How Jackdaw ignites row over climate and costs
Most coverage of Jackdaw has treated it as a simple test of climate versus bills, but I think the interesting part is how little the two debates seem to speak to each other. The people defending the field talk about jobs, energy security and lower gas prices; the people opposing it talk about emissions and reputational damage. Both sides can be right at once, and that's precisely why this has dragged on so long.
I'd want more detail on the actual economics. Gas prices have moved around a lot since the project was first mooted, and the case for spending on new North Sea infrastructure has to look different now than it did two years ago. If the field costs more to develop than the gas will ever fetch, then the climate argument has an ally in the bank account, and the politics get a lot more complicated.
The way this lands probably says more about what a country is willing to pay for its principles than about Jackdaw itself. I do think the debate has been framed as either/or for too long. The honest answer, whatever one's position, is that there is no clean choice, only trade-offs.