The government has confirmed it will not appeal against the High Court ruling that its Net Zero Strategy is unlawful.
In a landmark judgment in July, the High Court agreed with Friends of the Earth, ClientEarth and Good Law Project that the strategy failed to show how the UK’s legally-binding carbon budgets would be met.
Mr Justice Holgate ruled that this did not meet the requirements of the Climate Change Act.
The judge said the then energy minister, Greg Hands, who signed-off the strategy, did not have legally-required information on how carbon budgets would be met.
Parliament and the public had been kept in the dark about a shortfall in meeting a key target for cutting emissions, the judge also said.
Friends of the Earth lawyer, Katie de Kauwe, welcomed today’s news from the government:
“Ministers must now focus their energies on the action and detailed policies needed to address the climate crisis.
“The government has until the end of March next year to come up with a revised Net Zero Strategy that shows how the UK’s legally-binding climate targets will be met.
“The existing strategy is far too weak. The Climate Change Committee warned in June that there are only credible policies to achieve 39% of the emission cuts needed.
“Since then, the government has announced plans for fracking, new gas and oil developments and more roads, which are the opposite of what’s needed to meet our climate targets.
“The best way to put our climate goals back on track and ensure long-term sustainable growth, is to pull the plug on new fossil fuel developments and invest in the real solutions to the myriad crises we face: developing the UK’s immense renewable energy potential and insulating people’s homes.”
Sam Hunter Jones, senior lawyer at ClientEarth, said:
“Skyrocketing energy prices and the worsening climate crisis make it abundantly clear: the government must move further and faster away from expensive and polluting fossil fuels and have a credible plan for net zero.”
Jo Maugham, director of Good Law Project, said:
“Rather than threatening communities with fracking, Liz Truss and Jacob-Rees Mogg should focus their efforts on improving the strategy so they meet the UK’s legally-binding climate targets and move away from expensive fossil fuels to deliver on affordable energy.”
DRILL OR DROP? 
Excellent news
Campaigners outside the High Court for the hearing in June 2022. Photo: Friends of the Earth ALL OF THIOSE in above photos, with plastic and rubber soled or leather shoes and unstainable clothing! What is wrong with THIS photo!, Oh the Irony…
Are we to assume you are sitting there nude, bare foot without the heating on and sending your e-mails by ESP? How ironic.
NO jon!, I am not an anti fracking protester, causing a nuisance protesting, and i have no means in committing a public order offence. Posing nude and bare foot! That is not the point, this point is if you cared about the Earth would you not dress in something more sustainable? But that is the Irony of the situation, Virtue signalling with not a Clue the consequences in wearing unsustainable clothing’s to protect the Environment! Every Little Helps!
Kat: You seem to have a very Anti Oil and Gas agenda, But you don’t realise the products in which you use in every day life and how that is produced and used, bless you when you use a hospital or clinic and understand the gravity of the situation and the much need for the energy industry! OH “YOU” ARE THE PRIVILEGED FEW! But not in my Back Yard!
Eli, you do like to fling insults about without sense nor reason.
I know exactly what many of the products we use and wear in everyday life are made of and where they come from. But I also recognise this has to and is changing . And like many others, when possible, I will buy alternatives. Because just as we have over produced plastics and are now finding them polluting the seas, air and land, we have now even found micro plastics in our blood. And the same goes for fossil fuels, we have reached a tipping point where the overproduction and long use has now made the harms far outweigh any good. They harm our health, pollute the environment and are causing climate breakdown. Not to mention fossil fuels have led to wars and global unrest.
I am not anti gas and anti oil so much as opposed to short sighted decisions with long term consequences. The science is clear, if we are to avoid climate breakdown we should not be extracting any new reserves of fossil fuels. I am pro renewables and carbon free energy for these reasons.
Perhaps it is you that is anti science and anti progress?
I thought your comments were very apt, Eli.
What I find confusing is how plastics are finding their way to polluting oceans. I would suggest it is nothing to do with the substance but what humans do with it or don’t do with it. They create the demand, KatT, so it is supplied. It is then up to said humans to dispose of it correctly. No different to thousands of other products. To attempt to make out it is the fault of one particular material is ludicrous. Then to compound it with leading to wars and unrest! OMG-and there lies a clue. Religion is the single most common cause of war and conflict!
You may be okay KatT currently, but when you need a Covid booster jab will you insist upon a glass syringe, stating fossil fuels harm our health? And, if the technology is already there, why are you not using it? See my point made above, create
the demand and it will be supplied.
