It’s been a turbulent year for energy policy on both sides of the Atlantic, with governments and corporations wrestling over the future of fossil fuels, the pace of the green transition, and who will bear the cost of change. From the windswept North Sea oil rigs of the United Kingdom to the diesel-choked highways of California, the fault lines are clear: how quickly should we move away from oil and gas, and what happens to communities and industries along the way?
Since the Labour Party swept into power in the U.K. in 2024, the country’s energy landscape has entered a period of profound uncertainty. Prime Minister Kier Starmer has sought to chart a middle course, introducing stricter taxes on fossil fuel companies while making it clear that oil and gas will remain part of the national energy mix—at least for now. In June 2025, the government took a major step by imposing new environmental regulations on North Sea oil and gas projects, requiring firms to account for the full environmental impact of the emissions their fuels create when burned.
This move follows a landmark decision earlier in the year by a Scottish court, which deemed the approval of Shell’s Jackdaw and Equinor and Ithaca Energy’s Rosebank projects unlawful, demanding they be reassessed by the government. While existing oil and gas projects can continue—albeit under a punishing 78% tax rate, including the Energy Profits Levy introduced in 2022—the government has drawn a line in the sand: no new oil and gas licenses will be issued. Instead, Starmer’s administration is investing heavily in a shift to green energy.
Yet, as reported by Oilprice.com, the Labour government’s approach is a far cry from the previous Conservative government, which threw its weight behind maximizing North Sea extraction. In a recent visit to the U.K., former U.S. President Donald Trump praised the potential of North Sea oil, stating, “You have a great asset here, and we spoke about it: it’s called the North Sea. The North Sea oil is phenomenal… I want this country to do well, and you have great assets that you’re going to start using, I believe, under this Prime Minister.” Trump argued that his own pro-fossil fuel policies in the U.S. had lowered fuel prices and tamed inflation, though the reality is that prices have actually risen since his term began.
Starmer, for his part, has emphasized pragmatism. “The mix will include oil and gas for many years to come from the North Sea—we’ve been clear about that for some time. But we also need to mix that with renewables, and it’s the mix that’s really important,” he said, underscoring a commitment to reducing energy costs for consumers while steering the country toward net zero by 2050.
But just how much oil and gas is left in the North Sea? The answer depends on who you ask. Wood Mackenzie, a leading energy research company, recently estimated that as much as 14 billion barrels of recoverable oil and gas remain in existing fields—three times the four billion barrels estimated by the U.K. regulator, the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA). Their AI-powered analysis suggests that by matching best-in-class global recovery rates, the U.K. could add up to 14 billion barrels of production over the lives of the 100 largest fields. “If UK fields were able to match recovery factors from analogous global fields, an additional 9 percent could be recovered. If best-in-class recovery factors were matched, an additional 18 percent of recovery could be added… These scenarios would potentially add seven and 14 billion barrels of additional production, respectively, over the lives of the 100 largest fields,” the report stated.
The opposition Conservative Party, now led by Kemi Badenoch, has seized on these numbers, promising to remove all net-zero requirements on North Sea drilling if elected. Their goal: “maximising extraction” to get “all our oil and gas out of the North Sea” and drive down energy bills. Yet, as Oilprice.com notes, previous Conservative promises to cut household energy costs have often fallen short, leaving many voters skeptical.
Meanwhile, the government’s green ambitions are colliding with a pressing need for a “just transition”—ensuring that workers and communities reliant on oil and gas aren’t left behind. With new investor interest pouring into the green sector, the hope is that these investments will help support affected populations as the energy mix evolves, strengthening both energy security and long-term affordability.
Across the Atlantic, California is facing its own energy crossroads, but the battle lines look a little different. In 2023, the state’s Air Resources Board struck a deal with major truck manufacturers—Daimler Truck, Volvo Group, Paccar, and Traton—to slash emissions and invest in electric trucks. The so-called Clean Truck Partnership was meant to provide stability and predictability as the industry transitioned away from diesel. But by the summer of 2025, those same companies had backed out, suing California with the support of the Trump administration.
As reported by the Los Angeles Times, this legal challenge has thrown California’s clean transportation efforts into turmoil. The manufacturers’ lawsuit comes on the heels of a proposed rollback of the Environmental Protection Agency’s greenhouse gas standards and a surprise move by the Federal Trade Commission condemning the partnership. The FTC closed an investigation—one it never publicly announced—after the truck companies claimed they were victims of unfair treatment. Days later, Trump’s federal lawyers joined the lawsuit against California.
The stakes are high. Diesel freight pollution has long hit hardest in low-income neighborhoods and communities of color near ports and freight corridors, causing higher rates of asthma, heart disease, and cancer. Rolling back the Clean Truck Partnership means more diesel trucks on California roads, more hospital visits, and more lives cut short. “It’s an assault on environmental justice that tells Californians their health is expendable,” wrote Guillermo Ortiz and Craig Segall in the Los Angeles Times.
Beyond public health, the economic consequences are severe. Delaying the adoption of clean trucks locks fleets into high and volatile diesel prices and undermines U.S. competitiveness. California has documented a $94,000 markup on some electric trucks in the U.S. compared with Europe, a gap that discourages adoption and keeps American freight stuck in the past.
Despite these setbacks, California’s leadership on clean transportation remains a point of pride—and a warning. The state’s authority to set its own standards has driven innovation, created jobs, and put more zero-emission vehicles on the road than anywhere else in the country. As Ortiz and Segall put it, “The public wants clean air and modern infrastructure. The choice is clear: double down on clean truck commitments or cede leadership to China and watch our industries and economy fall behind.”
Not all manufacturers have joined the lawsuit. Companies like Cummins, Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis are being urged to reaffirm their commitments to the Clean Truck Partnership, a move that could help restore trust and keep California—and the nation—on track toward a cleaner future.
With the world watching, the outcome of these transatlantic energy battles will shape not only the air we breathe but the jobs we hold, the bills we pay, and the legacy we leave for the next generation.
