The Climate Docket

WHAT WE COVER:

  • Liability Litigation
    • Baltimore Lawsuit
    • California Climate Lawsuits
    • Colorado Lawsuit
    • Mass. v. Exxon
    • New York City Lawsuit
    • Rhode Island Lawsuit
    • Other Suits
  • Access to Courts
    • Liability Waivers
    • State Legislation
  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Powered by Genesis

You are here: Home / International / UK Judge Blocks Suit Seeking Stronger Emissions Targets
UK Judge Blocks Suit Seeking Stronger Emissions Targets

UK Judge Blocks Suit Seeking Stronger Emissions Targets

July 23, 2018 Filed Under: International

print
By Isabella Kaminski

A group of citizens has vowed to appeal after a United Kingdom court ruled against allowing their case against the UK government to proceed. The group was trying to force the government to strengthen its emissions reduction targets to bring them in line with the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement.

A judge’s decision to deny a judicial review, sought by a group of 11 plaintiffs and the nonprofit Plan B, was published last week—three weeks after a permission hearing in the High Court of England and Wales. A judicial review empowers UK courts to scrutinize whether the government is obeying the law and to hold it to account.

The group had sought to force the UK to review its current carbon emissions target for 2050, set under the country’s Climate Change Act 2008. The plaintiffs argue that the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement, which the UK signed along with 194 other countries in 2016, require much more ambitious emissions cuts. The Secretary of State has the power to alter the target—which represents an 80 percent cut compared with a 1990 baseline—but has not yet done so.

“We are surprised and disappointed by this ruling,” said Tim Crosland, director of Plan B. He said the group plans to appeal.

The case, inspired by a group of Dutch citizens who successfully sued the Netherlands’ government in the Urgenda case, did not argue the reality of climate change or whether the UK should aim for net zero emissions in the second half of the century. Nor did the group claim that the Paris Agreement has direct legal force in the UK. But, it argued, government decisions must be informed by the scientific consensus behind the agreement and the international political consensus it embodies.

Because the government had not changed its target after the Paris Agreement was signed in 2016, the group argued it was refusing to do so, describing that as illegal, irrational and a breach of their human rights.

The UK’s 2050 climate target was set on the basis of what was considered necessary to cut carbon emissions in 2008, not what was considered feasible, said plaintiffs’ attorney Jonathan Crow, also the attorney general to the Prince of Wales. At the time, a 2 degrees C rise in global temperatures was seen as an important threshold, he argued, but the Paris Agreement says warming must be kept to “well under” that and signatories should “pursue efforts” to keep it to 1.5 degrees C.

Government attorney Robert Palmer stressed that the issue of whether to amend the target has not been finalized and the government is working with its independent advisory Committee on Climate Change (CCC). “The Secretary of State is actively seeking further advice from the CCC in precisely the manner that the CCC itself suggested,” he said. Palmer said that amending the 2050 target requires formal evidence from the CCC, agreement from the UK’s various governments (Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland) and approval from parliament.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is due to publish a special report in October on ‘Global Warming of 1.5ºC’, after which the government will seek the CCC’s advice, Palmer said.

The CCC, whose role is to advise the UK government on national carbon targets, said it had reviewed the situation after the Paris Agreement was signed and concluded that no amendment was necessary at that time.

In his decision document the judge, Sir Michael Supperstone, concluded that the Secretary of State has a discretion, not a duty, to amend the target, and was “plainly entitled” to refuse to do so now.

He noted that the government still aimed to have net zero emissions before the end of the century and that this was relevant to its decision-making. Supperstone also agreed with the CCC’s position that the existing 2050 target “is compatible with the Paris Agreement” and that its overall assessment is that the target is “potentially consistent with a wide-range of global temperature outcomes.”  

A government spokesperson said it welcomed the court’s decision: “We look forward to continuing the UK’s ambitious action to tackle climate change, and to seeking the advice of the Committee on Climate Change on the implications of the Paris Agreement for the UK’s long-term targets, after the IPCC report later this year.”

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)

Filed Under: International

Don't Miss a story
Subscribe 
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Thanks for subscribing! Please check your email for further instructions.

Trackbacks

  1. UK judge blocks suit seeking stronger emissions targets | Plan B says:
    July 24, 2018 at 3:45 am

    […] Source: UK judge blocks suit seeking stronger emissions targets […]

  2. UK court hears climate challenge to Heathrow airport expansion says:
    March 19, 2019 at 9:35 pm

    […] B failed in its attempt last year to force the UK government to tighten its carbon emissions reduction targets to bring […]

  3. German climate case dismissed, but court recognizes right to safe climate says:
    October 31, 2019 at 10:12 pm

    […] challenging government climate policies and targets have since been dismissed, including in the U.K., Ireland, and the European […]

Don't Miss a story
Subscribe 
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Thanks for subscribing! Please check your email for further instructions.

Latest News

Justice Dept. to Argue on Side of Oil Companies in Supreme Court Hearing

By Karen Savage The acting solicitor general will be allowed time to argue in support of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP and nearly two dozen other companies next week during oral arguments before … [Read More...]

Recent Posts

  • Colorado Judge Rejects Oil Companies’ Attempt to Move Climate Case
  • Biden’s DOJ Could Help Swing Momentum Around Climate Cases
  • Supreme Court Questions Oil Companies’ Tactics to Shake Climate Cases
  • Will Amy Coney Barrett, Whose Father Was a Shell Attorney for Decades, Recuse from Climate Suit?

Most Popular

  • Toronto Will Explore Suing Big Oil for Climate Costs
  • Dutch Court Upholds Urgenda, Says Government Must Reduce Emissions
  • BP Accused of 'Greenwashing' and Deceiving Public With Renewable Energy Ads
  • Judge Agrees to Divest from Exxon Before New York's Climate Fraud Case
  • What Oil Companies Knew About Climate Change and When: A Timeline

Categories

  • Access to Courts
  • Baltimore Lawsuit
  • California Climate Lawsuits
  • Charleston, S.C. Lawsuit
  • Colorado Lawsuit
  • Connecticut Lawsuit
  • Delaware Lawsuit
  • Exxon Climate Investigation
  • Featured
  • Hoboken Lawsuit
  • International
  • Latest News
  • Liability Litigation
  • Liability Waivers
  • Mass. v. Exxon
  • Minnesota Lawsuit
  • New York City Lawsuit
  • Other Suits
  • Politics
  • Rhode Island Lawsuit
  • State Legislation
  • Uncategorized
  • Washington DC Lawsuit

Follow us

  • View climatedocket’s profile on Facebook
  • View climatedocket’s profile on Twitter

RSS

RSS Feed RSS - Posts

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.