Recently the media have been full of stories about climate litigation. In the last few weeks alone, we have seen reports of a claim brought in Guyana by an indigenous tourist guide and a university lecturer claiming that (to quote the Guardian report):
“Guyana’s approval of oil exploration licences violates the government’s legal duty to protect their right and the right of future generations to a healthy environment. It is the first constitutional climate case in the Caribbean to challenge fossil fuel production on climate and human rights grounds.”
Also a class action in Australia, brought by eight High School students, where the Court found that the Australian federal environment minister has a duty to take reasonable care not to cause young people injury from the harms of climate change (at least, that’s how the Guardian reported it).
And of course a Dutch court recently ordered Shell to cut carbon emissions from its oil and gas by 45% by 2030.
More recently still, we have learned that climate activists have sued the Italian government over “inaction”. The 203 claimants apparently include environmental associations, Italian citizens (well, one would hope so), foreign residents, and young activists with the Italy wing of the Fridays for Future group.
These are just some of the more recent cases to come to trial and/or to be given prominence by that large section of the mainstream media which approves of this sort of thing. This is just the tip of the iceberg. So I thought I’d look into the issue a little further. But – where to start?
Thank goodness for the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia University, the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science (and you won’t hear me say that very often). The reason for my gratitude is that they have been monitoring the situation closely, and thanks to them, much of the information regarding climate litigation trends is readily available.
Fresh Fields
Strictly speaking, I’m referring to the major law firm of Freshfields Bruckhaus Derringer, whose website contains an excellent interactive section, which can be scrolled through to see the trends. It is based on the information provided by the monitoring groups mentioned above (accurate to December 2019). From this we learn:
There had, to that date, been almost 1,400 climate-related litigation cases around the world;
The number rose dramatically over the 15 years to 2019;
Most are brought in the west, with a handful in emerging markets;
Almost 1,100 (or 79%) of those cases were brought in the USA…
…where the four years to 2019 saw the largest number of cases opened since records began;
Globally, 135 cases (10%) were directed at businesses, mostly in the USA and Australia;
Such litigation (against businesses) had increased since 2016;
Most (79) of the 135 cases against businesses involved defendants from the energy and natural resources industry, and most of those were in the USA;
More cases were, by 2019, starting to emerge in Africa, Latin America and Asia.
The interactive nature of the website makes it a fascinating tool. Click on a dot (representing a case) and it offers a brief summary of that particular piece of litigation. The first one I clicked on at random was a piece of Polish litigation alleging that Polska Grupa Energetyczna, the operator of Europe’s largest power plant, Belchatow, has not presented any official plan to reduce its climate impacts. The lawsuit seeks to block the plant operators from burning lignite – or require measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions – by 2035.
Right next to it, the adjacent dot happened to be the Dutch case against Shell. Next again, a case in Luxembourg against the Luxembourgish Minister of Social Security, who, Greenpeace claims, failed to respond to a letter asking for information regarding how Luxembourg’s sovereign pension fund planned to align its investments with the objectives of the Paris Agreement, and information on the climate-related financial risks associated with the fund’s investments.
And so on – endlessly fascinating if you’re into that sort of thing.
Shareholder action
A new development has been that of activists buying shares in fossil fuel companies, mostly it seems with the idea of becoming active at shareholder meetings, and persuading management to change direction, and/or to impose activist directors on the board. There is another possibility, though, arising from this activity – the possibility of shareholder litigation against the company itself.
And as the Freshfields website points out, this is where the Law of Unintended Consequences might have a role to play. Fossil fuel companies that prioritise investments in emissions-reducing technologies over immediate profits run the risk of shareholder suits from short-term investors. They are in the potentially impossible position of facing the twin risk of being sued, including via class action litigation, whatever they do. They are, potentially, damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
Freshfields again:
“Plaintiffs bringing common law tort and public nuisance claims are now seeking to rely on academic studies that attempt to quantify individual actors’ contribution to man-made emissions since the start of the industrial era. Researchers are developing models in a bid to tie climate change to extreme weather at a local level – and to predict where those events might strike next. The Federal Judge hearing a case in San Francisco was so intrigued by developments in causation and attribution science that he staged a day-long ‘teach-in’ to prepare for legal arguments. While he ultimately ruled his Court was not the right forum for such a case (and stated in his judgment that the current slew of nuisance suits could harm attempts to reach international consensus on climate change), it brought these developing theses into the spotlight.”
In the USA, for now at least, however, the Supreme Court decision of AEP v Connecticut, the first global warming case based on a public nuisance claim, which was brought to court in the Southern District of New York in 2004, offers some protection to fossil fuel companies from litigation. The unanimous ruling of the Court states that the management of emissions is the responsibility of the Environmental Protection Agency, not corporations. As we are seeing increasingly, however, this same principle does not necessarily seem to apply in other jurisdictions.
Europe
There are many excellent websites which can be used to find out more about the world of climate litigation. One organisation (Germanwatch) which I believe is funding the case in question, has a timeline for a potentially very interesting (and, for fossil fuel companies, worrying) case: Lliuya -v- RWE.
In November 2015, Mr Lliuya, a Peruvian farmer and mountain guide brought a case in the German Courts against the German company, RWE. His claim is that the energy company’s greenhouse gas emissions threaten his family, his property, and a large part of the city of Huaraz. RWE’s defence disputed its liability for alleged climate-change damage in the Andes, and further denied that Huaraz is at risk from flooding. The Essen District Court dismissed the case, but the Appeal Court has allowed it to go forward. Experts have been appointed, but further developments appear to have been delayed by the covid crisis.
Should liability in this case ultimately be found against RWE, the precedent could be very damaging indeed for fossil fuel companies. This is an area where Europe seems to be much more hostile to fossil fuel companies than has been the case in the USA to date (despite the significantly greater number of cases so far brought in the USA). Whether the US situation changes should the balance on the Supreme Court change during the Biden presidency remains to be seen.
There are just too many cases to mention in detail here, but for anyone interested, in addition to the Freshfields website, much useful information can be found here:
https://www.climateinthecourts.com/cases-against-corporations.html
2020 Update
As mentioned above, Freshfields’ excellent interactive website takes matters only up to the end of 2019. Fortunately, the LSE and Grantham Institute have produced a snapshot of global trends in climate litigation, by way of an update, to July 2020 (unfortunately there has been almost a year of considerable activity since then):
This is a 30 page report, and it’s well worth reading. The trends identified above continue. The countries (or jurisdictions) where litigation has taken place between 1986 and 2020 are worth noting, by case number (the main ones only):
USA – 1,213;
Australia – 98;
UK – 62;
EU – 57;
Canada – 22;
New Zealand – 18;
Spain – 13;
France – 11;
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change – 10;
Brazil, Germany, OECD – 6 each.
Some interesting general observations emerge.
More than 80% of cases outside the USA have been brought against governments.
Climate change is at the centre of legal arguments in about 41% of cases, and peripheral in about 59%.
Outside of the USA, 58% of cases had outcomes “favourable to climate change action”.
Developing trends include using human rights arguments as support in increasing numbers of cases; and fossil fuel companies are being subjected to increasing numbers of different types of litigation, especially in the USA, ranging from nuisance, to fraud, to disclosure-related claims.
2019 saw an escalation in claims; there were doubts as to what effect the covid crisis might have on case numbers, but it does seem that case numbers are recovering nicely.
Going against the flow
But it’s not all one-way traffic (even if the vehicles going the other way are very much going against the flow):
Two German companies – RWE (fighting back, it seems – their lawyers must be busy!) and Uniper (although I believe the latter is majority Finnish-owned) – are suing the Dutch government for compensation over the country’s planned coal phase-out under a 1990s the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT). RWE is seeking 1.4 billion euros in compensation, and Uniper is claiming between 850 million and one billion euros, in each case because the Dutch Government is phasing out coal use by 2030, thus (so the claim goes) causing the demise of their coal-fired plants in the Netherlands.
As I understand it, the ECT contains provisions against appropriation of foreign-owned assets by Governments. The argument against the Dutch government is that the change in Dutch policy with regard to coal use greatly damages the value of the plants, and amounts to expropriation.
I suppose what is good for the goose is good for the gander, but this sort of claim is very much the exception to the rule. Search for it online, and the level of hostile commentary is significant.
The great unanswered question
Try as I might, I have been able to find no answer (other than in the Lliuya case) to the obvious question – who is funding all this climate change litigation? Articles on the websites of the BBC, Guardian and others, reporting on the litigation, never seem to go near that question. I doubt that the Australian High School kids are paying for their action against the federal government, so who is? Whoever it is, substantial amounts of money must be being spent in this rapidly-developing and rapidly-intensifying area.
Climate Scepticism 
It is probably not unusual for religious zealots to have disdain for democratic processes when imposing the focus of their religious zealotry.
LikeLike
Hmm, dead trees for binders full of documents, climate-controlled courtrooms, gas-guzzling limos to and from, and computers running 24/7.
Sounds climate-conscious to me.
LikeLike
At times like these I usually fall back on my idea that in the West we have such comfortable lives that we have no concept of any alternative situation. We have taken cheap, reliable electricity for granted for a long time. Our freedom has only risen year on year, at least until the pandemic threw what may be a temporary spanner in the works.
As we saw with the recently-resurfaced North Face story, folk have little conception of how embedded in our lives fossil fuels are. Perhaps they are persuaded by lies such as “100% renewable” electricity tariffs: after all, if one person can choose such a tariff, can’t we all? The protesters are unaware that most of their clothes are made of petrochemicals. As soon as international travel was allowed, folk flocked to Portugal: seems like a holiday, and not Net Zero, is actually the “People’s Priority.”
Who benefits? Not the turkeys suing for Christmas. Private oil companies will benefit from immunity to boardroom shenanigans: turning a greater share of mining and extraction away from the more responsible companies. Muscular, totalitarian governments will benefit as insipid democracies wither. The climate children bringing their cases will find themselves worse off if they succeed. And all around them in the climate, nothing will have changed.
When the histories of these times are written, I hope that it will be recorded that a few small voices spoke up against the madness.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Hard on the heels of one of the most prominent pieces of climate litigation recently:
“Shell promises to accelerate shift to low carbon”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57415965
“The oil giant Shell will reduce its greenhouse gas emissions more quickly than planned following a legal ruling in the Netherlands, its chief executive has promised in a blog post.
Shell would take “bold but measured steps”, Ben van Beurden wrote, but would still appeal against the ruling.
Environmentalists won a court case in May, arguing Shell was failing to reduce emissions quickly enough.
Friends of the Earth said if Shell were serious, it would drop the appeal.
Mr van Beurden’s post on networking site LinkedIn acknowledged that the firm would have to respond to the court’s ruling without waiting for the outcome of the appeal, and that it applied to the energy giant’s worldwide business.
However, he sought to reassure investors that it would not disrupt Shell’s plans.
“For Shell, this ruling does not mean a change, but rather an acceleration of our strategy,” he wrote.
The campaign group Milieudefensie, the Dutch branch of Friends of the Earth, which brought the case, successfully argued that Shell had a human rights obligation to bring its business into line with international agreements on avoiding faster heating of the planet.
As a result, Shell must cut its CO2 emissions by 45% compared with 2019 levels, by 2030….”
LikeLike
Here’s the next one – they seem to be coming thick and fast:
“Polish government faces court action over failure to tackle climate crisis
Five citizens accuse government of failing to protect them from impacts of global heating”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/10/polish-government-faces-court-action-over-failure-to-tackle-climate-crisis
“Five Polish citizens are taking their government to court over its failure to protect them from the impacts of the climate crisis.
They say the state has breached their rights to life, health and family life by delaying action to cut national carbon emissions and propping up the coal industry.
The first three cases were filed on Thursday in regional courts across Poland by Monika Stasiak, Małgorzata Górska and Piotr Nowakowski.
Nowakowski, who lives in a forest in Wielkopolska, is worried that stronger storms and forest fires are increasingly threatening his home and safety.
Stasiak and Górska both run tourism businesses in different parts of Poland that have been affected by changing rainfall patterns in very different ways: one has suffered from intensive drought and the other flash flooding.
Stasiak told the Guardian the birth of her son had also motivated her to fight for climate action. “When my child was about 18 months old the [2018] IPCC report came out. It moved me and I decided I didn’t want that future for my child.”
Two further cases will be filed later in the month by Piotr Romanowski, a farmer who has lost half his revenue after the land became too dry for his plants to survive, and 18-year-old climate activist Maya Ozbayoglu.
The claimants are being represented by the international environmental law charity ClientEarth and the Polish law firm Gessel. It will be the first time national climate policy has been directly challenged in a Polish court.”
This rather links in with “Big Green Charity”, given the involvement of “environmental law charity ClientEarth”.
There is a real danger that we will reach the point (if we haven’t already) where Governments provide funding to climate charities, which then go and sue the Governments that help to fund them. I’m not sure that the average taxpayer would think that’s a good idea.
LikeLike
“Southampton Airport: Legal challenge over runway extension”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-57502371
“Opponents of a scheme to extend an airport runway are mounting a legal challenge.
Eastleigh Borough Council issued formal planning permission on 3 June for Southampton Airport to lengthen its runway by 164m (538ft).
But campaigners Airport Expansion Opposition (AXO) have called the decision “wrong both in the way it was taken and the arguments to justify it”.”
LikeLike
If it’s cold, Texas hasn’t enough electricity for its needs, and now it seems the same is true when it’s hot.:
“Sweltering Texans urged to reduce cooking and cleaning to ease grid strain
Officials advise to avoid using large appliances such as ovens and washing machines, amid soaring summer temperatures”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/16/texas-power-grid-conservation-heat-wave
“As temperatures rise to unseasonably warm levels across Texas this week, its citizens are being asked to use less energy on basics like cooking and washing clothes to ease strain on the state’s power grid that is struggling to generate enough electricity to cope with the high temperatures.
The move triggers memories for many Texans of the cold snap in the winter that incapacitated much of the state’s power infrastructure and raises fears that Texas – and other US states – are not prepared to deal with the extreme weather events that come with the global climate crisis.
The authority running the Texas power grid has asked Texans to set thermostats to 78F (25.5C) or higher, turn off lights and pool pumps and avoid using large appliances such as ovens, washing machines and dryers.
This is the second time that the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (Ercot) has issued such a call for conservation since the winter storms in February left more than 4.8m homes and businesses without electricity for days. The crisis was blamed for more than 100 deaths and $130bn in costs.
In addition to plant outages, demand is high this week as cities across Texas expect temperatures in the 90s. The state broke its June electricity demand record on Monday.
Summer hasn’t even officially begun, and the early calls for conservation raise questions over what will happen in the coming months and years as the global temperature continues to rise.
“We’re heading into a future climate that is likely to have more extreme droughts and more powerful hurricanes, which put their own strain on the system,” said Dan Cohan, a civil engineering professor at Rice University. “This week we saw that the Texas power grid barely even prepared for weather that is hot for June, but nowhere near how hot it can get in July and August.”
Cohan says that Ercot has not been transparent about which coal and gas plants are down and helping cause the strain on the grid, and why – it could be for maintenance, or repairs from February’s knockout blows, or preparing for potential summer demand.
“Ercot has really been leaving us in the dark as to which coal and gas power plants are down, and why,” he said. “They offered a belated acknowledgment that there are more than twice as many power plants down as they expected but no real clarity on why it’s happening. A lot of us are left guessing.”
The grid is only prepared to handle one crisis at a time, but often issues overlap – for example, when it’s very hot, often winds don’t blow as they typically would, or a spike in demand while power plants are offline.”
Just had to be the fault of fossil fuels, not renewables, didn’t it?
LikeLike
“Belgium’s climate failures violate human rights, court rules
Judges say state’s failure to meet climate targets breaches civil law and human rights convention”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/18/belgium-climate-policy-violates-human-rights-court-rules
“Belgium’s failure to meet climate targets is a violation of human rights, a Brussels court has ruled, in the latest legal victory against public authorities that have broken promises to tackle the climate emergency.
The Brussels court of first instance declared the Belgian state had committed an offence under Belgian’s civil law and breached the European convention on human rights.
By not taking all “necessary measures” to prevent the “detrimental” effects of climate change, the court said, Belgian authorities had breached the right to life (article 2) and the right to respect for private and family life (article 8).
The NGO that brought the case, Klimaatzaak, hailed the judgment as historic, both in the nature of the decision and the court’s recognition of 58,000 citizens as co-plaintiffs.
“For the first time it is recognised that we are in direct, personal and real danger,” said Serge de Gheldere, the chairman of Klimaatzaak, which means climate case in Dutch.”
LikeLike
“Climate change: Courts set for rise in compensation cases”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57641167
“There’s likely to be a significant increase in the number of lawsuits brought against fossil fuel companies in the coming years, say researchers.
Their new study finds that to date, lawyers have failed to use the most up-to-date scientific evidence on the cause of rising temperatures.
As a result, there have been few successful claims for compensation.
That could change, say the authors, as evidence linking specific weather events to carbon emissions increases….
…However, there have been few successes in cases where the plaintiffs have sought compensation for damages caused by climate change linked to human activity.
This new study has assessed some 73 lawsuits across 14 jurisdictions and says that the evidence presented to the courts lagged significantly behind the most recent climate research.
Over the past two decades, scientists have attempted to demonstrate the links between extreme weather events and climate change, which are in turn connected to human activities such as energy production and transport.
These studies, called attribution science, have become more robust over the years.
For example, researchers have been able to show that climate change linked to human activities made the European summer heatwave in 2019 both more likely and more intense….”
The study, should anybody be interested, can be found here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01086-7
LikeLike
“UK road-building scheme breaches climate commitments, high court told
Transport Action Network says £27bn programme does not take account of Paris climate agreement”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/29/uk-roadbuilding-scheme-breaches-climate-commitments-high-court-told
“The government’s plans for a multibillion pound road-building scheme would breach the UK’s legal commitments to tackle the climate crisis and critically undermine the country’s standing ahead of a key summit later this year, the high court has heard.
Lawyers acting for the Transport Action Network (TAN) argued that plans for the UK’s huge £27bn road building programme – set out in its Road Investment Strategy 2 (RIS2) last year – did not take into account the government’s obligations to reach net zero emissions by 2050 or its commitments under the Paris climate agreement.
Campaigners accuse the transport secretary, Grant Shapps, and the Department for Transport of unlawfully failing to take account of the “obviously material” impact of the roads programme on the UK’s climate commitments.
Before the hearing on Tuesday Chris Todd, director of TAN, described the proceedings as the “biggest legal challenge to transport policy in British history.”….
…Experts say the UK’s road network and its wider transport infrastructure are crucial in the country’s efforts to avoid the worst effects of the climate crisis. The transport sector is one of the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases and the only one to have increased its emissions in recent years.
Earlier this month the Welsh government announced a freeze on its future road building as part of its plans to tackle the climate emergency
The case at the high court is due to conclude on Wednesday with judgment expected to be given at a later date.”
LikeLike
“Big oil and gas kept a dirty secret for decades. Now they may pay the price”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/30/climate-crimes-oil-and-gas-environment
“Via an unprecedented wave of lawsuits, America’s petroleum giants face a reckoning for the devastation caused by fossil fuels
After a century of wielding extraordinary economic and political power, America’s petroleum giants face a reckoning for driving the greatest existential threat of our lifetimes.
An unprecedented wave of lawsuits, filed by cities and states across the US, aim to hold the oil and gas industry to account for the environmental devastation caused by fossil fuels – and covering up what they knew along the way.
Coastal cities struggling to keep rising sea levels at bay, midwestern states watching “mega-rains” destroy crops and homes, and fishing communities losing catches to warming waters, are now demanding the oil conglomerates pay damages and take urgent action to reduce further harm from burning fossil fuels.”
Worth a read for a summary of the avalanche of claims being brought.
LikeLike
And if the author of this article has his way, criminal litigation will follow on from the plethora of civil law suits:
“The climate crisis is a crime that should be prosecuted
Mark Hertsgaard
Fossil fuel companies lied for decades about climate change, and humanity is paying the price. Shouldn’t those lies be central to the public narrative?”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/30/climate-crisis-crime-fossil-fuels-environment
“Every person on Earth today is living in a crime scene.
This crime has been going on for decades. We see its effects in the horrific heat and wildfires unfolding this summer in the American west; in the mega-storms that were so numerous in 2020 that scientists ran out of names for them; in the global projections that sea levels are set to rise by at least 20ft. Our only hope is to slow this inexorable ascent so our children may figure out some way to cope.
This crime has displaced or killed untold numbers of people around the world, caused countless billions of dollars in economic damage and ravaged vital ecosystems and wildlife. It has disproportionately affected already marginalized communities around the world, from farmers in coastal Bangladesh, where the fast-rising seas are salting the soil and slashing rice yields, to low-income residents of Houston, Chicago and other cities, whose neighborhoods suffer higher temperatures than prosperous areas across town.”
I wonder if he would prosecute wind farm companies for “ravaged vital ecosystems and wildlife”?
LikeLiked by 2 people
“French court orders government to act on climate in next nine months
Council of State says it will assess state’s actions after 31 March 2022, and could issue substantial fines”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/01/french-court-orders-government-to-act-on-climate-in-next-nine-months
“France’s top administrative court has ordered the government to take “all necessary additional steps” within the next nine months to enable it to reach its climate crisis targets or face possible sanctions, including substantial fines.
The Council of State said in a final ruling published on Thursday, with no possibility for appeal by the government, that France was not on track to meet its goal of achieving a 40% cut in emissions from 1990 levels by 2030.
“The Council of State therefore instructs the government to take additional measures between now and 31 March 2022 to hit the target,” it said.
A spokesperson said it would assess the state’s actions after the deadline, which falls days before the first round of presidential polls in which Emmanuel Macron is expected to seek re-election, and could issue a fine if it considered it necessary.
“This ruling by the Council of State is historic: for the first time in France, the state has been ordered to act for the climate,” said Damien Carême, an MEP and former mayor of the northern coastal town of Grande-Synthe, which brought the case.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Occasionally the litigation goes the other way!
“French wind farm causes storm in Belgium”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/french-wind-farm-causes-storm-in-belgium-w63w955vr
“Belgium is to take legal action against France over plans for an offshore wind farm that it says will damage its hopes of reopening a post-Brexit ferry line across to Britain.
The scheme, which involves placing 46 turbines as high as the Eiffel Tower off Dunkirk, has infuriated the Belgian authorities, who accuse France of a high-handed dismissal of their concerns.
The row has done nothing to enhance France’s reputation in Belgium, where football fans celebrated the French team’s elimination from the Euro 2020 tournament this week by burning tricolour flags. “
LikeLike
“Australian government must protect young people from climate crisis harm, court declares
Environment minister has 28 days to appeal historic ruling that carbon emissions from coalmine should not cause young people ‘personal injury or death’”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/08/australian-government-must-protect-young-people-from-climate-crisis-harm-court-declares
“Australia’s federal court has formally declared the nation’s environment minister has a “duty to take reasonable care” that young people won’t be harmed or killed by carbon dioxide emissions if she approves a coalmine expansion, in a judgment that could have wider implications for fossil fuel projects.
In the federal court case, brought by eight schoolchildren and an octogenarian nun, Justice Mordecai Bromberg on Thursday also ordered the minister pay all costs….
…Sharma said the “historic ruling” would make it harder for politicians “to continue to approve large-scale fossil fuel projects that will only fast-track the climate crisis.”
In his May judgment, Bromberg said the potential harm to children from climate change “may fairly be described as catastrophic, particularly should global average surface temperatures rise to and exceed 3C beyond the pre-industrial level”.
Lawyer David Barnden, who represented the children, said: “For young people this decision brings hope and anticipation of a better, and responsible decision making by government. The ramifications for the minister are clear.”
The judge’s declaration was made in relation to the Vickery Extension project, which gained approval from the NSW Independent Planning Commission in August last year. Ley has still to approve the project.
Whitehaven has said about 60% of the coal from the extension will be used for making steel, with the rest for burning in power stations.
Barnden said it was conceivable the duty of care would extend to other fossil fuel projects that came before the minister for approval. He said the minister would have 28 days to appeal against the case.
A spokesperson for the minister said: “The Morrison government will review the judgment closely and assess all available options.””
LikeLike
The latest development in the Australian climate litigation:
“Australian government to appeal ruling that it must protect children from climate harm
Environment minister to challenge federal court judgment in a case against a NSW coalmine expansion brought by schoolchildren and nun”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/09/australian-government-to-appeal-ruling-that-it-must-protect-children-from-climate-harm
LikeLike
And occasionally the litigation goes the other way:
“North Dakota sues over Biden’s halt in oil and gas leases on public lands
State protests lost revenue and insists on right to control “its own natural resources””
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jul/08/north-dakota-sues-biden-administration-oil-gas-leases-public-lands
“North Dakota has sued the Biden administration over its suspension of new oil and gas leases on federal land and water, saying the move will cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue.”
LikeLike
“Southampton Airport: Runway legal review request submitted”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-57834948
“Opponents of the planned extension to Southampton Airport runway have formally submitted their request for a judicial review to the High Court.
Eastleigh Borough Council has approved plans to lengthen the runway by 164m (538ft).
Campaigners Airport Expansion Opposition (AXO) said the decision needed the “full scrutiny” of a judicial review.
The council previously said it was confident its procedures were sound.
The airport plans to extend the runway in order to accommodate larger planes needed for longer haul flights.”
LikeLike
“Oil giant Shell set to appeal against ruling on carbon emissions
Company hopes to get Dutch court ruling overturned which called for it to cut emissions faster”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/20/oil-giant-shell-set-to-appeal-ruling-on-carbon-emissions
“Royal Dutch Shell has confirmed that it will appeal against the landmark Dutch court ruling calling for the oil giant to cut its carbon emissions faster.
A court in The Hague reached the milestone verdict in May this year after Friends of the Earth and over 17,000 co-plaintiffs successfully argued that Shell had been aware of the dangerous consequences of CO2 emissions for decades, and that its climate targets did not go far enough.
Ben van Beurden, Shell’s chief executive, said the company agrees that “urgent action is needed” to reduce carbon emissions, and vowed to accelerate its progress towards becoming a net zero carbon company, but said that Shell would still appeal against the ruling “because a court judgment, against a single company, is not effective”.
“What is needed is clear, ambitious policies that will drive fundamental change across the whole energy system,” he said. “Climate change is a challenge that requires both urgent action and an approach that is global, collaborative and encourages coordination between all parties.”
Friends of the Earth Netherlands, also known as Milieudefensie, said the appeal would send “the wrong signal” and confirm Shell’s “lack of commitment” to tackling the global climate crisis.
Donald Pols, a director at Milieudefensie, said the appeal aimed to postpone any action from Shell and warned that “the longer the delay the more serious the climate consequences will be for us all”.
The court ruled that Shell has an obligation to cut its carbon emissions by 45% by 2030, compared with 2019 levels, under both Dutch law and the European convention on human rights – the right to life and the right to family life – and that the company had known for “a long time” about the damage caused by carbon emissions.”
LikeLike
Here’s an interesting fightback:
“Outrage as Italy faces multimillion pound damages to UK oil firm
Secretive tribunals allow fossil fuel companies to sue governments for passing laws to protect environment”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jul/25/outrage-as-italy-faces-multimillion-pound-damages-to-uk-oil-firm
“Italy could be forced to pay millions of pounds in damages to a UK oil company after banning new drilling near its coast.
The case has sparked outrage at the secretive international tribunals at which fossil fuel companies can sue governments for passing laws to protect the environment – amid fears that such cases are slowing down action on the climate crisis. It is also fuelling concern that the UK is particularly exposed to the risk of oil firms suing to prevent green policies, potentially hampering climate action.
Rockhopper Exploration, based in Salisbury, Wiltshire, bought a licence to drill for oil off Italy’s Adriatic coast in 2014. There had already been a wave of opposition to the project, with protests that drew tens of thousands of people. Within two years, the campaign won over the Italian parliament, which imposed a ban on oil and gas projects within 12 nautical miles of the Italian coast.
Rockhopper fought back using a relatively obscure legal mechanism known as investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), which allows companies to sue governments for introducing policies that could affect their future earnings. Reports suggest Rockhopper has spent $29m (£21m) on the offshore project to date and is claiming damages of $275m based on expected future profits from the oilfield.
The company said it has been advised that it has “strong prospects of recovering very significant monetary damages” as a result of Italy’s actions.”
LikeLike
“Activists lose legal bid to stop £27bn roads plan for England
Climate campaigners appeal against judgment saying ministers are being ‘let off the hook’”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jul/26/activists-lose-legal-bid-to-stop-27bn-roads-plan-for-england
“Campaigners have lost a legal challenge to the government’s £27bn roadbuilding programme after the high court dismissed their application for a judicial review.
Lawyers for Transport Action Network (TAN) argued that the transport secretary, Grant Shapps, had drawn up the roads investment strategy for England, known as RIS2, without taking into account the UK’s environmental commitments or assessing the additional carbon emissions and climate impact of another 4,000 miles of road.
However, the judge, Mr Justice Holgate, said Shapps had received a “briefing, albeit laconic” from officials saying the policy was consistent with net zero targets, based on a comprehensive programme of analysis, and that Shapps did not need to know the actual numbers.
He said claimants had “a heavy evidential onus to establish that a decision was irrational, absent bad faith or manifest absurdity” and noted that the government was “taking a range of steps to tackle the need for urgency in addressing carbon production in the transport sector”, adding: “Whether they are enough is not a matter for the court.”
TAN argued Shapps was legally required to consider the effect on the environment and there was a clear inconsistency in increasing traffic during the worsening climate emergency.
The campaigners’ lawyers have appealed against the judgment and are crowdfunding for further legal costs.”
LikeLike
“Campaigners win right to challenge state aid for North Sea oil and gas
High court allows Greenpeace UK and others to seek judicial review of support for fossil fuel industry”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jul/28/campaigners-win-right-to-challenge-state-aid-for-north-sea-oil-and-gas
“The government will face a legal challenge over its continuing support for North Sea oil and gas production despite its legally binding target to end the UK’s contribution to the climate crisis.
The high court agreed on Wednesday to allow a judicial review against the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA), which set out a strategy earlier this year to continue to encourage the production of North Sea oil and gas while moving to a net zero carbon future.
The strategy also fails to take into account the billions of pounds of public money required to support the industry, according to the coalition of green campaigners behind the legal challenge.
The groups, which including Greenpeace UK, Friends of the Earth Scotland and 350.org, hope the judicial review could spell the end for production that relies on generous public subsidies.
The OGA and the business secretary, Kwasi Kwarteng, will need to submit the grounds of their defence by the end of August, a little over two months before the UK hosts the Cop26 UN climate talks in Glasgow. The case is expected to be heard before the end of the year, with a decision in early 2022.”
The article baldly says this (but provides no links or other authority to back up the claim):
“The government has paid £3.2bn of public money to North Sea oil and gas companies since it signed up to the Paris climate agreement in 2015.”
I have no idea whether or not that is accurate, but it seems so surprising, that I would have expected some additional information to back up the claim.
Also, more litigation may be in the pipeline (pardon the pun):
“Ministers may face a second legal challenge from Greenpeace over plans to allow exploration at the Cambo oilfield near Shetland after promising to put an end to new oil exploration licences that do not align with the UK’s climate goals.”
It’s a pity Greenpeace isn’t so concerned about the environmental harm being caused to the Central Shetland Mainland by the enormous Viking Energy wind farm development.
