Oil, Net Zero, and the Parties That Would Have Us Go Backwards

The lawn is brown, the leaves are falling, and it’s only early August. That uneasy feeling becomes our starting point for a straight-talking look at climate change, net zero, and why the public conversation gets derailed by “it’s not consistent every year” doubt.

We unpack why extreme weather swings can confuse the issue, while the long-term evidence still points one way: warming oceans, melting ice caps, and greenhouse gas emissions that outpace what nature can absorb. Then we ground it in UK reality, from our share of carbon emissions to why per-person and per-square-mile figures matter in a small, densely populated country. We also revisit wins like the ozone layer recovery and the clean-up of acid rain, because visible success stories are a reminder that policy plus engineering can actually move the dial.

From there, we get practical and a bit provocative. We look at EV sales targets, why penalties can end up toothless, and why the UK could lead by setting domestic standards that become the template for global electric vehicle transition. We challenge the assumption that drilling more North Sea oil brings cheaper bills, and we ask a bigger question: are we wasting oil on the least sensible use? Oil is not just petrol and diesel, it’s the feedstock for plastics, chemicals, lubricants and materials that last, while internal combustion engines throw most energy away as heat. We also tackle wind turbine myths on lifespan and recyclability, and put the bird-death debate into clearer perspective.

If you care about UK energy security, renewable energy, electric cars, and a credible net zero pathway, listen through and tell us where you disagree. Subscribe, share with a friend, and leave a review so more people can find the conversation.

To buy the latest 2026 version of Electric Cars - The Truth Revealed, visit grahamhilltraining.com. If you buy a copy of the 2026 version, you will receive all updates through to the next release of the book. 

Electric Car Chat is now ranked 17th in the world for EV podcasts out of an estimated 22,000 and now downloaded in 54 countries. If you are interested in sponsoring this podcast or would be interested in working together please visit grahamhilltraining.com/contact

You can see the podcast ranking here:

Feedspot Ranking Click Here

Transcript

Today is the 5th of August and I'm looking out of my lounge window at a mainly brown lawn which, even in the middle of summer, has always been more green than brown — but this year has been extreme in terms of heat waves. The other strange phenomenon is the number of dead leaves covering the lawn, causing me to look up at the old tree from which they've dropped. Looking at the tree it would be easy to believe that we were heavily into autumn, as masses of leaves have already turned to orange and brown. This is something I've never experienced at this time of year.

Now, over my many years of living in the UK since birth, I've experienced many extremes of weather. From snowdrifts burying my car, to heatwaves with people asked to share baths and use watering cans instead of hoses to preserve dangerously low reservoirs — some of which have been nearly dry. And then, of course, there are the floods which happen more frequently as I get older. And we're not alone. Other countries around the world suffer extreme weather conditions, and currently an AI search revealed tens of thousands of forest fires around the world over the last three months.

In the past, abnormal weather has been put down to an extreme weather event and dismissed as a one-off, whilst the scientists have explained it as global warming — as a result of the continued release of greenhouse gases. The problem here is inconsistency. It doesn't happen every year. And how does global warming result in extremes of cold, or massive flooding? If these events were all a result of global warming, surely, they would happen every year — and getting progressively worse. And this causes people to doubt the science, and listen to the arguments put forward by the likes of Reform and the Tories in the UK, and President Trump in America, encouraging more drilling for oil, and encouraging US drivers to opt for petrol cars rather than electric — that the previous administration was encouraging with grants, since removed by Trump.

Now, the one thing I've learned not to do in business and in my podcast is involve myself in politics, so this podcast is more about the environment than the differences of opinion expressed by each of the political parties. And whilst there are a number of claims regarding global warming, and how being such a small country with very little contribution to worldwide greenhouse gas makes anything we do to reduce emissions irrelevant and of little consequence — the problem is that we can't see greenhouse gas, consisting mainly of carbon dioxide and methane. Scientists come up with reasons why we know that global warming is the result of releasing more greenhouse gases than can be absorbed naturally, but the inconsistencies in weather don't help to prove the point the scientists are making.

However, what we do know is that the oceans are warming, and the ice caps are melting. And whilst we have seasonal fluctuations, we can't deny that the world is warming. And we can have an effect, even in this little country of ours.

Remember the holes in the ozone layer? Those were caused by CFCs — chlorofluorocarbons — in aerosols and refrigerants. Action was taken, and the holes have been recovering. Then there was acid rain, caused mainly by sulphur dioxide from power stations, which affected trees and crops — but following the action taken to clean up those emissions, acidic stress was pretty much eliminated. And we could see the difference. I remember regularly driving along the M23 and seeing the evergreen trees visibly turning brown over a period of time. Today they are perfectly healthy and a gorgeous mass of green all year round. Visible proof that a difference can be made by changing what we do. Different problems, different solutions — but the same lesson. 

So let's look at our emissions in the UK — too small to matter, as some would have us believe. Well, in those terms, it's partly true. The UK contributes around one percent of global territorial emissions — or closer to one point four percent when you include the emissions embedded in the goods we import. So why should we bother? We emit around 4.2 tonnes of CO2 per person per year, which is broadly in line with the world average. But we’re in the top few countries when it comes to CO2 emissions per square mile — a consequence of being a small, densely populated and historically industrial nation.

