Energy experts have criticised former British prime minister Tony Blair’s call for greater oil and gas extraction, arguing that moving away from the country’s net zero targets would increase long-term economic and climate risks.

The criticism followed an essay by Blair in which he argued that the United Kingdom should use its remaining oil and gas reserves and reconsider its target of achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

Blair’s position has renewed debate over the future of the UK’s energy policy, particularly as the country faces rising concerns over energy security, extreme weather and the cost of living.Energy specialists said expanding fossil fuel production would not provide a reliable solution to energy challenges and could expose households and businesses to continued volatility in international fuel markets.

Ed Matthew, UK programme director at the climate thinktank E3G, described Blair’s intervention as out of step with current energy and environmental pressures.Matthew said recent heat records and international energy disruptions demonstrated the risks associated with continued dependence on fossil fuels.

He argued that renewable energy offered a more stable alternative because operating costs were low once infrastructure was built.Blair’s comments came as the UK recorded periods of unusually high temperatures and increased solar power generation. Scientists have linked rising temperatures and more frequent heat extremes to climate change driven largely by greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels.

Medical professionals warned that extreme heat could increase health risks, particularly for older people and young children. Farmers also reported pressure on livestock and crops, with economic losses expected to exceed hundreds of millions of pounds.The debate has centred on whether the UK should prioritise domestic fossil fuel extraction or accelerate investment in renewable energy and low-carbon technologies.

Supporters of increased oil and gas production argue that domestic resources could improve energy independence and reduce reliance on imported fuels. Critics say fossil fuel markets remain globally connected and that new extraction would not shield consumers from international price changes.

The UK has committed to reaching net zero emissions by 2050, a target that requires substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions across electricity generation, transport, industry and buildings.Experts opposing Blair’s proposal said abandoning the target could weaken investment certainty for clean energy industries and slow the development of technologies needed for the transition.

Renewable energy capacity has expanded in recent years, with falling costs making technologies such as solar and wind increasingly competitive. However, the transition also requires improvements in energy storage, grid infrastructure and industrial adaptation.

Blair has previously questioned aspects of current climate policy and argued that energy strategies should focus more heavily on technological development and economic competitiveness.His latest comments have drawn attention because they come during a period of heightened global energy uncertainty.

International conflicts and supply disruptions have contributed to fluctuations in oil and gas prices, reinforcing arguments on both sides of the energy debate.Climate policy experts said the central challenge for governments was balancing energy reliability, affordability and emissions reduction.

They argued that investment decisions made now would influence the UK’s energy system for decades, with consequences for both economic resilience and climate risks.

Australia’s One Nation party has proposed a resource policy modeled in part on Norway’s approach to oil and gas wealth, arguing that greater public participation in energy projects could deliver stronger returns for taxpayers and create a sovereign wealth fund for future generations.

The proposal has attracted attention for its ambition but also prompted questions from energy analysts about investment risks, expected timelines for returns, and its compatibility with Australia’s climate objectives.One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has pointed to Norway’s success in capturing value from its petroleum resources through close cooperation between government and industry.

Under the party’s proposal, the Australian government would be able to acquire ownership stakes in new offshore oil and gas developments through a dedicated investment vehicle.Unlike Norway’s system, however, participation would not be mandatory. Companies would retain the option of whether to accept government investment and public ownership in their projects.

Supporters argue that the approach would allow Australians to benefit more directly from the development of national resources. Critics counter that the voluntary structure could significantly limit the policy’s effectiveness.

According to David Hanson, who has advocated for a Norway-style model, the Scandinavian country’s experience demonstrates the benefits of partnership between governments and energy companies supported by strong fiscal incentives.However, the opt-in nature of One Nation’s proposal creates important differences from Norway’s framework.

Because companies would be free to decline government participation, analysts suggest that projects most likely to seek public investment could be those facing the highest levels of commercial uncertainty.Josh Runciman, lead gas analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, said the proposal raises questions about whether taxpayers should be exposed to exploration and appraisal risks in an industry where governments typically do not possess the same technical expertise as private-sector operators.

The concern reflects a broader challenge in resource investment. Early-stage exploration projects carry significant uncertainty, with many failing to reach commercial production despite substantial investment.Under One Nation’s proposal, the government would reportedly act as a passive commercial partner, operating at arm’s length from day-to-day project decisions.

At the same time, Hanson has suggested that the government would have greater influence over how its share of production is used once projects begin generating oil or gas.According to the policy outline, the government’s share of production could be directed toward domestic priorities, including fertilizer manufacturing, energy generation and fuel refining.

Surplus production could then be exported, with proceeds used to reduce public debt and build sovereign wealth.The proposal is designed to increase domestic benefits from Australia’s natural resources without imposing higher taxes on energy companies. However, analysts note that this feature may also limit the scale and speed of any financial returns.

Because the plan applies only to future offshore exploration projects and relies on voluntary participation, the timeline for generating revenue is expected to be lengthy.Runciman estimates that many of the projects likely to fall under the policy remain at very early stages of development.

As a result, substantial production and associated government returns may not materialize for at least a decade.That means even if the policy were enacted in the near future, significant additional public revenue would probably not begin flowing until the late 2030s.The delayed timetable also raises questions about how quickly a sovereign wealth fund could accumulate assets sufficient to influence Australia’s long-term fiscal position.