LikeLike
“Climate crisis has cost Colorado billions – now it wants oil firms to pick up the bill”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/02/climate-crisis-boulder-colorado-lawsuit-exxonmobil-suncor
“ExxonMobil and Suncor face lawsuits in the western state but big oil’s apologists say the US consumer is to blame for emissions…
…Boulder county estimates it will cost taxpayers $100m over the next three decades just to adapt transport and drainage systems to the climate crisis, and reduce the risk from wildfires.
The county government says the bill should be paid by those who drove the crisis – the oil companies that spent decades covering up and misrepresenting the warnings from climate scientists. It is suing the US’s largest oil firm, ExxonMobil, and Suncor, a Canadian company with its US headquarters in Colorado, to require that they “use their vast profits to pay their fair share of what it will cost a community to deal with the problem the companies created”.
Boulder county, alongside similar lawsuits by the city of Boulder and San Miguel county in the south-west of the state, accuse the companies of deceptive trade practices and consumer fraud because their own scientists warned them of the dangers of burning of fossil fuels but the firms suppressed evidence of a growing climate crisis. The lawsuits also claim that as the climate emergency escalated, companies funded front groups to question the science in order to keep selling oil.
“It is far more difficult to change it now than it would have been if the companies had been honest about what they knew 30 or 50 years ago,” said Marco Simons, general counsel for Earth Rights International, which is handling the lawsuit for the county. “That is probably the biggest tragedy here. Communities in this country and around the world were essentially robbed of their options.”
Boulder county’s lawsuit contends that annual temperatures in Colorado will rise between 3.5F and 6.5F by 2050 and imperil the state’s economy, including farming and the ski industry….”.
LikeLike
From this week’s Law Society Gazette:
“According to a study by the London School of Economics, the number of disputes relating to climate change worldwide has more than doubled over the past five years. Most cases have been brought against governments – typically by corporations, non-governmental organisations and individuals – and have focused on compliance with climate commitments, human rights and the financial risk of climate change.”
LikeLike
It seems that the only permissible litigation in this area is against fossil fuel companies, not by them:
“Why is life on Earth still taking second place to fossil fuel companies?
George Monbiot
Effective action against climate breakdown is near impossible while governments are vulnerable to lawsuits”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/19/life-earth-second-place-fossil-fuel-climate-breakdown
“A UK oil company is currently suing the Italian government for the loss of its “future anticipated profits”after Italy banned new oil drilling in coastal waters. Italy used to be a signatory to the Energy Charter Treaty, which allows companies to demand compensation if it stops future projects. The treaty’s sunset clause permits such lawsuits after nations are no longer party to it, so Italy can be sued even though it left the agreement in 2016. This is one of many examples of “investor-state dispute settlement”, that makes effective action against climate breakdown almost impossible. It represents an outrageous curtailment of political choice, with which governments like ours are entirely comfortable. I’m not sure how we can escape such agreements, but government lawyers should be all over this issue, looking for a way out. Otherwise, future corporate profits remain officially more important than life on Earth.”
LikeLike
Mark, if our government pulled out of CfDs, ROCs etc, the wind farm companies would just shrug and move on.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There definitely seems to be a push on the issue of fossil fuel companies daring to use litigation against governments constraining their activities:
“UK ‘sitting on fence’ over reform of global fossil fuels deal
Opposition Labour Party wants tougher UK stance on ability of fossil fuel companies to sue governments.”
https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-reform-fossil-fuels-deal-energy-charter-treaty/
“The U.K. government is “sitting on the fence” over calls to reform a decades-old agreement governing the global energy market ahead of the COP26 climate conference, according to the Labour Party.
Shadow Trade Secretary Emily Thornberry has written to Trade Secretary Liz Truss, in a letter seen by POLITICO, urging the government to push for green reform in talks to refresh the Energy Charter Treaty.
The international agreement, signed by 54 nations, was put together in the wake of the Cold War to open up the worldwide energy market. It allows private companies to sue governments for damages if the value or future profits of private investments are hurt by new legislation.
Climate campaigners are fed up with companies using it to take legal action against nations that attempt to restrict fossil fuel operations in a bid to go green. More than 400 environmental groups, charities, NGOs and trade campaigners last month signed a statement calling for the U.K. and EU to withdraw from the ECT.
German energy firm Uniper is using the investor-state dispute-settlement mechanism in the agreement to challenge the Dutch government over its plans to phase out coal power. British oil and gas exploration firm Rockhopper is awaiting the verdict of its challenge to Italian restrictions on offshore oil and gas operations in the Adriatic Sea.
Talks to modernize the ECT have been in progress since 2017, but the process has been slow-going, and the U.K.’s Department for International Trade (DIT) is not pushing for fossil fuel investments to be outside its arbitration system. “
LikeLiked by 1 person
Awesome to be alerted to the ECT debate Mark. Liz Truss has slammed the door in the face of extreme activists in what I’ll call (for want of a better title) the transgender wars. She’ll do this more quietly but it sounds like she’s on the right side again. (Though that fact is clearly needing to be confirmed.)
LikeLike
Thanks, Richard. The Energy Charter Treaty is potentially a big deal. I’m far from convinced that I support it in principle, though it does seem right to me that Governments shouldn’t with impunity be able to encourage private business to do something then pull the rug from beneath their feet.
Anyway, watch this space. I suspect it could be a big talking-point at COP26, in the absence of any substantive progress on any of the very big issues.
LikeLike
“Judges urged to halt Vorlich North Sea oilfield”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-58411614
“Greenpeace has urged judges to stop an oil field in the North Sea due to “myriad failures”.
The environmental group believes permission should not have been granted for the Vorlich field, 150 miles east of Aberdeen.
Ruth Crawford QC said Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng had been “deprived” of information about the environmental impact it could have.
The Inner House of the Court of Session is hearing the case.
Greenpeace has gone to Scotland’s highest civil court with the aim of overturning Mr Kwarteng’s decision giving permission for Vorlich.
Ms Crawford told Scotland’s most senior judge, the Lord President, Lord Carloway, that the government had a legal obligation to conduct a proper public consultation on the development.
The advocate for Greenpeace said the consultation that had been held was inadequate. She said it did not meet best practice and the government did not properly publicise the scheme….
…Permission to drill the Vorlich site was given to BP in 2018.
Greenpeace wants the court to revoke a permit to drill for 30 million barrels of oil. The court heard that BP failed to publish a statutory notice on its website regarding the development.
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has instructed Roddy Dunlop QC to contest the action.
Mr Dunlop said the failure to publish the notice was an error, but that it would be wrong to overturn permission for Vorlich on this basis.
He said: “A blank template went on rather than the notice itself. It is a minor technical issue which didn’t give rise to any material prejudice to any party.”
The Oil and Gas Authority (OGA), also contesting the action, has instructed advocate Ross McClelland to act on its behalf.
Greenpeace believes that if it were to win its case at the Court of Session, it would have ramifications for how the UK government makes future oil permit decisions, such as the Cambo field off Shetland.
The hearing continues on Thursday.”
LikeLike
“Greenpeace Vorlich oilfield challenge ‘largely opportunistic'”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-58420025
So far as I can see this is largely a re-hash of the earlier BBC article giving free publicity to Greenpeace’s legal challenge, though the headline (which seems to carry implicit criticism) is intriguing. The article contains this:
“Ms Crawford said Greenpeace wanted proper public participation in important developments such as the Vorlich oilfield.”
I wonder if Greenpeace also wants to see proper public participation in important developments such as massive wind farms?
LikeLike
“The climate activists who want Norway to end oil and gas production”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-58900652
“As world leaders prepare for the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow in November, soaring gas prices in Europe have exposed the continent’s deep dependence on fossil fuels. Young climate activists in Norway are asking European judges to stop their government allowing more drilling for oil and gas.”
Who is funding them? And why?
LikeLike
“Young climate activists vow to keep fighting despite UN setback
Children’s rights body rejects landmark case by group of activists including Greta Thunberg”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/20/young-climate-activists-vow-to-keep-fighting-despite-un-setback
“A group of youth activists say they have been spurred to fight even harder after their landmark case arguing that countries perpetuating the climate crisis violate their human rights was rejected by a UN children’s rights body.
Greta Thunberg and 15 other activists from around the world filed their case accusing Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany and Turkey of violating their rights to life, health and culture under the convention on the rights of the child by failing to cut greenhouse gas emissions to levels that would restrict global warming to 1.5C, in accordance with the Paris agreement.
The Committee on the Rights of the Child accepted some of their arguments – including that states are legally responsible for the impact of emissions on children outside their borders and that the young people are victims of anticipated threats to their rights.
But with only weeks to go until the start of vital climate talks at Cop26, the UN body ruled their case was inadmissible and said it would not hear it until they had first taken it to individual national courts – a process that lawyers predict will take years.
The US climate activist Alexandria Villaseñor, who was one of the petitioners on the case, said she was shocked and angered by the result.
The 16-year-old, who started school striking when she was 13 outside the UN headquarters in New York, predicts it will encourage young activists to be even more vocal at Cop26.”
LikeLike
“Young Australians lodge human rights complaints with UN over alleged government inaction on climate
Five young people argue 2030 emissions target fails to uphold the rights of young Australians”
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/oct/25/young-australians-lodge-human-rights-complaints-with-un-over-alleged-government-inaction-on-climate
“Five young Australians, including members of First Nations and disability communities, have lodged three human rights complaints with the United Nations over what they claim is the Morrison government’s inaction on climate.
The complainants – aged between 14 and 24 years old – argue that the Australian government’s 2030 emissions reduction target fails to uphold the rights of every young person in Australia.
They claim the target is putting young First Nations people and people with disabilities at risk of acute harm from climate change.
They filed the complaint just days before the Cop26 climate conference in Glasgow, where key allies, like the US and UK, will expect to see improvements to Australia’s emissions reduction targets….”.
LikeLike
bit o/t – ch4 had a prog on tonight called – “Joe Lycett vs the oil giant Shell”
just watched it & Joe is so “funny” (as all comedy seems to be these days (sarc)
he did the usual at the end, with a message to shell on his handy iphone (*ick)
LikeLike
didn’t take long for the reviews to come in – https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2021/oct/24/greta-thunberg-would-love-it-shells-investors-less-so-joe-lycett-vs-the-oil-giant-review
“The comic and self-styled consumer champion turns his attention to the ‘eco-friendly’ face of the fossil fuel behemoth. Is he virtue signalling? Yes – but it’s hard not to be impressed”
no, it’s hard to be impressed with virtue signalling well paid “comic” who has no clue what he is talking about.
LikeLike
“Climate campaigners take South Africa to court over coal policy
Civil society organisations’ lawsuit argues the country’s energy policy is incompatible with the constitution”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/19/climate-campaigners-take-south-africa-to-court-over-coal-policy
“South Africa’s plan to build new coal-fired power stations during the climate crisis is being challenged in court for breaching the rights of current and future generations.
Three civil society organisations have launched a constitutional lawsuit in the North Gauteng high court against the South African government, arguing that its energy policy is incompatible with the national constitution.
Coal makes up about 80% of South Africa’s energy mix, and the government intends to add 1,500MW more over the next six years as part of its 2019 integrated resource plan.”
LikeLike
“Activists take court action against Boris Johnson over climate crisis
Three people claim government is breaching right to life and family life by not doing what is needed to prevent disaster”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/25/young-activists-sue-boris-johnson-over-failure-to-tackle-climate-crisis
“Three young people are taking legal action against the prime minister, accusing him of breaching his legal obligations to take “practical and effective measures” to tackle the climate crisis.
In a high court hearing in London on Thursday, Adetola Onamade, 24, Jerry Amokwandoh, 22, and Marina Tricks, 20, claimed the government was breaching their rights under the Human Rights Act to life and to family life by failing to do what was necessary to avert environmental disaster.
They argue that Boris Johnson’s government is discriminating against the younger generation and people in the global south who will bear the brunt of the climate crisis.
Backed by the charity Plan B Earth, the hearing was an application to allow the case to go to a full hearing, with a judge expected to respond with a decision in the coming days.
The environmental lawyer Tim Crosland of Plan B Earth told the court the three claimants’ case was “compelling, vital and deserves a fair hearing”.
“The defendants know that climate change is an urgent threat to life. They know its impacts hit hardest for groups exposed to disproportionate and discriminatory risks, including the claimants. They know what needs to be done but they are not doing it,” he said.
He added that the claim had been brought about because of the government’s failure to take the required action to meet statutory climate targets. “We have a credibility gap between words and action – that is at best neglect of the defendant’s most profound responsibilities and legal obligation for which this court should be ready to hold them to account.”
Co-claimant Onamade said it was “cynical and condescending” for the defendants to suggest their motivations for bringing the case to court were “disingenuous” or that they were “being tokenised” as young people of African heritage.”
Unless the legal world has gone mad, and I’m pretty confident that this nonsense will be thrown out before too long. No UK Prime Minister could “tackle the climate crisis”, even if there is one. It requires world-wide action, and most of the rest of the world is doing significantly less than the UK to reduce emissions.
LikeLike
“Environmental activists challenge ‘unlawful’ UK fossil fuel plan in high court
Climate campaigners claim the government is giving billions of pounds in subsidies to oil and gas producers”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/dec/04/environmental-activists-challenge-unlawful-uk-fossil-fuel-plan-in-high-court
“Environmental campaigners will this week ask the high court to rule that the government’s fossil fuel strategy is unlawful, in a case that could undermine the UK’s claim to be leading the fight against climate change.
The campaigners will argue that the government is effectively subsidising oil and gas production with billions of pounds in handouts, which conflicts with its legal duty to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.
Pressure group Paid to Pollute says oil and gas companies received billions of pounds in tax relief for new oil and gas exploration, and billions more towards decommissioning costs between 2016 and 2020. The group says this amounts to fossil fuel subsidies.
“Public money is supporting businesses that contribute to the climate crisis instead of solving it,” said Kairin van Sweeden, one of three activists who will appear in court. “We have to challenge this deadly use of the public purse. If the Oil and Gas Authority won’t use common sense, perhaps it’ll listen to the courts.”
…A government spokesperson said the UK did not pay any fossil fuel subsidies: “No other significant oil and gas-producing nation has gone as far as the UK in supporting the sector’s gradual transition to a low-carbon future, as demonstrated by our North Sea transition deal….”
I wonder who is paying their legal fees, and why? The Paid to Pollute website can be found here:
https://paidtopollute.org.uk/
There is a narrative there about the three claimants. I love the biopic of Mikaela Loach:
“As a current medical student and member of the Jamaican diaspora, I am hugely concerned about the impact of the climate crisis both today and in the future. When visiting family in Jamaica I have seen first-hand the impacts of the climate crisis on it – as a low lying, previously colonised nation. ”
I’m not sure what is the relevance of “As a current medical student and member of the Jamaican diaspora” that should make her more concerned about climate change than someone who isn’t a medical student or a member of the Jamaican diaspora. I note that she flies backwards and forwards to Jamaica to visit her family. When I was her age I had never been in an aeroplane. She certainly has an immensely bigger carbon footprint than I did at her age, and I wouldn’t be surprised if her carbon footprint exceeds mine in total already.
LikeLike
Somehow, the phrase ‘Fifth Columnist’ sprang to my mind.
LikeLike
There have been no new developments here, so it’s not news, as such, but that doesn’t stop the BBC doing a big piece on it:
“The teenagers and the nun trying to stop an Australian coal mine”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-59390798
“When eight teenagers and an elderly nun in Australia teamed up for a climate case, they won, in a historic judgement. Their case has now been appealed by the country’s government. If the final verdict swings in their favour, it will have ramifications not just for Australian law but for climate cases world-wide.”
LikeLike
“Campaigners lose court action over lawfulness of UK climate policies
Plan B Earth group argued ministers had not taken ‘practical and effective’ steps to reduce emissions”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/dec/21/plan-b-earth-campaigners-lose-court-action-uk-climate-policies-
“An environmental campaign group that challenged the lawfulness of the UK government’s climate policies has lost a high court fight.
Plan B Earth argued that ministers had not taken “practical and effective” steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It wanted Mr Justice Bourne to give activists the go-ahead for a judicial review but he refused to grant permission.”
No analysis of the Judge’s reasoning, just a long article explaining the activists’ point of view. Not so much news reporting as propaganda.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“South Africa court blocks Shell’s oil exploration”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-59809821
“A South African court has halted oil giant Shell’s seismic testing for oil and gas along the country’s eastern coastline, pending a final ruling.
The decision has been hailed by environmentalists who fear that the sound blasting will harm marine life.
Shell said it had “paused” operations while it reviewed the judgement.
South Africa’s Energy Minister Gwede Mantashe had condemned the project’s critics, saying they wanted to deprive Africa of energy resources.”
Perhaps the concerns for marine life is justified and the decision is a good one for the environment. But isn’t it strange that “environmentalists” only ever seem to have concerns for wildlife and the environment in connection with fossil fuel projects, rarely if ever with “renewables” projects, however harmful they may be?
LikeLike
A 3-minute puff piece video from the BBC:
“COP 26: The teenagers suing 33 countries”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-59776108
A group of children in Portugal are using human rights law to force European politicians to tackle climate change.
After seeing the damage caused by wildfires in their home country of Portugal, André Oliviera, his sister Sofia and their friends are determined to make sure that leaders who pledged to reduce harmful emissions are forced to act.”
LikeLike
“UK government sued over ‘pie-in-the-sky’ net-zero climate strategy
ClientEarth and Friends of the Earth say strategy fails to include policies needed to ensure emissions cuts”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/12/net-zero-climate-strategy-uk-government-sued
“The UK government is being sued over its net zero climate strategy, which lawyers argue illegally fails to include the policies needed to deliver the promised cuts in emissions.
Court papers were filed on Wednesday by ClientEarth (CE) and, separately, by Friends of the Earth (FoE). CE also claims the failure to meet legal carbon budgets would contravene the Human Rights Act by impacting on young people’s right to life and family life….
…Both CE and FoE argue that the Climate Change Act requires ministers to set out policies to meet carbon budgets “as soon as reasonably practicable” after they have been set. The assessment included in the net zero strategy shows UK emissions being double the level allowed in 2035 and also missing targets in 2025 and 2030.
“A net zero strategy needs to include real-world policies that ensure it succeeds,” said lawyer Sam Hunter Jones at CE. “Anything less is a breach of the government’s legal duties and amounts to greenwashing and climate delay. The government’s pie-in-the-sky approach pushes the risk onto young people and future generations who stand to be hit hardest by the climate crisis.”
The FoE action also claims that another government strategy, on heat and buildings, failed to assess its impact on groups protected in law, including children, people of colour and those with disabilities. FoE previously found that people of colour were twice as likely to be living in fuel poverty as white people….”.
LikeLike
“groups protected in law, including children, people of colour and those with disabilities”
can see “children and those with disabilities” probably, but “people of colour” ?
LikeLike
“Climate Activists Lose Court Case against UK Oil and Gas Authority”
https://www.oedigital.com/news/493582-climate-activists-lose-court-case-against-uk-oil-and-gas-authority
“A UK High Court on Tuesday threw out a case brought by climate activists against the country’s oil and gas regulator OGA, rejecting their argument that the OGA’s actions amount to a type of unlawful subsidy of the fossil fuel sector.
The ruling, seen by Reuters, is a setback for climate activists who are increasingly taking to the courts to force a reduction in oil and gas production in order to control global warming….
…In the UK case, activists including a former oil refinery worker targeted the OGA’s assessment of applications for oil and gas field developments on a pre-tax basis, noting in some years if oil and gas prices were low the government actually returned money to producers rather than benefiting from tax receipts.
This, they argue, is in conflict with both the government’s long-standing policy of “maximising economic recovery” of oil and gas in the British North Sea, meaning that oil and gas extraction there should make commercial sense, and with Britain’s 2050 net zero emissions goal.
“I reject the contention that the strategy is unlawful because the definition of ‘economically recoverable’ was irrational. It follows that the claimants’ claim fails and is dismissed,” Judge Sara Cockerill said in the ruling document….
…British energy and business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng and the OGA said they welcomed the ruling.
“Turning off North Sea oil and gas overnight would put energy security, jobs and industries at risk – and make us even more dependent on foreign imports. This has to be a transition, not extinction,” Kwarteng said on Twitter.
OGA lawyer Kate Gallafent had told the court in December the benefits of oil and gas extractions were “a lot wider” than tax revenues, pointing to energy security and jobs.”
LikeLike
“Oil firms accused of scare tactics after claiming climate lawsuits ‘a threat to US’
Attorneys for BP, Exxon and Shell claim city of Baltimore’s case over ‘deception and failure to warn’ could kill offshore drilling”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/25/climate-lawsuits-oil-firms-bp-exxon-shell
“US oil firms have been accused of using scare tactics after telling a federal court on Tuesday that lawsuits alleging fossil fuel companies lied about the climate crisis could threaten America’s oil supply.
At a closely watched appeals court hearing to decide whether a lawsuit by the city of Baltimore should be heard in state or federal court, an attorney for BP, Exxon, Shell and other energy firms painted the case as a threat to America’s energy independence.
Kannon Shanmugam, representing the industry, told the court that if the city were to succeed in state court, and win billions of dollars in compensation, that could kill offshore drilling.
“The relief that Baltimore seeks would deter, if not render entirely impractical, any further production on the outer continental shelf,” he said.
Karen Sokol, a law professor at Loyola University who specialises in climate litigation, called the claim one of a number of “sterile scare tactics” deployed by the oil industry as it fights to move the Baltimore and other cases out of state jurisdictions, where consumer protection and other laws favour the plaintiffs, and in to federal courts where the fossil fuel companies believe they have the advantage.
“It’s a scare tactic, which is telling the courts to back off, we’re a very powerful industry and we’re essential right now to energy security. If you step into this, you’re going to screw everything up,” she said.”
It seems that only climate alarmists may legitimately indulge in scare tactics.
LikeLike
“Granting of coal mining licence in south Wales faces court challenge
Coal Action Network threatens legal action against decision to permit expansion of Aberpergwm site”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/09/grant-coal-mining-licence-aberpergwm-south-wales-court-challenge
“The UK and Welsh governments are facing a legal challenge over the recent decision to grant a new coal mining licence in south Wales.
Legal representatives acting for the Coal Action Network have notified the Coal Authority and the devolved Welsh administration that the group plans to challenge the lawfulness of the decision to permit an expansion of the existing Aberpergwm site in the Neath Valley. Their pre-action letter sets a deadline of 14 February before the organisation will look to file for judicial review proceedings.”
Inevitable, I suppose. There seems to be no shortage of funding to bring legal claims.
LikeLike
“The environmental activists bringing the climate crisis to the courtroom
Kieran Pender
There’s a growing trend of climate litigation around the world. Here’s a look at the Australian cases likely to make headlines this year”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/12/the-environmental-activists-bringing-the-climate-crisis-to-the-courtroom
A climate duty of care?
Environment Minister v Sharma
Rising sea levels
Pabai v Commonwealth
Climate (in)action and human rights
Youth Verdict v Waratah Coal
Corporate greenwashing?
Australasian Centre for Corporation Responsibility v Santos
Failure to disclose climate risk
O’Donnell v Commonwealth
“The first climate case in Australia was brought in 1994, when Greenpeace challenged the construction of a coal-fired power station. In the subsequent decades, most climate litigation has been grounded in administrative law – challenging government decision-making that insufficiently mitigated or entirely ignored climate impact. It is only in recent years that improved science and continuing government and corporate inaction has prompted more creative climate lawyering, using tort law, corporate law, human rights law and beyond.
That trend is set to continue. Last year, significant climate litigation cases were filed almost monthly; even more are anticipated this year. “
LikeLike
Only climate alarmists should have successful access to the Courts, apparently:
“Trump-appointed judge blocks Biden administration climate metric
Judge bars higher cost estimate which puts a dollar value on damages caused by additional greenhouse gases emitted”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/12/trump-judge-biden-climate-metric-greenhouse-gases
“A Trump-appointed federal judge has blocked the Biden administration’s attempt to put greater emphasis on potential damage from greenhouse gas emissions when creating rules for polluting industries.
The move represents a blow to Joe Biden’s efforts to bring America more back in line with global efforts to fight the climate crisis after the Trump era, when the US largely turned its back on measures that might have helped limit emissions.
It also shows the impact of Donald Trump’s judicial appointees, which were overwhelmingly conservative and will have impact far beyond Trump’s single term in office.
US district judge James Cain of the western district of Louisiana sided with Republican attorneys general from energy producing states who said the administration’s action to raise the cost estimate of carbon emissions threatened to drive up energy costs while decreasing state revenues from energy production.
The judge issued an injunction that bars the Biden administration from using the higher cost estimate, which puts a dollar value on damages caused by every additional ton of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere.
Biden on his first day in office restored the climate cost estimate to about $51 a ton of carbon dioxide emissions after the Trump administration had reduced the figure to about $7 or less a ton. Trump’s estimate included only damages felt in the US versus the global damages captured in higher estimates that were previously used under the Obama administration….
…Republican attorneys general led by Louisiana’s Jeff Landry said the Biden administration’s revival of the higher estimate was illegal and exceeded its authority by basing the figure on global considerations. The other states whose officials sued are Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia and Wyoming.
Landry’s office issued a statement calling Cain’s ruling “a major win for nearly every aspect of Louisiana’s economy and culture”.
Friday’s ruling by Cain follows a ruling by another Louisiana judge last summer that struck down a separate Biden attempt to address greenhouse gas emissions by suspending new oil and gas leases on federal lands and water.
The judge in that case, US district judge Terry Doughty, is also a Trump appointee.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Meanwhile, in the UK, note the much more positive reporting about Courts:
“Windfarm off Norfolk coast gets second green light after court battle
Government reapproves project, which could power 4m homes, after it was stalled by local concerns”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/11/business-secretary-approves-vast-offshore-windfarm-norfolk-vanguard
“A vast windfarm off the Norfolk coast has been approved by ministers for a second time after a local man convinced a high court judge to overturn the first decision a year ago.
The high court verdict last February forced the government to reconsider the plans by the Swedish renewables firm Vattenfall to build two offshore windfarms capable of generating enough green electricity to power the equivalent of 4m UK homes.
But on Friday Kwasi Kwarteng, the business secretary, reapproved the Norfolk Vanguard offshore windfarm, more than a year and a half after first giving the project the nod. His department approved the Norfolk Boreas windfarm, its sister project, at the end of last year.
The projects were temporarily derailed last year after a legal challenge by a local resident, Raymond Pearce, raised concerns about the impact on the landscape and the view….
…Conservationists also raised concerns about the safety of endangered birds in the area….”
Local concerns? Landscape? Endangered birds? Who cares?
LikeLike
This story (the one mentioned in the above comment) might run and run:
“Norfolk wind farms offer ‘significant benefit’ for local economy”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-60393730
“Two offshore wind farms capable of powering nearly four million homes are to be built off the Norfolk coast after the government re-approved plans. A college and energy group tells us they will provide a boost for the workforce and young people locally, but not everyone is happy.
The Norfolk Vanguard and Norfolk Boreas projects could power 3.9 million homes, energy firm Vattenfall says, but plans for the former were temporarily called off after a High Court judge ruled against them.
The government re-approved plans last week, but Raymond Pearce, who lives near Reepham in Norfolk, is one of those unhappy at the decision.
He had started a legal challenge citing concerns about the effect the development would have on the landscape and the view.
He argued that ministers had not taken into account the “cumulative impacts” of the project and had given “inadequate” reasons for not doing so….
…Following the re-approval of the decision by the government, Mr Pearce says he is considering a new appeal over what he calls “a very poor decision”.
He is also sceptical of claims the two new wind farms will bring the economic gains promised by Vattenfall.
“It’s renewable energy at any cost and the cost here is to the environment in Norfolk,” he says.
“I don’t blame them for being positive about it, it’s their industry but they’re not looking at it holistically.”
He says he is not against renewable energy but thinks a better plan is needed to connect the offshore windfarms and minimise the number of cables and substations onshore.”
LikeLike
More litigation not of the sort desired by climate campaigners:
“Supreme court case could restrict Biden’s effort to tackle climate crisis
Court to hear West Virginia case that takes aim at EPA’s ability to issue strict rules to curb pollution from fossil fuel power stations”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/24/supreme-court-case-biden-climate-crisis
“Joe Biden’s faltering effort to tackle the climate crisis faces a further, potentially devastating, blow on Monday in a supreme court case that experts warn could severely restrict any future US government attempt to limit planet-heating emissions.
The court has agreed to hear a case brought by West Virginia, supported by 18 other Republican-led states, that takes aim at the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ability to issue strict regulations to curb pollution from fossil fuel-fired power stations.
“The decision by the conservative-leaning court to even consider an argument about a hypothetical regulation that hasn’t been proposed by the EPA has surprised onlookers. It is also an ominous sign for the authority of a Biden administration already frustrated over major clean energy legislation that has stalled in Congress due to opposition from Republicans and centrist Democrats such as West Virginia senator Joe Manchin.
“This is a vitally important case that will define future federal action on climate change issues,” said Judith Enck, former EPA regional administrator and president of Beyond Plastics. “Congress seems unwilling or unable to address the climate crisis. Federal agencies need to be able to take action.”
Even if Biden and his allies in Congress are able to pass the climate elements of the Build Back Better Act, which includes hundreds of billions of dollars in support for wind and solar energy and electric cars, most analysts say executive action to slash pollution from power plants, cars and trucks will still be needed if the US is to meet its emissions reduction goals and avert disastrous climate change.
West Virginia’a lawsuit, filed last year and supported by various fossil fuel firms and rightwing groups, argues that the EPA shouldn’t be able to issue rules that “are capable of reshaping the nation’s electricity grids and unilaterally decarbonizing virtually any sector of the economy” and claims that Congress alone should decide on regulation of this scope.”
LikeLike
“Australia climate change: Court overturns teenagers’ case against minister”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-60745967
“The Australian government has won an appeal against a ruling that it has a duty of care to protect children from harm caused by climate change.
Last year, eight teenagers and an 87-year-old nun convinced a court that the government had a legal duty to children when assessing fossil fuel projects.
The decision was hailed as a world first, but it has been successfully challenged by the environment minister.
The teenagers could still take the case to Australia’s highest court.
“Today’s ruling leaves us devastated, but it will not deter us in our flight for climate justice,” said 17-year-old Anjali Sharma, in a statement released by their lawyers.
Their case attempted to stop the expansion of the Vickery coal mine in New South Wales, which is estimated to add an extra 170 million tonnes of fossil fuel emissions to the atmosphere.
Three judges in the Federal Court of Australia unanimously sided with Environment Minister Sussan Ley on Tuesday, but their list of reasons differed….”.
LikeLike
“Shell directors sued for ‘failing to prepare company for net zero’
Environmental law organisation ClientEarth brings action and urges other shareholders to join”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/mar/15/shell-directors-sued-net-zero-clientearth
“The directors of Shell are being sued for failing to properly prepare the multinational oil and gas company for net zero.
In what is thought to be a first-of-its-kind action, the lawsuit brought by activist shareholders claims that Shell’s 13 directors are personally liable for failing to devise a strategy in line with the Paris agreement, which aims to limit global heating to below 2C by slashing fossil fuel emissions.
The lawsuit claims the failure puts the directors in breach of their duties under the UK’s Companies Act.
If successful, Shell’s board could be forced by the courts to change its strategy, taking specific concrete steps to align its plan with the Paris deal. But if the claimants lose, they could be liable for the full costs of the case, including directors’ legal fees.
ClientEarth, the environmental law organisation taking the action against Shell, said it was calling for other shareholders to join.”
