A pivotal legal challenge that will have major implications for new fossil fuel projects in the UK opens at the Supreme Court in London this morning.
The case, brought by campaigner Sarah Finch, challenges the decision by Surrey County Council to grant planning permission for oil production at the Horse Hill site near Horley.
It is likely to set a precedent for future fossil fuel projects. If it succeeds, it could challenge whether the government was right to approve a new coal mine in Cumbria.
It also makes legal history and campaigners are arguing that it could be critical to limits on carbon emissions and temperature rise.
Full climate impact of oil and gas
Today’s case centres on whether Surrey County Council acted lawfully over how it assessed the climate impact of four new wells and 20 years of oil production at Horse Hill.
The council ruled that the environmental impact assessment (EIA) did not need to assess emissions arising from the end-use of the oil, likely to be burned for transport.
Friends of the Earth has estimated these end-use emissions, also known as indirect or scope 3 emissions, could be more than 10 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e).
Instead, the council required the EIA to assess only the emissions from the process of oil extraction. This was estimated by the site operator, Horse Hill Developments Limited (HHDL) at 112,000 tonnes of CO2e.
Ms Finch has argued that the failure to assess the full climate impact of a project did not conform with the obligations of the EIA Regulations to factor-in the indirect effects of the project.
Her case dates back to September 2019, when a committee of councillors granted planning permission to HHDL.
Ms Finch, then a Surrey resident, brought a legal challenge at the High Court, backed by the Weald Action Group, in 2020 (more details here and here).
Her challenge failed but she won the right to take the case to the Court of Appeal in 2021 (more details here and here).
The appeal court judges were divided in their ruling, two against the challenge and one in favour. Ms Finch got permission to appeal once more to the highest court in the UK.
So why does this case matter?
Climate case at the Supreme Court: This is one of the first climate cases to go before the Supreme Court. The court hears a small fraction of the total number of cases in the UK legal system and only cases with an arguable point of law of general public importance.
Disagreement over climate law: The Court of Appeal ruling shows there is disagreement among senior judges on interpreting law on climate change. Lord Justice Lewison and Lord Justice Lindblom ruled that Surrey County Council had acted lawfully. They said it was a matter for planning authorities to decide whether end-use emissions from fossil fuels developments were assessed in an EIA. The dissenting judge, Lord Justice Moylan, argued that the council had acted unlawfully.
First intervention of the OEP: This is the first time the Office of Environmental Protection, established in November 2021 as an independent watchdog for enforcing environmental law, has intervened in a court case. It said it was seeking to “highlight the importance of clarity in the law to promote good environmental decision-making”. Friends of the Earth, which has also intervened in the case, in support of Sarah Finch, said:
“It is very positive that the OEP is intervening, as it shows the significance of the issues in the case.”
Impact on other decisions. The Horse Hill case could undermine other decisions in favour of proposed fossil fuel projects, including the Whitehaven coal mine. The EIA for that project also did not assess the end-use emissions. The project’s promoter, West Cumbria Mining, has also intervened in the case. Friends of the Earth has estimated that end-use emissions from burning the coal could be 220 million tonnes of CO2e, compared with about 2 million tonnes of CO2e for residual operational emissions.
Clarifying decisions. The EIA process is designed to provide information to decision-makers. But Friends of the Earth has argued that there is potential for different outcomes when the full climate impacts of fossil fuel projects are understood and considered, compared with when they are not.
Government defence: It is unusual for central government to involve itself in court cases about decisions by planning authorities. But the department of levelling up, communities and local government has joined the council and HHDL in defending the original EIA decision through all the challenges at the High Court, Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
Climate limits: The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted that greenhouse gas emissions from existing fossil fuel infrastructure are enough to breach the critical limit of 1.5C in global temperature rise. It said any new projects, such as oil and gas wells, would make passing 1.5C more likely.
Sarah Finch said today:
“The biggest climate impact from this project will occur when the oil is eventually burned. If councils can ignore these ‘downstream’ impacts when making planning decisions, then we have no hope of staying within safe climate limits. The present lack of clarity over Environmental Impact Assessments is dangerous. I hope that the Supreme Court will confirm that no fossil fuel development – coal, oil or gas – should be allowed without consideration of its full climate impact.”
