The British Supreme Court has ruled that greenhouse gas emissions from the use of oil and gas must be assessed when approving new projects.
The short version
- The British Supreme Court ruled that climate emissions from oil consumption in new projects must be assessed.
- Greenpeace leader Frodi Plame described this as a “huge victory.”
- British High Court judges agree with the assessments in a ruling by the Oslo District Court.
- This decision is expected to foster similar climate litigation in Norway and Europe.
– Would you like coffee, water or champagne?
Greenpeace leader Frode Pleym welcomes VG with a big smile.
To his offices along the Akerselva River in Oslo, he also invited the head of Nature and Youth, Gitis Blazevicius.
– This is a great victory! It's another climate lawsuit won, Plame continues.
One fell on Thursday Historical climate governance In the British Supreme Court.
The lawsuit was started by British climate activist Sarah Finch.
It has sued the authorities for allowing extended oil exploration at an oil well in Horse Hill, south London.
Finch believes that emissions from the use of oil, not just from the drilling operations themselves, should be taken into account when starting new oil projects.
In the past, only development impacts were supposed to be taken into account, not the consequences of using the oil that is ultimately produced. BBC writes.
On Thursday, the High Court in London ruled in Finch's favour.
The Supreme Court says no The British authorities cannot accept new oil projects, but must take into account the emissions produced by new oil fields.
Based on European lawThe Supreme Court wrote in the ruling that extending the project was illegal.
The same law was used as a basis when Greenpeace, in collaboration with Nature and Youth, won a climate lawsuit against the state earlier this year.
The ruling by the Oslo District Court states that the state broke the law when it granted permission for three oil projects – Breidablik, Terfing and Yggdrasil.
This ruling was also highlighted in the British ruling issued on Thursday.
“I find the Oslo District Court's reasoning convincing and agree with it. It is fully consistent with what I consider to be the correct interpretation of the EIA Directive,” the British High Court's ruling said.
What is important about this ruling is that the Supreme Court assumes that no investigation has been conducted into the consequences of global climate emissions.
Therefore, the oil field is illegal, says Plame and adds:
– It is exactly the same Oslo District Court where we were based when we won. The British Supreme Court specifically indicates its agreement with the ruling issued by the Oslo District Court.
Couldn't these lawsuits and rulings push forward an energy transition that countries were not prepared for?
– The laws that protect us, the citizens, were passed long ago. It's time for politicians to follow these laws, says Greenpeace colleague Andreas Randwe.
European climate lawsuits
Norway: First climate lawsuit
background: Environmental organizations Greenpeace and Nature and Youth have sued the Norwegian state for granting oil and gas exploration licenses in the Barents Sea, claiming this violates the environmental section of the constitution.
a result: In 2020, Norway's Supreme Court rejected the claim that exploration licenses were unconstitutional.
Norway: Second climate lawsuit
background: Environmental organizations Greenpeace and Natur og Ungdom have again sued the state for approving the development of three new oil fields (Breidablikk, Tyrving and Yggdrasil (formerly NOAKA)) without a climate impact assessment.
a result: In 2024, the Oslo District Court ruled in favor of the organizations. The court considered the decisions invalid and imposed a temporary ban on issuing new permits for the fields. The state has appealed.
Netherlands: The Urgenda Case
background: In 2013, the environmental organization Urgenda filed a lawsuit against the Dutch government, claiming that the government's climate policy was insufficient to protect citizens from the risks of climate change.
a result: In 2019, Urgenda won in the Supreme Court. The Netherlands was forced to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020 to protect the Dutch people's right to life against the threat of global warming. This is the first time that the country's highest court has dealt with climate cases against rights arising from the European Convention on Human Rights.
Switzerland: KlimaSeniorinnen vs. Switzerland
Background: A group of elderly women filed a lawsuit against Switzerland for failing to protect them from life-threatening heat waves. Global warming means that heat waves occur more often and become more prolonged or intense. The elderly are especially vulnerable to heat death.
Result: The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decided that Switzerland was violating certain human rights. EMD believes that countries have a responsibility to protect their citizens from harmful climate change and must have good emissions reduction frameworks.
Germany: Climate action by German youth
background: In 2020, a group of young climate activists took the German government to court, with a constitutionally based lawsuit, arguing that the country's climate plan was inadequate and violated their fundamental rights.
a result: The ruling stated that the German climate law is partly unconstitutional and must be strengthened to avoid imposing a disproportionate burden of cuts on younger generations at the expense of their rights as a result of the lack of cuts today.
The British ruling gives environmental organizations greater confidence that they can win when they have to take the Norwegian state to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
“The British ruling will have a lot to say in terms of how we strengthen our legal arguments in the case when it is now appealed to the Court of Appeal,” says Randoy, who is working closely with the lawsuit.
He explains that they now have a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights that is largely consistent with what Greenpeace and Nature and Youth are claiming; A ruling from the Oslo District Court and a ruling from the International Maritime Court.
– The interpretation in the legal environment has become quite clear: greenhouse gas emissions are a relevant environmental impact that must be assessed before new oil development is approved, says Randoy.
VG sent a number of questions to the Department of Energy. They answer that the case does not affect the appeal of the Oslo District Court ruling issued earlier this year.
– Since a similar case is ongoing before the Court of Appeal and before the European Court of Justice, it is not natural for the Department of Energy to comment on the potential importance of the ruling now, wrote Senior Advisor Henrik Höell.
“Coffee trailblazer. Certified pop culture lover. Infuriatingly humble gamer.”