LikeLike
“Bristol Airport expansion decision to go to High Court”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-60748631
“For campaigners, this is a fight for the future of the planet. But many of them are experienced lawyers, and they know they must win their battle in the dry, logical reasoning of the High Court.
They can’t simply re-state their case that more flying means more climate change. They must persuade judges the planning inspectors made specific, legal mistakes in the way they made their decision.
North Somerset Council’s lawyers have been through that decision, and didn’t see enough to overturn it.
For councillors then, it is too much of a risk for local tax-payers money.
And at the heart of this local planning decision, is a big national principle.
Inspectors pointed out there is “no policy which seeks to limit airport expansion” nationally, and so to do so just at Bristol Airport would be unfair.
Reversing that judgment will be hard, but the campaigners believe they can do it.”
LikeLike
Mark – re “the Paris agreement”
I am still confused if it was/is legally binding, so googled “paris climate agreement legally binding”
and found a link to “The World Economic Forum” can’t give the link as I seem to be blocked every time I try lately!!!
one quote from Legal scholar Daniel Brodansky at Arizona State University caught my attention –
“Ultimately, legal bindingness reflects a state of mind…of officials who apply and interpret the law (judges, executive branch officials, and so forth), but also to some degree of the larger community that the law purports to govern,” he wrote shortly after the deal went into effect.
The power of the Paris Agreement, in other words, relies on a fluid agreement about the consequences for violating an international agreement, one not precisely defined.”It depends on what the British philosopher H.L.A. Hart referred to as their ‘internal point of view’,” Brodansky added, “a sense that a rule constitutes a legal obligation and that compliance is therefore required rather than merely optional.”
and after reading the whole link I’m none the wiser !!!
LikeLike
dfhunter,
As luck would have it, today is the anniversary of the appearance of my debut article here:
It’s all about the Paris Agreement, and as I point out in it, the Agreement has no binding obligations and no enforcement mechanism, so is unenforceable.
LikeLike
“Legal eagles: how climate litigation is shaping ambitious cases for nature
Environmental lawsuits are nothing new but now lawyers are turning their attention to cases that address the loss of biodiversity”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/16/climate-litigation-lisbon-wetlands-aoe
An interesting article, and a pointer to what to expect down the line. But when it comes to biodiversity, environmentally damaging “renewables” projects never seem to be in their sights.
LikeLike
Mark – Thanks for the link back your “debut article” – was it only a year ago you started !!! happy anniversary & thanks for your posts,wit & interesting comments.
remember the “debut article” from you, now you reminded me.
at the time it chimed with my understanding re “the Paris Agreement” – as per your quote above “the Agreement has no binding obligations and no enforcement mechanism, so is unenforceable.”
so why are ClientEarth backing the lawsuit brought by activist shareholders claims that Shell’s 13 directors are personally liable for failing to devise a strategy in line with the Paris agreement ?
I notice they add – “The lawsuit claims the failure puts the directors in breach of their duties under the UK’s Companies Act.”
LikeLike
ps – googled “UK’s Companies Act” – and no way I could wade through it 😦
LikeLike
dfhunter,
I am as mystified as you are, as regards ClientEarth’s (and others’) claims against the directors of Shell. Shareholders can always seek to bring directors of their company (after all, shareholders are part-owners) to book, but to do so, they have to be in breach of some legal duty, and like you, I don’t see it in this scenario.
I shall continue to watch this space, and hope that more is revealed in due course.
Don’t even try to read the Companies Act. I studied it for a term at University, worked with it in practice over about 20 years, and still was far from understanding everything there is to know about it. And, blast it, they’ve gone and passed a new one since then!
LikeLike
ahh – after following your links – https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/mar/15/shell-directors-sued-net-zero-clientearth
“ClientEarth has said it is taking the action against Shell in the company’s best interests. Their claim says the board has failed to properly account for the risks climate change poses to the company. Under the Companies Act, directors are legally bound to act in a way that promotes the company’s success and to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence.”
LikeLike
“Fossil fuels v our future: young Montanans wage historic climate fight”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/13/young-people-montana-fossil-fuels-climate-crisis
“…Held v State of Montana, argues that state lawmakers have prioritized the business interests of the fossil fuel industry over their future. When their case is heard next February, it will be the first in a wave of youth-led climate lawsuits to successfully go to trial. Experts say a decision in favor of the 16 youth plaintiffs could have sweeping implications across the country, setting guard rails for how politicians are able to protect the interests of extractive corporations.
“The world is literally burning all around them, and nothing’s being done about it,” said Nate Bellinger, a senior staff attorney with Our Children’s Trust, the non-profit law firm that is representing the youth plaintiffs. “Not only is the state not doing enough, but the state is continuing to affirmatively promote the fossil fuel industry and development.”…”.
LikeLike
“First Nations challenge over approval of Clive Palmer’s coalmine begins in Queensland
Case centres on whether proposed Galilee Coal Project would harm climate and limit human rights”
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/apr/26/first-nations-challenge-over-approval-of-clive-palmers-coalmine-begins-in-queensland
“The proposal of a company owned by Clive Palmer to dig Australia’s largest thermal coalmine in central Queensland is “an attempt at financial gain” that comes with “an obscenely high cost” for future generations, a group challenging the mine’s approval in a landmark climate and human rights challenge has told court.
The case, which began in the Queensland land court on Tuesday, has been brought by a group of young people, Youth Verdict, and is led by its First Nations members.
The group argues that the Galilee Coal Project proposed by Palmer’s company, Waratah Coal, would cause environmental harm by contributing to global climate change, and in the process limit the cultural rights of First Nations Queenslanders to maintain their distinctive relationships with the land, the court heard.”
LikeLike
“Who owns the Arctic and should they drill for oil and gas?”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-61222653
“A court case is under way over whether energy companies have the right to drill for gas and oil in the Arctic region.
Environmental activists, led by Greenpeace Nordic, are taking Norway’s government to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
It’s being seen as a test case for how far the Arctic environment can be protected….
…Since 2016 Norway – Western Europe’s largest oil producer – has granted a number of licences to explore for oil and gas in the Barents Sea, inside the Arctic Circle.
In 2021, six young Norwegians and two environmental groups, Greenpeace Nordic and Young Friends of the Earth, brought a case to the ECHR against the Norwegian government’s policy.
The activists said in their statement that “by allowing new drilling in a climate crisis, Norway is in breach of fundamental human rights”.
The campaigners’ case cites Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which protects the right to life, and Article 8, which protects the right to a family life and home.
“By complaining,” said campaigner Mia Chamberlain, “we might have a chance of stopping this catastrophic oil drilling.”
Lasse Eriksen Bjoern, an activist from the indigenous Sami people of northern Norway, told Reuters that drilling and the threat of pollution could endanger their way of life.
Three Norwegian courts rejected their case, but the ECHR is taking it seriously. It says the case, which the activists have billed “the people versus Arctic oil”, could be an “impact case”, meaning it could set a wide precedent for environmental protection throughout Europe….”.
LikeLike
“Climate group sues Dutch airline KLM over ‘greenwashing’ adverts
‘Fly Responsibly’ adverts mislead customers on the sustainability of flying with KLM, say campaigners”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/may/24/climate-group-sues-dutch-airline-klm-over-adverts
“Environmental campaigners are suing the Dutch airline KLM over “greenwashing” adverts they say misleadingly promote the sustainability of flying.
Lawyers from ClientEarth are supporting Fossielvrij NL, a Netherlands-based campaign group, to bring a claim that KLM’s ad campaigns give a false impression of the sustainability of its flights and its plans to address its impact on the climate.
“KLM’s marketing misleads consumers into believing that its flights won’t worsen the climate emergency. But this is a myth,” said Hiske Arts, a campaigner at Fossielvrij NL.
“Unchecked flying is one of the fastest ways to heat up the planet. Customers need to be informed and protected from claims that suggest otherwise.”
Activists from Fossielvrij NL submitted a pre-action letter to Air France KLM, KLM’s parent company, during its AGM in Paris on Tuesday. Their legal action takes aim at KLM’s “Fly Responsibly” campaign, which presents the airline as “creating a more sustainable future”.
KLM’s campaign says it is on track to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050, and that it plans to introduce hydrogen and electric planes and scale up the use of synthetic kerosene from 2035.”
LikeLike
“Exxon must go to trial over alleged climate crimes, court rules
The ruling, and another crucial court decision this week, will force the company to face charges it lied about global heating”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/may/24/exxon-trial-climate-crimes-fossil-fuels-global-heating
“The Massachusetts high court on Tuesday ruled that the US’s largest oil company, ExxonMobil, must face a trial over accusations that it lied about the climate crisis and covered up the fossil fuel industry’s role in worsening environmental devastation.
Exxon claimed the case brought by the Massachusetts attorney general, Maura Healey, was politically motived and amounted to an attempt to prevent the company from exercising its free speech rights. But the state’s supreme judicial court unanimously dismissed the claim in the latest blow to the oil industry’s attempts to head off a wave of lawsuits across the country over its part in causing global heating.
Healey’s lawsuit accuses Exxon of breaking the state’s consumer protection laws with a decades-long cover-up of what it knew about the impact on the climate of burning fossil fuels. The state also says the company deceived investors about the risks to its business posed by global heating.
Exxon claimed the lawsuit was in breach of legislation against what are known as strategic lawsuits against public participation, or Slapps, used by wealthy individuals and corporations to silence critics. The Massachusetts court ruled that anti-Slapp laws do not apply to government cases.
Healey, who is running for governor, hailed the ruling as “a resounding victory in our work to stop Exxon from lying to investors and consumers in our state”.
In March, a federal court also refused to put a block on the state’s legal action and ruled that Exxon was obliged to turn over documents to investigators.
The oil industry suffered another defeat on Monday when a federal appeals court ruled that a lawsuit by Rhode Island against 21 fossil fuel companies, including Exxon, BP and Shell, can go ahead in state court. Fossil fuel companies are attempting to move cases into what they regard as the more friendly forum of federal courts.”
LikeLike
“German judges visit Peru glacial lake in unprecedented climate crisis lawsuit
Rising greenhouse gases have caused Lake Palcacocha to swell in size which makes the area at risk for a devastating outburst flood”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/may/27/peru-lake-palcacocha-climate-crisis-lawsuit
“In a global first for climate breakdown litigation, judges from Germany have visited Peru to determine the level of damage caused by Europe’s largest emitter in a case that could set a precedent for legal claims over human-caused global heating.
Judges and court-appointed experts visited a glacial lake in Peru’s Cordillera Blanca mountain range this week to determine whether Germany’s largest electricity provider, RWE, is partially liable for the rise in greenhouse gases that could trigger a devastating flood.
Framed by majestic ice-capped peaks, Lake Palcacocha has swollen in volume by 34 times in the last five decades. A peer-reviewed study links accelerated glacial melt caused by global heating to the substantial risk of an outburst flood which could trigger a deadly landslide inundating the city of Huaraz below.
In 2017, judges in Hamm, Germany, made legal history by accepting a case brought by farmer and mountain guide Saúl Luciano Lliuya against RWE, asking for €17,000 (£14,490) for the costs of preventing damage from a potentially devastating outburst flood from the lake….”.
LikeLike
Well, that didn’t take long:
“Climate activists vow to fight as new gasfield gets go-ahead in North Sea
Environmentalists threaten legal action over UK permit for Shell to develop Jackdaw field”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/02/jackdaw-uk-new-gas-field-shell-north-sea-climate
“Environmentalists are threatening legal action in an attempt to halt the development of a new gasfield in the North Sea that has been given the green light by the UK government.
Climate experts reacted with anger after the government announced it had given the Jackdaw field, to be developed by the oil multinational Shell, “final regulatory approval” on Wednesday.
The business secretary, Kwasi Kwarteng, said: “Jackdaw gasfield – originally licensed in 1970 – has today received final regulatory approval. We’re turbocharging renewables and nuclear but we are also realistic about our energy needs now. Let’s source more of the gas we need from British waters to protect energy security.”…
…Ami McCarthy, a political campaigner for Greenpeace UK, said approving Jackdaw was “a desperate and destructive decision” and proved the government had no long-term plan.
“They could immediately shave billions off bills, get a grip on UK energy demand, create thousands of jobs, boost our economy, tackle the climate crisis and avoid future crises – if they just upgrade homes to be warmer and greener, and invest in clean and cheap renewable power. But instead, once again, they’re handing out lucrative permits to the likes of Shell for a project that won’t start producing gas for years, that won’t lower our bills, but will create massive emissions, causing deadly flooding and wildfires.”
She said Greenpeace believed the decision was unlawful and was considering legal action to stop it. “We will fight this every step of the way,” she said….”.
LikeLike
Mark, thanks for reading the Guardian, so I don’t have to.
[I am not so much allergic to adverse data as to a newspaper regressing into a propaganda campaign.]
Why would the Guardian listen to, let alone print verbatim, that wild rant from the Greenpeace representative? She certainly managed to tick most of the alarmist talking points in that hysterical torrent. It is not worth dissecting in detail, but it is actually shocking to see how low the Guardian’s standards are now. The ignorance (I don’t believe she knows enough about the subject to be consciously lying) of the Greenpeace representative is not so surprising.
LikeLike
JIT, Mark, Please consider all my old arguments in support of Guardian journalism repeated. You IMHO read it wrongly. I ignore anything dealing with climate or energy, knowing it will probably upset me (unless I an seeking to learn what the climate unsullied are up to). Thus I commonly read excellent journalism upon a whole variety of topics. I have tried other papers (and still read the Times on Sunday) but I find them either puerile or too right wing for my taste. You on the other hand deliberately seek out anything climatic or energetic and so get annoyed.
LikeLike
In fairness, Alan, although I think the Guardian’s coverage of the Ukraine war has been excellent to date, I do feel that the quality of its journalism generally has deteriorated dramatically since the days when I used to buy it regularly. The climate/environment reporting is annoying, but much of the rest is so poor it saddens me. How the mighty have fallen.
LikeLike
In fairness Mark what are you measuring Guardian’s journalistic decline against? Its past efforts (where I might agree with you) or other newspapers today? In which case I won’t.
LikeLike
Alan, I am measuring it against the mighty organ that it used to be. Its serious decline is what distresses me. I give it credit for the fact that the online version is freely available, and also for the fact that I am allowed to view it even though I use adblockers. This is unlike others, which I therefore do not view and cannot compare against. I dare say you are correct and that they are also awful. You told me the other day that I am getting old (or words to that effect). I think you may be right. 😕
LikeLike
Alan, there are a variety of ways of putting this, from “He that deceives me once, it’s his fault; but if twice, it’s my fault,” to Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus to “Gell-Mann Amnesia.”
I can’t trust the Guardian any more, and yes, it has been my paper of choice since I was a teenager.
There is of course a wider point, in that good newspapers can’t make a profit any more, so that of course their standards will fall. Folk are so used to finding information for free that they overlook the fact that someone has to pay for good journalism if they want good journalism. I am as guilty as the next person, but I have a feeling that the younger generation would be horrified if they were asked to pay for a subscription to a newspaper.
LikeLike
“EU faces legal challenge over plan to fast-track gas projects
NGOs argue priority list was drawn up without consideration of methane emissions”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/07/eu-faces-legal-challenge-over-plan-to-fast-track-gas-projects
“An EU plan to fast-track funding and permits for 30 gas projects is facing a legal challenge from NGOs including ClientEarth and Friends of the Earth Europe.
The European Commission has been asked to review its backing for infrastructure projects such as the EastMed pipeline, a 1,180-mile (1,900km) gas pipeline to connect offshore gas fields in Israel and Cyprus to Italy.
The EU’s executive branch has up to 22 weeks to revise its initial decision or show that it does not violate environmental law, under a new way of challenging Brussels introduced last year.
Should the commission fail to offer a satisfactory legal justification, the case could be taken to the European court of justice, potentially holding up progress on €13bn (£11bn) worth of projects.
The two NGOs, along with Food & Water Action Europe and CEE Bankwatch Network, claim the priority list of projects was drawn up by Brussels without consideration of methane emissions, a gas that experts say has a global warming potential more than 85 times higher than that of CO2 over the next 20 years.
Guillermo Ramo, a lawyer for ClientEarth, said: “This list amounts to a VIP pass for fossil gas in Europe, when we should be talking about its phase-out. The commission did not consider the impact of methane emissions derived from gas infrastructure projects, in spite of evidence that these are substantial. That’s unlawful as it directly clashes with the EU’s own climate laws and its legal obligations under the Paris agreement.”
Every two years, the European Commission compiles a list of priority energy infrastructure projects deemed beneficial to the EU’s 27 member states. Under reforms to the system, no entirely new gas projects can be listed, but projects necessary to secure supply can be included.
Included among them this year are 30 gas projects that are now eligible for streamlined environmental impact assessment, a fast-tracked permitting procedure and EU funding.”
I could just as easily have posted this information as a note to “Blood On Their Hands?”. It seems that “green” obsessives are very definitely among Putin’s Useful Idiots.
LikeLike
“Vanuatu calls on Australia to back its UN bid to recognise climate change harm
Pacific islands urge new Labor government to support push for international court of justice to issue climate advisory opinion”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/20/vanuatu-calls-on-australia-to-back-its-un-bid-to-recognise-climate-change-harm
“Australia’s new Labor government has been called on to prove its commitment to climate action and support for Pacific countries by backing a campaign led by Vanuatu to see international law changed to recognise climate change harm.
In a letter to the prime minister sent by leading Pacific and Australian NGOs, shared exclusively with Guardian Australia, the groups urged Anthony Albanese to support Vanuatu’s campaign for the international court of justice to issue an advisory opinion on the question of climate change….
…Vanuatu is seeking to get the ICJ, the world’s highest court, to issue an advisory opinion on the climate crisis.
If the campaign is successful then this would be the first authoritative statement on climate change issued by the court and could have huge implications for climate change litigation, the setting of domestic law, and international, regional and domestic disputes on climate harm.
For it to be successful in its campaign, Vanuatu must get a majority of the UN general assembly to vote in favour of presenting a question on the climate crisis to the ICJ in September. Vanuatu is currently undertaking a huge diplomatic campaign to garner support for the advisory opinion….”.
LikeLike
“Young people go to European court to stop treaty that aids fossil fuel investors
Five claimants aged 17-31 want their governments to exit the energy charter treaty, which compensates oil and gas firms”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/21/young-people-go-to-european-court-to-stop-treaty-that-aids-fossil-fuel-investors
“Young victims of the climate crisis will on Tuesday launch legal action at Europe’s top human rights court against an energy treaty that protects fossil fuel investors.
Five people, aged between 17 and 31, who have experienced devastating floods, forest fires and hurricanes are bringing a case to the European court of human rights, where they will argue that their governments’ membership of the little-known energy charter treaty (ECT) is a dangerous obstacle to action on the climate crisis. It is the first time that the Strasbourg court will be asked to consider the treaty, a secretive investor court system that enables fossil fuel companies to sue governments for lost profits.
“It just can’t be that the fossil fuel industry is still more protected than our human rights,” said Julia, a 17-year-old high school student from Germany, who said she was joining the legal challenge after catastrophic lethal floods came to her home region, the Ahr valley, last July.
She and her parents had to flee their home when the flood waters came. Recalling the escape with the water around her hips, she said: “It was really scary and going through the water felt like losing the ground underneath my feet.” During the floods 222 people died in Germany and Belgium. “So that’s why I decided to join this legal action, to fight against the energy charter treaty still protecting the fuel industry.”
The claimants are suing 12 ECHR member states, including France, Germany and the UK because these countries are home to companies that have been active users of the ECT charter. The German energy company RWE is suing the Netherlands for €1.4bn (£1.2bn) over its plans to phase out coal; Rockhopper Exploration, based in the UK, is suing the Italian government after it banned new drilling near the coast.
The claimants argue that membership of the ECT violates the right to life (article two) and right to respect for private and family life (article eight) of the European convention on human rights.”
I wonder how they prove that they are “Young victims of the climate crisis” or does that not little detail not matter?
LikeLike
“Fossil fuel industry faces surge in climate lawsuits
Number of climate-related lawsuits globally has doubled since 2015, with quarter filed in past two years”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/30/fossil-fuel-industry-surge-climate-lawsuits
“The world’s most polluting companies are increasingly being targeted by lawsuits challenging their inaction on climate change and attempts to spread misinformation, according to a new report.
Research by the London School of Economics Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment found a surge in legal cases against the fossil fuel industry over the past year – especially outside the US – and growing action in other corporate sectors.
People have been filing legal challenges on climate change grounds since the mid-1980s, but it is a strategy that has recently come into its own. The number of climate change-related litigation lawsuits around the world has more than doubled since 2015 and roughly one quarter of the 2,002 recorded cases to date were filed in the past two years alone.
Most of those lawsuits are challenging state inaction, many inspired by the landmark 2019 ruling that ordered the Dutch government to cut its emissions.
But the fossil fuel industry is increasingly within the sights of campaigners. At least 13 cases have been filed against the largest Europe-based polluters and at least two in Australia against gas company Santos. Exxon, Eni and Sasol are all also involved in challenges to government decisions about oil and gas exploration and licensing in Guyana and South Africa.”
Note the casual use of the word “pollution”. Yes, fossil fuels can and do emit real pollutants, but I’m guessing that in this context the Guardian writers means “greenhouse gases”. Another example of language no longer meaning what it used to do.
LikeLike
“Supreme Court limits Biden’s power to cut emissions”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-62000742
“The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has lost some of its power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The landmark ruling by the US Supreme Court represents a major setback to President Joe Biden’s climate plans.
He called it a “devastating decision” but said it would not undermine his effort to tackle the climate crisis.
The case against the EPA was brought by West Virginia on behalf of 18 other mostly Republican-led states and some of the nation’s largest coal companies.
They were challenging whether the agency has the power to regulate planet-warming emissions for state-wide power sectors or just individual power plants.
These 19 states were worried their power sectors would be regulated and they would be forced to move away from using coal, at a severe economic cost.
In a 6-3 ruling, the court sided with the conservative states and fossil-fuel companies, agreeing that Congress had not “intended to delegate… decision[s] of such economic and political significance”….”.
Ouch. I thought climate change litigation was supposed to work only one way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very interesting Mark, thanks. I read it here first. (That’s because I am barely reading anything at present, due to work pressures. But helpful to know about, all the same.)
LikeLike
There’s lots on the EPA/SCOTUS story at the Guardian, as you might expect, including this:
“‘Condemning everyone alive’: outrage at US supreme court climate ruling
Limiting the Environmental Protection Agency at a time when fossil fuel emissions need to be curbed is ‘devastating’”
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/jun/30/supreme-court-ruling-epa-west-virginia-climate-experts-activists-lawyers
It quotes a tweet saying this:
“Six right wing extremists on SCOTUS have dismantled the EPA’s ability to fight climate change by taking away their ability to devise emission caps based on the Clean Air Act.
This is a crisis of legitimacy. Time to put everything on the table. Term limits for justices. Now.”
As for the crisis of legitimacy point, there is indeed a serious issue here. Unelected SCOTUS judges -v- unelected EPA officials? An establishment that has been quite happy for judges to rule on political topics (from Brexit in the UK to climate change in Courts worldwide) so long as the Judges shared the establishment’s world view and produced rulings they were happy with. Once Courts start opposing the establishment worldview, all hell lets loose.
I’m not pretending this stuff is easy, but we need a rational debate, not a knee-jerk one based on outrage because “my side” is suddenly losing. As it happens, the EPA decision is the first of the recent SCOTUS decisions that I am pleased about, but it is what it is, and we don’t need a debate about its place in the US constitution just because it’s adopted a right-wing position (even though that’s a position I largely dislike).
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mark: Thomas Sowell has for many years been strong and, for me, both helpful and balanced on the place of the Supreme Court and ‘originalism’ in the US constitution. He’s not a thoughtless originalist. Of course things should change over time, based both on experience and the important principle of the independent legal rights of states. Roe v Wade was always bad law because it it needlessly trod on states’ rights to make up their own minds on the legal framework for abortion, for example. But you never hear anything like that measured point of view from the shrieking left. The same applies to the EPA’s ‘right’ (or not) to dictate to states. But even more so. From what I know I applaud both decisions. That’s only a right-wing point of view if right-wing = common sense and left-wing = unthinking emotionalism. I don’t think you’d agree about the last bit. Neither do I. But the shrieking left dominates. And I write that having still not read a word the Guardian has had to say about the EPA decision.
LikeLike
Richard,
I don’t disagree with you overly much. I hope that I belong to the thinking left. I am tired of, and embarrassed by, the shrieking left.
LikeLike
“Aberpergwm: Coal mine expansion facing legal challenge”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-62015020
“A legal challenge will go ahead into mine expansion plans after opponents were granted a judicial review.
In January approval was given for another 40 million tonnes of coal to be dug at Aberpergwm, Neath Port Talbot.
Campaigners said at the time they were considering legal action.
The Welsh government, which declined to comment citing the legal proceedings, has previously called for an overhaul of the Coal Authority following the dispute over the plans.
Protest group Coal Action Network has said it was preparing to go to court.
It tweeted: “We don’t know how to give up because there is everything to fight for.””
Including denying jobs to people who need them:
“The rate of claiming any benefit (which includes in work benefits) is more than 25% higher in Neath than the national average, suggesting that many people maybe under employed or on a low salary.”
https://www.ilivehere.co.uk/statistics-neath-neath-port-talbot-26958.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I led the US lawsuit against big tobacco for its harmful lies. Big oil is next”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/05/us-lawsuit-big-tobacco-big-oil-fossil-fuel-companies
It’s possible to disagree with the author’s general approach, but still find this statement to be of interest:
“The oil and gas industry is now touting the promise of carbon capture and storage projects as a way to avoid reducing emissions. But not a single existing CCS project is viable, and no company is investing at a rate likely to make future ones viable.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Environmentalists sue Dutch airline KLM for ‘greenwashing'”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-61556984
“Environmental groups are suing Dutch airline KLM, alleging that adverts promoting the company’s sustainability initiative are misleading.
The groups say it’s the first lawsuit to challenge so-called airline industry “greenwashing”.
They argue that KLM adverts and their carbon-offsetting scheme create the false impression that its flights won’t make climate change worse.
But KLM says the company’s statements are “based on solid arguments”, and that it believes its adverts “comply with the applicable legislation and regulations”.
Netherlands-based group Fossielvrij NL – supported by ClientEarth and Reclame.NL – is taking aim at the company’s Fly Responsibly campaign, which was launched in 2019.
The campaign declared the airline is “creating a more sustainable future” and is on track to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050.
It features a carbon offset product called CO2Zero, which KLM says funds reforestation projects or the company’s purchase of biofuels. Carbon offsets balance out greenhouse gas emissions from polluting activities.
But the groups argue the claims are highly misleading….”.
LikeLike
“‘Putin rubbing hands with glee’ after EU votes to class gas and nuclear as green
Parliament backs plan to classify some projects as clean power investments”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/06/putin-rubbing-hands-with-glee-after-eu-votes-to-class-gas-and-nuclear-as-green
The reason I mention it here:
“Campaigners are now vowing legal action. WWF said that with its fellow NGO Client Earth it would “explore all potential avenues for further action to stop this greenwashing and protect the credibility of the whole EU taxonomy”.
Two anti-nuclear states, Austria and Luxembourg, have already announced they will take the commission to the European court of justice.”
LikeLike
I hope WWF and Client Earth will appreciate Russia’s help in initiating their Net Zero Carbon in almost all of Europe.
LikeLike
“Climate change: Campaigners hail ruling on ‘net zero'”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-62223551
“Campaigners have hailed a High Court ruling that the government’s ‘net zero’ strategy breaches its obligations under the Climate Change Act.
The strategy commits the UK to slash emissions of the greenhouse gases that are warming the planet to reach ‘net zero’ emissions by 2050.
The court ruled there was not enough detail on how the target would be met.
The judgment during the UK’s first red alert for heat ordered the government to deliver a new report to Parliament.
The government said in response that its net zero strategy was still official policy and noted that the strategy itself had not been quashed by the court.
The legal challenge was brought by environmental groups Friends of the Earth, ClientEarth, Good Law Project and environmental campaigner Jo Wheatley.”
The answer, then, is to repeal the CCA.
LikeLike
“Indonesian islanders sue cement producer for climate damages
Claimants say they are experiencing serious negative impacts and demand Swiss-based Holcim pay compensation”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/20/indonesian-islanders-sue-cement-holcim-climate-damages
“Residents of an Indonesian island threatened by rising sea levels have begun legal action against the cement producer Holcim.
The claim for compensation, filed in Switzerland by three men and one woman, is understood to be the first major climate damages lawsuit against a cement company.
The four people say they and their families are experiencing serious negative effects from the climate crisis, and want Holcim to pay for compensation and flood defences. They also want it to cut its emissions to limit future damage.
According to Swiss Church Aid (HEKS/EPER), an NGO supporting the case, rising sea levels around Pulau Pari have already led to increased flooding and extensive damage to houses, streets and local businesses. It says large portions of the island are likely to be submerged under water over the next few decades unless there are rapid reductions in global carbon emissions.
Edi Mulyono, one of the claimants, lost a significant amount of revenue from his guesthouse after large-scale flooding on the island in 2021. He described the situation as unjust, given that people from Indonesia have contributed very little to overall global emissions.”
LikeLike
“Greenpeace lodges legal bid to halt Jackdaw gas field in North Sea”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-62291095
“Greenpeace has lodged a legal challenge over consent being given to develop a large North Sea gas field.
Regulators gave the go-ahead in June for Shell to develop the Jackdaw field, which lies 150 miles east of Aberdeen.
The environmental charity believes that in granting consent, the UK government failed to consider emissions from burning the gas.
The UK government would not comment on legal proceedings but said Jackdaw would boost domestic gas supply.
The Greenpeace challenge has been lodged with the Scottish courts.
It will be the second time in recent years that the group has used the law to try and overturn a decision of the UK government over the consenting of oil and gas projects.”
LikeLike
The Telegraph’s take on Greenpeace’s latest legal action:
“Greenpeace accused of siding with Putin and putting British security at risk
Eco activists’ opposition to North Sea drilling is making UK vulnerable, says Whitehall source”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/07/26/greenpeace-accused-siding-putin-against-north-sea-gas-field/
It’s behind a paywall, but here’s an extract:
“…a Whitehall source claimed that blocking domestic oil and gas production would leave Britain more exposed to European markets and a potential squeeze by the Kremlin.
The war in Ukraine has forced European Union countries to cut their consumption of Russian gas and find alternative sources after Vladimir Putin suggested a key pipeline could be turned off.
The Whitehall source said: “Choking off domestic oil and gas does nothing to reduce demand, it simply leaves Britain more reliant on foreign imports, more vulnerable to supply shocks, and more exposed to Kremlin attempts to weaponise the gas market.
“The only people who want to stop North Sea production are Greenpeace activists and Putin.
“We support the extraction of North Sea oil and gas and will vigorously defend this decision.”…”.
LikeLike
“The Forest Litigation Collaborative”
“Greens” fighting “greens” through the courts, it seems:
https://www.pfpi.net/the-forest-litigation-collaborative
“The Forest Litigation Collaborative (FLC) is a joint project of the Lifescape Project and PFPI.
Restoring and protecting forests is key to our climate future and indeed the web of life on earth. The FLC works internationally to pursue strategic litigation and quasi-legal approaches that promote the protection and restoration of forest ecosystems and their associated carbon sinks.
