The danger of climate pragmatism
By william collinson · 27th august 2026 · 6 min read· image: imaggeo.egu.eu
Weather has dominated the news cycle in the past few weeks, with England and Wales experiencing their driest July ever and 71.3 per cent of England officially classified as in drought. The British famously love to moan about the weather; yet now that there is actually something beyond small talk to discuss, the real problem is being missed. For all the discourse around Britain’s newfound Mediterranean weather, climate change has largely disappeared from the political agenda. This climate paradox has been caused, to an extent, by the progressive-reactionary politics seen across the movement in recent years.
This is exemplified by Andy Burnham’s climate ‘pragmatism’; quite an ugly phrase that could have disastrous implications for the Labour Party’s electoral prospects, and for, of course, the health of the planet. One wonders whether Zak Polanski is licking his lips for the opportunity of a lifetime, at the implication of climate falling from Labour's priorities.
Labour will not, in line with their 2024 manifesto, issue new oil and gas licenses in the North Sea. Yet expansions into the Jackdaw and Rosebank reservoirs were approved by the last Conservative government, only to be found unlawful due to a failure to account for Scope 3 emissions (emissions released when the oil and gas are ultimately burnt) during the environmental impact assessment process. Public consultations for the case of both Jackdaw and Rosebank were concluded in mid-August, and are approaching the decision phase. This conundrum, whether or not to approve drilling in Rosebank and Jackdaw, at the heart of the UK government‘s energy policy, is often depicted as economic advantages tempered by political factors; yet this is a misreading of the situation.
The Economic Chimera
Who would stand to gain economically from expansion into these oil and gas reserves to the east of the Scottish coast? If the government pursues this policy, they will run their argument on the cost of living, something Burnham has pledged to be his chief focus as Prime Minister. Yet, Teesa Khan, executive director of Uplift, points out that this move “will not take a penny off our bills, it will just make a handful of executives and their shareholders even richer”. Oil and gas extracted from the North Sea would be sold on international markets, meaning any global shock would still raise the price of such resources, even if those were domestically produced.
Furthermore, developing these two fields would not economically support entire towns as the industry once did; the environmental impact assessment published by Adura says the project would produce 273 direct jobs on the Shearwater host installation, and a staggering 27 “Jackdaw-specific jobs”. These proposed jobs would be highly skilled and well-paid, and would be a welcome boost. Yet when such development comes with dire political and environmental costs, these relatively limp economic arguments fall flat. Drilling would not improve the cost of living or benefit the UK economy in any substantial way. The economic argument is therefore a phantom. A figure used in a purely political manner, as a fixture in the culture war around energy that is given outsized importance by those who oppose state climate action.
It bolsters the populist right’s narrative of elitist climate policy paid for by the ordinary citizen, nostalgia for British industrial strength of yesteryear and an unsubstantiated link to the cost of living crisis. An industry that once held great economic importance to the UK has been reduced to an economic figment to be exploited in a culture war that focuses on political point scoring, not reality. Burnham must take a step back.
Perhaps he sees in the North Sea an opportunity to curry favour in Washington. In this, he must be very careful. Donald Trump boldly declared that Keir Starmer failed as prime minister on account of failure over the North Sea and immigration. This is even though, under Starmer, long-term net migration nearly halved in the year ending December 2025. Trump’s narrative, and that of the wider populist right, need not fit with reality, exemplified by his perception of Britain’s immigration issue and equally his perception of North Sea oil and gas. Pandering to the populist right narrative on Britain’s ‘forgotten trump card’ – conveniently forgetting the fact that 90% of the resource has already been extracted – would be a grand mistake from Burnham. This is not the only way to ingratiate yourself with Trump; it is, however, one of the more damaging ways of doing so.
The political argument for pursuing drilling in Jackdaw and Rosebank is far stronger than the economic one; not a powerful indicator of value it must be said. However, Burnham, if he pursues this policy, stands politically to lose far more than he could ever gain.
A Danger of Signal, Not Substance
Pragmatism on North Sea oil and gas, as Burnham has alluded to, might be incompatible with the prospect of Labour convincing enough progressive voters to win a majority at the next election. According to our projections, Labour now sits at 278 seats, a significant increase on Starmer’s final projections – at a measly 163 – yet Labour remains some distance from a majority. While tactical voting from past Green, Tory or Lib-Dem voters may boost this total when the election rolls around, Labour is not in a position to gamble away its regained progressive dominance. Indeed, Green Party analysis has identified 50 seats Labour could hand to the Greens if Burnham pursues a pragmatic approach - if we take that to mean approving new drilling in the North Sea – to climate policy. Indeed, more than 50% of voters in every Labour-Green battleground seat agree that the government should do more to tackle the climate crisis, a statistic that suggests that Labour could outmanoeuvre the Greens through a renewed focus on climate.