Martin and Eli, please tell us what you do to demand an end to oil, gas and plastic in an effective way. If you can’t make a positive contribution why sneer at a group of people who have used peaceful legal means to hold the Government to account for their dangerous inaction on climate change.
I make no such demands, Jon. My demands are not going to alter anything. I was told as a child, those who demand don’t get.
What I would like to see is another matter. I would like to see a lot more focus upon decarbonizing oil and gas and even coal. That, I believe, has a lot of merit in that the problem would be solved and the fossil fuel industry would help fund most towards solving it. It is underway already, (see for example yesterday BP announcing plans for hydrogen site in N.E.) but does need a lot more effort, not helped by those intent upon killing off the Golden Goose before it can lay too many decarbonized eggs.
Your comment about peaceful legal means I would just raise my eyebrows and try and avoid a sneer. Just raise the question, why all the arrests Jon?
“Your comment about peaceful legal means I would just raise my eyebrows and try and avoid a sneer. Just raise the question, why all the arrests Jon?”
Ask that question of Martin Luther King.
Don’t avoid the sneer. It’s expected, and consistent with some forms of historical illiteracy.
Except it wasn’t illiterate. Arrests are made when the means are not legal.
Besides, which, what happens in USA regarding their legal system might just be a tad different to what has, and is, happening in the UK. The subject of Jon’s comment.
Poor attempt at deflection.
So thinks Martin – “ I thought your comments were very apt, Eli.”
“Well he would, wouldn’t he?”(Mandy Rice-Davies)
Same old tired response, when you have absolutely nothing related to to content of the article you nit pick that someone has plastic ends to their shoelaces.
Is that the best argument you have?
The serious reality is global fossil fuel use has to decline because of climate change. The status quo is not sustainable.
The government has a statutory obligation to cut emissions and reduce dependence on fossil fuels. So despite JRM’s gung-ho statements he is accountable to the courts and electorate. Poll after poll confirms the vast majority of the public strongly support renewables and are concerned about climate change.
The world is transitioning away from fossil fuels and the nasty geopolitics that come with them. And if you study the scientific fact, rather than propaganda and fossil fuel disinformation, the technology and know how is already here.
Like you KatT the poll after poll are the very few who don’t understand the point i and Martin were trying to explain and educate but with tunnel vision and lack of the facts!
Plastic is in its own right not the issue! Humans are the issue and you are not immune as you can and will still require plastics, petrol, flights, transport, fertilisers etc, etc… The transition does not change with a klick of fingers, and in the UK’s own right, we probably cannot even afford Net Zero as those of the Very few, don’t even know the TRUE ‘cost’ of a Net Zero World!!
“…… the poll after poll are the very few who don’t understand the point i and Martin were trying to explain …..”
So much for polls – they invariably miss Eli and Martin’s ideal target audience of illuminati.
This brand of democracy works well if the electorate are carefully selected, as, for whatever reason, sympathetic to the cause. It works well in the Donbas, for example. We’re on the way!
Please point me to a poll on this subject where the cost to the person being asked the question has been detailed, 1720.
I can save you doing any research (lol). There isn’t one. The cost has never been outlined. Wonder why!?
“Would you like to win the lottery?” “Oh yes please.”
“Well, the probability is you will spend £1000 to win £10.”
“Oh! Now that is a different situation.”
Eli, no it can’t happen with a click of the fingers, I never said it could.
But it can happen with finance and commitment. And a six years pay back period is a small price to pay for a sustainable planet.
And the problem with plastics is not just people. Yes, those that litter are wrong. But most plastics are difficult/cannot be recycled and the sheer volume produced is swamping the world. And it is not people filling the planet with micro plastics, it is from production, use, decomposition and shedding from tyres and other items.
Plastic production is a toxic process, just look at the poor people living in Cancer Alley. Plastic contains hormone disrupters associated with cancer and other health impacts.
The more you write and align yourself with the arch gish-gallop practitioner, the more unscientific and foolish your comments are.
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/3539703-no-miracle-tech-needed-how-to-switch-to-renewables-now-and-lower-costs-doing-it/
https://cleantechnica.com/2022/09/06/switching-the-world-to-renewable-energy-will-cost-62-trillion-but-the-payback-would-take-just-6-years/
Fossil fuel / plastics companies make sure that there are no alternatives, get rid of these greedy scammers and then other safe alternatives will be more available.