Much of our current work focuses on countering the increasing use of forest biomass for renewable energy, a trend which is destroying some of the most biodiverse and carbon-rich forests in the world while increasing net CO2 emissions.
Collaborating with other NGOs and local lawyers on a case by case basis, we use science and strategic legal action to challenge corporate and government policies that promote burning forest wood for fuel. For example, this can involve litigation arguing that new legislation or policy is contrary to climate- and biodiversity-related legal obligations, seeking to stop corporate greenwashing of bioenergy, or challenging logging permits.
Current activities include:
UK OECD Complaint Against Drax Group plc
In October 2021 the FLC joined forces with Biofuelwatch, Conservation North and Save Estonia’s Forests to file this complaint against Drax, the largest wood-burning power station in the world, under the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. Drax uses greenwashing to persuade the public, UK government and investors that its energy is clean and carbon neutral. This complaint aims to make Drax comply with the OECD Guidelines on responsible business conduct….”.
LikeLike
“Climate crisis ‘insufficient’ to halt oil and gas exploration, says New Zealand government
Despite declaring a climate emergency, government is in court defending decision to issue fossil fuel prospecting permits in Taranaki”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/28/climate-crisis-insufficient-to-halt-oil-and-gas-exploration-says-new-zealand-government
“New Zealand’s government has argued that the climate crisis is of “insufficient weight” to stop it issuing oil and gas exploration permits – despite declaring a climate emergency and committing to eliminate offshore exploration.
The government is in court defending its 2021 decision to allow fossil fuel companies to prospect for oil and gas in Taranaki. A group of students sued over the decision, saying the ministry failed to adequately consider the climate impact of the exploration, or give enough weight to crucial documents including advice from the climate commission and the International Energy Agency’s Net Zero By 2050 report.
Just six months before granting the permits, the government had declared a national climate emergency. The prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, said at the time that the declaration was “an acknowledgment of the next generation. An acknowledgment of the burden that they will carry if we do not get this right and do not take action now.
“It is up to us to make sure we demonstrate a plan for action, and a reason for hope,” she said.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Southampton Airport runway expansion will go ahead”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-62381000
“Plans to extend the runway at an airport will go ahead as an attempt to appeal a court’s decision has failed.
The Court of Appeal has upheld Eastleigh Borough Council’s decision to approve plans for the expansion of the Southampton Airport’s runway by 164m (538ft).
The scheme was approved in April 2021 but campaigners claimed permission was “unlawfully granted”.
They called for a judicial review but their latest attempt has failed.
This marks the end of the legal challenge routes that could possibly be pursued against the plans, campaigners confirmed.”
LikeLike
Not strictly climate litigation, but I’ll leave this here, since it’s litigation that might have an impact on energy security, and the two issues are certainly linked:
“Sizewell C nuclear plant approval faces legal challenge
Together Against Sizewell C argue permission given by government for power station was granted unlawfully”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/08/sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-approval-faces-legal-challenge
“Campaigners have begun a legal challenge against the government’s decision to give the Sizewell C nuclear power station the go-ahead amid warnings that UK nuclear plants will be on the frontline of climate breakdown.
Citing the threat to water supplies in an area officially designated as seriously water stressed, the threats to coastal areas from climate change and environmental damage, the challenge is the first step in a judicial review of the planning consent.
The business secretary, Kwasi Kwarteng, overruled the independent Planning Inspectorate to grant permission for the new nuclear reactor in Suffolk in July. Kwarteng is pushing ahead with government plans to approve one new nuclear reactor a year as part of an energy strategy that aims to bolster the UK’s nuclear capacity, with the hope that by 2050 up to 25% of projected energy demand will come from it.
But Sizewell C has faced stiff opposition from local campaigners, and environmental groups both for its cost and the environmental impact.”
Lots of irony in those few paragraphs. Nuclear energy is “low carbon”, so citing climate change in opposition to it seems more than a little odd. It’s also strange to see people citing environmental impact when, by and large, those same people don’t give a fig about the environmental impact of wind turbines and solar panels.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good news:
“Court upholds Lowther Hills wind farm rejection”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-62689188
“The refusal of plans for a 30-turbine wind farm in the Lowther Hills has been upheld at the Court of Session.
Developers argued an error in law had been made in reaching a decision on the fate of the plans near Wanlockhead.
However, judges have now decided that the Scottish government was entitled to reject the scheme.
They concluded that although an error in law may have been made it was not material in the ultimate decision to refuse the project…
…Dumfries and Galloway Council opposed the project despite it being scaled back from 42 to 30 turbines.
The Scottish government agreed that its impact on the landscape would be “unacceptable” and refused the plans in January last year.”
Having done a lot of walking in the Lowther Hills, I am bound to agree with the conclusion. Far too much of the Southern Uplands has already been devastated by the industrial blight associated with these wretched things.
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 1 person
Climate litigation fuels more litigation…
“US fossil fuel firm sues insurer for refusing to cover climate lawsuit
Aloha Petroleum’s case against AIG could set precedent as to whether firms are protected against climate damage claims”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/30/us-fossil-fuel-firm-aloha-petroleum-sues-insurer-aig-for-refusing-to-cover-climate-lawsuit
LikeLike
When the litigation goes the other way, apparently it’s then an assault:
“Republicans plan legal assault on climate disclosure rules for public companies
The SEC’s proposed new rules, which would require public corporations to disclose climate-related information, have been criticized by industry groups”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/15/republicans-climate-rules-legal-challenge-allow-emissions
LikeLike
“First climate lawsuit against Russian government launched over emissions
Group of activists file supreme court case demanding stronger action on meeting Paris accord goals”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/13/first-climate-lawsuit-russia-emissions
Yeah, right – good luck with that.
LikeLike
“Government drops appeal over Net-Zero High Court ruling”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/government-drops-appeal-over-net-zero-high-court-ruling-szrqlpfn2
LikeLike
“Multimillion-pound UK road scheme facing legal action on climate grounds
Campaigners say DfT was wrong to only assess emissions against national carbon budget”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/13/climate-groups-legal-action-milton-keynes-road-scheme
LikeLike
Thanks for these updates Mark. It is looking more likely that we won’t be able to stop our mad rush to N0 other than by driving into the wall.
LikeLike
It gets worse:
“‘Embarrassing but welcome’: Green lawyers triumph as UK admits its net zero strategy is unlawful”
https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/10/18/embarrassing-but-welcome-green-lawyers-triumph-as-uk-admits-its-net-zero-strategy-is-unlaw
LikeLike
“New Jersey latest state to sue oil companies over climate misinformation
The state is going after five oil companies – ExxonMobil, Shell Oil, Chevron, BP and ConocoPhillips – for their role in the climate crisis”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/18/new-jersey-sues-oil-companies-climate-crisis-misinformation
LikeLike
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, I’m pleased to see:
“‘It’s got nasty’: the battle to build the US’s biggest solar power farm
A community turns on itself over the aptly named Mammoth solar project, a planned $1.5bn power field nearly the size of Manhattan”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/30/its-got-nasty-the-battle-to-build-the-uss-biggest-solar-power-farm
I could also have posted this against “Saving The Planet By Trashing It”, so great is the environmental vandalism the proposed project entails.
LikeLike
“UK ministers face legal challenge over North Sea oil and gas licences
Three campaign groups challenge plans to award up to 130 new licences for exploration”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/12/uk-ministers-face-legal-challenge-over-north-sea-oil-and-gas-licences
LikeLike
“Big oil is behind conspiracy to deceive public, first climate racketeering lawsuit says
Lawyer in a civil lawsuit launched by towns in hurricane-hit Puerto Rico describes why it is using laws used to target mob bosses”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/20/big-oil-is-behind-conspiracy-to-deceive-public-first-climate-racketeering-lawsuit-says
LikeLike
Here’s something that offers a way of fighting back against the blob:
https://climate-science.press/2022/12/18/clintel-s-intervention-in-the-friends-of-the-earth-shell-lawsuit/
LikeLike
Bill, from your link:
So for much for conspiracy theories about Big Oil when, on being taken to Court, one of the biggest oil companies meekly accepts as the starting point for the Court’s deliberations that its emissions threaten to cause dangerous climate change. There are so many points at which any lawyer worth his or her salt could challenge that assertion, and yet they didn’t.
LikeLike
Bill/Mark , from the link – https://climatecaseofthecentury.org/
“since this case affects Shell’s customers and suppliers worldwide, Clintel is asking people from around the world to sign a petition asking the court to consider the scientific evidence that Shell’s global emissions are not dangerous. Shell, and other companies are often terrified of adverse publicity if they challenge the popular, politically correct, and erroneous view that anthropogenic climate change is dangerous. This is despite evidence that it is not. Until Shell and other companies “grow a pair,” it is up to us to fight this nonsense. Please sign their petition”
signed
LikeLike
“Why environmental disaster victims are looking to European courts
Campaigners are finding courts increasingly open to considering cases – and finding in their favour”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/29/why-environmental-disaster-victims-are-looking-to-european-courts
LikeLike
“Shell directors personally sued over ‘flawed’ climate strategy
Claimants ClientEarth say the oil company’s plan puts the company at financial risk as the world transitions to clean energy”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/09/shell-directors-personally-sued-over-flawed-climate-strategy
I will watch this one with interest, given that it invokes the Companies Act and is in the High Court of England & Wales. My money is on the failure of the case, but who knows? I also suspect that it’s part of a general policy by eco-activists of intimidating those who won’t voluntarily comply with their demands.
LikeLike
I touched on the Energy Charter Treaty in my article. The efforts to bring it down continue unabated:
“UK must quit climate-harming energy charter treaty, experts say
Secret international court system enables fossil fuel firms to sue governments for lost future profits”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/10/uk-must-quit-climate-harming-energy-charter-treaty-experts-say
LikeLike
“Climate campaigners sue BNP Paribas over fossil fuel finance
Action against one of Europe’s largest financial institutions is the first climate-related lawsuit against a commercial bank”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/feb/27/climate-campaigners-sue-bnp-paribas-over-fossil-fuel-finance
LikeLike
“Australia joins Vanuatu bid for international court to rule on obligation to prevent climate harm
Pacific island country will put resolution to UN general assembly seeking opinion on international legal obligations that countries have to act on the crisis”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/01/australia-joins-vanuatu-bid-for-international-court-to-rule-on-obligation-to-prevent-climate-harm
LikeLike
“Plans for gas drilling in Surrey Hills to face judicial review
Local campaigners succeed in bringing legal challenge after government overruled council’s rejection of project”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/02/gas-drilling-plans-surrey-hills-judicial-review
N such concerns ever seem to be expressed by such people when it comes to the wishes of local people regarding wind or solar farms and “green hills” which “must be protected at all costs”. Sickening double standards in my humble opinion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Occasionally – very occasionally – we see litigation against climate policies:
“Airlines sue Dutch government over flight cuts”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-64842394
Still, it does as seem as though the Courts are the playground of climate activists rather than the other way around, generally speaking. Where do they get all the money for the costs?
LikeLike
Once again, apparently some believe that the UK can “tackle” the “climate crisis”:
“Revealed: cabinet ministers warned of legal action over UK’s failure to tackle climate crisis
Senior civil servants have issued the warning as government is way behind on net zero pledges, according to leaked documents”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/04/revealed-cabinet-ministers-warned-of-legal-action-over-uks-failure-to-tackle-climate-crisis
Worth a read, IMO, to see the extent of the net zero madness. It ends, in fine form, with what I think is a splendidly risible quote from Ed Miliband. Speaking of whom, this is absolutely cringe-worthy:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Also on the Observer front page, and with this particularly out-there paragraph:
Odd that the Tories are under the misapprehension that there are votes in this ****.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And this delusional commentary also in the Obs:
“The UK’s battle cries on net zero have led to nothing – and now time is running out”
The estimable Bob Ward is happy to oblige with a suitable quote.
Like I said, delusional.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/04/the-uks-battle-cries-on-net-zero-have-led-to-nothing-and-now-time-is-running-out
LikeLiked by 1 person
Andrew Neil’s show had John Ashworth on earlier this evening. AN asked him about Starmer’s “missions”. On Net Zero he asked Ashworth how would demand be met during calm spells – without using gas. The reply was “we’re going to invest heavily in renewables”. Totally clueless.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mikehig,
I was already worried about the prospect of a Labour government, with its accelerated “plan” for “decarbonising” the electricity network by 2030. Now I’m scared!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Far be it from me to be a glass-tiny-bit-full person about the forthcoming lab.gov but, in the corridors of the barking mad, I do think competence can help. Plus a track record of integrity in the face of greenie scams. The news that Starmer is going to make Sue Gray his chief of staff is very welcome therefore.
— John McTernan, The Spectator, 2nd March 2023
The Cash for Ash scandal in Northern Ireland was a classic green energy scam, let’s not forget. Mopping up the aftermath in the right way cost Gray a significant promotion at that time. Putting paid to Boris’s clown car also made her further enemies in exactly the right places. The sweet smell of subsidies may not get as tasty a boost as the normal venal suspects were expecting. At least a man can hope.
LikeLike
Richard,
That’s very interesting, and it does offer some hope regarding Starmer’s determination and professionalism. However, I still see two fundamental problems. First, Starmer has committed Labour to de-carbonising the UK electricity network by 2030, which I think is unfeasible, and to my mind that casts massive doubt on his judgement. Secondly I think any cabinet he forms will be full of lightweights who can’t see what is wrong with Labour ‘s energy policy (not that this is an issue unique to the Labour party). I am afraid my glass is definitely half empty.
LikeLike
Mark; It’s time to look at getting a back-up genny, or at least some sort of battery system to keep the boiler running.
LikeLike
Apologies to Mark and other readers … I meant to include this key paragraph from McTernan, in which the Cash for Ash scandal features:
Gray knows how to add up and the hard choices that always leads to. Especially when green scammers are in da hood. I will come back to this. Note that I only cast myself as “glass-tiny-bit-full person”. Starmer has strenuously avoided the really tricky scientific question of what a woman is. For that cowardice he’s earned my lasting contempt. This is the first sliver of good news I’ve seen about what a new Lab administration might look like. Better than Miliband. And isn’t that a high bar? 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Richard,
No apologies necessary (to me, anyway). It is indeed a sliver of good news, though I can’t believe for one moment that she will be able to persuade Starmer to adopt a sensible energy policy. And even if she did get him to see sense, there is no prospect of getting a change of energy policy past the rest of them. They are in too deep to make a very necessary U-turn.
LikeLike
Slivers are all we can hope for at the moment. I think though we can divide up our sceptical Net Zero concerns into three major slivers:
1. purported attempts
2. futility
3. failure
and the damage that all three will eventually cause, and that crucially 1. is already causing.
To admit the futility of the UK achieving Net Zero, if such a thing were possible (see failure), because of our low percentage contributions to global emissions, when the BRIC countries and those lower down the foodchain have no real intention of reducing emissions (quite rightly) … to admit this would be a real bloody nose for poor old Ed Miliband, the engineering and planning genius who gave us the Climate Change Act, which, of course, only six Tory MPs voted against. Sue Gray I agree is not going to achieve that level of consumption of humble pie. The ‘cost of living crisis’ might though. As Rachel Reeves was saying yesterday, in Indie headline-speak Tories ‘squandering’ economic potential as cost-of-living crisis ‘number one concern’. Yep – and it becomes *your* number one concern the moment you win the next election. That will cause minds to be concentrated. But even then the main focus will be on what I’m calling purported Net Zero attempts.
As for the failure I think all of us sceptics predict this. The UK won’t achieve Net Zero, counted fairly (just outsourcing our emissions abroad clearly doesn’t count, though it does make the Chinese very happy). But that failure is also in the future. I’m not predicting that Sue Gray will turn this supertanker of stupidity and magical thinking around either.
That leaves the purported attempts to reduce emissions. That’s the damage that’s being done now. And some of those attempts are more egregiously corrupt and self-defeating than others. To spot that and to have the character to sort at least some of it out … well, who knows?
Refusal to look at cost data isn’t just a problem with journalists. But what say Starmer’s chief of staff began to insist on this, because of the cost of living crisis and because of the personal integrity she showed in public finances in Northern Ireland?
She’d make new enemies of course. But it’s a possible sliver within a sliver.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Climate change: Coal mine expansion challenged in court”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-64968301
LikeLike
“New climate paper calls for charging big US oil firms with homicide”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/22/big-oil-companies-homicide-harvard-environmental-law-review
LikeLike
Car Manufactures next then & others no doubt.
LikeLike
This is interesting: LINK. An extract:
LikeLike
Interesting, Robin. On this occasion, I agree with Robert Buckland:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark,
I fear much of the legal profession may be a lost cause. I have a close friend – a KC and retired circuit judge – who’s a lovely, cultured and highly intelligent man. But an avid Guardian reader.
LikeLike
There is an argument to be made that net zero is nutz because the problem of CO2
AGW has been greatly exaggerated and every time we argue that we are not to blame
for its rise or some such defensive argument, we give credence to their model-derived
– garbage in -garbage – out theory… Here’s an attack argument from Richard Lindzen.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/04/climate-emergency-not-so-fast/
Of course we can adopt persuasion techniques, like brevity and humour to get it across.
It’s not propaganda if it don’t lie.
LikeLike
More on Vanuatu and the ICJ today: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65097831
There were whoops and cheers as the motion was voted through. My respect for Matt McGrath’s English knows no bounds:
[SIC]
Balderdash.
LikeLike
It never ends, it seems:
“Swiss court case ties human rights to climate change”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65107800
It shouldn’t take a decent lawyer long to point out to a decent Judge that there is a problem with causation in this argument. If they cannot demonstrate that a change in Swiss government climate policy will make a measurable difference to global (and especially Swiss) climate, then it seems to me that the case falls at the first hurdle.
According to the EDGAR database (https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2020#emissions_table) the 2019 (most up-to-date figure they have) emissions of Switzerland and Liechtenstein represent 0.1% of the global title. Four years later, with the ongoing growth of developing world emissions, I imagine the proportion is even smaller now.
LikeLike
“Coal mine: Legal action mooted over Ffos-y-Fran ongoing opencast mining”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-65031592
Note to BBC – please stop mangling the English language. One waits for a decision. One waits on a table.
LikeLike
“EU faces legal action after including gas and nuclear in ‘green’ investments guide
European Commission accused of acting unlawfully in two separate cases bought by environment groups”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/18/eu-faces-legal-action-gas-nuclear-green-investments-guide-european-commission
There’s so much overlap, I could equally have posted this here:
LikeLike
“‘Like a dam breaking’: experts hail decision to let US climate lawsuits advance
Cities bringing climate litigation against oil majors welcome US supreme court’s decision to rebuff appeal to move cases to federal courts”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/25/experts-hail-decision-us-climate-lawsuits-advance
Occasionally the boot is on the other foot:
“French oil giant TotalEnergies sues Greenpeace over emissions report
Green group accused company of emitting more than it disclosed but TotalEnergies says report used dubious methodologies”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/03/french-oil-giant-totalenergies-sues-greenpeace-over-emissions-report
LikeLike
“Italian oil firm Eni faces lawsuit alleging early knowledge of climate crisis
Exclusive: Company accused of ‘lobbying and greenwashing’ for more fossil fuels despite knowing of risks”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/09/italian-oil-firm-eni-lawsuit-alleging-early-knowledge-climate-crisis
LikeLike
My latest Law Society Gazette has arrived in e-form:
https://edition.pagesuite.com/html5/reader/production/default.aspx?pubname=&edid=e58f7e77-e411-40a0-9868-72af3b363fab&utm_source=gazette_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Gazette+weekly+edition+12+May+2023_05%2f12%2f2023
See pp22-3 & 27 regarding climate litigation.
LikeLike
Climate (-related) litigation with a difference:
“£400m claim by offshore wind firm that lost out on bid for site dismissed as irrelevant”
https://www.scottishconstructionnow.com/articles/ps400m-claim-by-offshore-wind-firm-that-lost-out-on-bid-for-site-dismissed-as-irrelevant
LikeLike
“Young Montana residents bring climate change case to court for first time ever
Plaintiffs say state violated constitutional guarantee to a ‘clean and healthful environment’ for ‘present and future generations’”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/12/montana-young-residents-first-ever-climate-change-trial
LikeLike
Occasionally the Courts receive claims against climate hysteria:
“Poland to challenge EU climate laws before top court
Climate Minister Anna Moskwa named the EU’s 2035 combustion engine phaseout as one of the laws Warsaw wants overturned.”
https://www.politico.eu/article/poland-challenge-eu-climate-laws-fit-for-55-before-european-union-court-justice-minister-anna-moskwa/
LikeLike
“Campaigners win right to challenge England’s food strategy over climate crisis
Feedback argues ministers’ failure to include measures to reduce production of meat and dairy products was unlawful”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/16/campaigners-win-right-challenge-england-food-strategy-climate-crisis
LikeLike
“Horse Hill: Future of UK fossil fuels at stake in test case”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65965119
LikeLike
“Oregon county sues big oil over 2021 heatwave that killed dozens of people
Multnomah county is suing 17 companies for the fatal heatwave, seeking billions to upgrade public services and infrastructure”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/22/oregon-big-oil-lawsuit-heatwave-heat-dome-pacific-northwest
Good luck with establishing causation. You might just as well sue Council planning departments that allow the growth of mega-cities that produce the urban heat island effect.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark,
“The new lawsuit, filed at a state circuit court in Portland, draws on research showing the scorching heat was exacerbated by climate breakdown.”
What research? There is none which demonstrates with any degree of scientific certainty that a moderate rise in global mean surface temperature caused or even significantly contributed to the ‘black swan’ Pacific North West heatwave, despite the headline claims in the press. Certainly, there is nothing which should pass the evidentiary threshold needed for use in a court of law. I say should because even the judiciary is corrupt nowadays.
LikeLike
Ha. They’re citing the WWA rapid attribution study which is pants. They shouldn’t have a hope in hell of suing on that basis.
https://jaimejessop.substack.com/p/revisiting-the-exceptional-pacific
LikeLike
Jaime, I am with you until the last few words. I don’t think the judiciary in the UK is corrupt, nor do I believe it to be corrupt in the US, certainly not institutionally. There is always the chance of a rogue judge anywhere, and I would criticise the judicial appointments system in the US for being politicised. But that is a different point.
I am grateful that I don’t live in a country where the judiciary simply does what the government demands of it.
LikeLike
Mark
I suspect that, like us, you would not have noticed much difference living in the USA. The only thing that annoyed us was our inability to vote for local elections. I understood why voting in federal elections might be precluded but voting for the local rat-catcher? “No taxation without representation” got no traction whenever I raised it.
LikeLike
Jaime,
I think it is right that you should refer to the Pacific North West heatwave as a black swan. That is certainly how they reported it at the time, because they were saying that it was not deemed possible by the models of the day and that the models would have to be revised. The lead story was that it’s worse than we thought.
However, it didn’t take long before they changed the narrative to saying that such heat domes were only to be expected because of climate change — a classic case of claiming predictability after the event. As Taleb said, that is the fate of all black swans. The black becomes the new white without missing a wing beat. And at no stage did anyone give credit to the dominant role of natural variability.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Judith Curry’s experience of the litigation process is worth a read. This is in relation to the Montana case, which is linked above as described by the Guardian.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John,
People like Gavin Schmidt were saying, the hotter it gets in the NW (i.e. the greater the number of standard deviations from the historical mean), then the more certain it is that climate change caused it! A black swan is never a black swan when you have climate change, according to Schmidt.
LikeLike
Andy West,
Thanks for the link. I see that the plaintiffs claim the right to “a stable climate system.” Good luck with that. Has there ever been such a thing?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark,
Yes there has — on the Big Rock Candy Mountain.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark’s trust in the American system may just been borne out by the New York Times swinging behind the critique of Biden family corruption from Steve Mc aka @ClimateAudit
LikeLike
“Farmers on frontline as Dutch divided by war on nitrogen pollution
Government’s buyout scheme is meeting fierce resistance from farmers in Netherlands”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/25/farmers-on-frontline-as-dutch-divided-by-war-on-nitrogen-pollution
LikeLike
Given a new story about climate litigation most weeks, you could have fooled me:
“High costs deterring legal challenges in England and Wales to protect environment, NGOs say
Report by RSPB, ELF and Friends of the Earth say even cases with good prospects of success are being abandoned”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/28/high-costs-deterring-uk-legal-challenges-to-protect-environment-ngos-say
I’ve been retired for a long time, so I’m not up-to-date with legal developments, but this did surprise me:
What surprised me wasn’t the increase in the “default cap” on costs, but the fact that one existed at all. Litigants have always run the substantial risk of paying their opponents’ significant legal costs (or a large chunk of them) if they lose their case. I have never been involved in litigation where my client could breathe easy in the knowledge that – win or lose – they weren’t going to have pay too high a proportion of their opponent’s costs. Worrying about costs was always a very real factor Why the special treatment for environmental cases?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Punishment without trial: Britain’s latest weapon in the war against dissent
George Monbiot
Companies are taking out devastating ‘civil injunctions’ against climate activists – and making them pay the costs”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/29/punishment-without-trial-britain-civil-injunctions-climate-activists
An interesting read from Mr Monbiot. I don’t doubt the truth of much that he writes, but the real point here is simply that this is how the legal system works. Environmental protestors aren’t being treated to some specially defined nefarious process that applies only to them.
He seems to think the lack of a jury is particularly egregious, as though that deprives protestors of a fair trial, but these are civil injunctions, and jury trial is and always has been extremely rare in civil cases. Is he saying that Judges can’t be trusted to dispense the law fairly? What does he think of the SNP government’s plans to do away with jury trials in rape cases? Why isn’t he protesting about that scandal?
About the only part of this I have some sympathy with is the unavailability of legal aid, but then the pulling of the rug on legal aid is a process that has been going on for decades under governments of all stripes. And does he seriously expect us to believe that JSO, XR and the ilk don’t have loads of money available to fund the legal costs of their protestors? They certainly have loads of money, much of it donated by very rich people with what I regard as strange consciences. If XR and JSO don’t use their funds to help the naive and gullible people they have persuaded to protest on their behalf, then that reflects more on them than on the companies trying to protect their businesses (or the roads) from pests or on the legal system.
LikeLike
“ULEZ expansion: Judicial review to start at the High Court”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66094244
LikeLike
“Norfolk A47 plans overcome climate legal challenge”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-66133607
This doesn’t even involve plans for a new road or roads, rather improvements to an existing one. I can’t speak for the situation in Norfolk, but the A66 in the north of England is a nightmare, with large stretches of this major arterial trunk road, heavily used by HGVs, still not dualled. The section between Penrith and Scotch Corner, over the Pennines is regularly closed for hours on end due to crashes and breakdowns. Fatal accidents are, tragically, all too common on it. There are, at last, plans to dual it throughout its length, and surveying work is ongoing. I will be extremely annoyed if someone challenges those plans via the Courts, because lives are at risk every day until the improvements are implemented.
LikeLike
I have direct experience of the A66 and the A47 single carriageway sections and they are both a nightmare. Heavily trafficked main trunk roads with little opportunity to safely overtake slow moving vehicles. They are equally nightmarish for drivers of petrol, diesel AND ‘climate friendly’ electric vehicles. Challenges to the expansion and improvement of road transport infrastructure are direct challenges to personal mobility and to economic activity; nothing more, nothing less.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting use of the word “weaponised”, given how climate activists are turning to the Courts left, right and centre, to try to promote their agenda:
“UK should quit ‘climate-wrecking’ energy treaty, say official advisers
Climate Change Committee recommends leaving energy charter treaty, which critics say is ‘weaponised’ by fossil fuel firms”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/10/uk-should-quit-energy-charter-treaty-climate-change-committee
LikeLike
https://www.politico.eu/article/where-has-the-energy-bill-gone-2/
Scroll down for this:
LikeLike
Total farce. There is only one way out of this mess and that is to amend or repeal the CCA 2008. Absent that, any attempt by the government to water down net zero is going to be met with endless legal challenges from eco-nutters whose job it is to ensure that unilateral economic destruction goes ahead as planned. If Tory MPs were really serious about pulling back on the insane net zero plan, the very least they would do is repeal the mandatory 2050 zero emission target put in place by statutory instrument at the end of May’s failed Premiership – as part of her enduring ‘legacy’. They could do that. they have the necessary majority. They won’t.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Poland files legal complaints against “authoritarian” EU climate policies”
https://notesfrompoland.com/2023/07/18/poland-files-legal-complaints-against-authoritarian-eu-climate-policies/
LikeLike
“Judge rejects challenge to Surrey Hills oil and gas exploration plans
Campaigners lose judicial review of decision to approve plan by UK Oil & Gas to drill on agricultural land”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/20/judge-rejects-challenge-to-surrey-hills-oil-and-gas-exploration-plans
LikeLike
“Lawsuits are key tool in delivering climate justice, says UN body
Report says nearly 200 cases filed around the world in past 12 months challenging governments and firms”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/27/lawsuits-are-key-tool-in-delivering-climate-justice-says-un-body
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Game-changer’: judge rules in favor of young activists in US climate trial
Sixteen young plaintiffs had alleged the Montana state government had violated their right to a healthy environment”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/14/montana-climate-trial-young-activists-judge-order
I haven’t yet had time to read the Order, but it’s here if anyone wants to peruse it:
Click to access 2023.08.14-Held-v.-Montana-victory-order.pdf
LikeLike
I’m putting this here, though the overlap with the discussion about Hawaiian wild fires on the Greek wild fires thread is pretty direct:
“Fossil fuel firms move to dismiss climate lawsuit in Hawaii as Maui faces wildfires
In 2020, Honolulu officials had sued eight oil and gas companies over the steep costs of abating damages from extreme weather”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/17/hawaii-fossil-fuel-companies-dismiss-lawsuit-honolulu
LikeLike
“Australia to acknowledge climate risk to government bonds after world-first court settlement
Government to state that climate crisis poses systemic risk to bond value after class action brought by student Katta O’Donnell”
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/aug/30/australia-to-acknowledge-climate-risk-to-government-bonds-after-world-first-court-settlement
LikeLike
“Larne Lough: Legal challenge over gas caverns plan fails”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-66671409
LikeLike
“Small island nations take high-emitting countries to court to protect the ocean
Countries threatened by rising sea levels are asking a tribunal to decide on responsibility for pollution of the marine environment”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/10/small-island-nations-take-high-emitting-countries-to-court-to-protect-the-ocean
LikeLike
“Young people to take 32 European countries to court over climate policies
Claimants to argue lack of adequate action is breach of human rights, in largest climate legal action to date”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/14/young-people-to-take-32-european-countries-to-court-over-climate-policies
LikeLike
“UK one of 32 countries facing European court action over climate stance
Six Portuguese young people claim inadequate policies to tackle global heating breach their human rights”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/sep/23/uk-one-of-32-countries-facing-european-court-human-rights-action-over-climate-stance
What a nonsense this all is. The case can – I assume – only be brought against European countries, because it’s being brought at the European Court of Human Rights. No case against China, against India, the middle eastern il states, USA, Canada, Australia, Indonesia, et al, not even against European Russia (which declines to sign up to the ECHR’s jurisdiction). If the ECHR finds in the claimants’ favour, I am very reluctantly going to start to think that the Tories might have a point about the ECHR and questioning the UK’s membership of it.
LikeLike
“Residents lose High Court fuel drilling challenge”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgl3d4182d9o
LikeLike
“Greenpeace loses legal challenge to UK’s new North Sea oil and gas licences”
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/greenpeace-loses-legal-challenge-uks-new-north-sea-oil-gas-licenses-2023-10-19/
LikeLike
A story not covered by the BBC?
