The supreme court in London has ruled that che climate impact of burning coal, oil and gas must be taken into account when deciding whether to approve projects.
The landmark judgment, which was handed down on Thursday, among other things, sets an important precedent on whether the “inevitable” future greenhouse gas emissions of a fossil fuel project should be considered.
According to reports, campaigners hailed the ruling as a “huge win in the fight for a livable climate” and said it gave a boost to several other domestic lawsuits challenging fossil fuel extraction.
The case was initiated by the campaigner Sarah Finch, who challenged Surrey county council’s decision to extend planning permission for an oil drilling well at Horse Hill, on the Weald.
She argued it should have accounted for greenhouse gas emissions from using the oil when assessing the environmental impacts of the project, not only the drilling site itself. These are known as “scope 3” or downstream emissions. The council argued it had discretion to decide what the full impact of a project would be.
While the lower courts were not sympathetic to Finch’s arguments, the majority of the supreme court said it was “plain” that the combustion emissions of an oil project were part of its overall environmental effects.
Read also: Analysts say power bills could rise by $1,000 annually
“The whole purpose of extracting fossil fuels is to make hydrocarbons available for combustion,” three of the five judges agreed. “It can therefore be said with virtual certainty that, once oil has been extracted from the ground, the carbon contained within it will sooner or later be released into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide and so will contribute to global warming.”
The International Energy Agency has said no new oil and gas exploration should take place if the world is to limit global heating to 1.5C (2.7F) above pre-industrial temperatures.
The court noted that the law governing environmental impact assessments in the UK did not impose a geographical limit on impacts. “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 emphasised that proper impact assessment was key to ensuring democratic legitimacy of decisions that affected the environment. “You can only care about what you know about,” it said.
Finch said she was overwhelmed by the decision and praised the court’s clarity. “I did always feel confident that our arguments were right.”
The court added that fossil fuels were a special case and said the same would not necessarily apply to other carbon-intense raw materials, such as steel, which can be used for a wide range of purposes.
The decision does not prevent public bodies from approving projects with a big climate impact, but it strengthens the case for refusal.
Story was adapted from the Guardian.
