Earlier this month, a years-long legal attempt by community and environmental groups to challenge a new oil project in Horse Hill, Surrey resulted in victory – with implications for all new fossil fuel projects in the UK.
On 20 June, the Supreme Court, the highest court for civil cases in the UK, issued a majority judgment ruling that Surrey County Council acted unlawfully by granting planning permission for the project, because councillors did not consider the climate impact from burning the fuel.
It came after an “incredibly finely balanced” legal battle, which saw multiple courts reject the arguments made by environmental groups – and judges in the Supreme Court take nearly a year to come to their own conclusion.
The judgment, which will now lead to changes in how the environmental impact of new fossil fuel projects is assessed, has been described as “landmark”, “watershed” and “tide-turning” by environmental groups, while right-leaning media warned it could “kill off the oil industry” completely.
Below, Carbon Brief speaks to environmental lawyers to unpack what happened in the Horse Hill case, what it actually means for UK fossil fuel production and how it could affect the policies of the next UK government.
- What happened in the Horse Hill case?
- What does the judgment mean for other fossil fuel projects in the UK?
- Could it affect other carbon-intensive projects, such as airport and road expansion?
- What could the judgment mean for the next UK government?
What happened in the Horse Hill case?
The story began back in 2012 when Surrey County Council granted planning permission for Horse Hill Developments Ltd to dig an exploratory oil well at Horse Hill, a site close to the town of Horley in Surrey and 3.5km north of Gatwick Airport.
In 2017, the council granted permission for a second borehole, a sidetrack well and for testing to commence.
In 2019, the council granted permission for the project to start drilling for oil – just two months after it had passed a motion declaring a climate emergency. The project was to include six oil wells, which would produce 3m tonnes of oil over a 20-year period.
In 2020, Sarah Finch, a freelance editor representing the Weald Action Group, a network of organisations opposing oil and gas in southern England, decided to challenge the council’s decision to grant planning permission in the High Court, with charity Friends of the Earth acting as the legal intervener.
(There is a clear scientific consensus that new fossil fuel projects are incompatible with meeting the Paris Agreement’s ambition of keeping global temperatures at 1.5C.)
Finch and her representatives argued that the decision to permit the oil development was unlawful because the council did not take into account the climate impact of burning the fossil fuels produced by the project.
Under an EU directive that has been incorporated into UK law, any development that is likely to have a significant effect on the environment must carry out an environmental impact assessment (EIA). This assessment must be considered by the decision makers responsible for permitting the project.
The legal challenge argued that the EIA for the Horse Hill drilling project only considered the climate impact from the process of dredging up the oil from the ground, rather than from burning the oil.
As with any fossil fuel project, the emissions from burning the fuel are far larger than those from simply setting up operations, Katie de Kauwe, the lead in-house lawyer at Friends of the Earth, explains to Carbon Brief:
“In the Finch case, the developer assessed that the operational emissions were around 114,000 tonnes of [carbon dioxide] equivalent (CO2e). But then during the hearing, it was recorded that the end use emissions from burning the oil were over 10m tonnes. So they really are dwarfed. And the decision maker had no information on that whatsoever when they granted permission for the oil drilling in Surrey.”
But, in December 2020, the High Court ruled that the council had acted lawfully, with the judge concluding that it would have been “impossible” for the council to have considered the emissions from burning the oil.
Finch appealed the decision. In November 2021, a Court of Appeal hearing before three judges resulted in an “unusual” split decision, with two judges upholding that the council acted lawfully and the third producing a strong dissenting judgment that it had not.
In contrast to the High Court judgment, the Court of Appeal judgment said that decision makers for fossil fuel projects are not prohibited from considering the emissions from burning the fuels.
However, in practical terms, it left it up to the decision makers themselves as to whether they will consider these emissions or not.
Finch appealed again, leading to a hearing before the Supreme Court, the highest court in the UK for civil cases, in June 2023. This took place before five judges.
In this hearing, legal interventions were made by Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the Office for Environmental Protection and representatives of the company behind a new coal mine in Whitehaven, Cumbria, which itself is facing a legal challenge from environmental groups (more on this below).
The Office for Environment Protection was set up post-Brexit to act as an independent environmental watchdog, pursuing the enforcement of environmental law and the introduction of new protections. It was the first time this office had intervened in a court case.
The Supreme Court took almost a year to deliver its judgment, which finally came on 20 June 2024.
It delivered a majority decision from three of the five judges that Surrey County Council had acted unlawfully in permitting the oil project, with the other judges giving a dissenting judgment.
Delivering the majority judgment, Lord Leggatt ruled that the decision to grant planning permission for the oil project was unlawful as the project’s EIA failed to assess the climate impact of burning the oil, and the reasons for disregarding this were “demonstrably flawed”.
Rejecting the arguments made by the council, the developer and the government that the emissions from burning the oil were not within their control, Lord Leggatt said:
“The combustion emissions are manifestly not outwith the control of the site operators. They are entirely within their control. If no oil is extracted, no combustion emissions will occur. Conversely, any extraction of oil by the site operators will in due course result in greenhouse gas emissions upon its inevitable combustion.”