Katie de Kauwe, lawyer for Friends of the Earth, said:
“Sarah Finch’s landmark legal challenge could force planning authorities to evaluate the emissions when the extracted gas, coal and oil is actually burnt – with potentially huge repercussions for developments such as the proposed coal mine in Cumbria.”
- The case is due to start at 10.30am on Wednesday 21 June 2023, in court 2
DRILL OR DROP? 
Good luck, Sarah, and thank you for your courage and stamina. What a pity we have to rely on our legal system to defend our planet against the inaction of those who, like Sarah, know, but choose, unlike Sarah, to look the other way. On the one hand, the Court of Appeal rules that ‘’it was a matter for planning authorities to decide whether end-use emissions from fossil fuels developments were assessed in an EIA’’; on the other, the EIAs which inform local planners in their decisions,seem reluctant to consider damning end-use emissions.
As Peter Ustinov sagely remarked on another subject in his humorous autobiographical « Dear Me », ‘’It is not melancholy that such arguments should be advanced seriously. The world has never been short of idiots, however hard the times.
What is melancholy is that such arguments should be listened to, and acted upon, as though they made the remotest sense’’.
As Adam Morton observed in The Guardian recently, (From the oceans to ‘net zero’ targets, we’re in denial about the climate crisis),
‘’We’re all in denial in one way or another. Maybe it’s the only way to get by. But we can’t avoid the evidence, collectively, in the long run.’’
He concludes his article,
‘’In reality, the consensus is that we need to be aiming for negative emissions. That means phasing out fossil fuels in wealthy countries …… as quickly as possible, not continuing to expand them.
Steps to remove carbon from the atmosphere need to be on top of that. Until we act on that – and start prioritising adaptation plans to deal with the changes already locked in – our collective denial will continue’’.
Let’s hope the Supreme Court can see through the smokescreen thrown up by producers and deniers.
If the Supreme Court finds in favour of Mrs Finch then the next step must be to ban all fossil fuel extraction / imports where the end use means burning the fossil fuels. Of course this is bonkers and will not happen.
Every barrel / SCF / ton of fossil fuel stopped at the planning stage in the UK will be replaced if there is demand, so the net impact is zero.
But Mrs Finch’s neighbourhood will not have an oil and gas development.
Why do you limit your argument to imports, given that over the last decade, consistently around 70% of UK produced oil has been exported? Whilst a proportion of that may go via pipeline and be re-imported as refined product, you are ignoring the millions of tonnes shipped to destinations such as the US and China, using highly polluting bunker fuel.
Perhaps you should have read my previous response to your import / export concerns Dennis? Ironically I just binned the copy I kept, assuming that most DOD readers would understand this issue by now…..
Perhaps Dennis it may have something to do with UK refineries? (Let alone variations in demand.) If you want UK refineries to invest to be able to process UK oil better then perhaps make the investment environment a little more friendly?
Sorry Dennis, you and others like Mrs. Finch are the problem. A combination of your Nimbyism and dogma is costing everyone else-own it. Now, you appear to want to decimate exports which would devalue the £ in the pocket of everyone fortunate enough to have one, and escalate the price of their overseas holidays. Caring lot, aren’t you?
When is the Court to hear the case about cobalt, a known carcinogen, and the downstream problems that could cause?? (I do await the cases where Bob, having smoked 40 a day, bought an EV and was subsequently diagnosed with lung cancer, then realized he had been driving around sitting on a known carcinogen. I worked in an industry sector than banned cobalt immediately it was so classified due to that very risk. Interesting the “brave new world” has just swept it under the carpet, where there are already a large number of lumps. One of those lumps being £200B for new nuclear that was declared as being required a long time ago, yet 1720 suggested the author of that, if he had lived would have changed his mind! Nope, he would have probably shrugged and said “told you so. Laws of arithmetic and physics can not be ignored.”)
