty to consider climate impacts marks a landmark precedent emphasizing environmental accountability. It signals an increasing intersection of climate science with legal frameworks, both domestic and international, shaping future energy choices.
In addition to environmental and legal rationales, the report contends that the UK holds a unique opportunity to assert global climate leadership by aligning its energy policies with scientific evidence. Such leadership would reinforce international efforts to curb fossil fuel expansion and catalyze global transitions toward sustainable energy systems. The authors argue that by ceasing new exploration licenses and withholding development approval for contested fields, the UK could send a powerful diplomatic message, driving transformative change beyond its borders.
The report also acknowledges the socio-economic dimensions of transitioning away from fossil fuels. Recognizing the importance of a just transition, it calls for policies that protect workers and communities dependent on oil and gas industries. Facilitating retraining, economic diversification, and investment in green jobs will be integral to achieving climate objectives while ensuring fair and equitable outcomes.
This rigorous body of research arrives at a critical temporal junction. With escalating climate emergencies worldwide, the report’s synthesis of evidence provides a timely and unambiguous directive: to meet the ethical and scientific demands of the current climate crisis, new fossil fuel developments in the North Sea—and by extension globally—must be halted. Continuation down the path of fossil fuel expansion risks irreversible planetary damage and jeopardizes the shared future envisioned by international climate commitments.
In sum, the UCL study serves as both a scientific exposé and a policy manifesto. It cautions that when confronted with the stark reality of planetary limits, political and economic systems must acknowledge their role in either perpetuating harm or fostering resilience. The era of endless fossil fuel expansion is unequivocally incompatible with a livable climate future, and urgent, decisive action is required to halt new extraction and prioritize sustainable, equitable pathways forward.
Subject of Research:
Not applicable
Article Title:
The Climate Implications of New Oil and Gas Fields in the UK – An overview of the evidence
News Publication Date:
10-Jun-2025
Web References:
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/policy-lab/our-reports
References:
Greg Muttitt, Fergus Green, Steve Pye, ‘The Climate Implications of New Oil and Gas Fields in the UK – An overview of the evidence’ (UCL Policy Lab, 2025); Peer-reviewed works in Science and Nature journals; Additional datasets and reports referenced in the original study.
Keywords:
Energy policy; Climate change; Climate change mitigation; Oil resources; Fossil fuels; Environmental policy