The Supreme Court said any suggestion that local planning authorities are unable to consider climate change when making planning decisions is “misguided”.
It also rejected the Court of the Appeal’s ruling that it should be up to the decision maker to decide whether to consider emissions from burning the fuels produced by new fossil-fuel projects, with Lord Leggatt saying this “would be a recipe for unpredictable, inconsistent and arbitrary decision-making”.
It is the first time in UK legislative history that a judgment has ruled that decision-makers should consider the emissions from burning fossil fuels – also known as scope 3 emissions – and not just those from the project’s operations.
It follows on from a similar ruling in Norway in January of this year.
In a statement, environmental charity ClientEarth lawyer Sophie Marjanac said the two judgments indicated that the world is “reaching a tipping point where countries and companies are going to have to comprehensively account for the impact of every fossil fuel project on the climate”.
Speaking to Carbon Brief, Angus Walker, an infrastructure planning solicitor, noted that, from the very start, the Finch case proved highly divisive among the court judges:
“It was incredibly finely balanced all the way from the very first stage…It’s interesting that the dissenting judgment is as long as the leading judgment, that also shows how finely balanced it was. And it took them a year to produce it, which I think is unusually long even for the Supreme Court. Does that mean they were agonising over it? I don’t know.”
What does the judgment mean for other fossil fuel projects in the UK?
Much of the coverage of the judgment focused on what it could mean for the UK’s fossil-fuel industry.
Environmental groups described the ruling as “landmark”, “watershed” and “tide-turning”, while right-wing media warned it could “kill off the oil industry” completely.
Lawyers explain to Carbon Brief that the judgment will have consequences for new fossil fuel projects in the UK. However, it does not amount to a “ban” or “block” on Horse Hill or other similar projects.
Rather, the judgment makes it clear that, when an EIA is produced for a new fossil-fuel project, this should include information on the emissions associated with burning the coal, oil or gas produced – and not just the much smaller emissions from the project’s operations. Walker explains:
“It’s just assessing and reporting. The decision makers can still grant [an oil project planning permission], but it’s just about knowing what the impacts are. The judgment is careful to point out this is only information for the decision maker, it is not a factor that itself bans these projects from going ahead.”
Tessa Khan, an environmental lawyer and founder of Uplift, a group supporting actions on ending new oil and gas production, adds:
“It’s groundbreaking because, until now, when an EIA was done for an oil and gas project, you didn’t even need to know what the scope 3 emissions would be before you said that the environmental impacts were compatible with the decision to approve the project.
“What Horse Hill does is say that information has to be on the desk of the decision maker. But that doesn’t mean that that’s an automatic block on the project, it’s just one factor in the mix of different factors.”
The kinds of developments that are required to produce EIAs when looking to obtain development consent in the UK include onshore oil and gas, offshore oil and gas in the North Sea and coal mining projects.
When it comes to North Sea oil and gas projects, developers must first obtain a licence for fossil fuel exploration from the regulator, the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA).
After this, developers will apply for development consent, which is granted by the NSTA and the secretary of state for energy infrastructure, which would currently be the secretary of state for energy security and net-zero, Claire Coutinho.
It is at this stage that project developers will have to produce an EIA containing information on emissions from burning the fossil fuels.
That means that oil and gas projects that have been awarded a licence for exploration, but have not yet obtained development consent, will be affected by the Horse Hill judgment.
Previous Carbon Brief analysis shows there are dozens of such projects looking to obtain development consent sometime between now and 2025.
North Sea oil and gas projects that have already received development consent, such as the Rosebank oil field, will not be automatically affected.
However, the judgment will offer new arms to legal challenges against such projects.
Khan, who is contributing to a legal challenge against Rosebank that is due to be held in the next few months, says:
“Our legal challenge against Rosebank, if we succeed, would mean that the decision has to be remade around the development consent. And so in making that decision, the government and the regulator would then have to consider the scope 3 emissions.”
Rosebank contains around 325m barrels of oil equivalent. Previous Carbon Brief analysis found that, when burnt, this would produce around 150m tonnes of CO2e – roughly the same as produced each year by 90 of the world’s lowest-emitting countries.
Coal mining is another activity that is likely to be affected by the judgment.
This likely explains why representatives from the company behind a new coal mine in Whitehaven, Cumbria, were moved to intervene in the Supreme Court case on Horse Hill, experts tell Carbon Brief.
The controversial project was permitted by communities secretary Michael Gove in 2022 and would be the UK’s first new deep coal mine in 30 years.
It plans to produce coking coal to be exported for global steel production, rather than for power production.
De Kauwe, who with Friends of the Earth is mounting a legal challenge against the coal mine to be held in the High Court on 16-18 July, said the reasoning used in the Horse Hill judgment is likely to hold true for the mining project:
“Coal’s role in all of this is to be burned as part of that steelmaking process. So it doesn’t matter that it’s not being used in power generation, it’s still the burning of fossil fuel.”