Martin
Find a decision to challenge and take it to court (this is what Ms Finch did). Persuade others that your cause is worth following (and financing). Stick with it for 2 1/2 years through all the ups and downs. And maybe you could have your day at the Supreme Court.
(Sadly grumbling on DoD isn’t so effective)
Paul
Happily, taking the cause to the Courts has been pretty ineffective throughout the 2 1/2 years. Not too many ups!
I have no desire to “have my day at the Supreme Court”. I am not always convinced Courts use common sense, but any Court who could create such a legal precedent this action requires would make me wonder whether my taxes were being well spent. Opening a Pandora’s Box that would require the legal profession to be expanded exponentially may seem a good idea to some, but sorry, I don’t share that view. Such decisions can never be ring fenced, however much that is argued.
Grumbling, moi? Independently commenting within a section designated for ermm…. comment, would be my description.
Sorry if it struck a nerve.
MARTIN ,
You say quote , . ” I worked in an industry sector than banned cobalt immediately ”
NOT ANOTHER INDUSTRY that you’ve worked in 🤣 .. is there anything that you’ve not done ???????
MARTIN will say anything to try and bolster his / her OPINION , but backs up nothing with evidence .
Didn’t you know MARTIN , I was an Astronaut 🤣
What a load of Collywaffle.
For the 100th time ……..I ask you again , show the readers how this £200bn cost for the new generation of nuclear energy is going to cost them as taxpayers… Prove to the readers that this money won’t come from private investment.
For the 100th time I ask, when will you discuss the serious dangers associated with Fracking , otherwise known as THE DIRTY DOZEN
Nope, Jack, I will not insult other readers by suggesting that they do not know any “private” investment is only ever made into UK nuclear after a guarantee has been made by UK Government that it can be recovered from the UK energy market-from the tax payer. You can insult who you want to, but remember it was you who tried to create the fiction of the Magic Nuclear Tree with, as always in such situations, someone else paying.
Then you attempt to post about another industry you know nothing about. Is there no end to your desire to look foolish?
No, your fantasy world may otherwise know something, Jack, but not worth me being drawn into that. You have clearly shown fantasy is your modus operandi. I have the Little Grey Men to read to my grandson to satisfy that. No Jack involved, fortunately.
MARTIN ,
For starters, here’s one of those ” MAGIC Nuclear Trees ” you talk about ….. EDF are putting their money in to UK Nuclear Energy.
https://www.edfenergy.com/about/nuclear/future-of-nuclear-power
No, they are investing their money having been guaranteed it will be returned with a whacking great profit, by the UK tax payer! Remember debt Jack? It is debt for the UK tax payer to fund. Have you noted the generation cost that is required for that to occur, Jack? Thanks for keeping that thread going-readers just check that out, it is easily accessible. Careful Jack, you are in danger of not only letting the Genie out of the bottle but telling everyone to focus on it. Thanks for your assistance Jack, but I can cope.
[Edited by moderator] Reference the cobalt, are you now trying to peddle it is not a known carcinogen? Perhaps it is an anti carcinogen so would not be something you would consider? If that is the depth of your knowledge and concern Jack, you really are deep in fantasy land.
[Edited by moderator] You may wish to waste time on that, I will concentrate on supplying facts. You can take it or leave it, but they will remain as facts. Yes, I did work in a sector that once it was declared cobalt would be categorized as a carcinogen decided to remove it from their products. I do find it interesting that you waffle on about cancer yet find it difficult to grasp that such might happen. What are you trying to suggest, Jack? Cancer is not that important and doesn’t have many possible triggers? If so, you are down to 11. Maybe why you are so reluctant to look at forest fires? You and I have previously discussed your claims Jack. I have no interest in being “informed” again that 2020 was a normal year, or that the West will start pumping Russian gas and oil as soon as the war has ended. [Edited by moderator]
Real experts? Yet you ignore Professor Sir David McKay! The one who made it quite clear what would be required and now has been shown to be correct [Edited by moderator] What is wrong with the reality? It will happen, or if some more politicians decide they can ignore the arithmetic and physics, they will fail and others will have to take their place. Honesty upfront would save an awful lot of time and wasted money.
