The decision to expand Gatwick is the perfect excuse for oil giants to ditch green energy

The energy giant’s decision to slash renewables funding by nearly £4bn is an unwelcome development but it’s hardly surprising when our leaders are talking up flying and denigrating climate protesters, writes Roger Harrabin

The UK, a world leader in climate policy, is caught in a clash between what the planet needs and what politics and business feel they can deliver. Keir Starmer denies that his drive for growth based on infrastructure spending is sidelining the environment, but it is just one of a slew of issues that are putting the climate ambitions of the government and business to a test.

Take BP’s decision to drop spending on renewables and ramp up spending on oil and gas. It pains me to admit a touch of sympathy for the firm’s controversial and climate-harming decision, but remember that BP started life as British Petroleum, and some investors with pensions in the firm want it spent on lucrative holes in the ground, not towers in the air.

Unsurprisingly, some complained that BP’s share price and profits were much lower than its competitors. BP took heed, and will increase its investments in oil and gas by about 20 per cent to $10bn (£7.9bn) a year, while decreasing renewables funding by more than $5bn (£3.9bn). Shell and the Norwegian-based Equinor have also pulled back green energy plans, swayed by Donald Trump's clarion call to “drill, baby drill”.

It’s the latest step in a long struggle to align the oil and gas industry with climate science. Way back in 2000, BP stepped ahead of the pack by rebranding the firm with the “Beyond Petroleum” slogan and a new sunflower logo representing a commitment to renewables.

I foolishly thought BP were heralding a new era acknowledging that the economy is a subset of the environment, but I reckoned without the enduring power and wealth of the oil majors; the determination of some shareholders to maximise their pensions; and – crucially – the failure of governments to choke off demand for oil and gas by home insulation, EVs, and industrial electrification.

So, the issue drifted by – but five years ago BP made another bold leap, setting targets to cut production of oil and gas by 40 per cent by 2030, while significantly ramping up investment in renewables. It didn’t last long: two years ago, it cut this target to 25 per cent – and now it is cutting more.

We should have anticipated this. In spite of the shrieking warnings from the natural world, the oil and gas majors are doing what it says on the tin. In the old days, Exxon lied about the reality of the climate crisis – nowadays the problem is acknowledged but the solutions are considered unpalatable. Burying their heads in the oil sands may not even prove the right business strategy. It takes a decade to get an oil well producing. What will a climate-heated world look like then?

Ultimately, the way to make change is to starve the oil giants of demand, as the world shifts towards electric vehicles in the name of climate and energy security

This is what makes the government’s latest pronouncements on air travel – and thereby its inadvertent promotion of fossil fuels – all the more depressing. With an evangelical flourish, transport secretary Heidi Alexander said she “believes” in airport expansion. Ahead of her announcement that she is “minded to approve” a new runway at Gatwick, she added: “I am not some sort of flight-shaming eco-warrior. I love flying. I always have.” I assume the random denigration of some of her potential supporters comes with a nod to Labour’s Red Wall voters – but it’s the sort of insult that will also draw votes from the Greens and Lib Dems.

What’s more embarrassing is her prostration before what will become the UK’s highest-emitting sector – and her derision for those who view aviation’s carbon-cutting targets as too weak and also risibly unachievable.

A protester outside BP’s headquarters on the first day of the Cop29 climate conference in November 2024 (Bloomberg/Getty)

In its seventh assessment report, the Climate Change Committee (CCC), a supposedly independent group formed to advise the government, note that limiting airport space would help reduce demand. But sadly it has dropped its previous insistence that expansion in one place must lead to contraction in another.

Perhaps members have been under pressure from the government to avoid recommendations that might deter investors in the government’s ill-thought-through infrastructure building campaign. The CCC has always tempered its messages with a dash of realpolitik so ministers could endorse them.

The committee also recommends SAF – sustainable aviation fuel. This is a mix of plant-based fuel and synthetically engineered fuel which involves combining hydrogen with carbon dioxide. It has proved terribly hard to produce at scale and at an affordable price. Because progress has been so slow, the CCC says SAF will still only provide 17 per cent of aircraft fuel demand by 2040 – that’s when emissions from other sectors of the economy are supposed to be going way down.

I met the head of SAF for an oil major a few years ago, and he told me the industry was seeing scant return for billions of investment. The committee says the rest of aviation’s emissions by 2040 should be offset by either sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere with giant fans or by burning plants and waste, then capturing and burying the emissions. All this will be enormously expensive, so the CCC’s insistence that the cost is borne by passengers is welcome – if it ever happens.

More radically, the CCC notes that citizens’ juries on climate have favoured differential taxes, charging the rich 15 per cent of travellers who clock up 70 per cent of the flights even more on a sliding scale, while allowing everyone to enjoy one trip abroad. Such a frequent fliers levy would be difficult to arrange – what about business flights, or “love miles” to visit relatives abroad? But it does at least tackle the equity question, and this will need to be addressed if humanity is to escape the worst of climate change.

Roger Harrabin is an Hon Fellow of St Catharine’s College Cambridge and a former BBC correspondent