The landmark ruling found that the direct and indirect climate impact of burning planet-warming fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas – must be taken into account when deciding whether to approve new projects.
—
Climate activists in the UK on Thursday celebrated the latest victory in a case that could set an important precedent for future oil and gas projects in the country.
The UK’s highest court ruled that the climate impact of burning planet-warming fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas – must be taken into account when deciding whether to approve new projects. In the verdict handed down in the early hours of Thursday, the UK’s Supreme Court said that under the Town and Country Planning Regulations 2017, new development projects can only be approved if an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to “identify, describe and assess the likely ‘direct and indirect significant effects’ of the project on the environment, including (among other factors) the impact on climate” is carried out.
The case, intiated by the campaigner Sarah Finch, concerned a developer’s application to Surrey County Council for planning permission to expand an oil production from a well site at Horse Hill in the Surrey countryside. Finch argued the council’s EIA of the project should have accounted for greenhouse gas emissions from using the oil – known as “scope 3” emissions – when assessing the environmental impacts of the project, and not just those generated at the site itself.
“The council was … wrong to confine the EIA in this case to emissions expected to occur at the project site. It is in the very nature of ‘indirect’ effects that they may occur away from their source. Moreover, the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on climate does not depend on where the release occurs,” the verdict read.
In a statement seen by the Guardian, Surrey County Council acknowledged the court’s decision and said permission for the Horse Hill project “remains to be determined in due course.”
The ruling could have profound repercussions and potentially impact new fossil fuel projects in Britain.
“This clear decision from the UK Supreme Court changes the game for planning decisions: it irons out expectations, making it clear that companies and authorities have to account for downstream emissions – those that don’t come directly out of on-site operations, but are a guaranteed result of oil extraction.” ClientEarth lawyer Sophie Marjanac said in a statement.
You might also like: The Most Important Climate Litigation Cases of 2024 and Why They Matter
This story is funded by readers like you
Our non-profit newsroom provides climate coverage free of charge and advertising. Your one-off or monthly donations play a crucial role in supporting our operations, expanding our reach, and maintaining our editorial independence.
About EO | Mission Statement | Impact & Reach | Write for us