LikeLike
“US students file complaints against six universities over fossil fuel investments
Students say that by investing in fossil fuels their schools are violating commitments to the public interest”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/30/us-universities-fossil-fuel-investments-students-complaints
LikeLike
“Claimants take UK government to court over inadequate climate adaptation
Kevin Jordan, whose home is 5 metres from the cliff edge in Norfolk, says government’s shortcomings breach his human rights”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/01/claimants-take-uk-government-to-court-over-inadequate-climate-adaptation
LikeLike
Very occasionally, the boot is on the other foot:
“Shell sues Greenpeace for $2.1m in damages over fossil fuel protest in North Sea
Energy firm’s lawsuit looks for indefinite block on group’s protesters targeting its infrastructure”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/nov/09/shell-sues-greenpeace-for-21m-in-damages-over-fossil-fuel-protest-in-north-sea
Ah, I see: only one side is allowed to use aggressive legal tactics.
LikeLike
“‘It’s not viable any more’: global heating sparks first climate class action by Indigenous Australians
On Saibai Island in the Torres Strait, homes are already being inundated by king tides, the cemetery has been affected by erosion and sea walls have been built”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/12/its-not-viable-any-more-global-heating-sparks-first-climate-class-action-by-indigenous-australians
These cases that sue individual government strike me as barking mad. Even if the Australian government brought in a net zero policy (at great harm and cost) tomorrow, it would make no difference whatsoever to Torres Strait communities. It’s the same with litigation against the UK government. This stuff has to be dealt with at a global level or not at all. Why aren’t they suing the United Nations for the failure of 27 COPs (and counting)?
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Government facing legal challenge over burning trees for energy in net-zero plan”
https://www.cityam.com/government-facing-legal-challenge-over-burning-trees-for-energy-in-net-zero-plan/
I am inclined to agree. Will it stop fossil fuel haters including biomass in the figures when they make claims about how much electricity is generated “renewably”?
LikeLike
Occasionally the boot is on the other foot:
“EU, Germany and Denmark sued by oil firm over windfall tax
Exclusive: Officials fear secret courts will block climate action and divert billions into coffers of fossil fuel investors”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/20/eu-germany-and-denmark-sued-by-oil-firm-over-windfall-tax
LikeLike
“Belgian court orders 55% emissions cut from 1990 levels
Court of appeal ruling means government has only until 2030 to reach target”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/01/belgian-court-orders-faster-emissions-cuts-as-countrys-climate-targets-insufficient
LikeLike
“Fear and anger rise in Germany over handling of budget crisis
Der Spiegel accuses Scholz of ‘leading country into chaos’ as MPs scramble to plug €60bn shortfall”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/01/germany-scholz-government-handling-of-budget-crisis
LikeLike
“Chris Packham launches legal challenge over UK’s watering down of climate policies
Campaigner claims ministers do not have legal right to alter timeline of carbon budget pledges at will”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/04/chris-packham-launches-legal-challenge-over-uks-watering-down-of-climate-policies
LikeLike
“California children sue EPA over ‘intentional’ role in climate crisis
Genesis B v EPA is the latest in a series of youth-led constitutional climate cases brought by non-profit law firm Our Children’s Trust”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/11/california-youth-sue-epa-climate-crisis
LikeLike
“Climate groups begin legal actions against Rosebank North Sea oil project
Greenpeace UK and Uplift are seeking a judicial review in the Scottish courts to stop opening of huge new oilfield”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/18/climate-groups-begin-legal-actions-against-rosebank-north-sea-oil-project
LikeLike
“‘We have a responsibility’: the older women suing Switzerland to demand climate action
Switzerland’s KlimaSeniorinnen are taking the government to the European court of human rights for doing too little to tackle the climate crisis”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/27/we-have-a-responsibility-the-older-women-suing-switzerland-to-demand-climate-action
And deaths from cold?
LikeLike
“‘Hope is a discipline’: youth climate case plaintiff on why he’s suing the US government
Nathan Baring of Alaska is part of a group of young activists suing the US, which they say ‘willfully ignored’ dangers of fossil fuels”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/31/alaska-youth-climate-change-activist-nathan-baring-lawsuit-fossil-fuel-government
LikeLike
“Chancellor Jeremy Hunt says decision over gas drilling disappointing”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-67924693
I don’t know enough about it to express an opinion for or against, but I note here the hypocrisy of those who are happy to ride roughshod over the opposition of local residents to renewable energy projects, and who are happy to rush off to Court to try to get what they want:
LikeLike
“Dutch Caribbean islanders sue Netherlands over climate change
Bonaire citizens file formal legal challenge, as research shows part of island will be submerged by 2025”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/11/dutch-caribbean-islanders-sue-netherlands-over-climate-change
Barking mad. First there’s the causation question. Why pick on the Dutch government, just because the island in question is a Dutch municipality. The obvious defence is based on causation – even if the Dutch government achieved zero emissions overnight, it would make no measurable difference to the climate. If you’re concerned about that sort of thing, the obvious country to sue is China (but they never do). Second, if I was the Dutch government, I’d try to ensure that it didn’t come to trial for a few years – then let’s see how that modelling to the effect that part of the island will be submerged by next year turns out.
LikeLike
“Norway has made a vital climate leap. This is how Britain can do the same
Tessa Khan
A historic legal victory in Oslo has boosted our campaign against the Rosebank field and other British drilling projects”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/31/norway-climate-britain-oslo-rosebank-british
Potentially worrying.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Chicago sues fossil fuel companies for role in climate crisis
Lawsuit targets BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil, Phillips 66 and Shell, alleging that they intentionally misled public”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/21/chicago-sues-bp-chevron-fossil-fuel-climate-change
I would like to say “only in America” but I fear that may no longer be the case.
LikeLike
“Just Stop Oil.” Or in this case, just stop deliveries of petrol to the city.
LikeLike
“Chicago is additionally accusing the defendants of contributing to climate devastation throughout the city, including shoreline erosion, susceptibility to flooding, and dangerously hot summer temperatures.”
From WIKI – Lake Michigan – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Michigan
Partial quote –
“The first person to reach the deep bottom of Lake Michigan was J. Val Klump, a scientist at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee in 1985. Klump reached the bottom via submersible as part of a research expedition.[20] In 2007, a row of stones paralleling an ancient shoreline was discovered by Mark Holley, professor of underwater archeology at Northwestern Michigan College. This formation lies 40 feet (12 m) below the surface of the lake. One of the stones is said to have a carving resembling a mastodon. The formation needed more study before it could be authenticated.[21][22] The warming of Lake Michigan was the subject of a 2018 report by Purdue University. In each decade since 1980, steady increases in obscure surface temperature have occurred. This is likely to lead to decreasing native habitat and to adversely affect native species survival, including game fish”
Seems things/the planet are not static & never were/will be.
LikeLike
“UK quits treaty that lets oil firms sue government”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68369916
LikeLike
Going to Court is litigation terrorism, apparently, but only if the wrong people do it. If you go to Court “for the climate”, then you’re a fearless warrior, or something:
“‘Litigation terrorism’: the obscure tool that corporations are using against green laws”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/12/litigation-terrorism-how-corporations-are-winning-billions-from-governments
LikeLike
“Appeal lost to halt expansion of last UK coal mine”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c989rnrzdn2o
LikeLike
“Campaigners get go-ahead to challenge plans for oilfield in Lincolnshire Wolds
Permission granted for judicial review after Planning Inspectorate overturned local council’s decision to reject plan”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/04/campaigners-get-go-ahead-to-challenge-plans-for-oilfiield-in-lincolnshire-wolds
I sympathise with campaigners upset at what they worry will be the despoliation of an area of outstanding natural beauty. Why do these fears never seem to be allowed to surface with regard to wind farms?
LikeLike
Friend of the channel Francis Menton on the New York AG’s case against a beef company for its inadequate plan to reach Net Zero:
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2024-3-2-new-york-attorney-general-makes-a-fool-of-the-governor
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow, Jit, that’s worth a read. It’s deeply troubling.
LikeLike
“UK company directors may be liable for climate impacts, say lawyers
Legal experts say directors could face personal claims for failing to consider how businesses affect nature”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/15/uk-company-directors-may-be-liable-for-climate-impacts-say-lawyers
“Company directors in the UK could be held personally liable for failing to properly account for nature and climate-related risks, according to a group of lawyers.
A legal opinion published this week found that board directors had duties to consider how their business affected and depended on nature. These included climate-related risks as well as wider risks to biodiversity, soils and water.
The analysis said directors of UK firms faced serious personal consequences for breaching these duties, potentially including claims for damages or compensation by their shareholders. Even in cases where it was difficult to work out exactly how much money the company had lost, directors could lose their jobs or have their remuneration or exit packages cut.
Few lawsuits have so far been brought personally against company directors on environmental challenges, and none have yet succeeded.
Legal experts commissioned by the climate advisory firm Pollination Group and the Commonwealth Climate and Law Initiative said failure to assess financial risks from a company’s unaddressed nature-related impacts and dependencies could expose directors to increased shareholder scrutiny under the Companies Act.
Legal opinions commissioned for other jurisdictions, including Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines, have come to similar conclusions.”
I think the link to the report is embedded in the quote from the article, above, but here it is again for anyone who is interested in reading it:
https://commonwealthclimatelaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Nature-related-risks-and-directors-duties-under-the-law-of-England-and-Wales.pdf
LikeLike
“Court ruling erodes climate activists’ ability to defend themselves – as the planet heats up”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/19/ruling-erodes-climate-activists-right-protest-england-wales
“The lady chief justice of England and Wales, Sue Carr, said motivations, beliefs, political or philosophical views were too “remote from the damage” to provide a lawful excuse defence.”
LikeLike
Thanks Mark – I think. From the article:
Guardian writers and editors should know what IPCC stands for. Oh, but they wish it was Independent, don’t they? Who is it that they suppose the IPCC is independent of? Are those actually the IPCC’s words? The link takes you to another Guardian article, which again does not tell you where the quote comes from.
Guardian = trash-quality journalism. And that’s leaving aside the incoherence of the rest of the article!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Counterintuitively I’m not sure I entirely agree with preventing those who break the law stating they did it because they believe we are in danger of causing climate change. if that is what they believe, then it’s likely that that is a major reason for what they did. I believe the correct procedure would be for the jury to be instructed by the judge (or whomever) to disregard any attempt to mitigate their actions. If a jury is not allowed to make judgements, after being given advice and guidance, then what’s it for?
Discuss.
LikeLike
Alan, the jury’s role is to ascertain the facts, not to be swayed by emotional pleas. If motivation is not a defence in law (whether or not it should be is a different question) then I don’t believe it should be put to the jury in case it leads them astray from their role. The other point is that some eco-nutters relish their day in Court to enable them to proselytise. That’s not what Courts are there for either.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark, you see I believe those “emotional pleas” (as you dismiss them) are relevant facts that explain the motivation behind the action. In those trials that I have witnessed (once as an alternate juror, the rest admittedly on TV) motivation for the accused seems to be a major “fact” that is to be established.
Sauce for the gander, and all that.
LikeLike
Alan, Mark,
As I understand it, in UK courts the jury has the job of determining the facts of the matter and will be guided by the judge regarding interpretation of the law, including the relevance of those facts when determining guilt. Once the jury has made its decision, the judge will then apply his/her knowledge of the law in deciding the appropriate sentencing, taking into account any mitigating circumstances. Even if motivation had been decreed irrelevant to the question of guilt, it can still then be considered for mitigation. This allows for someone to be found guilty but then let off lightly. What we don’t want is someone who has clearly committed the act of which they stand accused to then be found not guilty of that act by a jury. I fear, however, that despite the judges’ best efforts, many previous juries have misunderstood their role when being asked to find in cases of environmental protest. I am also unconvinced that all judges have kept their own political positions out of the equation when directing their jurors.
LikeLike
Alan,
What John R said.
Motivation is usually irrelevant to the question of guilt. It might (or might not) be a mitigating factor when it comes to sentencing, but that’s a matter for the judge, not for the jury. Allowing it to enter into a jury’s deliberations runs the risk of a miscarriage of justice if members of the jury misunderstand their role.
LikeLike
If an unevidenced belief in a victim’s consent has been removed as a lawful excuse for criminal damage, there’s always mental health. Dr Gail Bradbrook is very keen on the ‘consent defence’ but she has also argued that breaking windows was essential for her mental health. E.g.:
There’s also deep love. Here’s a prayer that Dr Bradbrook uploaded to YouTube on the day that she broke a bank window in Stroud while dressed like a Keystone Cop:
What a wonderful Lakota sign-off! I doubt that even Grey Owl could have matched that. (But then he was from Hastings, not Stroud.)
The third anniversary of Dr Bradbrook’s brave and visionary pre-dawn Stroudie vandalism is only ten days away. May I suggest that at 6 a.m. on Saturday 30th we all give thanks – conscientiously, regeneratively and with deep love – by dressing up as Keystone Cops and reciting Dr Bradbrook’s prayer, perhaps after taking some ayahuasca, iboga or fly agaric – or, if those aren’t available, mugwort, although I think Dr Bradbrook only takes that when there’s a full moon.
LikeLike
Then why is motivation determined in many trials?
in other circumstances, motivation may be the only reason that someone acts in the way they have and would constitute the only defence. Are you telling me that if I act to defend my home or loved ones and cause damage to an intruder, that my reasons for action should not influence a jury. It would only be after found guilty that a judge could consider my motivation?
Although I disagree with the justifications offered by climate activists I don’t believe they should be deprived of their justification for their actions. It’s up to our judiciary to explain to juries exactly how far a miscreant can rely upon this form of defence.
LikeLike
Alan, it depends on the nature of the offence as to whether motivation can be a defence or only a mitigating factor. I was never a criminal lawyer, but so far as I understand it, motivation cannot be a defence to e.g. criminal damage or obstruction of the highway.
It motivation cannot be a defence as a matter of law, then it should not be before the jury, as it can only confuse the issue in those circumstances.
LikeLike
Yet to the perp their motivation can be the only valid and viable reason for their actions. If they didn’t have that, they could have no defence. But internally they would have felt justified but cannot use this. Whereas the vilest murderer can apparently use their motivation as an attempted justification.
LikeLike
Alan, the law is what it is. People who think their beliefs allow them to break it with impunity are wrong. The likes of the Guardian suggesting otherwise are gravely confusing the issue.
LikeLike
Then if the law acts without seeking motives, perhaps it’s an ass. If a window is deliberately broken to draw attention to what the culprit sees as an injustice, then the law as you are defining it deems the action morally in the same class as someone else who broke the window purely for revenge or out of spite. This should not be right.
LikeLike
Plato’s Noble Lie, ends justifying means.
LikeLike
I have no sympathy for those who break the law in order to publicise something. As I have written before – throw the book at them. They knew the possible outcome of their actions. You might also conclude that they welcome the publicity or deliberately seek it out.
But if that person’s motives are not aired, then the sentence will never be accepted, by the convicted or their acolytes. What then is the purpose (or effect) of any conviction upon the convicted or upon their sympathisers?
LikeLike
Alan,
I am happy to accept that the law is often an ass, but I profoundly disagree with you regarding subjective justification for law-breaking. Moral and legal justifications should not be equivalent. If someone sets out deliberately to break the law for no better reason than to advertise their beliefs (or to obtain moral gratification), then they are just as much a criminal as someone who breaks the law for no reason other than personal gain.
Motive is irrelevant to deciding whether the law has been broken. It may be relevant when it comes to mitigation, but that is a matter for the judge deciding on sentence, and should be kept well away from the jury.
LikeLike
“Fossil fuel firms could be tried in US for homicide over climate-related deaths, experts say
Public Citizen, a non-profit group, proposed the idea last year to prosecute companies for millions of deaths due to climate crisis”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/21/fossil-fuel-companies-homicide-climate-deaths-lawsuit
“Each year, extreme temperatures take 5 million lives, while 400,000 people die from climate-related hunger and disease and scores perish in floods and wildfires.Now, researchers are promoting a new legal theory that says fossil fuel companies – which, data show, are the leading contributors to planet-heating pollution – could be tried for homicide for climate-related deaths.”
How utterly disingenuous to start an article by claiming that 5 million people die every year from “extreme temperatures” then to segue from that top a suggestion that fossil fuel companies could be tried for homicide for climate-related deaths because they contribute to “planet-heating”.
The fact remains that many more people die across the planet from extreme cold than from extreme heat, and for the foreseeable future anything that raises temperatures globally is having the effect of reducing deaths from “extreme temperatures”. This nonsense doesn’t get off the ground due to a causation failure. Shame on the people pushing this nonsense and shame on the Guardian for its skewed reporting of the issue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Norfolk’s mini-saga of climate litigation continues.
He’s now off to the Supreme Court, after his appeal was rejected as having “no logical basis.” His angle, I think, is that there are several improvement schemes, and that there totality should be considered for their climate change impacts.
LikeLike
“MPs accuse Charity Commission of legal breach over climate sceptic thinktank
Regulator faces accusation of acting unlawfully in its investigation of Global Warming Policy Foundation”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/05/mps-accuse-charity-commission-of-legal-breach-over-climate-sceptic-thinktank
“The Charity Commission is facing a legal challenge by MPs over its failure to investigate campaigning by a thinktank that questions climate science.
Liberal Democrat MP Layla Moran, Labour’s Clive Lewis and Green MP Caroline Lucas, supported by the Good Law Project, have sent a legal letter to the regulator over an unresolved complaint they made in October 2022.
They have urged the regulator to strip the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) of its charitable status, arguing it does not meet its aims as a charity and is in fact a lobbying organisation.“
It would be funny if it wasn’t so serious. I am sure that dozens, if not hundreds, of “green” charities could have exactly the same point made about them, but that’s OK I suppose, because they’re on the “right” side.
LikeLike
Behind a paywall, unfortunately:
“Strasbourg court could rule that governments have to protect people from climate change
Cases provoke backlash in UK with former minister describing the proceedings as ‘another attempted ideological power grab’”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/05/echr-make-governments-protect-from-climate-change/
LikeLike
Where Cliscep leads, the Daily Sceptic follows! 🙂
“The Ominous Rise of Climate Change Litigation”
https://dailysceptic.org/2024/04/08/the-ominous-rise-of-climate-change-litigation/
LikeLiked by 1 person
European court rules human rights violated by climate change inaction
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68768598
Switzerland is the source of 0.08% of global emissions.
According to the BBC: ‘The ruling is binding and can trickle down to influence the law in 46 countries in Europe including the UK.‘ Time to leave the ECHR?
LikeLiked by 1 person
An obtuse decision by the court. Nothing the Swiss government can do to affect their local climate at all.
Leave the ECHR? We have our own courts.
End of conversation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So, this appears to set the precedent that if national governments are not ‘doing their bit to tackle climate change’, even if ‘doing their bit’ makes no meaningful difference whatsoever to climate change because that country’s emissions are swamped by other countries’ contributions, then the citizens of that country can take their government to court for a breach of their human rights incurred due to suffering extreme weather (which need not even be formally linked to climate change via a peer-reviewed scientific analysis). I’m afraid we’ve reached peak insanity and the door is now wide open for any chancer to come along and claim their human rights have been abused because of government inaction on climate. That is a wholly intentional outcome. It goes downhill very rapidly from here on.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is a bigger issue, at least to an English lawyer, though based around the point made by Jit, Robin and Jaime. On what legal basis can a Court interfere to order a national Government to take measures that will make no positive measurable difference to the lives and health of its residents?
I have studiously avoided calls for the UK to leave the ECHR, but this judgment could be the one that makes me change my mind. Even a government that repealed the Climate Change Act wouldn’t be safe from climate legislation if this judgment stands and the UK remains subject to the Court’s jurisdiction. It really is reaching the stage where it is infringing national sovereignty.
LikeLiked by 4 people
This ECHR ruling raises a lot of interesting and worrying issues. For example, having claimed that while judicial intervention could not replace or provide a substitute for action taken by parliaments and governments, the Court said this:
What nonsense: the will of the majority is the essence of democracy. The assertion that the courts are somehow ‘complementary’ to democracy is wholly unacceptable. I agree with Mark: this decision is perilously close to infringing our national sovereignty – indeed it’s arguable that it does infringe it. The case for leaving the ECHR is now much stronger.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Francis Menton has just published an interesting article about climate litigation. He starts by reviewing a case which started in the federal government in the District Court for Oregon in 2015. In 2017 he’d written an article describing the case as ‘the stupidest litigation’ because all a litigator has to do is ‘make up a new and sweeping “constitutional right,” find a friendly activist-minded judge, and you can get an order transferring all the significant operations of the legislative and executive branches of the government to a single unelected person operating out of a courthouse in Eugene, Oregon’. Surely, he said, ‘no court would take this seriously’. But of course they did. And he goes on to describe how the matter has developed over the years, followed by an update on other current examples of the absurdity in the US and concluding with a comment on the current Strasbourg example. It’s worth reading in full, but here’s a snippet. Having cited the extract to which I referred above about the remit of domestic courts being ‘complementary’ to the ‘will of the majority’, he says this:
The answer I suggest is ‘no, there couldn’t’.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The above case has also prompted an article by Judith Curry. Her approach is quite different in that she argues in some detail, that there is ‘no human right to a safe or stable climate’. Her conclusion:
An excellent and interesting perspective.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thanks, Robin. An excellent read. I found the final paragraph before the summary to be pretty compelling:
The arguments supporting the putative right to a safe climate are significantly weakened once the adverse effects of the policies to bring about a safe climate on food production are understood. In addition, climate and energy policies have significant environmental impacts and cause environmental degradation. For instance, forest biomass-based fuel causes deforestation, and on-shore and off-shore wind turbines and solar parks may (and, in fact, do) harm the social fabric, real estate prices, nature, biodiversity, the scenery, and human health. The mining and manufacturing required for batteries, and other renewable energy-related goods and infrastructure cause adverse environmental and human health impacts, and renewable energy also causes CO2 emissions. Given that European Human Rights Court has taken the position that the right to life also protects against environmental degradation and health risks, these adverse environmental and health impacts associated with any policies to respond to the Court’s judgment would have to be taken into account.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mark: having read Judith Curry’s article again, I see she says this: ‘the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees people “effective protection by the state authorities from the serious adverse effects of climate change on their lives, health, well-being and quality of life.’ That seems unlikely – not least because the Convention was drafted in the early 1990s, i.e. well before climate change became a fashionable concern; it came into force in 1994. However, to be sure I had a look at the Convention itself. It can be found here: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/European_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Human_Rights_and_Fundamental_Freedoms#Article_2_–_Right_to_life. As you can see, it’s a fairly simple document and, sure enough, it makes no mention of climate change – none at all. So what’s going on? Well, it seems that the Court must have decided that the Convention should have included a right to climate protection and determined therefore that it did – under it seems the fairly bland provisions of Article 8 (‘Right to respect for private and family life‘) which to my mind deals with a totally different subject.
That would seem to me to be a most blatant example of judicial ‘we know what’s good for you’ law making. What do you think?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Will the Swiss government challenge this ruling, and on what basis I wonder? Personally, I think they’re likely to have more success by demonstrating the plaintiff’s lack of evidence to support their claim of damages.
LikeLike
Jaime,
I don’t think there is any appeal possible, as there is no Court with an appellate jurisdiction over the ECHR.
However, I agree that the decision is hopelessly flawed for (inter alia) the reasons mentioned by you and Robin.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Robin, Mark,
The whole thing is absurd beyond belief. I’m continuing our conversation started on Paul Homewood’s thread here Robin, because it’s easier and it allows mark to join in. Of course, if there is no right to appeal, then any discussion of the merits or otherwise of the judgement would appear to be moot, but even so, these two passages from the David McGrogan DS article leap out at me:
The bold is mine. It is not adequately confirmed by scientific knowledge.
Then this:
Causation cannot be proved beyond any reasonable doubt.
As usual, my brain aches. Scientifically ignorant judges have ruled on ‘the science’ as it relates to human rights and their decision is FINAL. UK must leave the ECHR immediately.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But Jaime, as I said on Paul Homewood’s thread, there is no need for the ECHR judges to concern themselves with boring things like reasonable doubt. That’s not how they work. BTW your quotations from David McGrogan’s article do not reflect his view but are his interpretation of how the Court sees things. In contrast, his view is that the way the Court operates…
He’s right – so what are we going to do about it? (Probably nothing as the greens will strongly oppose any attempt to reject the ECHR finding – and bitterly oppose any thoughts of leaving the ECHR – and I fear the Supreme Court may well agree with them.)
Mark, you can find the McGrogan article here: https://dailysceptic.org/2024/04/10/the-human-right-to-be-protected-from-the-effects-of-climate-change/. I found it most interesting. (McGrogan is an Associate Professor of Law at Northumbria Law School.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime, Robin. Watch this space. I am working on an article which I hope will appear tomorrow.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Seen this on BBC news today & this link – European court rules human rights violated by climate inaction – BBC News
“A group of older Swiss women have won the first ever climate case victory in the European Court of Human Rights.
The women, mostly in their 70s, said that their age and gender made them particularly vulnerable to the effects of heatwaves linked to climate change.
The court said Switzerland’s efforts to meet its emission reduction targets had been woefully inadequate. It is the first time the powerful court has ruled on global warming.”
Wonder what “climate fact” makes over 70’s women least well to adjust to heatwaves, menopausal symptoms?
ps – the wife wants some warmth cos it’s chilly in the IOM, so another hol in the sun booked.
LikeLike
“Shell says it ‘lobbies for energy transition’ during climate ruling appeal
Company is fighting Dutch court ruling that says it must emit 45% less CO2 by 2030 than in 2019″
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/12/shell-says-it-lobbies-for-energy-transition-during-climate-ruling-appeal
“Shell has argued that it “lobbies for, not against, the energy transition” on the final day of its appeal against an important climate ruling.
The fossil fuel company is fighting the decision of a Dutch court in 2021 that forces it to pump 45% less planet-heating CO2 into the atmosphere by 2030 than it did in 2019. In court on Friday, Shell argued the ruling is ineffective, onerous and does not fit into the existing legal system.
Lawyers for Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands), which brought the case against Shell, repeated their calls for the company to act in line with climate science and international agreements to stop extreme weather from growing more violent. They said the outcome of the case will determine how much the climate changes.
“It’s not just about Shell,” said Donald Pols, the Milieudefensie chief executive, after the hearing. “We want to hold all companies accountable – to combat dangerous climate change.”
Shell argued in court that it plays its role in energy transition and pointed to the lobbying it had done in favour of climate policies such as the EU emissions-trading scheme and the US Inflation Reduction Act.
Milieudefensie said it was “quite clear” that Shell had used its social influence to safeguard the role of oil and gas and that it had continued to do so with its policies. In recent months, Shell has backtracked on a series of clean energy ambitions.
“I think it’s a little bit far-fetched from Shell to argue they are in favour of the energy transition, at least to the extent of being in line with the Paris agreement,” said Roger Cox, Milieudefensie’s lawyer in the case.
The appeal wraps up just days after the European court of human rights sided with a group of 2,400 Swiss women who sued their government over its climate policy.
Both Shell and Milieudefensie cited the Swiss case to support their arguments on Friday. Shell argued that the decision of the 17 Strasbourg judges showed it was up to states, rather than companies, to rein in emissions. Milieudefensie said it showed that “judges have an important role to play in the complex debate on preventing dangerous climate change”…”
LikeLiked by 1 person
“‘My country would disappear’: climate crisis could force Torres Strait Islanders from homes within 30 years
Large parts of islands could be uninhabitable by 2050, federal court told in first climate class action taken by Australian First Nations people”
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/apr/29/torres-strait-island-elders-climate-change-class-action
Torres Strait Islanders could be forced to leave their homes within the next 30 years if urgent action is not taken on the climate crisis.
This would mean a loss of country, sacred sites and culture, the federal court has been told….
…Kabai and Uncle Pabai Pabai are leading the first climate class action brought by Australian First Nations people.
The Torres Strait Island elders launched the court action in 2021, faced with rising sea levels and fearing their communities could become Australia’s first climate refugees.
They are arguing the commonwealth owes a duty of care to Torres Strait Islanders to take reasonable steps to protect them from the harms caused by global heating....
I feel there is a profound lack of legal logic (and yes, there is such a thing) in these cases. Even assuming that the underlying science is correct, there is still a huge problem with causation. So long as the developing world continues to increase greenhouse gas emissions, Australia could reduce its emissions to zero tomorrow, and it would make no difference to Torres Strait Islanders. I fear these cases are entirely political, an attempt to win in the Courtroom what can’t be achieved via the ballot box. I expect a lot more of this sort of thing following the recent ECHR decision in the Swiss case.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Cuts to England’s cycling and walking budget challenged in court
Campaigners say loss of £200m from active travel budget is illegal and resulted from Treasury pressure”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/30/cuts-to-englands-cycling-and-walking-budget-challenged-in-court
“Swingeing cuts to public spending on cycling and walking in England should be overturned as government expenditure was already insufficient to meet legally binding climate targets, the high court has been told.
Campaigners are challenging a decision in 2023 to cut more than £200m from the Department for Transport’s active travel budget for the following two years.
In a judicial review hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice on Tuesday, lawyers for Transport Action Network (Tan) argued that the cuts threatened a key plank of the UK’s carbon reduction strategy.
The DfT’s budget for cycling and walking was cut by more than 50% in March last year in a move that was overshadowed by accompanying cuts to the HS2 high-speed rail scheme, announced the same day.
Lawyers for Tan argued that the decision was incompatible with the government’s net zero strategy and transport decarbonisation plan, which set out proposals and policies required to meet carbon budgets.…
The article is accompanied by a (no doubt unintentionally ironic) photo which includes a cyclist ignoring the probably expensively-installed cycle lane and hogging the road.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Court strikes down youth climate lawsuit on Biden administration request
Attorney and non-profit founder Julia Olson calls appeals court ruling on lawsuit filed by 21 young people ‘tragic and unjust’”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/02/youth-climate-lawsuit-juliana-appeals-court
A federal appeals court on Wednesday evening granted the Biden administration’s request to strike down a landmark federal youth climate case, outraging climate advocates.
“This is a tragic and unjust ruling,” said Julia Olson, attorney and founder of Our Children’s Trust, the non-profit law firm that brought the suit.
The lawsuit, Juliana v United States, was filed by 21 young people from Oregon who alleged the federal government’s role in fueling the climate crisis violates their constitutional rights.
The Wednesday order from a panel of three Trump-appointed judges on the ninth circuit court of appeals will require a US district court judge to dismiss the case for lack of standing, with no opening to amend the complaint.
The decision affirmed an emergency petition filed by the justice department in February arguing that “the government will be irreparably harmed” if it is forced to spend time and resources litigating the Juliana case. It’s a measure the justice department should never have taken, said Olson….
…The lawsuit has faced numerous obstacles since it was first filed in 2015. A different panel of judges on the ninth circuit court of appeals previously ordered the case to be dismissed in 2020, on the grounds that the climate crisis must be addressed with policy, not litigation. But a US district court judge allowed the plaintiffs to amend their lawsuit, and last year ruled the case could go to trial.
Olson said the fight for the Juliana plaintiffs is “not over”.
