If it looks like a greenwash, I always think, it’s probably, at least partly, a greenwash. And there can be few things more green-washy than the Oil and Gas Authority removing all reference to fossil fuels from its name, when it rebranded itself the North Sea Transition Authority last week.

The fact that the renaming – almost like an illusionist trick in which fossil fuels are gone in a puff of smoke – comes just as the authority is about to issue a new round of exploration licenses, adds to the feeling that there’s at least some degree of washing going on here.

The new licenses are, of course, a response to the current energy crisis, which itself has been created by the war in Ukraine, and Russia’s prior limiting of supplies. They’re part of Boris Johnson’s new ‘energy independence plan’, which is all about creating some fixes, as quickly as possible, to the energy crisis we find ourselves in.

Of course, few of the fixes are very quick and some of them (the licenses, for instance) come with threats to our ability to meet net zero targets and save ourselves, and future generations, from crashing through the degree rises that have been predicted.

Supporters of the new licenses will likely point out how they are required to pass a “climate compatibility checkpoint” that ensures that new production is in line with the UK’s goal of reaching net zero by 2050 and therefore all about North Sea transition. But can we really trust that this helps keep us on track?

Not, I would say, when the licensing process has been written to allow the government to overlook climate concerns in the event of “urgent national security concerns”. Not when analysis by the Uplift climate campaign group, based on Rystad Energy data, found that the approving of six new North Sea drilling sites would “blow” the UK’s net zero climate target, generating the equivalent of 420 million barrels of oil. Not when already licensed fields don’t have to yet undergo such a test, and, according to Carbon Brief, between 2022 and 2025, up to 46 such oil and gas projects could be approved, including the Cambo oil field, with the potential to produce up to 2.1bn barrels of oil equivalent over their lifetimes.

READ MORE: Answer to the petrol price crisis? Work from home (again)

We might also question the whole motivation behind the new licenses. If a quick fix is what is needed, do they deliver?

As the Climate Change Committee (CCC) pointed out, “Historically, the timeline from the issuing of an exploration license to production commencing ranges from under a decade to several decades, with an average of around 28 years. In most cases, exploration occurring as a result of a new licensing round would likely not lead to new production until the 2030s or 2040s, and possibly post-2050.”

The industry may be nimbler than it once was, but we’re still looking at a long-term solution, with grave associated negatives. Meanwhile, the CCC also points out, the best way of reducing the UK’s future exposure to these volatile prices is “to cut fossil fuel consumption on the path to Net Zero – improving energy efficiency, shifting to a renewables-based power system and electrifying end uses in transport, industry and heating.”

That’s not to say that I don’t like the new title of the authority. I do. If by North Sea Transition Authority, they mean an organisation that helps us wind down our use of fossil fuels, and emissions from them, as quickly as possible, whilst transitioning to other sources, supplying our energy needs and avoiding price crisis, then bring it on.

But I’m not sure they do, and the problem is that, in essence, this is still the same authority it always was, the same servant of two masters, one being the maximizing of economic recovery of oil and gas, the other being the enabling of a Net Zero transition.

Interestingly the name is also not much liked by anti net zero types. Some balk at the wokery in the term transition, or point out that the name itself suggests a zero frack approach to gas extraction, which itself has become the target crisis solution of the right-wing anti net zero movement.

But the problem for those of us who really do want to see us bring down greenhouse gas emissions enough to give the next generation a fighting chance, is that it all looks a little too like greenwash.

Yes, a serious North Sea Transition is what we need – and as quickly as possible, towards as little fossil fuel use as possible. But my fear is that the real name of this authority should be the Slow North Sea Transition authority. My fear is that its renaming is little more than word play.

My fear is that, in the face of such huge issues – energy security and the long-term security of the planet – this is both green-washing and security-washing in tandem, and a cynicism beyond the pale.