UK Court Decision Strengthens Legal Challenges Against Fossil Fuel Projects Globally

A landmark ruling by the UK's Supreme Court is set to complicate the approval of new fossil fuel projects across Europe and beyond, according to climate activists and legal experts. The decision is already influencing a separate case concerning a proposed coal mine in England, reported Climate Home.

On June 20, the Supreme Court ruled that when considering the approval of a new oil well in Horse Hill, southern England, authorities must account for the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from burning the extracted oil, not just the smaller emissions from the extraction process. This significant ruling, known as the "Finch ruling," was articulated by Judge George Leggatt, who stated, "The emissions from burning the oil are 'effects of the project' since it is certain that all extracted oil will be combusted, releasing a substantial quantity of greenhouse gases."

The Finch ruling has already bolstered campaigners' efforts to challenge a planned coal mine in Cumbria, northern England, intended to supply fuel for steel production. Last week, the UK's new Labour government declared that the previous Conservative government had made a legal error in approving the mine and withdrew support for the developer in a separate ongoing court case.

During a break in the case, Friends of the Earth lawyer Katie de Kauwe said the Finch ruling had significantly strengthened their legal arguments against the coal mine. She pointed out that the developer failed to assess the emissions from burning the coal, which the Finch ruling clearly indicates is unlawful.

This ruling's impact is expected to extend beyond the UK, as it pertains to regulations derived from European Union (EU) law. Despite the UK's departure from the EU, many of its laws remain aligned with EU regulations.

Greenpeace Norway campaigner Halvard Raavand mentioned that his team celebrated the Finch ruling in their Oslo office, describing it as "highly positive" and a clear indication that challenging fossil fuels can be successful. Greenpeace Norway is currently contesting the government's approval of three new oil and gas fields, arguing that the climate impact of burning these fuels—known as scope 3 emissions—was not adequately considered.

Raavand believes that Norwegian judges might consider the UK's judgement as a precedent, which could influence courts across Europe. Similarly, Dutch Friends of the Earth campaigner Sjoukje van Oosterhout praised the ruling, suggesting it sets an important precedent that could aid their legal challenge against Dutch company One Dyas' plans to drill for oil in the Wadden Sea.

Climate law professor Harro van Asselt described the UK ruling as "important" with potential implications for EU member states evaluating fossil fuel projects. He noted that similar judgements have been made in Australia and Norway, though the Norwegian case influencing the Finch ruling is under appeal.

The Finch ruling could also influence environmental impact assessments globally, added de Kauwe of Friends of the Earth. The UK's recent political shift is likely to hinder new fossil fuel projects domestically. The Labour Party, led by Keir Starmer, was elected on a platform promising to ban fracking and halt new licenses for oil, gas, and coal exploration.

Gareth Redmond-King, from the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit advocacy group, highlighted that during the COP28 climate summit, UK politicians heard from Global South negotiators that the UK's decision to issue new North Sea oil and gas licenses had been used to justify similar actions in their countries. The Finch ruling removes this justification, potentially making it more difficult for fossil fuel companies to pursue drilling elsewhere.

"The precedent set by this Labour decision makes it harder for fossil fuel companies to justify drilling in other countries," Redmond-King said. "The UK is now the first G7 country to pledge a moratorium on new exploration, marking a significant step forward."