“President Biden can still make this right by coming to the settlement table,” she said. “And the full ninth circuit can correct this mistake.” The Biden administration has not indicated it will come to the settlement table….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here’s the ruling from the higher court against the claim to a sustainable climate, along with the motion to dismiss on the merits, apart from the jurisdictional issues:
https://rclutz.com/2024/05/02/may-day-appeals-court-rules-against-kids-climate-lawsuit/
LikeLike
“Government defeated in High Court over climate plans”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68947242
The government has been defeated in court – for a second time – for not doing enough to meet its targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
Environmental campaigners argued that the energy minister signed off the government’s climate plan without evidence it could be achieved.
The High Court ruled on Friday that the government will now be required to redraft the plan again.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course, for so long as the Climate Change Act remains law, pressure groups are entitled to insist that the Government complies with it, and Courts have to uphold it. The only way past this nonsense is to make substantial amendments to it, or (better still) repeal it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mark: I’ve just posted a more detailed comment on the High Court ruling on the Net Zero policy thread.
LikeLike
Mark,
Forgive my ignorance, but what actually is the implication of this ruling? By that, I mean what legal sanctions are there available to the courts? Are we talking fines, imprisonment, a good telling off leading to bad publicity, or what? I’m struggling to understand the actual legal peril. Ultimately, are not these sort of situations always resolved by parliament changing the law?
LikeLiked by 1 person
John, it’s a good question. I will need time to read the ruling in order to answer your question fully, but I imagine the Court has made an order, and now the Government has to comply (unless it appeals the decision). There won’t be any sanctions – after all, the Government would effectively be paying a fine to itself.
If concerned third parties aren’t satisfied with the Government’s response, then I guess there could be another Court case against the Government.
Normally a Government unhappy with a Court decision might respond by changing the law. After all, Parliament is supreme, or is supposed to be. In this case, however, the madness is so deeply entrenched that in all likelihood the law will remain unamended, and Government politicians will continue to defend both the law and the Government’s supposed compliance with it. It’s beyond crazy.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The sanction John is this: were the government to deliberately ignore a High Court ruling, it would precipitate a huge constitutional crisis with unknowable and most probably painful and unwelcome consequences. I don’t think any government would be so unwise as to risk that.
As I said on the Net Zero policy thread, the problem of course is that, for the reasons repeatedly discussed here, it’s hard to see how this or any future government can implement the Act’s terms without causing serious social and economic harm to the UK. But paradoxically it’s equally hard to see this or any future government repealing the Act – or at least not for some time.
The situation we’re in is, as Mark says, beyond crazy. But it’s the situation we’re in.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Robin,
I wouldn’t expect the Government to deliberately ignore anything. I had in mind that it would agree to comply with the court ruling and then fail to do so, leading to further court action. Consequently, I predict a succession of court defeats that don’t amount to much in the long run. But if that does finally result in a constitutional crisis, then I’m sure that will also be taken on the chin. Well it would be if Boris were still in charge. 🙂
LikeLike
John,
Robin helpfully linked to the Court judgment on another thread. Having skimmed it and considered the conclusion, I can’t help thinking that some of the press coverage has been a little over-hyped (though that shouldn’t surprise us). This is the actual conclusion:
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mark,
Thanks for that.
LikeLike
John:
‘Well it would be if Boris were still in charge.’
Remember Partygate?
LikeLike
John: I think the answer to your question about the sanction that would stop a government from ignoring a court ruling is the application of the Rule of Law. Here’s how Lord Bingham, probably the senior Law Lord of his day, described the Rule’s core principle:
‘… that all persons and authorities within the state, whether public or private, should be bound by and entitled to the benefit of laws publicly and prospectively promulgated and publicly administered in the courts.’
This is fundamental to Britain’s Constitution. It’s extremely unlikely that any politician would ignore it.
LikeLike
Mark: you say that some of the press coverage of this High Court decision may have been over-hyped. Perhaps so, but consider this comment by Rowan Smith, the leading Leigh Day solicitor who represented Friends of the Earth:
It may be absurd – not least his belief that the CCA could protect us from climate catastrophe – and arguably over-hyped, but it’s instructive insofar as it demonstrates how a lawyer who was part of the winning team views the decision.
LikeLike
Robin,
You may be right, but another way of looking at it is that Leigh Day’s press release is also a very effective form of marketing for its litigation department. To that extent, it isn’t surprising that it too hyped the significance of the decision.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“
UK ‘net zero’ project will produce 20m tonnes of carbon pollution, say experts
Government told Net Zero Teesside gas scheme will be massive polluter despite its carbon capture claims”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/14/uk-net-zero-teesside-project-produce-carbon-pollution
A multibillion-pound “net zero” project backed by two of the world’s biggest fossil fuel firms will be responsible for more than 20m tonnes of planet-heating carbon over its lifetime, according to research submitted to the UK government.
The Net Zero Teesside scheme to build a new gas-fired power station in north-east England is backed by BP and Equinor and says it will use carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology to capture up to 95% of its emissions and bury them beneath the North Sea.
But according to evidence submitted to the government, even if the project’s claims for its carbon capture and storage facility prove accurate, the gas power station would still be responsible for more than 20m tonnes of carbon pollution over its lifetime.
Andrew Boswell, an energy analyst who carried out the research based on Net Zero Teesside’s own figures, said: “When a project produces over 20m tonnes of carbon pollution, it is simply wrong, and misleading, to call it ‘net zero’.”
Boswell calculated that once the “upstream emissions” associated with the project, such as extraction, refining, transportation and methane emissions from the gas – including liquefied natural gas from the US – were taken into account, the power station would emit more than 20.3m tonnes of carbon pollution.
I am conflicted about this, because I am in any event highly sceptical of the claims made for CCUS. However, I wonder if people like Mr Boswell ever worry about the “upstream emissions” of “renewable” energy? And guess what?
Boswell, backed by the green industrialist Dale Vince, is taking the government to court to get a judicial review of the decision, which they say falls foul of climate commitments
Vince said: “This is a fake net zero project from two of the world’s biggest fossil fuel companies. How on earth can polluting the atmosphere with 20m tonnes be net zero? The project should not have been allowed to go ahead and that’s why we’re supporting the legal challenge against this fossil-fuelled deception.”
I suspect their legal action stands a reasonable chance of success. The only solution is to substantially amend, or better still repeal, the CCA. Unless and until that is done, the UK’s energy, transport and other economic policies will be hamstrung.
LikeLike
This is probably the last we will here of this – the Russian authorities won’t for one moment tolerate this sort of thing undermining their economy (nor would the Chinese):
“Activists sue Russia over ‘weak’ climate policy
Russian constitutional court is considering claim, which activists hope will raise awareness about emissions”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/16/activists-sue-russia-climate-policy-court
A group of activists are fighting for the right to scrutinise Russia’s climate policies, and in particular its enormous methane emissions, in court…
…Another organisation that had planned to join the case, Moscow Helsinki, was closed down last year by a different Russian court. It was the country’s oldest human rights group...
...One of those bringing the case is Arshak Makichyan, who has previously been jailed in Russia after taking part in climate protests and who now lives in Germany. He said the lawsuit was about the contradiction between Russia’s climate policy and its constitution.
Russia is one of the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitters. The government has set a target to achieve net zero by 2060 but has done little to achieve this, leading Climate Action Tracker (CAT) to call its efforts “critically insufficient”...
LikeLike
“States have legal duty to cut greenhouse emissions, says top maritime court
Wealthy states must cut emissions faster than their developing peers, court says, in major step for climate justice”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/21/greenhouse-gases-are-pollutants-that-kill-marine-life-court-rules
Greenhouse gases are pollutants that are wrecking the marine environment, and states have a legal responsibility to control them, an international court has stated in a landmark moment for climate justice.
Wealthy nations must cut their emissions faster than their developing peers, the court also decided.
The statements were part of an advisory opinion on climate change issued on Tuesday by the international tribunal for the law of the sea (Itlos). The tribunal is responsible for interpreting and upholding the 1982 UN convention on the law of the sea (Unclos), an international treaty representing 169 countries.
It is the first time such a document has been issued by an international court...
LikeLike
“Climate victims file criminal case against bosses of oil firm Total
Case alleges French company’s exploitation of fossil fuel contributed to deaths of victims in extreme weather disasters”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/21/climate-victims-file-criminal-case-against-bosses-of-oil-firm-total
A criminal case has been filed against the CEO and directors of the French oil company TotalEnergies, alleging its fossil fuel exploitation has contributed to the deaths of victims of climate-fuelled extreme weather disasters.
The case was filed in Paris by eight people harmed by extreme weather, and three NGOs. The plaintiffs believe it to be the first such criminal case filed against the individuals running a major oil company. The public prosecutor who received the file has three months to decide whether to open a judicial investigation or dismiss the complaint.
The case aims to establish the alleged criminal liability of TotalEnergies’ directors and its major shareholders for deliberately endangering the lives of others, involuntary manslaughter, neglecting to address a disaster, and damaging biodiversity. Such crimes, if proven, are punishable by imprisonment and fines.
Total has been a frequent target for climate cases, with eight known cases, most of which remain active. Climate change litigation against companies and governments is increasing, with many hundreds of cases having been filed around the world.…
LikeLike
“Young Alaskans sue state over fossil fuel project they claim violates their rights
Plaintiffs claim $38.7bn gas export project, which would triple state’s greenhouse gas emissions, infringes constitutional rights”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/22/alaska-youth-climate-change-lawsuit
…The challengers, aged 11 to 22, argue that the proposal – and that legislation in particular – violates two sections of the Alaska constitution: the right to protected natural resources for “current and future generations”, and the right to be free from government infringement on life, liberty and property.
“The acceleration of climate change that this project will bring will affect what the land provides and brings to my culture, said Summer Sagoonick, the 22-year-old lead plaintiff in the case and a member the Iñupiaq tribe. “I am counting on the courts to protect my rights.
”The case was filed by Our Children’s Trust, the non-profit law firm that won a groundbreaking climate victory on behalf of young Montanans last year...
LikeLike
Popcorn time:
“‘Game-changing’: Vermont becomes first state to require big oil to pay for climate damages
Climate Superfund Act compels oil companies to pay potentially billions of dollars for climate impacts caused by their emissions”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/31/vermont-oil-companies-climate-superfund-act
Vermont has become the first state to enact a law holding oil firms financially responsible for climate damages, after the Republican governor, Phil Scott, allowed it to pass without his signature late on Thursday.
Modeled after the Environmental Protection Agency’s Superfund program, the Climate Superfund Act directs the state to charge major fossil fuel companies potentially billions of dollars to pay for climate impacts to which their emissions have contributed. It is expected to face legal challenges from the industry.
Under the legislation, Vermont officials will have until January 2026 to assess the total costs to the state from greenhouse gases emitted between 1995 and 2024, including the impacts on public health, biodiversity and economic development. They will then use federal data to determine how much to charge individual polluters for those harms.…
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Oceans group takes UK government to court over oil and gas licences
Issuing licences in the North Sea without accounting for environmental impact was unlawful, Oceana UK says”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jun/19/oceans-group-takes-uk-government-to-court-over-oil-and-gas-licences
A marine conservation group has initiated legal action against the UK government, claiming the Conservatives’ decision to issue North Sea oil and gas licences without taking into account their impact on the environment was unlawful.
Oceana UK, part of an international conservation organisation, said that in issuing 82 licences, Claire Coutinho, the secretary of state for energy security, and the North Sea Transition Authority, ignored advice from independent government experts about the potential effects on marine protected areas (MPAs).
No such worries about offshore wind farms, naturally.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Key oil project must count full climate impact – court”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cxwwzmn12g9o
The Supreme Court has ruled a local council should have considered the full climate impact of burning oil from new wells – a landmark decision which could put future UK oil and gas projects in question.
Under planning law the assumption has always been that only the impacts from constructing the wells and not the use of the final oil products should be considered.
The case brought against Surrey County Council by Sarah Finch, on behalf of campaigners could threaten new UK fossil fuels projects….
LikeLike
A comment on the above Supreme Court decision:
In the midst of so many dispiriting developments today’s Supreme Court decision (by 3 to 2) to put a halt to long-established plans to extract oil at Horse Hill in Surrey is the cherry on a very depressing cake. It did so essentially by ruling that, as well as it being necessary to consider the environmental impact of the emissions resulting from the extraction itself, it’s also necessary to consider the far wider impact of burning the extracted fuels – an area where it would essentially be impossible to satisfy an ‘activist’ judge. As this wider impact hadn’t been considered the council’s grant of planning permission was quashed.
This is exceptionally worrying. It means in effect that from now on the extraction of fossil fuels anywhere in Britain may well be impossible – whatever the views of government or local authorities and of the ordinary people who elect them. And in any case entrepreneurs and potential investors are likely to understandably back away from any proposed new extraction project. It makes the already disastrous consequences of Labour’s plan to refuse new North Sea extraction – yet more reliance on uncertain foreign supplies of essential fuels – far worse.
This is another – and arguably especially serious – example of a court being able to override or supplant contentious and democratic decision making regarding a matter of major public importance – in this case energy security. It will add further strength to the elbow of our soon-to-be-elected legal/technocratic government. Time to wave goodbye to representative democracy?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Further to the above, Ross Clark has just published an article on the same topic – and making essentially the same point – in the Spectator. Headed ‘The Surrey oil judgment undermines our democracy’ it can be found here: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-surrey-oil-judgment-undermines-our-democracy/
His opening paragraph:
He goes on to say:
These thoroughly unwelcome developments are coming at us thick and fast. It seems we can only watch it happen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin, yes, it is indeed a most worrying development for those of us concerned with energy security (or the lack thereof). However, as I understand it, the judgement requires all “down stream” activities (such as burning fossil fuel) to be considered. But what does the law say (if anything) about “up stream” activities that, in the case of “renewables”, involve even more energy per unit of energy output than fossil fuel projects? I am referring here to the EROEI parameter which shows just how poor “renewables” are.
Thus, can “renewables” projects be legally challenged using essentially the same arguments as have been decided today by the Supreme Court? Or is the playing field tilted/biased in favour of the unreliable “renewables”? Regards, John C.
LikeLike
Next move of the Court? Could it be to expand its control over oil use by considering the likely impact of burning imported hydrocarbons?
LikeLike
John: the Supreme Court is necessarily concerned only with the interpretation of legislation enacted in the UK – in this case the 2008 Climate Change Act (‘CCC’) as amended by Teresa May in 2019. And the CCC is concerned exclusively with CO2 emissions and ‘other targeted greenhouse gas emissions’ originating from within the UK. Therefore I don’t believe the Court would regard emissions arising from the manufacture and shipping of renewables as being subject to its remit.
Mark: do you agree?
Alan: an excellent point. Yes, I suppose it’s possible. But it’s not up to the Supreme Court to make a move: it could only happen if an activist instigated an action against an ’emitter’ and, if thwarted in the lower courts, took the issue all the way to the Supreme Court. Now that would be interesting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
I have responded with a new post on the Supreme Court decision.
LikeLike
“The Bonavero Institute publishes new report on climate change litigation”
https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/content/news/bonavero-institute-publishes-new-report-climate-change-litigation
The Bonavero Institute of Human Rights announces the publication of its latest Bonavero Report No. 2/2024 entitled ‘Climate Litigation in Europe Unleashed: Catalysing Action against States and Corporations’. This report follows the discussions at the one-day workshop held on 22 November 2023 at the Bonavero Institute. The workshop was convened with support from Oxfam, Woodsford, the Oak Foundation and the Leverhulme Trust. The report was edited by Dr Ekaterina Aristova (Leverhulme Early Career Fellow) and Justin Lim (BCL Student).
The report examines developments, opportunities and challenges to strategic climate litigation involving states and corporations in Europe. In doing so, it curates a compilation of 16 expert opinion pieces from scholars and practitioners to explore legal strategies employed in climate litigation and potential avenues for legal activism, policy change and precedent-setting. In addition, the editors identify in the introduction key insights, knowledge gaps and directions for further research identified at the workshop.
Enough said. Please do follow the link and take a look at the report.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Mark, I’ve followed the link and taken a look at the report: a lot of pompous sounding stuff from some probably pompous people. One matter stands out above all else. It describes climate change as the ‘defining crisis of our time’ and states that ‘an all-hands-on deck approach is needed to address both the causes and effects of the climate emergency‘. But the whole thing is focused exclusively on Europe and nowhere, so far as I can see, do these, presumably well remunerated people even mention attempts to address what’s happening across the non-western world – the source of over 75% of the dreaded emissions. Who, so far as major non-western countries are concerned, is as they put it ‘searching for ways to hold the right entities accountable and take remedial action‘? The answer would seem to be no one, making a mockery of the whole thing while they’re doing their best to destroy European civilisation. Depressing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“German activists take government to court over climate policy
New law is too weak and has been made harder to enforce, while transport ministry has not taken sufficient action, groups say”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jun/26/german-activists-take-government-to-court-over-climate-policy
German climate activists are taking the government to court for “unconstitutional” climate policy, seeking to build on a landmark victory three years ago that they had hoped would force Europe’s biggest polluter to clean up quickly.
The activists argue that the new climate law is too weak, that a recent update makes it harder to enforce, and that inaction from the transport ministry, which has repeatedly failed to meet its emissions targets, will force tough measures on poor groups in the future.
“Our last win made it clear that we have a right to climate action,” said Luisa Neubauer, a climate activist and leading figure in the Fridays for Future school strike movement. “Yet three years later, the government is failing to take necessary action.”
Germany, a major carmaker that burns coal for one-quarter of its electricity, is on track to fall just short of its target to pump 65% fewer planet-heating pollutants into the air in 2030 than it did in 1990. Its top court ruled a previous version of its climate law partly unconstitutional in 2021 when Neubauer and other activists won a legal challenge.
Chided by the court and admonished by activists, the previous government updated the law to cut emissions faster and include targets for each sector. But this year – under pressure from the market-liberal Free Democrats party, a minor coalition partner that controls the transport and finance ministries – the current government scrapped the sectoral targets, watered down requirements for catch-up actions and reduced legal pressure to plan beyond 2030.
Liz Hicks, a law researcher at the University of Münster, said “conflicting visions” on climate action within the governing coalition had made it harder to enforce the 2021 ruling. “The [latest] amendment makes it more difficult to implement the targets in the Climate Protection Act, even if they exist on paper.”
The previous ruling deemed Germany’s old climate law unconstitutional because it violated “intertemporal freedoms” – pushing the burden of fast action on to future generations – but stopped short of saying the government had failed in its obligations so far….
LikeLike
“Lawyers could charge big oil with homicide after 2023 Arizona heatwave
Charges are reasonable after July 2023 extreme weather event, prosecutors write in new memorandum”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jun/26/arizona-heatwave-big-oil-lawsuit
The “brief” can be found here:
https://www.citizen.org/wp-content/uploads/Climate-Homicide-Prosecution-Memo-Final.pdf
I confess, at around 50 pages in length, and being in the US, not the UK, I haven’t read it.
LikeLike
“Sharp rise in number of climate lawsuits against companies, report says
About 230 cases filed against corporations and trade associations around world since 2015″
The number of climate lawsuits filed against companies around the world is rising swiftly, a report has found, and a majority of cases that have concluded have been successful.
About 230 climate-aligned lawsuits have been filed against corporations and trade associations since 2015, two-thirds of which have been initiated since 2020 [my emphasis], according to the analysis published on Thursday by the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.…
...More than 30 cases in 2023 concerned the “polluter pays” principle, whereby companies are held accountable for climate damage caused by high greenhouse gas emissions. The authors also highlighted six “turning off the taps” cases, which challenge the flow of finance to areas which hinder climate goals.
The US accounted for the vast majority of litigation cases filed in 2023, with 129 cases. The UK was second, with 24 cases, while 10 were filed in Brazil.
Climate litigation cases were filed for the first time in Panama and Portugal in 2023. This means that 55 countries have now recorded climate cases, with a growing number of litigation cases arising in the global south, which accounts for about 8% of all cases.
While the majority of climate litigation cases are still filed against governments, an increasing number are being filed against companies, with an imbalance between the US and the rest of the world – 40% of cases outside the US were filed against companies, while in the US just 15% of cases involved companies....
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark – from your above comment –
“Germany, a major carmaker that burns coal for one-quarter of its electricity, is on track to fall just short of its target to pump 65% fewer planet-heating pollutants into the air in 2030 than it did in 1990“
Don’t tell me the poster country for many years via the energiewende is facing reality.
Interesting article November 2015 issue of National Geographic magazine –
Germany Could Be a Model for How We’ll Get Power in the Future (nationalgeographic.com)
It ends – “In a recent essay William Nordhaus, a Yale economist who has spent decades studying the problem of addressing climate change, identified what he considers its essence: free riders. Because it’s a global problem, and doing something is costly, every country has an incentive to do nothing and hope that others will act. While most countries have been free riders, Germany has behaved differently: It has ridden out ahead. And in so doing, it has made the journey easier for the rest of us.”
UK nag is now nosing ahead with the use of the nudge/media whip.
LikeLike
“‘All threats to the sea come from humans’: how lawyers are gearing up to fight for the oceans”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jul/10/threats-sea-humans-lawyers-fight-oceans-lawsuits-climate
…Inspired by a rising wave of lawsuits seeking to hold governments and companies to account for climate action, she set up Ocean Vision Legal, a law firm with a unique remit: to litigate on the ocean’s behalf.
“My aim was to motivate people, organisations and states to take legal action to enforce ocean protection,” she says.
She is not alone. Last year, the UN Environment Programme (Unep) said lawsuits challenging government and corporate inaction on the climate breakdown have become an important driver of change. There have been more than 2,500 lawsuits relating to the climate crisis around the world – and many relate to the ocean.
In January, Von Rebay’s firm initiated preliminary proceedings against Germany on behalf of Bund, a German conservation NGO, for issuing fishing licences that allow bottom trawling, a destructive fishing practice, in a marine protected area (MPA) of the Dogger Bank….
I have no problem with that, but I do wonder at the inconsistency. Why no lawsuit against this?
“Building the world’s largest offshore wind farm
Located more than 130km off the North East coast of England, Dogger Bank Wind Farm will be capable of powering up to 6 million homes annually.”
https://doggerbank.com/
LikeLike
“Six million people at risk from extreme heat in England, campaign group warns
Friends of the Earth says older people and young children are most at risk in heat-vulnerable neighbourhoods”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jul/19/six-million-people-at-risk-extreme-heat-in-england-campaign-group-warns
Extraordinary, given that far more people in the UK die from extreme cold than from extreme heat. However, the reason for putting this here is this:
…At a high court hearing next week, Friends of the Earth and two co-claimants including Paulley whose lives are already severely affected by the climate crisis will challenge the UK’s climate adaptation plans in a case thought to be the first of its kind in the UK.
The group argues that plans brought in by the previous government do not sufficiently protect people from the foreseeable impacts of climate breakdown and the new Labour government must come up with much stronger plans to ensure those most at risk from escalating weather extremes are adequately protected.…
LikeLike
It’s so hot in Leeds at the moment that buses have spontaneously combusted – and they’re not even electric buses!
Green Party councillors are out on the streets right now, protesting climate breakdown.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Erosion victim challenges government’s climate plan”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv2g0wxqxx4o
A man who lost his home to coastal erosion is challenging the government in the High Court over its climate plans.
Kevin Jordan lived in Hemsby, Norfolk, but his home was demolished in December after storms put it in severe danger of falling into the sea.
He has joined forces with Friends of the Earth and disability activist Doug Paulley to claim that the government’s National Adaptation Plan (NAP) on climate change is putting lives, homes and livelihoods at risk.
The Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) is opposing the legal challenge at the two-day hearing in London.
The claimants are arguing the current climate plan breaches the human rights of the individual claimants, and those of marginalised groups such as older and disabled people and people living in areas most at risk from climate change.
Mr Paulley, from Wetherby, West Yorkshire, has several health conditions which can be exacerbated by increasing summer temperatures, and therefore he is at greater risk of harm, the complainants said.
They argue those people are disproportionately affected by the impacts of the climate crisis, and the government has failed to produce a credible or lawful plan to protect them….
When are basic legal principles, such as causation, going to be discussed in this never-ending string of litigation? The simple fact of the matter is that nothing the UK government does with regard to “stopping climate change” can do anything to protect people from coastal erosion “caused by climate change” or from extra heat “caused by climate change”. From a legal point of view, these cases are stuff and nonsense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Harris is ‘perfect person’ to prosecute big oil, climate advocates say
Environmentalists want DoJ to hold fossil fuel firms accountable and for presumptive nominee to lead charge”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/02/kamala-harris-oil-industry-election
If elected president, Kamala Harris should take on the fossil fuel industry for its history of spreading climate disinformation, environmentalists say.
Forty US states and municipalities have sued big oil for allegedly spreading climate disinformation. For years, climate advocates and some lawmakers have said the Department of Justice should file a similar case.
It has so far failed to do so – even under Joe Biden, who ran on a climate-focused agenda.
“We get the sense that [the Biden attorney general] Merrick Garland has no interest in pursuing this issue,” said Richard Wiles, president of the non-profit Center for Climate Integrity (CCI), which supports climate litigation.
That could change under Kamala Harris’s leadership, said Jamie Henn, director of the climate accountability non-profit Fossil Free Media, who recently wrote that Harris is the “perfect person” to prosecute the case.…
LikeLike
I am rather belatedly reading Anthony Sampson’s book “Who runs this place? The anatomy of Britain in the 21st century”. I have arrived at the chapter on lawyers, Courts and particularly on Law Lords (this was shortly before the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords was replaced by the Supreme Court.
A couple of quotes make it clear that although the UK is now a very different place, in some ways not a lot has changed. Also that one’s view of Lawfare largely depends on whether one agrees with the action or is on the receiving end of it. Here is the hard line Home Secretary David Blunkett following a legal challenge to the way immigration officials had applied new rules about asylum-seekers claiming benefits:
I’m fed up having to deal with a situation where Parliament debates issues and the judges overturn them. [on BBC radio].
If public policy can be always overriden by individual challenge through the Courts, then democracy itself is under threat. [Daily Telegraph].
LikeLike
Mark. Not exactly sure whether you support or oppose the view expressed by Blunkett. I can envisage situations or instances where I (or you) might support or alternatively regret the intervention of the courts and I suspect that, when it is appropriate, that is the court’s role. The government always has the final say.
LikeLike
Alan,
I support the concept of politicians being forced by the Courts to stay within the law. I also believe that democratically elected politicians must always be free, via the supremacy of Parliament, to implement the “will of the people”.
So far as the latter point goes, that involves reluctantly acknowledging that within our flawed electoral system, the Government does have the right to legislate for accelerated net zero – but if they do, I believe they will get a kicking at the next general election, which is the proper way to stamp down on politicians who do stupid things.
I proffered the Blunkett quotes because I think it’s interesting how pretty much all politicians change their views regarding judicial interference once it’s their plans being interfered with. Also there is a definite tension between democracy and unelected judges, especially now that Lawfare is increasingly politicising the Courtroom, and given that some judges, especially at the ECHR, are arguably indulging in judicial law-making. There is potentially a thesis in there for a student of such matters.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Judge rejects High Court challenge over new gas power plant”
https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/national/24517630.judge-rejects-high-court-challenge-new-gas-power-plant/
An environmental consultant has lost a High Court challenge against the Government’s approval of a new gas power station in north-east England.
Andrew Boswell took legal action against ministers over the granting of development consent for the Net Zero Teesside Project by the former Tory government in February...
…In a written ruling on Wednesday, Mrs Justice Lieven dismissed his case, concluding that there was “no logical flaw in the reasoning” set out by ministers….
LikeLike
“Campaigners sue EU over ‘grossly inadequate’ 2030 climate targets
Groups challenging emissions limits in key sectors including agriculture, waste and transport”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/aug/27/campaigners-sue-eu-over-grossly-inadequate-2030-climate-targets
The EU is being sued for failing to set ambitious climate targets in sectors that contribute more than half of the bloc’s total greenhouse gas emissions.
Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe and the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) argue that climate targets laid out for agriculture, waste, transport and small industry in the 27 EU member states until the end of the decade are not based on the best science and are therefore “grossly inadequate”.
The lawsuit was formally filed before the court of justice of the EU earlier this year and has been fast-tracked…
Of course it has.
LikeLike
“UK government will not fight Rosebank oil field legal challenge”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c30393m4z50o
The UK government will not fight a legal challenge against the decision to grant consent to drill in untapped oil and gas fields off Shetland and Aberdeen.
Greenpeace and Uplift jointly brought judicial reviews to stop the development of the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields.
It comes after the Supreme Court ruled that a UK council should have considered the climate impact of new oil wells – setting a precedent for all regulators.
The government’s decision does not mean the licences for Jackdaw and Rosebank have been withdrawn.
But if the judicial review backs the environmental groups, operators would need to resubmit environmental assessments.
This would create more delay and additional costs for Rosebank’s owners, Equinor and Ithaca Energy, and Jackdaw’s owner, Shell.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark – see you mention “Equinor” In this comment & also in your “In the Doldrums” comment, with this “State-controlled Equinor needs to prioritise capital more than in the past given rising costs in the offshore wind sector, due to inflation, high interest rates and supply-chain delays.
“It’s getting more and more expensive, and we think things are going to take more time in quite a few markets around the world,” Eitrheim said, adding Equinor may pull out from more markets….”
Fingers in pies get burned, maybe?
LikeLike
“South Korea’s climate law violates rights of future generations, court rules
Absence of legally binding targets for greenhouse gas reductions from 2031-49 deemed unconstitutional”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/29/south-korea-court-climate-law-violates-rights-future-generations
South Korea’s constitutional court has ruled that part of the country’s climate law does not conform with protecting the constitutional rights of future generations, an outcome local activists are calling a “landmark decision”.
The unanimous verdict concludes four years of legal battles and sets a significant precedent for future climate-related legal actions in the region.
The court found that the absence of legally binding targets for greenhouse gas reductions for the period from 2031-49 violated the constitutional rights of future generations and failed to uphold the government’s duty to protect those rights.
The court said this lack of long-term targets shifted an excessive burden to the future. It gave the national assembly and government until 28 February 2026 to amend the law to include these longer-term targets.
The decision echoes a similar ruling by Germany’s federal constitutional court in 2021, which found the country’s climate law lacked sufficient provisions for emission reductions beyond 2030, potentially infringing on the freedoms of future generations.
South Korea’s climate litigation began in March 2020 when Youth 4 Climate Action, a group leading the Korean arm of the global school climate strike movement, filed the first lawsuit, alleging that the government’s inadequate greenhouse gas reduction targets violated citizens’ fundamental rights, particularly those of future generations. Subsequently, three additional lawsuits were consolidated, bringing the number of plaintiffs to 255….
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Big oil faces a rising number of climate-focused lawsuits, report finds
Communities, states and advocacy groups push to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for role in climate crisis”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/12/big-oil-climate-lawsuits-fossil-fuel-companies
…The number of cases filed against those companies globally each year has nearly tripled since 2015 – the year the UN Paris climate agreement was signed – with 86 cases filed and 40 currently pending, the authors found….
…The suits were filed by cities, states and other government organizations, as well as environmental groups, Indigenous tribes and individuals. Fifty were filed in US courts, while 24 were filed in European countries, five in Australia and four in Nigeria…..
LikeLike
“Appeal granted over ‘net zero’ power plant”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg56qr4n53no
The Court of Appeal will hear a case being brought against a decision to build a new power station.
Environmental consultant Dr Andrew Boswell lost a High Court challenge against the Net Zero Teesside Project in August.
He argued the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ), external had failed to adequately explain how the power plant, at the Teesworks site near Redcar, would help deliver the government’s net zero goal.