So, there are strong reasons why we should have a target of net zero for the salvation of the planet. Whilst I agree with the objective, we may need to review the penalties for not reaching the emissions goals on our way to net zero. There are currently some complicated calculations that take into account the emissions from petrol and diesel vehicles sold in the UK by each manufacturer — factored into total emissions including ICE and plug-in hybrid sales. The net result is very little by way of fines being imposed on car makers, even though they've missed their percentage of zero emission car sales target in the UK. This year the government target is 33% of all new car sales, increasing to 38% in 2027.

What I would like to see, given the international consensus that we must universally reach net zero, is the UK doing what we've done so many times before — leading the way. This little island has led the way in so many world-changing areas. Let me remind you of a few.

We have the World Wide Web, invented by Sir Tim Berners-Lee in 1989. The computer, conceptualised by Charles Babbage and later advanced by Alan Turing. The telephone, patented by the Scot Alexander Graham Bell in 1876. Television, successfully demonstrated by John Logie Baird in 1926. And where would we be without tarmac — invented by Edgar Parnell Hooley in 1902? I wonder what he'd make of our potholes. Then there's the steam engine, the jet engine, penicillin, the smallpox vaccination that has saved millions of lives, and the discovery of the DNA structure in 1953. I think you get my point.

This island has created some of the most remarkable contributors to the betterment of mankind. So, what's happened? Have all the creatives moved abroad? After years of coming up with world-saving solutions and ways to make our lives more enjoyable, we're turning our backs on the biggest opportunity ever — to actually make a difference, to lead the way, and to encourage investment in the UK as we show the rest of the world how it can be done.

And this matters way beyond just our own ambitions. The UK has the expertise and the platform to lead the world — not just by example, but by design. The proposal in my book is that we establish a UK Oversight Body first — one that sets the domestic standards for electric vehicle transition. Those standards then become the foundation and the template for international standards, adopted and overseen globally by GEVO — the Global Electric Vehicle Oversight body. The UK doesn't simply participate in the international framework. It authors it. Rather than dismissing net zero, we should be the country that writes the rulebook — and then shows the rest of the world how it's done. Interestingly, even the petrochemical industry increasingly sees things this way — they understand that burning oil for energy consumes the feedstock they need for plastics, chemicals and materials. The argument for preserving oil for higher-value uses is not just an environmental one. It is an economic and industrial one too.

So let me share a few more of my thoughts and something that every commentator seems to be missing. We need to stop clamouring for more drilling in the North Sea and investing in fracking across the country. We can buy other nations' reserves at the same international market price per barrel — whether we're buying from the North Sea, Norway, or the USA. By doing this we retain a degree of oil security in the stocks that we hold in the North Sea, something that some politicians constantly raise as a concern. Using up our own oil when oil is freely available on the open market makes no sense at all. And using our own North Sea oil would not result in a drop in business or domestic energy costs — this has been widely explained but is not always understood.

The oil we buy must be capable of refining in our own refineries — what's known as sweet crude, similar to the oil we import from the USA and Norway. We don't even have to transport Norwegian oil — we have a direct pipeline. Interestingly, whilst our North Sea oil comes from the same geological basin as Norway's, the chemical makeup can vary from field to field.

Much depends on our oil refineries, which over many years have been optimised to refine mainly light sweet low-sulphur oil from the US and Norway. I understand that if we were to use more North Sea oil, the refineries would need significant alterations — especially if we were to rely solely on UK oil. As a result of this setup, we end up exporting around 80% of our North Sea oil. Much of the oil originating from the Middle East contains high levels of sulphur — which is why supply hasn't been such a problem for us even with the Straits of Hormuz closed to shipping.

Now whilst all of this is interesting, it's not as simple as switching to our own oil by opening new fields and claiming it will reduce our energy costs. Whilst political parties keep making this argument, it's clearly not how international oil markets work — we pay the international rate wherever the oil originates. It's been claimed that the government would increase tax revenues by opening new fields, and that's true — but the extra oil would be sold on the open market. To imagine that extra tax revenue being fed into reducing domestic and business energy prices is just wishful thinking.

So, let's look at this from an accountant's point of view. Our North Sea oil reserves are a national asset sitting on our balance sheet. At current production rates, analyses suggest the remaining proven reserves might last around seven years. We are down to the last ten percent in many North Sea wells, which makes extraction more difficult and more expensive. Nothing like the thousand years of oil reserves under the ground in the USA recently claimed by President Trump.

But, of course, that claim is simply not true. The proven US oil reserves amount to roughly 17 years at current production rates. Definitely not a thousand years. It’s possible that there could be undiscovered or technically recoverable reserves beyond that — but scientists are not predicting anything close to Trump's claims of 1,000 years.

So, the idea that we should be drilling more and extracting more of our own oil — when we can buy oil on the open market for the same international price, while keeping our own reserves in the ground and on the nation's balance sheet — makes obvious sense.