This would most certainly be possible. Polanski’s Greens have grown exceptionally in the polls, reaching a high of 18% in March 2026 and subsequently falling to 12% by the 17th of August 2026. Yet the Green Party has evolved to fill the Jeremy Corbyn-sized vacuum on the left of British politics. Focus on the environment has now been paired, or perhaps overshadowed, with left-wing economic policy such as wealth taxes, rent controls and greater public ownership and investment. Polanski has proven adept at identifying and understanding people’s struggles, something learned from a life of genuine financial vulnerability as a budding actor, waiter, and controversially as a hypnotherapist. Interestingly, considering the latter, young people see Polanski as a more normal politician, someone who will listen and understand struggle to a greater extent than your average blue chip, classically educated Westminster politician ever could. Combining this with a great ability to build rapport with the like-minded has made Polanski an incredibly effective political communicator. It seemingly is a mark against Anthony Crosland, as he failed to predict in his 1956 book The Future of Socialism that both figureheads of progressive politics in Britain would soon operate from behind a DJ set.
Polanski’s clear talent for political communication has been utilised to great effect to expand the Green Party. Yet in a sense, his ability to expand his party has caused the Greens to shift somewhat from its roots as an ecological movement, to what it could now be described as an eco-socialist party. Indeed, research conducted by The Rest is Politics podcast, produced by Alistair Campbell and Rory Stewart, found that 52% of respondents were unsure about the Green Party’s policies on climate. The Greens have always maintained an anti-capitalist stance, based largely on ecological factors rather than social issues such as poverty and inequality; greater focus on these issues is certainly understandable as 58 per cent of Britons quote the economy as the nation's biggest current issue. Yet this comes at the risk of burying climate deeper down the list of political problems to be tackled. Is Polanski’s lack of focus on the climate issue a symptom of this climate focus fall off, or more worryingly a cause?
It would be too harsh to suggest Polanski has caused climate to fall from the political landscape. Focus had certainly been diverted well before he became Green Party leader in 2025, becoming challenged by issues ranging from energy security and the cost of living to immigration. Yet Polanski – alongside Burnham, although in a different direction – has exhibited progressive reactionism. Polanski and the Greens have reacted to the falling prominence of Corbyn and the failure of ‘Your Party’, taking up the political vacuum on the left of a more centrist Labour Party and inadvertently pushing climate change further down the food chain. Burnham, on the other-hand, with his ’pragmatism’ on climate, would exhibit progressive reactionism if he pursues the phantom policy of North Sea drilling. Both contribute to the relegation of climate change as a priority of our politics. Burnham’s only real option, is to undercut the Greens and step back from a ‘drill-baby-drill’ agenda. Pandering to the right did not work for Starmer, who famously lost four votes to the Greens for every vote lost to Reform. It equally will not work for Burnham.
A First Mistake?
Climate change has largely escaped our political conversation. Indeed, the Conservatives – once the party who introduced Net-Zero commitments in 2019 – will not allow parliamentary candidates to stand if they do not back scrapping the current 2050 Net Zero target. If, atop this, Burnham pursues his ‘pragmatic’ approach to the North Sea, and the Greens continue to slip from their ecological roots, climate could disappear from the conversation altogether.
The Conservatives may have abandoned climate as an issue; perhaps prematurely, as 55% of their voters polled accept that human interference has caused the climate to change. This does not mean the progressive side of British politics should follow suit. If Burnham pursues North Sea oil and gas, he will lose goodwill from progressive and centrist voters, for negligible economic gains and a misguided perception of a potential political victory. Indeed 74% of Lib-Dem, 80% of Labour, 90% of Green and 50% of Tory 2024 voters believe the fears over climate change have not been exaggerated; how then have our political representatives in Parliament, alongside our agenda setting media, allowed such an issue of potential catastrophe to slip from focus?
Burnham must not allow progressive momentum coming into the next election to be washed away in the tide of the North Sea. Labour will gain little domestic political support or goodwill for pursuing this policy; Burnham’s international incentive may prove accurate, yet favour with the petulant Trump can be whisked away in the blink of an eye. This could be Burnham’s first major misstep as prime minister, and he should think twice before planting another knife in the back of the already enfeebled climate agenda in the UK. Equally, Polanski should direct his considerable political communication skills to maintain the presence of climate change in our national debate. If you are bored by tedious weather small talk, your luck has run out. Instead of parroting powerful insights about how hot it’s been, perhaps it is time for us to talk about climate change once again.