Changing party positions on oil, gas and net zero are reshaping the environment in which research is funded, commissioned, and trusted.
In recent weeks, the UK’s net zero debate has lurched from one headline to the next — but beneath the surface, the common thread is uncertainty. And that uncertainty matters, because it directly shapes how research is funded, commissioned, and trusted in policymaking.
Polling reported by POLITICO suggests that support for net zero targets remains high across the electorate. Yet, voters are increasingly sceptical that political leaders can deliver on those ambitions. That scepticism is being fed by mixed political messages: the Telegraph warns of “hidden costs” running into billions, while the Guardian highlights how Reform UK has sought to weaponise public unease through its “drill baby drill” slogan, targeting Labour’s climate policies as out of touch with ordinary households.
At the same time, the two main parties are shifting ground. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch told the Offshore Europe conference she would “get all our oil and gas out of the North Sea”, and confirmed plans to remove the word “transition” from the North Sea Transition Authority’s name, reframing its mandate around extraction rather than decarbonisation. Labour’s stance has also softened. Despite a manifesto pledge to ban new oil and gas licences, reports in the Telegraph suggest Energy Secretary Ed Miliband is considering allowing “tie-backs” — new wells connected to existing infrastructure — as a way of sidestepping a politically costly full ban.
Local debates show how these national shifts filter down to communities. Coverage from BBC Northamptonshire illustrated how residents are weighing jobs, energy costs and climate priorities, often with limited clarity about what policy changes will mean in practice.
For the research community, this churn matters. When the goalposts for net zero move with each new political announcement, the policy environment in which funding calls are framed and evidence is commissioned becomes unstable. Scientific advice risks being interpreted through a partisan lens, rather than as a foundation for shared decision-making.
This dynamic is particularly challenging for marine and energy researchers, whose work underpins assessments of offshore oil, gas and wind. When net zero is pulled into partisan competition rather than treated as a cross-party national project, the evidence base risks being sidelined. That leaves a gap at the very moment when robust science is most needed to navigate trade-offs between energy security, climate commitments, and marine conservation.
The task for academics is therefore twofold: not only to generate new data, but to ensure that findings are accessible, trusted, and positioned to cut through political noise. That means engaging beyond traditional academic forums, helping to build common reference points across parties, industry and communities. Without this, evidence risks being drowned out by rhetoric — just when it is needed most to ground the UK’s path to net zero in reality.