Mrs Justice Lieven dismissed his case, concluding there was “no logical flaw in the reasoning” set out by ministers, but Dr Boswell has been granted permission to appeal.
Teesworks said the power station, which is being developed by partners BP and Equinor, could generate up to 860 megawatts of low carbon electricity.
But in July, Mr Boswell’s lawyers argued that ministers had not given “legally adequate reasons” for backing the project, despite recognising its emissions would have “significant adverse effects”….
Are we to be allowed to have any energy at all?
LikeLike
Dr. Boswell has spent years holding up road schemes in Norfolk, and adding millions to their cost as a consequence. Of course, he didn’t make up the rules of the game.
LikeLike
“Leonard Leo-linked group attacking efforts to educate judges on climate
Rightwing US thinktank claimed in report that non-profit holding trainings is ‘corruptly influencing the courts’”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/29/leonard-leo-group-influencing-judges-climate-education
A long and interesting read. I struggle with the idea of seminars to “educate” Judges about climate change to “enable” them to hear litigation based around the supposed climate crisis. This is because Judges are supposed to know about the law and to be impartial. When cases come before them that involve technical non-legal questions, experts appear, and can be examined by the Judge and cross-examined by the other side.
That is how the Judge gains his/her understanding of the technical issues in front of them. We don’t expect Judges to be trained in architecture, in case a case involving architecture comes before them. Nor do we expect them to have a working knowledge of engineering; or to become financial experts (despite the number of fraud cases they must preside over).
Once Judges are “educated” as to the supposed climate crisis, they will start from the assumption that there is a climate crisis, and at that point they cease to be sufficiently disinterested as to enable them to hear a climate-related case impartially.
It’s disappointing , but not surprising, that the Guardian doesn’t appear to understand this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark,
It’s even more disappointing, in fact highly alarming, that the judges agreeing to be ‘educated’ do not understand this themselves. Why in God’s name would they agree to attend seminars to be ‘educated’ (indoctrinated) on climate change when presumably they do not do the same for any other technical/scientific field of knowledge which may be the focus of cases upon which they are called to adjudicate? As you say, in such instances, expert witnesses are called, both for the prosecution and defence. These are highly intelligent, intellectually alert people. Don’t they smell a rat?
LikeLiked by 3 people
The reason they don’t smell a rat?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Norway court rejects environmental injunction against oil and gas fields”
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/norway-court-rejects-environmental-injunction-against-oil-gas-fields-2024-10-14/
A Norwegian appeals court said on Monday it had ruled in favour of the government in a case brought by environmental activists who sought to halt the development of three oil and gas fields.
Greenpeace and others had sued the Norwegian government to prevent the development of the new oil and gas resources, in the latest legal dispute linked to global climate change.
A lower court ruled in January that Norway’s energy ministry failed to fully assess the climate impact from the future use of the fields’ oil and gas, so-called scope three emissions, in a lawsuit brought by Greenpeace and its partner Nature and Youth….
…The appeals court on Monday said it had attached considerable importance in its decision to democratic considerations and to the court’s right of review.
“The concrete decisions to deal with the climate crisis, including a possible shutdown of petroleum activities, must primarily be made by parliament and the government,” the court said in its ruling.
Norway, which derives one quarter of its gross domestic product from oil and gas, says that while it seeks to pump hydrocarbons for decades to come it is complying with the Paris climate accords seeking to limit global warming.…
LikeLiked by 1 person
“US supreme court declines to pause new federal power plant emissions rule
Emergency requests by 27 states to pause rule requiring fossil fuel-powered plants to reduce emissions were denied”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/16/supreme-court-declines-pause-power-plant-emissions-rule
The US supreme court declined on Wednesday to put on hold a new federal rule targeting carbon pollution from coal- and gas-fired power plants at the request of numerous states and industry groups in another major challenge to Joe Biden’s efforts to combat the climate crisis.
The justices denied emergency requests by West Virginia, Indiana and 25 other states – most of them Republican-led – as well as power companies and industry associations, to halt the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule while litigation continues in a lower court. The regulation, aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions that drive the climate crisis, took effect on 8 July.
The rule would require existing coal- and new natural gas-fired plants eventually to reduce emissions including by capturing and storing carbon dioxide....
LikeLike
“New York officials call for big oil to be prosecuted for fueling climate disasters
Oil majors’ conduct can constitute reckless endangerment due to fossil fuels’ effect on global heating, advocates claim”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/17/new-york-big-oil-fueling-climate-disasters
New York state prosecutors could press criminal charges against big oil for its role in fueling hurricanes and other climate disasters, lawyers wrote in a new prosecution memorandum that has been endorsed by elected officials across the state.
The 50-page document, published by the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen and the progressive prosecutors network Fair and Just Prosecution on Thursday, comes as the US south-east struggles to recover from the deadly hurricanes Helene and Milton, both of which scientists have found were exacerbated by the climate crisis. It details the havoc wrought on New York by 2021’s Hurricane Ida and 2012’s Hurricane Sandy, and other deadly climate events such as extreme heatwaves across the US this past summer.
These disasters are fueled by the climate crisis, which is primarily caused by the burning of fossil fuels. And a growing body of evidence shows that big oil knew about the climate dangers of its products but promoted them to the public anyway, the authors write.
“This conduct was not just amoral,” the memo says. “It was criminal.”
Officials who endorsed the strategy include Brad Hoylman-Sigal, the New York senate judiciary committee chair; Antonio Reynoso, the Brooklyn borough president, the state senator Kristen Gonzalez; the assemblymembers Emily Gallagher and Jessica González-Rojas; and the city council members Sandy Nurse and Carmen De La Rosa.
“It is clear that the actions of big oil, major fossil fuel companies and their executives have endangered generations of Americans,” said González in a statement. “Big oil must be held accountable for their actions, and justice must be won for those who’ve suffered the devastating impacts of climate-related disasters.”…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Closer to home, Energy Voice reports:
“Legal challenge set to quash approval for Wressle extension. The developers of the Wressle oil field extension have warned that planning approval for the project is likely to be overturn.”
This is in Lincolnshire. It’s the second-largest onshore oilfield in the UK, after Wytch Farm.
Presumably the same arguments will be used about taking into consideration the downstream consequences of burning the oil. I wish the oil companies would step up and make the case that we going to continue burning oil for a long time yet and locally-produced oil has a lower carbon footprint than imported. Obviously the downstream emissions are the same but there’s no transhipment required.
The same argument applies much more strongly when it comes to domestic gas vs LNG, given the energy consumed in liquefying, shipping and re-gassing.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mark, yes EPA intends to recklessly shut down power plants using carbon fuels by requiring CCS. The issue will come back to the Supremes, perhaps this term.
https://rclutz.com/2024/10/18/legal-fight-to-stop-epa-rule-closing-power-plants/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Speaking of politicians acting illegally, Sturmer is at it again, taking domestic malarky over seas
https://thefederalist.com/2024/10/18/uks-leftist-labour-party-jumping-into-us-election-to-help-harris/
LikeLike
Whoops, I mistook UK PM Starmer for the Nazi Germany fascist newspaper. My Bad (freudian slip?)
LikeLike
Interesting. I don’t know whether the UK Labour Party interfering in the UD Presidential election is legal or illegal, but I assume the former. Starmer is a KC, and it would be a crass error for his political party to break US election laws.
Having said that, the optics are appalling – again. The BBC and the Guardian would be frothing at the mouth if Trump sent 100 Republicans to the UK to interfere in our general election, and rightly so.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“People around the world are using courts to question whether climate policies are fair – new study”
https://theconversation.com/people-around-the-world-are-using-courts-to-question-whether-climate-policies-are-fair-new-study-241093
…All this reflects a growing recognition that climate action may come at a cost to certain groups, especially those already on the margins of society. It also underscores the need to address the social justice of climate action and ensure it does not make the world even less equal.
The core issue is that, while much attention is given to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, less emphasis has been placed on ensuring we do so equitably. This is especially the case at a time when governments in the EU , the UK and the US are announcing plans to cut the red tape and expedite the transition.
As more communities turn to courts to seek justice, our study highlights an urgent need for policymakers to embrace inclusive, transparent and equitable processes. Decisions over who owns land, or what jobs people can do, should involve those most affected. Ensuring that climate policies are fair and just will not only protect vulnerable groups but also foster broader public support.
LikeLike
I noted this interesting TC piece and thought it raised several issues on which it would be interesting to comment and perhaps start a discussion – aka known as a conversation. But – as so often with TC these days – comments are not allowed. A travesty for something called ‘The Conversation’.
LikeLike
Comments are open on selected articles….
Some conversation!
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Legal challenge that could stop Rosebank oilfield explained”
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/24709748.legal-challenge-stop-rosebank-oilfield-explained/
Behind a paywall, but enough can be seen to get the gist:
Two campaign groups will attempt to put the brakes on the Rosebank oilfield through a judicial review in Edinburgh next week. Greenpeace and the energy transition campaign group Uplift will argue that consent for the development is unlawful.
130 km north-west of Shetland, Rosebank is estimated to contain a total recoverable 350 million barrels of oil equivalent. It is the largest untapped oilfield in UK waters and was given the greenlight last year by the Conservative UK Government and North Sea Transition Authority, the regulatory body. Start-up of Rosebank’s phase one, which is due to target 245 million barrels of oil, is planned to start up in 2026-7….
LikeLike
“Shell wins landmark climate case against green groups in Dutch appeal”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx240l9xq2yo
Oil giant Shell has won a landmark case in the Dutch courts, overturning an earlier ruling requiring it to cuts its carbon emissions by 45%.
The Hague court of appeal said it could not establish that Shell had a “social standard of care” to reduce its emissions by 45% or any other amount, even though it agreed the company had an obligation to citizens to limit emissions.
Three years ago, a court in The Hague backed a case by Friends of the Earth and 17,000 Dutch citizens requiring Shell to reduce its CO2 emissions significantly, in line with the Paris climate accords.
The ruling came as climate talks involving some 200 countries got under way in Azerbaijan.
Environmental groups can now take their case against Shell to the Supreme Court – means a final verdict in this far-reaching case may still be years away….
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Legal challenge to Rosebank oil field begins”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czd5rvgp830o
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, for pity’s sake:
“Government admits new oil field approved unlawfully”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly2dxqd1pyo
The UK government has admitted in court that the country’s largest untapped oilfield, Rosebank off Shetland, was approved unlawfully.
The move came during a case brought by climate campaigners against both Rosebank and the Jackdaw gas field in the North Sea.
At the Court of Session in Edinburgh Chris Pirie KC, for the government, accepted that assessments did not include “the effects on climate of the combustion of oil and gas to be extracted from the fields.”
Rosebank was given the green light on 27 September 2023 and Jackdaw on 1 June 2022, both by the previous Conservative administration.
As part of the consenting process, the government was required to consider environmental impact assessments about the fields.
These take into account the impact on climate change of emissions caused by the process of extracting oil and gas but not of greenhouse gases which would be released when the fossil fuels were eventually burned….
...If the judge, Lord Ericht, agrees, Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government may end up with the final say on whether or not drilling should go ahead.
Mr Pirie said if that did happen, the current thinking of the energy secretary Ed Milliband was not to require the assessment process to begin afresh but to request the additional information relating to the climate impact of burning the fuels, before issuing a new decision….
And I think we can guess what that decision will be. Will the last person to leave please turn out the lights.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mark – “These take into account the impact on climate change of emissions caused by the process of extracting oil and gas but not of greenhouse gases which would be released when the fossil fuels were eventually burned“
So no more “oil and gas” imports into the UK using the same “environmental impact assessments” logic.
Wonder how that also affects UK interconnectors, can’t find any details on how the power is generated for these.
LikeLike
dfhunter,
That’s an interesting point, but I think the answer would be that even if electricity imported by interconnectors is generated by fossil fuels, the interconnectors haven’t increased emissions.
It could , however, be argued, that foreign generators must be generating more electricity than they otherwise would, in order to supply the UK when we are short of electricity. And if they use more fossil fuels than the UK does to generate electricity, then by definition, this results in more emissions.
I am not confident that’s a winning argument, having said that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark – I agree, but it could open up a can of worms. Wonder where Drax biomass plant at Selby would stand?
Drax earnings to surpass £1bn after strong year across electricity and pellet business
LikeLike
ps – wood pellets are not “fossil fuels” so get a pass I would guess.
LikeLike
dfhunter, not necessarily – if Drax submitted an application for an additional consent for new activities, the arguments would probably apply, but not in respect of existing ongoing activities that either don’t need consent or received their consent a long time ago.
LikeLike
“Shell’s successful appeal will not end climate lawsuits against firms, say experts
Dutch appeal court ruled in favour of oil and gas company over judgment telling it to limit emissions”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/14/shell-successful-appeal-will-not-end-climate-lawsuits-against-firms-say-experts
...Milieudefensie, the NGO that brought the claim, was disappointed with the ruling because it rejected its key demand.
However, the lawyer Roger Cox said he could see a number of important points to build on in the NGO’s legal battle against large polluters. “The court makes it abundantly clear that not only countries, but also companies, have a responsibility to reduce their emissions in line with the Paris climate agreement,” said Cox.
Thom Wetzer, an associate professor of law and finance at the University of Oxford, believes this leaves the door “wide open” for future litigation against corporations in the Netherlands and beyond….
LikeLike
I am probably being simplistic but there seem to be some obvious counter-arguments to these court cases which want downstream emissions to be taken into account.
Firstly, the emissions from combustion will be the same whether the oil is UK-sourced or imported. We still need large amounts of oil so those combustion emissions are inevitable.
Secondly, imported oil has a larger “carbon footprint” than oil produced locally since it has to be shipped long distances. It may also require more refining – consuming energy – than UK oil which is generally of a light grade.
Lastly, using UK-sourced rather than imported oil is clearly a great benefit to the economy: taxes; employment; balance of payments; etc..
Simples!
LikeLiked by 1 person
MikeH – seems to me that the logic & common sense you pointed out are missing with some judges. To give them “judges” some credit/leeway, they have an army of green well paid lawfare to deal with who seem to run rings around the existing legal system.
LikeLiked by 1 person
An interesting read, with the BBC making an effort to give us a reasonable explanation, some facts and an objective analysis:
“Billions at stake in court battle over North Sea oil”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce89er3ekn0o
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Top UN court to begin hearings on landmark climate change case
ICJ to hear submissions from more than 100 groups in Pacific-led campaign to provide an advisory opinion on states’ obligations for climate harm”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/02/icj-un-climate-change-case-pacific-nations
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is due to begin hearings in a landmark climate change case on Monday, examining what countries worldwide are legally required to do to combat climate change and help vulnerable nations fight its devastating impact.
After years of lobbying by island nations, the UN General Assembly asked the ICJ last year for an opinion on “the obligations of States in respect of climate change.”
Lawyers and representatives from more than 100 countries and organisations will make submissions before the ICJ in The Hague.
The unprecedented hearings are aimed at finding a blueprint for how countries should protect the environment from damaging greenhouse gases, and what the consequences are if they do not. While the advisory opinions of the ICJ are non-binding, they are legally and politically significant….
LikeLike
That Guardian report about the pending ICJ hearing is most interesting (at least for me). In 2015 Philippe Sands KC – a friend of Keir Starmer and Professor of Law at UCL – gave a public lecture in the Supreme Court titled ‘Climate Change and The Rule of Law: adjudicating the future in International Law’. The text can be found HERE. In a detailed presentation he argued that, although he once thought it inappropriate, he now believed that the time was right for the ICL to ‘give an advisory opinion on the future obligations of states and other actors – by convention and general international law – in relation to climate change.’ He made the extraordinary statement that ‘the single most important thing [the Court] could do is to settle the scientific dispute’ and should do so by ‘finally scotching claims‘ by ‘scientifically qualified, knowledgeable’ people that he thought were not based on established fact. He added that that a finding of fact on such a matter ‘would be significant and authoritative‘. He went on to suggest that the ICL might confirm for example ‘that the two degrees Celsius target now reflects an obligation under international law … to reduce emissions’, concluding that: ‘In our world, amidst the warming of the atmosphere, and the melting of the ice, and the rising of the seas, the international courts shall not be silent.’
I responded HERE – stating inter alia that in my view for the courts, however distinguished, ‘to purport to settle a legitimate scientific disagreement, would strike at the essence of the Scientific Method – the basis of scientific practice for over 150 years.’ That’s still my view.
PS: I sent a copy of my response to Professor Sands, getting a polite acknowledgement. No more.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks, Robin . Well worth a read.
LikeLike
Robin: thanks for that – it’s a real eye-opener! Talk about lawyerly over-reach, putting legal opinion ahead of scientific research. He would have fitted in well at the prosecution of Gallileo.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Montana top court upholds landmark youth climate ruling”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c36ek09depro
Montana’s Supreme Court has upheld a lower court’s decision that had sided with 16 young activists who argued that the state violated their right to a clean environment.
The lawsuit was brought by students arguing that a state law banning the consideration of climate when choosing energy policy was unconstitutional.
In a 6-to-1 ruling, the top court found that the plaintiffs, between ages five and 22, had a “fundamental constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment”.
Wednesday’s ruling came after a district court’s decision last year was appealed by the state. Similar climate lawsuits are ongoing across the US but this is first of its kind a from a state supreme court.
The lawsuit targeted a 2011 state law that made it illegal for environmental reviews to consider climate impacts when deciding on new projects, like building new power plants.
It cited a 50-year-old constitutional clause that guaranteed the “state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations”.
The ruling on Wednesday, external stated that the “plaintiffs showed at trial – without dispute – that climate change is harming Montana’s environmental life support system now and with increasing severity for the foreseeable future” ….
I’m not a US lawyer, but I fail to see on what basis that’s Montana’s fault. It’s a global issue, and Montana’s emissions, in the scheme of things, are utterly insignificant. Where’s the causative link that puts the state’s authorities in the frame? I assume it will be appealed to SCOTUS where it will be overturned.
LikeLike
“Supreme Court rejects gas cavern appeal bid”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0mvx12m30do
The Supreme Court has refused an application by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (Daera) for permission to appeal a ruling on the gas storage caverns project in County Antrim.
Daera had gone directly to the UK’s highest court after their request to appeal to it was rejected by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal.
In June, campaigners won their judicial review against the plan to construct seven large caverns under Larne Lough….
…Lisa Dobbie from the No Gas Caverns group took the original judicial review case.
She welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision to reject Daera’s request.
“Today’s announcement underscores the power of communities to affect change. The people of Islandmagee love the place where they live.
“Ordinary people had to take extraordinary steps to protect people, place and planet. We hope that this provides inspiration for all those who wish to take a stand.“
Friends of the Earth Northern Ireland supported her case.
Director James Orr said it had been “a huge step forward for climate justice, for cleaner energy and for the protection of nature”….
I am all in favour of protecting nature and defending the place where one lives, so I make no point against this particular decision. However, isn’t the idea of “gas caverns” somewhat central to the UK government’s CCS plans?
LikeLike
“US supreme court allows Hawaii lawsuit against fossil fuel firms’ misinformation
Honolulu officials had filed a lawsuit against the companies for an alleged decades long misinformation campaign”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/13/supreme-court-hawaii-fossil-fuel-lawsuit
The supreme court has shot down the fossil fuel industry’s attempts to kill a Hawaii lawsuit, which is seeking to hold the sector accountable for an alleged decades-long misinformation campaign.
The Monday decision will allow the closely watched litigation, filed by officials from Honolulu, to proceed toward a trial. It is a procedural victory for the wave of climate accountability lawsuits filed against oil and gas companies in recent years.…
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Climate advocacy groups file two lawsuits against Trump administration
Groups from Sierra Club to Greenpeace take aim at Trump’s drilling orders in term’s first environmental legal battles”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/19/trump-administration-climate-lawsuits
LikeLike
“Offshore oil drilling is destructive from start to finish,” said Kristen Monsell, the oceans legal director at the conservation organization Center for Biological Diversity. “Opening up more public waters to the oil industry for short-term gain and political points is a reprehensible and irresponsible way to manage our precious ocean ecosystems.”
Wonder what Kristen has to say about offshore wind farms?
LikeLike
dfhunter, I strongly suspect that oil and gas drilling, which has a much smaller “footprint” than wind farms, is less environmentally damaging (if one isn’t obsessed about greenhouse gas emissions) than wind farms, yet people like Kristen seem to love the latter while hating the former (or, at least, you won’t find them saying this sort of thing about wind farms). It’s the double standards that get my goat.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark – ‘There’s none so blind as those who will not see’ is a proverb that means that you won’t ever succeed in making someone accept or understand something if they are too unwilling or stubborn to notice or learn.
https://www.phrases.com/phrase/there-are-none-so-blind-as-those-who-will-not-see_10746
LikeLike
Oh dear –
Sweden’s Supreme Court Rejects Greta Thunberg’s Lawsuit Over Climate Inaction
https://climatechangedispatch.com/swedens-supreme-court-rejects-greta-thunbergs-lawsuit-over-climate-inaction/
LikeLiked by 2 people
dfhunter: in the climate field it’s perhaps more appropriate to say that you won’t see acceptance of arguments where salaries and careers depend on ignoring them (to paraphrase Richard Feynman – I think!).
LikeLiked by 1 person
MikeH, AZ Quotes has the similar, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” ~ Upton Sinclair
https://www.azquotes.com/author/13641-Upton_Sinclair
Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John C: Thanks for giving the correct quote – and attribution!
LikeLike
“Court to hear ‘net zero’ power plant appeal”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9deq8enxljo
Claims that a new power station will offer no “meaningful progress towards net zero” will be heard by the Court of Appeal later.
Environmental consultant Andrew Boswell lost a High Court case in August after arguing against the green credentials of Net Zero Teesside, which aims to use carbon capture technology.
Dr Boswell has been allowed to take his case to the Court of Appeal, where it will be heard over the next two days.
The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) said the technology was vital to boost the United Kingdom’s “energy independence”.
Net Zero Teesside Power, owned by BP and Equinor, is developing the plant on the Teesworks site near Redcar.
It has previously said that the project could generate up to 860 megawatts of low carbon electricity.
It claimed that at least 90% of the gas power station’s emissions would be captured and funnelled beneath the North Sea.
In February 2024 the government granted the project a development order (DCO) which is required for nationally significant infrastructure projects.…
LikeLike
Just occasionally the boot is on the other foot:
“Greenpeace must pay hundreds of millions over Dakota pipeline protests, says jury
Non-profit said in statement lawsuits like this aimed at ‘destroying the right to peaceful protest’”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/19/greenpeace-lawsuit-energy-transfer-dakota-pipeline
A jury in North Dakota has decided that the environmental group Greenpeace must pay hundreds of millions of dollars to the pipeline company Energy Transfer and is liable over defamation and other claims over protests in the state nearly a decade ago.
Energy Transfer Partners, a Dallas-based oil and gas company worth almost $70bn, had sued Greenpeace for $300m defamation and orchestrating criminal behavior by protesters at the Dakota Access pipeline in 2016 and 2017, claiming the organization “incited” people to protest by using a “misinformation campaign”.
Greenpeace, which had denied the claims, said in a statement after the verdict that lawsuits like this were aimed at “destroying the right to peaceful protest”; constitutional rights experts had expressed fears that case could have a wider chilling effect on free speech.
The jury found for Energy Transfer on most counts....
An interesting addendum is this:
The environmental group, which had expressed concerns before the trial about getting a fair hearing in gas and oil country, said that a loss and enormous financial award could bankrupt their US operation...
If Energy Transfer Partners had deliberately gone forum-shopping, that might be a fair comment, but since the protests about which the Plaintiffs complained took place in the state in which they sued, it seems to be above board. Some people, on the other hand, might wonder if Michael Mann went forum-shopping when he sued for defamation in the DC Courts. That was fair enough, of course….
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Greenpeace verdict is ‘weaponization of legal system’, advocacy groups say
Campaigners condemn North Dakota jury’s ruling as Greenpeace must pay Energy Transfer at least $660m”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/mar/20/greenpeace-energy-transfer-verdict-reactions
Somewhat ironic, given that advocacy groups have themselves been weaponising the legal system for rather a long time now.
…They also warn that the fossil fuel industry is increasingly turning to “lawfare” – the use of courts and legal action as weapons of intimidation.…
I wonder who might have given the fossil fuel industry that idea?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Christians worldwide urged to take legal action on climate crisis
Handbook outlines practical ways faith organisations can ‘speak truth to power’ to help protect planet”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/24/christians-legal-action-climate-crisis-handbook-protect-planet
Christians around the world are being encouraged to take legal action against polluters and those who finance them.
In a new climate justice handbook, the World Council of Churches sets out practical ways faith organisations can help protect young people and future generations from the climate crisis.
Drawing on Christian teachings on stewardship and justice, it presents strategic litigation as a tool to “create hope and hold responsible parties accountable”.…
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve got a better idea: how about Christians don’t speak truth to power on the alleged climate crisis and take their grievances re. alleged ‘crimes against nature’ to court. How about they obey one of the ten commandments instead:
Any Christian worth their salt would look at the science and the data first, rather than blindly worship the false idol of catastrophic man-made global warming.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Green groups sue Trump administration over climate webpage removals
The White House has pulled federal webpages tracking climate and environmental justice data”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/15/trump-climate-webpage-removal-lawsuit
LikeLiked by 1 person
Occasionally there is good news:
“France’s biggest-ever wind farm project blocked by court
Judges halt wind farm in Ardennes over residents’ concerns of being completely encircled “
https://www.connexionfrance.com/news/frances-biggest-ever-wind-farm-project-blocked-by-court/719554
LikeLike
What are Courts for? Now we have litigation about climate litigation!
Justice department sues Michigan and Hawaii over climate suits against big oil
DoJ says Clean Air Act creates program to oversee air pollution and ‘displaces’ states’ ability to regulate it
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/01/justice-department-lawsuit-climate-hawaii-michigan
The US justice department on Wednesday filed lawsuits against Hawaii and Michigan over their planned legal action against fossil fuel companies for harms caused by the climate crisis, claiming the state actions conflict with federal government authority and Donald Trump’s energy dominance agenda.
The suits, which legal experts say are unprecedented, mark the latest of the Trump administration’s attacks on environmental work and raise concern over states’ abilities to retain the power to take climate action without federal opposition.
In court filings, the justice department said the Clean Air Act – a federal law authorizing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate air emissions – “creates a comprehensive program for regulating air pollution in the United States and ‘displaces’ the ability of states to regulate greenhouse gas emissions beyond their borders”.
The justice department argues that Hawaii and Michigan are violating the intent of the act that enables the EPA authority to set nationwide standards for greenhouse gases, citing the states’ pending litigation against oil and gas companies for alleged climate damage….
LikeLike
“Puerto Rico drops climate lawsuit after DoJ sues states to block threats to big oil
Territory’s voluntary move comes as Trump administration makes good on pledge to end lawsuits against oil and gas”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/02/puerto-rico-climate-lawsuit-trump
Puerto Rico has voluntarily dismissed its 2024 climate lawsuit against big oil, a Friday legal filing shows, just two days after the US justice department sued two states over planned litigation against oil companies for their role in the climate crisis.
Puerto Rico’s lawsuit, filed in July, alleged that the oil and gas giants had misled the public about the climate dangers associated with their products. It came as part of a wave of litigation filed by dozens of US states, cities and municipalities in recent years.
Donald Trump’s administration has pledged to put an end to these cases, which he has called “frivolous” and claimed are unconstitutional. In court filings on Wednesday, his justice department claimed the Clean Air Act “displaces” states’ ability to regulate greenhouse gas outside their borders….
LikeLike
“Cost of emissions from five major Australian resource companies more than $900bn, study finds
US researchers link BHP, Rio Tinto, Santos, Whitehaven Coal and Woodside Energy to specific climate harms over three decades”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/may/05/cost-of-emissions-from-five-major-australian-resource-companies-more-than-900bn-study-finds
This is arrant nonsense at so many levels:
Five of Australia’s biggest fossil fuel producers could be on the hook for hundreds of billions of dollars in damages after a US research team developed a method to link individual companies to specific climate harms and put a dollar figure to the impact.
This is the result of a new peer-review study published in the journal Nature that sought to establish a method that would allow courts to quantify the economic loss caused by fossil fuel producers for one kind of climate impact – extreme heat.
Looking at the period 1991 to 2020, the researchers, Christopher Callahan at Stanford University in California and Justin Mankin at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, used historical emissions data for the world’s five biggest oil producers: BP, Gazprom, Saudi Aramco, ExxonMobil and Chevron.
They then sought to understand how the emissions from these companies contributed to extreme heat. This was defined as the temperature of the hottest five days in a year.
The team developed a replicable method to quantify the damage linked to a single company, with the figure running into the trillions for the world’s largest fossil fuel producers.
It suggested state-owned oil companies Saudi Aramco and Gazprom were responsible for US$2.05tr and $2tr in damages respectively. Chevron, ExxonMobil and BP were each found to be responsible for $1.98tr, $1.91tr and $1.45tr in losses respectively.
In a separate analysis of emissions data for five major Australian resource companies – BHP, Rio Tinto, Santos, Whitehaven Coal and Woodside Energy – Callahan assessed the total damages from their collective emissions at more than US$600bn, or A$929.47bn.…
There is a huge issue here, even assuming that climate change is caused exclusively by human-created GHGs and even assuming that it is exclusively harmful with no countervailing benefits to be added to the mix. For this analysis assumes that the companies who made the fossil fuels available are solely responsible, with no responsibility attaching to the people who burned the fossil fuels. In the case of Australian coal producers, I suspect that over the period in question, much of that coal was exported to China. Why say that the producers rather than the consumers are solely to blame?
…Next to the United States, Australia is the second most active jurisdiction in the world for climate litigation, according to Melbourne Law School’s Climate Change litigation database which currently tracks 627 cases.…
I suspect that one of the countries at the bottom of the list when it comes to climate litigation is the country that emits more greenhouse gases than any other – China.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sometimes there is another side to the story of endless climate litigation:
“Nature group threatens judicial review against Labour’s planning bill
Wild Justice says bill would reduce environmental protections and calls on Angela Rayner to correct statement saying it will not”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/may/12/wild-justice-judicial-review-labour-planning-bill-angela-rayner
A legal campaign group is planning a judicial review against the UK government’s new planning bill, arguing it will result in a weakening of environmental protections which were fought for and created over decades.
Wild Justice is calling on the housing minister, Angela Rayner, to correct a parliamentary statement in which she told MPs the bill, which applies mainly to England and Wales, would not reduce the level of protection. Her words were echoed in a letter to the Guardian from the nature minister, Mary Creagh, who stated it did not repeal habitat or species protections or give a licence to do harm.
The group sent Rayner a pre-action protocol letter on Monday calling on her to “correct the parliamentary record” to make clear that her statement about environmental protection in the bill was not correct. If this does not take place, they will apply for a judicial review….
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Dutch climate campaigners vow to take Shell to court again
In a letter, Milieudefensie says it wants to stop firm developing new oil and gas projects ‘to curb crisis’”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/may/13/dutch-climate-campaigners-vow-to-take-shell-to-court-again
Climate campaigners in the Netherlands have promised to take Shell to court for a second time to force the energy company to stop developing new oil and gas projects.
In a letter to Shell, the Dutch climate non-profit Milieudefensie vowed to take legal action because the company has 700 oil and gas projects in development that will continue to drive up carbon emissions despite efforts to slow global heating.
It revealed its plan to return to the Dutch courts six months after the oil company successfully overturned a ruling in favour of the green group that called on Shell to reduce its emissions.
