As is becoming all too obvious, Europe is on the edge of an oil crisis. And so (via the Daily Telegraph) this, a few days ago, is what Ed Miliband, the millenarian fanatic now acting as Britain’s secretary of state for Energy Security and Net Zero (choose one), had to say about BP:
Ed Miliband has branded BP’s profits “morally and economically wrong” after the war in Iran helped the oil major more than double its earnings.
The Energy Secretary launched an attack on the FTSE 100 giant as the company revealed profits hit $3.2bn (£2.4bn) between January and March, compared with $1.4bn in 2025. BP described the results as “exceptional”.
Mr Miliband condemned the company for making billions of pounds while households face higher energy bills because of rising oil and gas prices.
Posting on X, he wrote: “Profiting from a crisis is morally and economically wrong. That’s why we are taxing these windfall profits to help fund support with the cost of living.
Miliband has since deleted that tweet, but no one doubts that it, in its antagonism toward an oil company and its display of economic illiteracy, was an accurate summary of Miliband’s views.
And so, via Bloomberg, May 1:
BP Plc is considering potentially exiting part or all of its operations in the UK North Sea, people familiar with the matter said, as the oil giant works to strip assets and pay down debt.
London-listed BP is conducting an internal review of its upstream operations in the UK, which could fetch about £2 billion ($2.7 billion) in a full divestment, according to the people.
That review doubtless began well before Miliband’s tweet, but successive British governments have worked hard to make the North Sea inhospitable territory for oil and gas companies. Miliband’s comment, despite the retraction, will only add to the pressure for BP to quit that region.
BP will also be aware that, in the event that Prime Minister Keir Starmer loses his job (it’s not impossible), Miliband will probably want to be finance minister (chancellor of the exchequer). Given Miliband’s appeal to the lumpenintelligentsia who now comprise so many of Labour’s activists, he may get his way, both because of their green sympathies and because Labour will be keen to stop their defection to an ascendant (and increasingly sinister) Green Party.
Meanwhile, with much of the North Sea oil and gas sector centered on Scotland, labor union concerns are rising.
The rushed rundown of oil and gas production risks a jobs calamity and an “industrial catastrophe” and should be paused, the GMB union has warned.
GMB Scotland, which represents workers across oil, gas, nuclear and renewables sectors, has called for North Sea production and supply chains to be protected while a secure mix of energy sources is built up.
Meanwhile, a new report from the Scottish Trade Union Congress (STUC) highlights the state of the green energy sector and reveals that 1,100 jobs have been lost in Scotland, alongside a record high trade deficit of £569 million, with concerns raised over a failure to ensure renewable energy manufacturing jobs are not lost overseas.
Disappearing green jobs, eh?
That wasn’t in the script.
Oh yes (also via The Daily Telegraph):
Ed Miliband has been accused of “covering up” evidence that Labour’s net zero plans will increase household electricity bills.
The Conservatives and Britain Remade, a Right-leaning think tank, have claimed that the Energy Secretary is hiding documents that show his decision to scrap major market reforms will cost consumers while benefiting green energy generators.
But Brits should not be discouraged, Miliband is taking action against the tumble dryer menace.
The sale of traditional tumble dryers is set to be phased out under new Net Zero rules.
The sale of condenser tumble dryers that do not meet efficiency rules will be banned under new laws, pushing consumers towards heat-pump alternatives.
The Government believes that these are cheaper to run and claims they could save households nearly £1000 over the 20 year lifespan of the machine.
As so often with green technologies, the question is why, if these products are so good, must consumers be forced or bribed to buy them?