SO MARTIN ,
EDF investing money in UK Nuclear power is just an illusion then is it ?????
I’ve shown you the evidence.
Now you can riggle, twist , turn and go off on one of your amazing diversionary monologues , but the facts still remain the same , EDF is just one of the companies investing their OWN money in UK Nuclear power.
No, it is not an illusion Jack, it is a hard fought deal which requires one to look at the detail. If one does, guess what you find? An investment that is paid for by whom? The UK tax payer. Then just multiply by 7. Whilst doing so, just check the price required to be paid for the electricity to make the deal stick together.
Investing is not gifting. Sorry such basic stuff still confuses you, but it shouldn’t. All this stuff can be easily accessed. You have obviously chosen to be ignorant or just wish to attempt to maintain the fantasy. I go with the latter, as you have tried the same silly nonsense time after time. All this in an attempt to hold onto a fake claim that renewables are cheap. Averages, Jack. I really do find it amusing how such screwed up posts are plonked out there when it is well documented that the standard of maths. is actually improving in the UK. Sorry Jack, but your target audience is declining. Now with it being below the 2 and 1/2 years old mark, one would have to wonder whether they read DoD! Keep it going Jack. I can always rely upon you to paint yourself into a corner and then amuse everyone by trying to make out the floor covered with paint footprints was “normal”.
Nope, Jack to the rest of your nonsense. My late wife had cancer. I know it can be influenced by all sorts of things, or nothing identifiable. I have no wish to encourage someone to weaponize what is a very serious situation to a large number of families in the UK, and elsewhere. If you want to discuss the health problems in USA perhaps there are many other areas to waffle on about first? Those forest fires caused by electricity distribution seem to have passed you by, but not the US Courts, so plenty for you to get your teeth into there, for starters.
Well MARTIN , I’m delighted you’ve had a change of heart .
So CANCER is important to you now is it .
Incidentally that’s number ONE on Fracking and THE DIRTY DOZEN.
Fracking , ” THE DIRTY DOZEN ”
(1) Greatly increases your risk of Cancer.
(2) Reduces life expectancy in the elderly.
(3) Increases the risk of Asthma.
(4) Is dangerous for pregnant women and their babies/unborn babies.
(5) Toxic chemical risk to drinking water.
(6) Turbo boosts climate change.
(7) Is environmentally damaging.
(8) Is dangerous for animals , farm animals/wild animals.
(9) Leaves an ongoing toxic legacy for future generations to deal with.
(10) Leaves an ongoing financial burden for future generations maintaining abandoned/orphaned wells ……. I mean let’s face it , these two bit companies will be long gone.
(11) Devalues peoples homes in Fracking areas and makes them more difficult to sell .
(12) Increases heavy vehicle traffic movements and noise pollution in Fracking areas .
Lets talk about the increased risk of Cancer , number ONE on the list , what about this then ,
Fracking causes Cancer in children.
https://news.yale.edu/2022/08/17/proximity-fracking-sites-associated-risk-childhood-cancer
Or maybe this then, Fracking and Cancer
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5235941/#:~:text=A%20review%20of%20chemicals%20released,risk%20of%20leukemia%20and%20lymphoma.
Or this, Fracking and Breast Cancer
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5363003/Fracking-linked-breast-cancer.html
As you are now showing us your more caring and concerned side . I assume you will be shocked to read the above LINKS and will no doubt have a lot to say .
Will you now be firmly AGAINST Fracking , or are you just pretending to care when it suits you ????? Will you pretend you’ve not seen the above LINKS and say nothing ??????
JACK and the readers are waiting for your response.
MARTIN ,
Unlike you who’s an expert at everything 🤣
I rely on REAL experts you know those people who are qualified in that particular field ….. People who are willing to put their REAL names and that of the organizations they work online for all to see … People with a proven credible background in thier field of expertise.
