It could be more difficult for oil and gas companies to build new wells in the United Kingdom (UK) of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, experts said this week following a landmark UK court decision that some believe may also set a precedent for other nations.
The UK Supreme Court ruled earlier this month that the County Council of Surrey, in southeast England, should have considered the full climate impact of a proposed series of wells near the town of Horley. The court agreed with environmental campaigners who said that – as part of its environmental impact assessment – the council should have considered not just the greenhouse gas emissions from building the wells but also from the burning of the oil that they contain.
While the decision does not mean that future fossil fuel projects will be rejected, it does mean that local councils – who make planning decisions in the UK – will have to consider the broader environmental footprint of oil and gas developments.
“It is a very important ruling,” said Patricia Kameri-Mbote, the director of the law division at the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). “It ensures that the true environmental cost of fossil fuel projects is considered.”
While the decision only applies to the UK, it will likely be considered closely by other courts around the world, said Kameri-Mbote.
The decision comes during a summer of extreme weather, driven by an intensifying climate crisis. There have been deadly heatwaves and wildfires across southern Europe with temperatures reaching more than 44°C in Greece.
According to UNEP’s Emissions Gap Report 2023, unless countries deliver more than promised in their existing climate plans – known as Nationally Determined Contributions – the world is heading for a 2.5-2.9°C temperature rise above pre-industrial levels this century. In order to meet the 1.5°C Paris Agreement goal, the world needs to cut emissions of planet-warming greenhouse gases by 42 per cent by 2030.
In a major win for climate change activists, the UK Supreme Court said the law governing environmental impact assessments did not impose a geographical limit on the fallout from oil and gas developments. “In principle, all likely significant effects of the project must be assessed, irrespective of where (or when) those effects will be generated or felt. There is no justification for limiting the scope of the assessment to effects which are expected to occur at or near the site of the project,” the court noted.
The court also quoted UNEP’s 2019 Production Gap Report, saying that “leaving oil in the ground in one place does not result in a corresponding increase in production elsewhere.” In doing so, it rejected the so called "drug dealer defence” where fossil fuel companies argue that if they do not supply oil and gas, someone else will.
How are greenhouse gas emissions classified?
When it comes to reporting emissions in countries’ Nationally Determined Contributions, there are three types of emissions highlighted. Scope 1 emissions refer to emissions from a source directly owned by a company, for example a power plant or a fleet of trucks. Scope 2 emissions refer to indirect emissions, such as the emissions caused by the electricity in an office building. Scope 3 emission refer to emissions a company is indirectly responsible for including such when an energy company’s oil or gas is burnt by a customer. The UK Supreme Court said local governments must now take these emissions into account during environmental impact assessments.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court said it was important for the public to understand the true scope of projects that affect the environment. “You can only care about what you know about,” it said.
Around the world, a growing number of environmental campaigners are turning to the courts to compel countries and companies to limit climate change. Between 2017 and 2022 the number of climate litigation cases more than doubled, found a UNEP report published last year.
The UK decision follows two other landmark rulings earlier this year. In April, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Switzerland has a responsibility under European law to combat climate change. And last month, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea – a UN body – said countries have a legal obligation to safeguard the ocean from greenhouse gas emissions.
Kameri-Mbote said cases like that are especially significant with countries set to unveil new climate-related pledges in 2025.
“We are at a make-or-break moment to achieve the Paris Agreement goals,” Kameri-Mbote said. “The next generation of climate plans offer an opportunity to put the world back on track and climate litigation is increasingly holding countries to account for their commitments.”
The Sectoral Solution to the climate crisis
UNEP is at the forefront of supporting the Paris Agreement goal of keeping global temperature rise well below 2°C, and aiming for 1.5°C, compared to pre-industrial levels. To do this, UNEP has developed the Sectoral Solution, a roadmap to reducing emissions across sectors in line with the Paris Agreement commitments and in pursuit of climate stability. The six sectors identified are: energy; industry; agriculture and food; forests and land use; transport; and buildings and cities.