The debate has inevitably drawn comparisons with alternative proposals that seek to increase public returns from resource extraction through taxation rather than direct ownership.One frequently cited model comes from the Superpower Institute, chaired by former competition regulator Allan Fels and supported by businessman and climate advocate Ross Garnaut.

The institute has proposed a 40% two-way cashflow tax, described as a “fair share levy,” that would apply to oil and gas projects.Under that framework, the effective marginal tax rate on oil and gas production would rise to 58%, while companies would also receive a 40% refund on losses.

Advocates argue that the structure mirrors key features of Norway’s resource taxation system by sharing both risks and rewards between government and industry.Unlike One Nation’s proposal, the tax would apply to existing projects as well as future developments.

The institute estimates that it could generate approximately A$9.5 billion annually during an initial transition period, with revenues potentially exceeding A$18 billion in 2031 before gradually declining as global demand for fossil fuels falls over time.Supporters of the levy argue that it would deliver more immediate and substantial public returns than ownership-based approaches limited to future projects.

The debate extends beyond fiscal policy into broader questions surrounding Australia’s energy future.One Nation’s proposal is part of a wider policy agenda that supports continued oil and gas exploration and opposes Australia’s existing net-zero emissions commitment.

Hanson has repeatedly called for the country’s climate targets to be abandoned.That position places the proposal at the center of an increasingly contentious national discussion about balancing energy security, economic growth and emissions reduction.Runciman said aspects of Norway’s resource taxation system have merit because they are designed to preserve investment incentives while ensuring governments receive a larger share of resource profits.

However, he questioned whether expanding support for new gas developments is politically sustainable at a time when many voters expect stronger action on climate change.The policy therefore faces two distinct tests. The first is whether voluntary public participation in future resource projects can generate meaningful financial returns for taxpayers.

The second is whether expanding support for new fossil fuel developments aligns with Australia’s evolving climate and energy priorities.

As debate continues, the proposal highlights a broader challenge confronting resource-rich economies: how to maximize public benefit from natural resources while managing financial risk and navigating the transition toward lower-emissions energy systems.

The vessels, BW Tyr and BW Elm, are expected to arrive in Mumbai on March 31 and New Mangalore on April 1, respectively, according to a statement from the petroleum ministry.The transit comes as shipping through the strategic chokepoint has been severely curtailed by the conflict, with Iran allowing passage only to what it has described as “non-hostile vessels” that coordinate with its authorities.

The two tankers are among a small number of Indian-flagged vessels to successfully navigate the strait in recent days. Four LPG carriers have already completed the crossing, while three more remain in the western section of the waterway, according to ship tracking data.

A total of 18 Indian-flagged vessels with 485 Indian seafarers are still in the western Gulf region, the government said, underscoring continued exposure to maritime risks in the area.Energy dependence in focusIndia, the world’s second-largest importer of LPG, consumed 33.15 million tons of the fuel last year, with imports meeting roughly 60% of demand.

About 90% of these imports originate from the Middle East, making the Strait of Hormuz a critical artery for the country’s energy security.

Despite disruptions in maritime traffic, port operations across India remain normal with no congestion reported, the government added.

Saudi Ambassador Dr Saud bin Mohammed Al-Sati said that, Saudi Arabia’s biggest oil giant Aramco’s proposed partnership with Reliance Industries Ltd reflects the strategic nature of the growing energy ties between India and Saudi Arabia, Press Trust of India (PTI) reported.

“In this backdrop, Saudi Aramco’s proposed investments in India’s energy sector such as the USD 44 billion West Coast refinery and petrochemical project in Maharashtra and long term partnership with Reliance represent strategic milestones in our bilateral relationship,” Dr. Al-Sati said.

Dr Al-Sati said that under Vision-2030 a significant growth shall take place in trade and business between India and Saudi Arabia in the variety of non-oil sectors in order to reduce Kingdom’s oil dependency.

With the collaboration of India and Saudi Arabia, more than 40 opportunities for joint collaboration and investments across various sectors have been identified between India and Saudi Arabia in 2019, PTI reported.

“There is huge untapped potential available in merchandise trade, particularly in non-oil trade and we are enhancing cooperation in economic, commercial, investment, cultural and technological fields,” the Dr Al-Sati said.

Speaking about the future Saudi-India energy ties, Al-Sati said, “the bilateral energy ties have grown beyond the supply of crude oil, refined products and LPG to a more comprehensive partnership that focusses on investments and joint ventures in petrochemical complexes and cooperation in exploration.”

When asked about Crown Prince’s Vision-2030 Al-Sati said, “Saudi Arabia is working towards transforming its economy and looking at a post-oil age of world-class technological research, start-up and entrepreneurial vigour.”

“The entire development strategy of the kingdom rests on three pillars – to build a vibrant society, a thriving economy and an ambitious nation,” he added.

“The World Bank too has ranked the kingdom as the fourth largest reformer within G20. The number of foreign investment licenses granted in Saudi Arabia in the first quarter of 2018 increased by 130 per cent,” he said.

Speaking about increasing oil supply to India in order to balance the reduction of Iranian oil import, he said, “Saudi Arabia is committed to India’s energy security and will meet any shortfall that may arise due to disruptions from other sources”.

Saudi Arabia is India’s major source of 17 per cent or more of crude oil and 32 per cent of LPG requirements.