Unlike you MARTIN , I rely upon factual evidence from credible sources. Whereas you , well let’s be honest , you only ever give the the readers your wild Off-The-Cuff OPINIONS backed up with nothing .
Well MARTIN , what about Fracking and THE DIRTY DOZEN.
12 reasons why Fracking is dangerous and costly . From 1 – 12 , I have indisputable evidence for each number.. Well MARTIN are you ready to debate each one or are you going to hide behind a load of diversionary Collywaffle ??????
This platform ” Drill or Drop “is the correct place to discuss such matters , well let’s start debating them .
I’m a concerned resident who wants to debate these topics with someone like you who’s trying to push this toxic industry on us.
If you choose not to , we’ll what’s the point of you being on here ???????
Courage and stamina- what a joke.
Rob Burrow and Kevin Sinfield but not Sarah Finch.
National Grid: Live
The National Grid is the electric power transmission network for Great Britain
Time
9:00am
Price
£72.11/MWh
Emissions
213g/kWh
Demand
31.2GW
Generation
28.6GW
Transfers
2.6GW
Generation
Generation
28.6GW
91.8%
Note: percentages are relative to demand, so will exceed 100% if power is being exported
48.6% fossil fuels
Coal 0.00 0.0
Gas 15.16 48.6
27.6% renewables
Solar 4.19 13.4
Wind 4.32 13.9
Hydroelectric 0.11 0.4
1. Generating power – Let’s get this straight, the primary sin you’re committing against the planet: existing. Since most power is generated by burning fossil fuels, the cheapest, densest, most reliable, widespread energy source civilization has yet managed to scale (the “anti-nuclear” brigade having largely stalled that bounteous endeavour…at least in the enlightened west), things like electricity and heating are big no-nos. So switch off that light and turn off that thermostat, brother. Your carbon-based lifestyle is part of the problem.
2. Manufacturing goods – The verdict in: goods are no bueno. “Manufacturing and industry produce emissions,” observes the UN. And we can’t have that. So “things like cement, iron, steel, electronics, plastics, clothes, and other goods” will have to go bye-bye. (At least until we can power heavy industry with windmills and paper straws, which is never.) But don’t think that means we can return to our utopian, agrarian roots, a la Mao’s Great Leap Backwards, as you’ll discover in #3…
3. Cutting down forests – Felling trees to create farms or pastures is also verboten. Why? Shut up, racist! Also: Emissions. According to the UN, “Deforestation, together with agriculture and other land use changes, is responsible for roughly a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions.” Translation: No usa the land… no usa the agriculture… no toucha the trees. (Ignore the fact that, having “gone green,” industrialized nations like Germany and Poland are facing severe energy shortages in winter… and so had to revert from burning clean natural gas… to felling virgin forests and burning trash, just to keep from freezing to death. “Keep digging, comrades… you’re almost there!”)
4. Using transportation – This one’s a cinch… just don’t go anywhere. Ever. Unless, of course, you’re one of Czar Kerry’s “touched” ones. In which case, absolutely zip around the world on your family’s Gulfstream GIV-SP private jet and splash about in the warming oceans in your luxury yacht. These rules of scarcity apply only to we mere commoners, not blessed patricians, divinely anointed.
5. Producing food – Just. Stop. Eating. According to the UN, “Producing food causes emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gasses.” And, as “The Science” assures us, emissions are bad. So bad, in fact, that if we keep emitting, oceans may rise some indeterminate amount 100 years from now, which could cause death (for people who take longer than a century to walk up a small slope). Better to just stop eating now, so as to avoid certain drowning in 2123.
6. Powering buildings – “Globally, residential and commercial buildings consume over half of all electricity,” according to the UN. The main culprits: “heating and cooling,” plus “rising air-conditioner ownership, as well as increased electricity consumption for lighting, appliances, and connected devices.” Yes, dear reader, along with food, energy, goods, farms etc. it’s time to throw shelter out the window, too. It’s the only thing we can do to ensure the survival of Davos Man.