It is currently waiting for a ruling from the Netherlands supreme court on the case in which Milieudefensie argued that Shell should reduce its emissions by 45% in line with the Paris climate agreement.
Donald Pols, the director of Milieudefensie, said the ruling late last year had prompted the group to “pick up the gauntlet and take Shell to court once again”....
At what point do they become a vexatious litigant?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Appeal against gas power station dismissed”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c04eg5xn3e3o
An appeal against the decision to approve a new gas power station has been lost.
Environmental consultant Andrew Boswell appealed a High Court decision after arguing against the green credentials of Net Zero Teesside, which is planning to use carbon-capture technology at the station.
The case was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on Thursday, with Dr Boswell saying the ruling proved climate laws were “broken”.…
LikeLike
“German court rejects Peruvian farmer’s landmark climate case”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y5lwveqzno
A court in Germany has rejected a lawsuit brought by a Peruvian farmer against German energy giant RWE in a long-awaited decision.
Saúl Luciano Lliuya had argued that the firm’s global emissions contributed to the melting of glaciers in Peru – threatening his hometown of Huaraz with flooding.
He was seeking €17,000 (£14,250) in compensation – money he said he would use to pay for a flood defence project to protect the city.
However, the higher regional court in the German city of Hamm on Wednesday blocked the case from proceeding further and ruled out any appeals, putting an end to Mr Lliuya’s 10-year legal battle.
RWE said it was not active in Peru and questioned why it was singled out.
It also pointed to its plans to phase out its coal-fired power plants and become carbon neutral by 2040.
In their ruling on Wednesday, judges deemed that the flood risk to the property of Mr Lliuya was not high enough for the case to proceed.
However, in what climate change groups have hailed as a win, they did say that energy companies could be held responsible for the costs caused by their carbon emissions….
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Germanwatch, an environmental NGO which backed Mr Lliuya’s case, celebrated the court’s ruling saying it had “made legal history”.
“Although the court dismissed the specific claim – finding flood risk to Luciano Lliuya’s home was not sufficiently high – it confirmed for the first time that major emitters can be held liable under German civil law for risks resulting from climate change,” it said in a statement.
The group said it was hopeful that the decision could positively influence similar cases in other countries.”
The absurd 10yr claim was rejected & yet “they celebrated the court’s ruling saying it had “made legal history”
What am I missing?
LikeLike
dfhunter, without reading the judgment, I can’t comment in detail, but based on the media report, what you’re missing is this:
…they did say that energy companies could be held responsible for the costs caused by their carbon emissions……
The Court found that on the facts of the case, the claimant didn’t have a claim, but it appears that it said that in principle, where damage could be established, energy companies could be held responsible for climate change. As a lawyer, I have to say that the chances of proving the extent to which climate change is man-made then attributing a proportion of that to an individual defendant then linking that to an an individual’s claim seems preposterously low, but in the world of the climate hysteric, I fear that anything is possible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“US woman brings first-ever wrongful death lawsuit against big oil
Misti Leon argues fossil fuel companies’ climate negligence caused her mother’s death during a heatwave”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/29/oil-industry-wrongful-death-lawsuit
A woman has brought the first-ever wrongful death lawsuit against big oil, claiming fossil fuel companies’ climate negligence caused her mother’s death during a major heatwave.
Juliana Leon died of hyperthermia in Seattle at age 65 during the 2021 Pacific north-west heat dome – an event that killed nearly 200 people, and which meteorologists say would have been “virtually impossible” without human-caused global warming.
“The day Julie died was the hottest day ever recorded in Washington with temperatures in Seattle, where Julie died, peaking around 108F,” reads the lawsuit, filed on Wednesday by Misti Leon, Juliana Leon’s daughter
Because they failed to warn the public about the dangers of planet-heating emissions, major fossil fuel companies should be held accountable for that death, the case argues….
The law is constantly evolving, but when I was a law undergraduate in the UK, such a case would have been laughed out of Court. I still think they have huge causation and evidential difficulties.
LikeLike
“Labour warned to keep spending review in line with net zero or face legal action
Exclusive: Friends of the Earth tells Keir Starmer any major green cuts by Rachel Reeves will be challenged”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jun/06/labour-warned-spending-review-net-zero-legal-action
If the decisions the UK government makes in its upcoming spending review are not in line with the net zero climate target it risks being taken to court again, campaigners have said.
Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, will set out her spending review for the rest of this parliament on Wednesday. Amid continuing economic uncertainty and Labour’s promise to boost defence spending, many departments are facing deep cuts to dearly held commitments.
Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, has been fighting for the promised £13.2bn for home insulation to be protected, as experts and charities have warned that failing to insulate Britain’s draughty homes will undermine the restoration of winter fuel payments to many pensioners. There are also questions over the funds available for GB Energy, the publicly owned company that invests in green energy, and support for farming and for flood defences.
The campaign group Friends of the Earth, which successfully took the last Conservative government to court over its net zero plans, has said it will take legal action again if Reeves’s plans appear to fall short.
The high court ruled that the last government had failed to set out a credible plan to meet the legally binding target of reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, and ordered ministers to come up with a comprehensive plan on climate action. The duty now falls on Labour to publish it by 29 October.
Friends of the Earth has written a letter, seen by the Guardian, to Keir Starmer, reminding him of the high court’s demands, and warning that any major cuts by Reeves to programmes that boost clean energy or cut emissions could be subject to legal challenge in light of the ruling….
LikeLike
“New Zealand government sued over ‘dangerously inadequate’ emissions reduction plan
Exclusive: In the first legal challenge to the plan, top climate lawyers claim the government relies too heavily on forestry and failed to consult the public”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/10/new-zealand-government-sued-over-dangerously-inadequate-emissions-reduction-plan-ntwnfb
Hundreds of top environment lawyers are suing the New Zealand government over what they say is its “dangerously inadequate” plan to reduce emissions to net zero by 2050.
It is the first time the country’s emissions reduction plan has faced litigation, and the lawyers believe it is the first case globally that challenges the use of forestry to offset emissions.
Lawyers for Climate Action NZ and the Environmental Law Initiative – two groups representing more than 300 lawyers – filed judicial review proceedings against the government in Wellington’s high court on Tuesday….
According to the EDGAR database, in 2023, New Zealand was responsible for 0.16% of global greenhouse gas emissions. I wonder if these environmental lawyers are familiar with the concept of causation?
LikeLike
“Labour warned to keep spending review in line with net zero or face legal action
Exclusive: Friends of the Earth tells Keir Starmer any major green cuts by Rachel Reeves will be challenged”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jun/06/labour-warned-spending-review-net-zero-legal-action
If the decisions the UK government makes in its upcoming spending review are not in line with the net zero climate target it risks being taken to court again, campaigners have said.
Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, will set out her spending review for the rest of this parliament on Wednesday. Amid continuing economic uncertainty and Labour’s promise to boost defence spending, many departments are facing deep cuts to dearly held commitments.
Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, has been fighting for the promised £13.2bn for home insulation to be protected, as experts and charities have warned that failing to insulate Britain’s draughty homes will undermine the restoration of winter fuel payments to many pensioners. There are also questions over the funds available for GB Energy, the publicly owned company that invests in green energy, and support for farming and for flood defences.
The campaign group Friends of the Earth, which successfully took the last Conservative government to court over its net zero plans, has said it will take legal action again if Reeves’s plans appear to fall short….
LikeLike
“Countries must protect human right to a stable climate, court rules
Costa Rica-based inter-American court of human rights says states have obligation to respond to climate change”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jul/03/countries-must-protect-human-right-to-a-stable-climate-court-rules
There is a human right to a stable climate and states have a duty to protect it, a top court has ruled.
Announcing the publication of a crucial advisory opinion on climate change on Thursday, Nancy Hernández López, president of the inter-American court of human rights (IACHR), said climate change carries “extraordinary risks” that are felt particularly keenly by people who are already vulnerable.
In the strongly worded and wide-ranging 300-page document setting out its perspective on the climate emergency and human rights, the court says states have legal obligations to protect people alive today and future generations from the impacts of climate breakdown. That includes taking “urgent and effective” actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions based on the best available science, to adapt, to cooperate internationally, and to guard against the threat of climate disinformation.
The inquiry was instigated by Colombia and Chile, which in 2023 asked what legal responsibilities states have to tackle climate change and to stop them breaching people’s human rights….
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Indigenous elders lose landmark climate battle against Australian government”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly8pwed355o
The Australian government has won a landmark climate case against residents of islands under siege from the impacts of climate change.
In 2021, community elders Pabai Pabai and Paul Kabai launched legal action against the then-Liberal government for breaching its duty of care to protect the Torres Strait Islands from the impacts of climate change.
But a Federal Court judge dismissed the case and said climate policy was a matter for parliament, not the courts.
The ruling also found that the government did not owe a duty of care to protect the islands from the impacts of climate change….
LikeLiked by 1 person
The climate obsessed parts of the media are full of stories about the recent International Court of Justice ruling that governments have a legal duty to ‘prevent and repair damage to the climate system’. HERE’S ONE.
Activists are of course celebrating. But there are a multitude of problems with this – not least the fact that the decision is not binding and that, even if it were, there’s not the remotest likelihood that the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases (presumably thought to be the cause of damage), such as China, the US, India and Russia, paying up. Mind you, I don’t suppose that would prevent the Attorney General, Lord Hermer, from advising his mate Keir Starmer that the UK is obliged to pay substantial compensation in view of its past and current emissions.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Let’s just imagine that Hermer does entertain the idea that some Third World country sues the UK for damages caused as a result of a severe weather event. It would have to be based on cumulative historic emissions because obviously our current emissions amount to diddly squat compared to China, the US, India, Russia, Asia, Middle East etc. That country’s lawyers would need to present to the court a scientifically robust attribution study linking that specific weather event directly to the long term rise in global mean temperature since the industrial revolution. Furthermore they would have to demonstrate that the UK’s historic emissions are responsible for a significant proportion of that long term temperature rise, thus allowing a part of the damages incurred due to said extreme weather event to be apportioned to Britain.
Even the climate witch doctors at World Weather Attribution can’t do that. Pass the popcorn.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime,
I don’t think the ruling would have been made if the ICoJ did not believe a prosecution were to be possible. I don’t think a prosecution is possible if the criteria you have stipulated have to be met. Therefore, I am presuming that the ICoJ anticipates that a much less stringent set of criteria shall apply. There will be no logical reasoning along the lines you have laid out, just a spleen venting travesty reminiscent of a 17th century witch trial.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This:
https://cliscep.com/2022/11/18/gimme-gimme-gimme/
is the explanation why any claim for climate damages against the UK is bound to fail.
Well, I say that, but it assumes a government determined to ensure a fair deal for its people, to stand its corner, and to present a coherent legal argument against an incoherent claim. Let’s hope the claims don’t start against the UK in the next four years….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jaime, unfortunately the very sensible and correct points you make would only be raised in court if the defendant (the UK Government) chose to fight the claim and therefore deploy them. But, if Hermer advised the Government that the claim was legitimate (as Chagos suggests he would), we’d simply give in and pay up – setting a ruinous precedent. Am I being over pessimistic?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robin,
Would it then not be possible for a number of British taxpayers to sue the government via a class action law suit for failing to defend the country (British taxpayers) from vexatious claims for compensation? In that case, I would imagine that such evidence would be raised in court in defence of the interests of British tax payers. Just a thought.
LikeLike
Jaime – class actions don’t really exist per se in England (Mark can confirm whether or not I’m right about this). But, if an action were brought say by a single individual, I suppose the Government would respond by asserting that it was acting in accordance with international law so that that would become the issue rather than arguments about cumulative emissions etc.
LikeLike
I am flattered that Robin thinks I’m up-to-date – I’m not! I’ll do my best, though. I think the closest thing we have in England & Wales (I can’t comment on Scotland) to a class action is a Group Litigation Order, governed by Part 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules. That allows the Court to consolidate numerous cases into a single action where they are essentially litigating the same issues, and I don’t believe is in the nature of a class action as that term is generally understood.
Happy to be corrected though – I am years out of date.
LikeLike
Never forget – About – David Lammy
Partial quotes – “David is a leading voice for climate justice. He has campaigned globally for the recognition that we cannot solve climate change without also addressing racial, social and intergenerational justice. David’s TED talk on the need for racial and climate justice efforts to combine was watched live by more than 18 million people at the Global Countdown Summit.”
“David’s experience in the Justice sector goes back 30 years. After studying Law at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), David was called to the Bar of England and Wales in 1994, practised as a barrister in England and the United States and became the first black Briton to study a Masters in Law at Harvard Law School, graduating in 1997.”
Man on a mission.
LikeLike
“First-of-a-kind US class-action lawsuit would force EPA to reinstate $3bn climate program
Coalition of non-profits, tribes and local governments sued EPA chief for halting climate justice grants”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/05/environmental-agency-climate-justice-grants-freeze-lawsuit
The Trump administration’s decision to abruptly terminate a $3bn program helping hundreds of communities prepare for climate disasters and environmental hazards is unconstitutional and should be overturned, a court will hear on Tuesday.
A coalition of non-profits, tribes and local governments is suing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the agency’s administrator, Lee Zeldin, for terminating the entire Environmental and Climate Justice (ECJ) block grant program – despite a legally binding mandate from Congress to fund the Biden-era initiative.
It’s a first-of-a-kind proposed class-action lawsuit that would force the EPA and Zeldin to reinstate the program and each individual grant, rather than forcing the recipients to sue individually.…
LikeLike
“Young climate activists in Wisconsin sue state over pro-fossil fuel policies
Lawsuit brought by two non-profit law firms have had previous wins in Montana and Wisconsin”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/22/young-climate-activists-sue-wisconsin
Fifteen young climate advocates, aged eight to 17, on Friday sued the state of Wisconsin over its pro-fossil fuel policies.
The case provides the opportunity for state officials to “make the correct step to decarbonize Wisconsin” because of the “climate harms they’ve caused youth”, said Kaarina, 17, who is the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
Kaarina grew up in the state’s Vernon county along the Mississippi River. But in 2023, a large boulder rolled into her backyard and knocked over trees.
Concerned for their safety, her family decided to relocate, but could not find an affordable home in the county that was safe from floods, which the climate crisis has made more common and severe. They were forced to move an hour north to La Crosse county….
IT all sounds rather contrived to me, but what do I know?
LikeLike
It would be the work of a moment for a competent person to demonstrate to the court that if Wisconsin ceased to exist today, then the effect on climate going forwards would be too small to measure.
They could demand safety from floods, etc – but that could be achieved at the stroke of a pen, by zoning all areas within floodplains as non-buildable. I’m sure that would go down well.
As to the boulder – perhaps they should zone everywhere on or near steep slopes, too. Another policy that would not go down well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Young climate activists in court aim to stop Trump’s pro-fossil fuel executive orders
Group of activists, who range in age from seven to 25, include plaintiffs who won landmark climate case in Montana two years ago”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/16/young-climate-activists-lawsuit-trump-fossil-fuels
Youth climate activists are taking the Trump administration to court this week over its anti-environment agenda.
In a two-day hearing in Missoula, Montana, starting Tuesday, the young activists, who are between seven and 25, will argue that a federal judge should block three of Donald Trump’s pro-fossil fuel executive orders.…
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Environmental Groups Are Suing To Silence Scientists Who Wrote a Report Questioning Climate Change Alarmism
The groups are using the lawsuit to halt the Trump administration’s deregulatory agenda.”
https://reason.com/2025/09/15/environmental-groups-are-suing-to-silence-scientists-who-wrote-a-report-questioning-climate-change-alarmism/
In July, the Energy Department released a report challenging many of the mainstream narratives surrounding climate change. The report, which was authored by the Climate Working Group (CWG)—a team of five climate scientists and economists—was drafted to “encourage a more thoughtful and science-based conversation about climate change and energy,” according to Energy Secretary Chris Wright.
“To correct course, we need open, respectful, and informed debate. That’s why I’m inviting public comment on this report,” the energy secretary wrote in the report’s foreword. The publication has indeed opened up debate, garnering nearly 60,000 comments in the Federal Register. But it has also introduced a series of legal challenges against the agency and the CWG.
On Thursday, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts heard arguments in a lawsuit filed by two environmental groups—the Environmental Defense Fund and Union of Concerned Scientists—against the Energy Department, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the CWG.
The lawsuit argues that when forming the CWG, Wright and the Energy Department violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which requires federal advisory groups to provide meeting notices and meeting notes to the public, create an approved charter of the group’s mission, and “have a balanced membership in terms of ‘the points of view represented and the functions to be performed by the advisory committee,'” according to the the Congressional Research Service.
Much of the lawsuit focuses on the viewpoint balance of the CWG, with the plaintiffs arguing that “all five authors are well known for holding ‘contrarian views on climate science that are out of step with the mainstream'” and “none of the members represents the consensus view among climate scientists that human activities…have unequivocally caused global warming.” To remedy the lawsuit, the environmental groups are demanding that the working group be disbanded, the report be vacated, and CWG members be prohibited from advising federal agencies until the defendants “comply with all requirements for the group to operate legally as an advisory committee.”
The Energy Department has refuted claims that it violated the FACA, arguing that the CWG is not an advisory group under the law because it was created to “exchange facts or information” with the Energy Department, not to “make recommendations on an identified governmental policy for which specified advice was being sought.”…
LikeLiked by 1 person
“US is violating human rights laws by backing fossil fuels, say young activists in new petition
Petition says that US government’s protection of fossil fuel interests has put people in harm’s way”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/25/young-activists-fossil-fuel-petition-us-government
By continuing to fund and support a fossil fuel-based energy system, the US is violating international law, a group of young people have argued to an international human rights body.
The petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), filed late on Tuesday and shared exclusively with the Guardian, says the government’s actions have violated the petitioners’ human rights.
“The US’s actions over the past 50 years constitute an internationally wrongful act that implicate its international responsibility,” the petition to the Washington DC-based commission says.
The IACHR, part of the Organization of American States, is a quasi-judicial body that reviews and investigates complaints about human rights violations, then issues reports with findings and recommendations to the accused states. Its recommendations are not legally binding.
The plea comes after the publication of two strongly worded advisory opinions on the climate crisis from two top international courts. It was filed by 15 of the 21 youth climate activists who previously brought the groundbreaking federal climate lawsuit Juliana v US, which was effectively dismissed last year….
LikeLike
“Greenpeace threatens to sue Crown Estate for pushing up UK energy prices
Cost of offshore wind increased by monopoly ownership of seabed, alleges campaign group”
https://www.ft.com/content/c29c2902-4c17-45cb-a7c5-65dc34122790
The Crown Estate has been accused of pushing up the costs of offshore wind power by exploiting its monopoly ownership of the seabed, adding to consumer bills and stunting the industry.
Greenpeace, the environmental lobby group, alleges that the Crown Estate has created excessive costs for wind power developers and hefty profits for itself by designing an “aggressive” auction process for seabed rights. It says the Crown Estate, a public corporation that runs the British monarchy’s legacy portfolio of land and property holdings, has a legal duty not to exploit its monopoly position as owner of the seabed around England and Wales, but has now breached this. The seabed around Scotland is owned by Crown Estate Scotland.
Greenpeace is threatening to sue the Crown Estate unless it conducts future leasing rounds differently....
LikeLike
“Judge dismisses suit by young climate activists against Trump’s pro-fossil fuel policies
Plaintiffs had ‘overwhelming evidence’ of climate crisis but a court injunction would be ‘unworkable’, ruling says”
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/oct/15/youth-climate-activist-lawsuit-dismissed-trump-executive-orders
The Judge’s sympathy for the claimants’ case is evident, but in the end the claimants lost because the Judge decided that the relief sought was impracticable:
…“Granting plaintiffs’ injunction would require the defendant agencies, and – ultimately – this court, to scrutinize every climate-related agency action taken since” the start of Trump’s second presidency on 20 January 2025.
“In other words, this court would be required to monitor an untold number of federal agency actions to determine whether they contravene its injunction. This is, quite simply, an unworkable request for which plaintiffs provide no precedent,”...
LikeLike
Money, money, money:
“Nearly two dozen states sue to stop Trump ending $7bn solar grant program
States who received funding under an EPA project aimed to expand solar energy for low-income communities”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/oct/16/lawsuit-trump-cancel-solar-energy-program
Is it really about “low-income communities?
…California will lose around $250m in congressionally obligated funds for the program, Bonta said.…
…The complaints come 10 days after a group of solar companies and labor unions also sued to restore the program.…
LikeLike
“‘We are now fighting back’: Philippines typhoon survivors to sue Shell for climate harms”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/23/we-are-now-fighting-back-philippines-typhoon-survivors-to-sue-shell-for-climate-harms
...With 66 other typhoon survivors from island communities in the Philippines, she is suing the fossil fuel company Shell in the UK courts, demanding financial compensation for the losses and damage they experienced under Odette. It is an unprecedented lawsuit in the UK and globally, as the first civil claim to directly link polluting companies to deaths and personal injuries that have already happened in the global south. Other climate lawsuits have so far focused on future harms and risks.
The legal team representing the survivors delivered the letter before action to Shell, which is domiciled in London, on Wednesday. The letter invites the company to respond to the allegations. If no agreement is reached between the parties, the survivors will file a case before the UK high court in December.
The claim argues that Shell’s polluting business has contributed to anthropogenic climate change, which intensified the typhoon’s impact. Using Philippine laws, it asserts that the firm has violated the constitutional rights of the claimants to a healthy environment, and that it caused harm by failing to mitigate its emissions and engaging in climate disinformation and obfuscation of climate science. The case also seeks potential injunctive relief to prevent further violations to human rights....
I will be staggered if this gets anywhere, but what do I know?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark, I guessed that the grubby fingerprints of the extreme weather attribution crowd would be all over this, and I was not wrong:
If you follow the link to the ‘study’ you will find that it is a yet to be peer reviewed preprint in the form of a ‘discussion’ written by authors who are part of the World Weather Attribution team, published in June this year. The case for the prosecution will inevitably rely upon the quality (i.e. the lack thereof) of the ‘science’ presented in this attribution study. The worry is that if this ludicrous lawsuit is successful, it will set a precedent for all similar claims to be successful on the basis of the same lawfare-focussed attribution pseudoscience.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Even if increasing carbon dioxide concentrations increased the likelihood of Odette, it cannot be claimed that Odette would not have happened in 280 ppm CO2. Plus, Shell provided the oil, (or a small fraction of it globally) but other actors actually used it. You cannot sue the manufacturers of bullets for the uses they get put to. Plus, burning the oil provided a good which sits on the other side of any balance, one which has clearly not been repudiated as people still burn oil.
Food for the lawyers only.
LikeLiked by 1 person
All valid points Jit. No unbroken direct chain of causality can be established between the industrial emissions of one particular oil company and the harmful impacts of one particular extreme weather event, but that is the basis of this claim. If somehow the lawyers can persuade the judge to rule in favour of the litigants, then this opens up a Pandora’s Box.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I can’t say I have much sympathy with this either. The Courts (especially in the US) seem to be overrun with what is essentially political litigation:
“Exxon sues California over climate laws, alleging free speech violations
Oil firm asks court to block enforcement of laws that would require disclosure of planet-heating carbon emissions”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/oct/27/exxon-lawsuit-california-climate-emissions
Exxon, an oil firm consistently ranked among the world’s top contributors to global carbon emissions, is suing the state of California over two climate-focused state laws, arguing that the rules infringe upon the corporation’s right to free speech.
The 2023 laws, known collectively as the California Climate Accountability Package, will require large companies doing business in the state to disclose both their planet-heating carbon emissions and their climate-related financial risks, or face annual penalties.
The laws would thereby force Exxon to “serve as a mouthpiece for ideas with which it disagrees”, says the lawsuit, filed in the US district court for the eastern district of California on Friday….
LikeLike
“Pakistani farmers to sue German polluters over climate-linked flood damage
Claimants seek compensation from RWE and Heidelberg Materials after extreme flooding destroyed harvests”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/oct/28/pakistani-farmers-to-sue-german-polluters-over-climate-linked-flood-damage
A group of Pakistani farmers whose livelihoods were devastated by floods three years ago has fired the starting shot in legal action against two of Germany’s most polluting companies.
Lawyers acting for 43 men and women from the Sindh region sent the energy firm RWE and the cement producer Heidelberg formal letters before action on Tuesday warning of their intention to sue later this year....
So far as I can see, none of these increasing numbers of claims have any legal merit whatsoever. Who is funding them? Is the aim (I assume it is) to become such an expensive nuisance that they drive out of business fossil fuel companies and those (such as cement producers) who are intensive energy users and/or CO2 emitters, out of business? If so, do they really want modern civilised life and the global economy to collapse?
…Clara Gonzales, the co-programme director of business and human rights at the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, which is also supporting the Holcim case, said they hoped to take case law a step further. She said: “The climate crisis is no longer a theoretical threat; it is a present reality. Diplomacy may have failed affected communities, but the rule of law should be on their side. It is time to draw a clear line: carbon majors should not escape the ‘polluter pays’ principle.”
LikeLike
“Green campaigners lose battle to block North Sea licences
High Court rejects claims that damage to marine life caused by oil spills was not considered”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/11/28/green-campaigners-lose-bid-to-block-north-sea-licences/
Green campaigners have lost their attempt to block new North Sea exploration licences after a landmark High Court ruling dismissed their claims.
Oceana UK, a marine conservation organisation, brought the case after the former Conservative government granted more than two dozen licences to allow exploratory drilling in marine conservation areas off the coast of Scotland.
Marine conservation areas are set up to protect sea life, including puffins, seals and fish. Still, regulators at the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA) approved the drilling plans anyway – despite warnings from government conservation watchdogs.
Oceana UK argued that the NSTA had failed to account for damage to marine life caused by oil spills and had also ignored the climate impacts of burning more oil and gas.
The plans were signed off by Claire Coutinho, the energy secretary under the last government, before her successor Ed Miliband imposed a ban on new exploration.
However, Mr Miliband’s lawyers opposed Oceana’s claim – despite his own subsequent ban – arguing that the licences only allow early exploration and further assessments will be carried out before oil or gas is produced. [My emphasis].
The ruling is a disaster for green groups. Still, it marks a rare triumph for the oil and gas industry, which has been battered by a series of damaging court and political decisions on tax, climate emissions and licencing….
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Greenpeace Asks Dutch Court To Overturn Multi-Million-Dollar American Verdict
The group wants to use European law as a shield against adverse U.S. legal rulings.”
https://climatechangedispatch.com/greenpeace-dutch-court-overturn-us-verdict/
…On the eve of the trial, Greenpeace International filed a new lawsuit with the District Court of Amsterdam, where the group is based.
The suit claims that Energy Transfer’s litigation violated Greenpeace International’s rights under the European Union’s 2024 anti-SLAPP law, an acronym for strategic litigation against public participation.
The law seeks to protect journalists and nonprofit organizations from meritless lawsuits designed to silence or intimidate them.
Greenpeace’s case isn’t an ordinary appeal, in which a party asks a higher court to review a lower court’s application of the law.
Rather, Greenpeace is asking a Dutch court to reassess the merits of the North Dakota case under Europe’s sweeping anti-SLAPP directive.…
LikeLike
“Trump ban on wind energy permits ‘unlawful’, court rules”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn7k6p6k5x5o
President Donald Trump’s ban on issuing new wind energy permits has been ruled “unlawful” by a US court.
In January the president signed an executive order freezing federal approval of pending offshore and onshore wind permits, scrambling plans for many projects in the US that were already under way.
Some 17 states and a New York-based clean energy group sued the government, citing in part thestop-work order imposed on the Empire Wind 1 project, a vast wind farm planned off the coast of New York aimed at powering 500,000 homes.
On Monday, Massachusetts district court judge Patti B Saris vacated Trump’s order, saying it was “arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law”….
While I dislike climate litigation and the politicisation of the UK Courts, it has to be said that US Courts have always been much more political than those in the UK. The Judge’s decision may well be correct, given Trump’s way of doing Presidential business. It will be interesting to see if the decision is appealed. Watch this space.
LikeLike
“Shell facing first UK legal claim over climate impacts of fossil fuels”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0r9p1ypyjyo
Victims of a deadly typhoon in the Philippines have filed a legal claim against oil and gas company Shell in the UK courts, seeking compensation for what they say is the company’s role in making the storm more severe.
Around 400 people were killed and millions of homes hit when Typhoon Rai slammed into parts of the Philippines just before Christmas in 2021.
Now a group of survivors are for the first time taking legal action against the UK’s largest oil company, arguing that it had a role in making the typhoon more likely and more damaging.
Shell says the claim is “baseless”, as is a suggestion the company had unique knowledge that carbon emissions drove climate change….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, factually it’s a non-starter, but worth a punt on the potential free money.
LikeLiked by 1 person
From WIKI, not sure haw accurate –
“The Philippines is a typhoon-prone country, with approximately twenty tropical cyclones entering its area of responsibility per year. Locally known generally as bagyo ([bɐgˈjoʔ]),[3] typhoons regularly form in the Philippine Sea and less often, in the South China Sea, with the months of June to September being the most active, August being the month with the most activity. Each year, at least ten typhoons are expected to hit the island nation, with five expected to be destructive and powerful.[4] In 2013, Time declared the country as the “most exposed country in the world to tropical storms”.[5]“
LikeLike
“Greenwashing, illegality and false claims: 13 climate litigation wins in 2025
Legal action has brought important decisions, from the scrapping of fossil fuel plants to revised climate plans”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/dec/31/greenwashing-illegality-false-claims-climate-litigation-wins-2025
LikeLike
“Ørsted files legal challenge against US government over windfarm lease freeze
Europe’s biggest offshore wind developer seeking to overturn White House decision to suspend work on a $5bn wind farm project”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/jan/02/rsted-files-legal-challenge-against-us-government-over-windfarm-lease-freeze
Europe’s biggest offshore wind developer is taking the Trump administration to court over its decision to suspend work on a $5bn project on the north-east US coast.
Denmark’s Ørsted filed a legal challenge on Thursday against the White House’s decision 10 days ago to suspend the lease for its Revolution Wind site as part of a sweeping move halting all construction of offshore wind.
The attempted injunction is the latest in a series of legal volleys between the renewables industry and Donald Trump, whose administration has sought to block major offshore wind projects from moving ahead since his re-election.…
…On 22 December, officials from the Department of the Interior suspended the leases for five large offshore wind projects that are under construction in US waters over unspecified “national security risks”.
A statement from Ørsted and its partner in the Revolution project, Skyborn Renewables, described the move as a violation of applicable law.
“Litigation is a necessary step to protect the rights of the project,” and avoid “substantial harm” to the project if the suspension order remained in place, according to the statement.
“Revolution Wind secured all required federal and state permits in 2023, following extensive reviews that began more than nine years ago,” it said.
The move emerged months after the Trump administration issued a “stop-work order” against construction of the Revolution project in August, citing a need to “address concerns related to the protection of national security interests”.
The halt to construction sent shockwaves through the industry and pushed the market value of Ørsted, which is partially owned by the Danish state, to record lows.…
I hesitate to say it, but despite my opposition to two aspects of wind farms – building them in the wrong places, where they cause environmental damage; and seeking to place over-reliance on a form of energy which is essentially unreliable and requires expensive back-up – my sympathies in this case are probably more with Ørsted than with Trump. Contracts have to count for something, otherwise commerce breaks down completely. It’s one thing to decline consent in advance; it’s quite another to stop something in its tracks that has already commenced and that did so with the necessary consents in place.
LikeLike