Charity had argued the government was in breach of international obligations under the Paris agreement
 |
| Greg Clark, the business secretary, leaves 10 Downing Street. Photograph: Wiktor Szymanowicz/REX/Shutterstock |
The charity Plan B Earth brought legal action against the government’s stance on the 2050 carbon target, set out under the Climate Change Act 2008.
The charity and 11 UK citizens aged nine to 79 – including the publisher Dame Carmen Callil – wanted to bring a judicial review against the business secretary, Greg Clark.
But Mr Justice Supperstone rejected Plan B Earth’s case on Friday, saying it was “unarguable”.
Lawyers for the charity previously argued the government should have, in light of the current scientific consensus, gone further than its original target of reducing carbon levels by 2050 to 80% of that present in 1990.
At a hearing on 4 July, Jonathan Crow QC told the court: “The secretary of state’s belief that he needs to have regard to what is feasible, rather than what is necessary, betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the scheme of the 2008 act and must be quashed.
“All of the individual claimants are deeply concerned about climate change.”
The barrister argued the business secretary’s “continuing refusal” to amend the 2050 target means the UK is playing “Russian roulette with two bullets, instead of one”.
But, refusing permission for a full hearing, Mr Justice Supperstone said Plan B Earth’s arguments were based on an “incorrect interpretation” of the Paris agreement.
He said: “In my view the secretary of state was plainly entitled ... to refuse to change the 2050 target at the present time.
“I do not consider it arguable that the secretary of state’s refusal to amend the 2050 target is an unlawful exercise of his discretion.”
Tim Crosland, director of Plan B Earth, said the charity was “surprised and disappointed” by the ruling and plans to appeal.
He said: “We consider it clear and widely accepted that the current carbon target is not compatible with the Paris agreement.
“Neither the government nor the committee on climate change suggested during our correspondence with them prior to the claim that the target was compatible.
“Indeed, it was only in January of this year that the committee published a report accepting that the Paris agreement was ‘likely to require’ a more ambitious 2050 target.
“Moreover the government acknowledged in these proceedings that it was uncontroversial that the 2050 target was insufficient to meet the 1.5C target, one of the key aspects of the Paris commitment.
“In these circumstances, Plan B and the other 11 claimants continue to consider that a full hearing on an issue of such urgent and vital importance is necessary.
“As with other legal campaigns confronting powerful vested interests it takes time to break through, and time is not on our side.
“We’ll be doing everything possible to accelerate the process. Wildfires raging in the Arctic Circle must surely be a wake-up call.”
Links
- Judge Throws Out New York Climate Lawsuit
- Local, County And State Governments Are Suing Oil Companies Over Climate Change
- Children Sue Washington State Over Climate Change
- The Netherlands Contemplates The World’s Toughest Climate Law
- Rhode Island Sues Oil Companies Over Climate Change, First State To Do So
- A Landmark Climate Change Ruling Could Go Up In Smoke After Justice Kennedy Retires
- Judge Tosses City Climate Change Lawsuits Against Big Oil
- Here’s Why The Bay Area Lost Its Lawsuit Against Big Oil
- Federal Judge Dismisses Cities’ Suit Against Oil Companies Over Costs Of Climate Change
- ASIC Warns On Climate Risk As Heat Turns On Directors
- The Climate Litigation Threat Is Getting Credible
- UK to review climate target raising hopes of a zero emissions pledge
No comments:
Post a Comment