7. Consuming too much – If “too much” sounds a bit vague, almost as if it’s not really “Capital-S Scientific,” recall that you are not a Capital-S Scientist. Then eat six insects, watch two interviews with Neil deGrasse Tyson and repent like the environment hater you are. According to the UN’s webpage, “Your home and use of power, how you move around, what you eat and how much you throw away all contribute to greenhouse gas emissions.”
Of course, eliminating the above “causes of climate change” only gets us so far. Perhaps the most inconvenient truth of all is the fact that all life on earth is carbon based, from the chains of molecules that serve as the very basis for life as we know it, such as proteins and DNA, to the unimaginably complex brain reading these very words, we are all made of original sin.
Consider that next time you hear your elites.
Planning authorities and all of us have to think about emissions when the extracted gas, coal and oil is burnt – this is critical to our health and impacts on nature around us.
I agree JJB. I think about it-it doesn’t mean I should have something imposed upon me.
I think about how my keypad was produced, and then decide to continue with using it. As do authors, it would appear. I am quite confident your emissions from such are a higher standard to my own, but I still think and then use. I also think about the increased production of artificial rubber to manufacture the extra respirators required during the pandemic, and think about how that impacted our health. I also think about the land in the UK being covered with solar panels and the impact on nature around us. I also think about the landowners in the UK who wouldn’t be caught having wind turbines on their land due to impact upon nature they had strived to protect-until they were guaranteed over £100k profit per turbine per year, even if the electricity was not used. I also think about cereals being used to power motor cars, that UK has inherited and developed from USA and note the current level of food inflation in UK, leaving people with not a choice between heating and eating, but a difficulty to do either. I thought at the time I saw the capacity of the intended factories and the wheat output of the UK after a record harvest, that there was no margin, and I thought how come the UK is going to achieve record harvests every year? I think sometimes the wind blows and the sun shines, sometimes not. I think £200B on new nuclear in UK makes renewable energy not so cheap. I think SMRs sound a great idea, but how come there are old rusting nuclear UK subs with SMRs that UK can not afford/get round to/ hasn’t capacity to dismantle. I think there appears to be a lot of companies deciding UK energy costs are too high and they would be better off elsewhere. I think the ones staying are increasingly having to be bribed by the UK tax payer to do so.
After all that thinking I come to my conclusion. I would like my conclusion to be what I can follow, rather than have to follow the conclusion of others, and end up with more oil and gas coming from USA., or Norway, and then watch what they can then afford and UK can not, whilst the strength of Sterling plummets due to import dependency and I think I will not be able to afford another visit to USA or Norway to observe their happy smiling faces, and/or obesity in the case of the USA.
I think, therefore, thanks to fossil fuel I’m Spam! But, I still think.
And behind the verbiage the facts. Martin’s ‘’thinking about it’’ has not persuaded him that end-use emissions are relevant, indeed vital, to the processes required to allow or disallow applications for FF exploration and production purposes. Instead, Martin still ‘’thinks’’. A living proof of the Cartesian principle.
Descartes’ thinking took him a little further.
Well, 1720, I am told the activist wants a dialogue. I provide the opportunity. I have the dialogue only to find the activist really wanted a monologue. When same activist also provided proof that only certain “facts” came into their consideration, leaving out the what is true bit from the OED, then forgive me for still thinking their monologue is not convincing. Especially, when they have previously declared they know little about the sector.
No, your “has not persuaded him……” bit is the usual activist assumption to maintain their monologue even when it is not fact. It is incorrect. End-use emissions that are not identifiable during exploration or production should be and are dealt with- ermmm, now the logic and common sense bit, so excuse me-at end-use. Please would you or Ms. Finch please explain how oil produced and used for any purpose could be decided at planning in respect of whether CCS was likely, or not, for end emissions? Let alone all the other unknowns.
Your thinking took you to assumption, but it often does I observe. However, thanks for making me smile with your conversion to suddenly being the source of “facts.” Good try, but then it rapidly followed the decline!
Shock/horror, others do think, and come to different conclusions. Then it is left to some to imply their thought has more grey cells involved. Fine. However, then the proof of that pudding is required, but rarely evident.