My fear is that as global oil supplies continue to drop, the cost per barrel will increase, followed by protectionism. Countries will look to preserve their own oil resources and stop exporting. International agreements on price-setting could collapse. And if we've already drained our reserves by then where do we turn?

The attitude of Reform and the Tory parties, that we should abandon net zero objectives and use up whatever oil reserves we have, while turning our backs on renewable energy using the arguments that windfarms are ugly and kill birds, and solar farms use up precious farmland is exactly the wrong direction. Those things may be partly true. But they are a choice we need to make for our long-term energy security.

I have ideas that will make wind farms more attractive by turning them into local attractions. And whilst solar farms will be necessary, we can minimise them by ensuring that new house builds have solar tiles fitted instead of the ugly panels mounted on top of roof tiles. Companies have already designed and are manufacturing solar tiles. Tesla leads the way globally, with Marley Solar Tiles leading the way in the UK. But through UK inaction, have we missed that world-leading boat?

Now this brings me to the most important point of this podcast — something that is not being discussed, and something so obvious that I struggle to understand why no one is talking about it. We constantly speak as though the only products produced from oil are fuels that are burned — petrol, diesel, paraffin, jet fuel, heating oil. The problem with burning oil is that it’s gone in an instant, never to be replaced. Millions of years in the making, gone in a split second.

On the other hand, oil can and is refined into around a hundred products — including a wide range of plastics, bitumen for roads, lubricants and much much more. Most of which not only has a natural life of many years but can also be recycled. So, the argument to drill for more oil to burn — when we have the opportunity to vastly expand renewable energy production and even lead the world in this sector — makes no economic or strategic sense whatsoever.

We currently recycle less than 30% of plastics, so we need to improve on that. But even if we don't, it's still far better than burning oil for energy that is gone in an instant, never to be replaced. Especially given the fact that we have a brilliant alternative in renewable energy.

And there's another argument. A vehicle driven by an internal combustion engine burns refined oil — but only around 20% of the fuel that is burned actually turns the wheels. The rest is lost to heat and friction. Petrol and diesel cars are incredibly inefficient. Compare that to an electric vehicle, in which over 90% of the electricity drives the wheels. I should mention that this efficiency does drop — as more electricity is used to heat or cool the battery, or power the electronics — but even at its lowest, efficiency sits at 65 to 70%, and is boosted further by regenerative braking, recovering an additional 22% or so. So even in the worst case, an EV is three times more efficient than a petrol or diesel car.

So, unless I'm missing something obvious, it makes complete sense to generate electricity via renewable methods and keep the oil we have left to create the plastics and other long-lasting materials that we desperately need — most of which are recyclable. I'll be talking about roads and potholes another time, but when a road is resurfaced the reclaimed material from the top surface is, in fact, recyclable — and as I'll be pointing out, it’s 20 times more expensive to fill potholes in a road than to resurface the same stretch of road over a 20 year period. 

Tyres are another product of oil. Whilst they can be recycled, they can't be used to produce new tyres — but they can be 100% repurposed in other products. So why is no one talking about the other uses of oil? The uses we should be preserving our worldwide oil reserves for, rather than burning this limited resource to inefficiently drive our vehicles when we have a much better alternative. Someone please tell me what I'm missing.

Now, there have been complaints that wind turbines only have a life of ten years and are not recyclable. Let me correct both of those claims. Modern wind turbines have a design life of 20 to 25 years — and with lifetime extension programmes now underway, many are operating well beyond that. The 10-year figure is simply misinformation.

On recyclability — it's true that glass fibre blades have historically been difficult to recycle and have ended up in landfill. But the blades only account for around 10% of a turbine's materials. The other 90% — the tower, nacelle, foundations — are already wholly recyclable. And now, even the blades are changing. Siemens Gamesa has developed and commercially deployed what it calls the RecyclableBlade — already being installed at scale at RWE's Sofia Offshore Wind Farm here in the UK, with 150 recyclable blades going in across 50 turbines. Siemens Gamesa is committed to producing 100% recyclable turbines by 2040. The technology is not coming — it’s here already.

So I'm struggling to understand the strong feelings against renewables and net zero, and the overwhelming desire to ramp up the extraction and burning of oil. Even if we set aside every argument about global warming, it makes no sense to burn our limited resources to drive vehicles when there is a far more efficient and increasingly affordable alternative. What the hell have I missed?

Oh — maybe it's the birds killed by wind turbines? I was shocked to hear that up to 100,000 birds are killed by wind turbines annually, mainly because some wind farms have been sited on migration paths. However, I then learned that domestic cats in the UK are responsible for around, wait for it, 55 million bird deaths a year. It's a question of perspective. And wind turbine manufacturers and operators are working on this. It turns out that in Norway, when researchers painted one blade black, the number of birds killed dropped by 70%. I have other ideas on this that I think should be considered — and I'll come back to those in the future.

So unless someone can show me that I've missed something, I'll continue to press for net zero. I'll continue to advocate for the position I set out in my book, Electric Cars: The Truth Revealed — that the UK should take the lead in the global transition to electric vehicles, moving us away from single-use oil. We have the history, the expertise, and the platform. Let's use them.

I'm off to make a ruckus. Catch you on the next one.