Nonsense, Jono. Demand is created, it will be supplied. Perhaps the alternatives are not what the public want or can afford?
There are perfectly good ways to recycle plastic. It takes some effort and some control. It can be done.
All my single use plastic is burned to produce energy. My “hard” plastic is recycled. I am informed at my tip if the recycling of that is over supplied, and told “chuck it in the household bin, mate”-where it will go the same way as my single use plastic.
Oh Eli I’d love to find some ‘unstainable’ clothing. [Edited by moderator]
There is nothing wrong with plastics save that the processes of their production kill. Materials must be developed which are not dependent upon the destruction of humanity and the planetary biodiversity man needs to survive. These materials must, unlike plastics, be sustainable and biodegradable. It is clear that FFs are inappropriate as source material.
The costs involved in such development are no doubt considerable. It does not help if we continue killing while claiming to search for sustainable alternatives.
The argument – ‘there’s your nuclear device, innocent enough, but using it is your decision and would be bad’, is crass.
Some renewables as well, of course, are subject to similar moral objections which should not be ignored but acted upon.
It is simply not acceptable that our political leaders should continue to plough their own furrow without regard to – or simply ignoring – the ethical dimension. Sadly, as long as you and I allow them to by our selfish allocation of our votes, so long will this doomsday situation prevail. Our patience in allowing these hostile forces, the anti-life coalition, time to regroup brings the U.K. so-called democratic system into disrepute.
Oh dear, 1720.
Renewables just happen to need nuclear to back them up, and off you go on one about biodegradable! Your argument is ludicrous.
I’ll take that as a compliment, Martin; I’ve long finished laughing at your arguments.
But do explain why mine is ludicrous. Perhaps it is. No claims of omniscience on this side. But you don’t really expect people to simply accept your judgement, do you? After all, they’ve seen your arithmetic and logic at play.
I don’t need to explain, 1720. If you are unable to perceive you are unable to perceive. I expect better of others.
You don’t get off quite so easily. If you are again to avoid loss of face, you do need to explain why my argument is ludicrous as you offered the judgement.
My argument attempted to show that there are products of human ingenuity which do not depend upon human agency for their intrinsic evil. Plastics are not such products, of course, but their means of production are, as they, and latterly the product itself, kill. We know this. The product therefore is no longer neutral.
I’m afraid your English precludes the intelligibility of your first sentence.
I worry little about my face, 1720. I am quite willing to put myself forward as a real person for scrutiny.
Intrinsic evil? Ludicrous again. Plastic syringes full of Covid 19 vaccine, artificial rubber produced to be used in ventilators, all that kit ferried to disaster zones to rescue people after the electricity supply has been trashed, and thousands and thousands of more examples.
Yet, there you are stating you use a plastic keyboard as no one has supplied you with any alternative! OMG accepting intrinsic evil for so little benefit. You supply a lesson to humanity, teacher. Except, it might be somewhat different to what you expect.
Cobalt kills, salt kills, EVs kill. “We” know this. They must be intrinsically evil then? How about energy poverty which kills? And will kill this winter here in UK. Who is intrinsically evil that has exacerbated this by promoting the Group Think that is now being shown to be unable to deal with events? Tut, Tut.
Difficulty in following my second paragraph, I see, Martin. Maybe because it’s in standard English. Never mind, seize on “intrinsic evil” in the hope of encouraging a sneer or two. We’re all used to your modus operandi.
Take your time over reading, Martin. Who knows, you might learn something.
Not from you 1720-that’s a fact!
Standard English? Is that the OED one, or the 1720 one?
Do you know something really basic and standard? Any teacher who was caught by his students as being unable to define what a fact was, would and should not be trusted to disseminate facts to them. There may be a subject within current schooling which ignores that, but I struggle to think of one. I fear that is really losing face, and once the teacher has done that it is over. Most schools have one and efforts are made to cover up, but by then, too late.
But I am in the process of doing some research on outdoor schooling which strikes me as a rather promising, if expensive, system. If I find there is some opening there for your teaching skills avoiding facts, 1720, I will let you know. Creative writing maybe?
We know you’re a past master at deflection, Martin, but this is more puerile than most of your attempts.And meanwhile, the planet dies, ably assisted by yourself. Grow up. Do you have the remotest understanding of what you’re unleashing in espousing fossil fuels.?Do you care?
Signing off in disgust and pity.