As with Rosebank, an overturning of the development consent given to the Cumbria mine by Gove would lead to the project having to produce a new EIA including information on emissions from burning the coal produced.
Could it affect other carbon-intensive projects, such as airport and road expansion?
While it is clear that the judgment will have implications for fossil fuel projects in the UK, it is unlikely to have consequences for other carbon-intensive infrastructure projects, such as airport and road expansion, experts tell Carbon Brief.
The judgment makes it clear that the ruling only applies to fossil-fuel projects, de Kauwe says:
“I think Lord Leggatt is very clear that in requiring the assessment of downstream emissions for fossil fuel projects, this is not opening up the floodgates, that was something that had clearly bothered both the High Court judge and the Court of Appeal.”
The judgment specifically says that fossil fuel projects are unique when compared to other types of carbon-intensive infrastructure, such as aeroplane manufacturing, she adds:
“[Lord Leggatt] said that the difference with fossil fuels, these have an inevitable use. They’ve only got one use. It’s for combustion.”
Walker adds that both road and airport expansion projects already consider the additional emissions from creating more car traffic or flights.
What could the judgment mean for the next UK government?
The judgment comes just days before a general election in the UK.
Carbon Brief has assessed where each party stands on fossil fuels. For example, the Conservatives have pledged to continue issuing new North Sea oil and gas licences, while Reform has promised to “fast-track” them.
Polls suggest that the Labour party is likely to win the election.
Labour’s manifesto says it “will not issue new licences” for oil and gas exploration, but that it “will not revoke existing licences”, leaving vagueness around whether it will grant development consent to new projects that have an exploration licence already.
Outside of the manifesto, representatives of Labour have previously pledged to put a stop to Rosebank and Cambo, two of the largest new oil and gas projects.
In light of the judgment, it is probable that the new energy secretary, which is likely to be the shadow energy and net-zero secretary Ed Miliband, will be faced with deciding whether to grant development consent to new North Sea oil and gas projects – with, for the first time, full knowledge of the emissions that will be caused by burning the fuels produced.
Commenting on the likely impact of the judgment on decision makers, Walker says:
“It makes the negatives appear greater, I would have thought, when weighing up whether to give consent.”
The post Q&A: What does the ‘landmark’ Horse Hill judgment mean for UK fossil fuels? appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Q&A: What does the ‘landmark’ Horse Hill judgment mean for UK fossil fuels?
A formal petition to the U.S. government calls for sanctions on Chinese seafood imports as it highlights China’s loophole-ridden illegal shark fin trade.
For migrant workers trapped onboard Chinese distant water fishing fleets, cutting the fins off sharks as they writhe violently on rusted decks in the Indian Ocean isn’t accidental. It’s an intentional and lucrative act that marks the start of a bloody half-a-billion-dollar offshore supply chain, tacitly supported by Beijing yet covertly concealed from port inspectors globally.
New data on international climate finance for 2023 and 2024 suggests that wealthy countries are highly unlikely to have met their pledge to double funding for adaptation in developing nations to around $40 billion a year by 2025 amid cuts to their overseas aid budgets.
At the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow in 2021, all countries agreed to “urge” developed nations to at least double their funding for adaptation in developing countries from 2019 levels of around $20 billion by 2025. Funding for adaptation has lagged behind money to help reduce emissions and remains the dark spot even as the data showed overall climate finance rose to a record $136.7 billion in 2024.
A United Nations Environment Programme report warned last year that wealthy nations were likely to miss the adaptation finance target and the data released on Thursday by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shows that in 2024 adaptation finance was just under $35 billion.
The OECD, an intergovernmental policy forum for wealthy countries, said the increase between 2022 and 2024 was “modest”, adding that meeting the doubling target would require “strong growth” of close to 20% in 2025.
More cuts likely
The OECD’s figures do not go up to 2025, but several nations announced cuts to climate finance last year. The most notable was the abandonment of US pledges to international climate funds by the new Trump administration but the UK, France, Germany and other wealthy European countries also pared back their contributions.
Joe Thwaites, international finance director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said developed countries were “not on track” to meet the adaptation funding goal.
Power Shift Africa director Mohamed Adow said adaptation finance is needed to expand flood defences, drought-resistant crops, early warning systems and resilient health services as the world warms, bringing more extreme weather and rising seas. “When that money fails to arrive, people lose homes, harvests and livelihoods – and in the worst cases, their lives,” he warned.
Imane Saidi, a senior researcher at the North Africa-based Imal Initiative, called the $35 billion in adaptation finance in 2024 “a drop in the ocean”, considering that the United Nations estimates the annual adaptation needs of developing countries at between $215 billion and $387 billion.
-
UN General Assembly backs “climate obligations” set by world’s top court
A UN resolution endorses a landmark climate ruling by the International Court of Justice that states should reduce fossil fuels and repair the damage from global warming -
Electrification emerges as COP31 priority
The Turkish COP31 President has called for “a truly global conversation” about shifting the global energy system from fossil fuels to electricity -
UK halves Green Climate Fund contribution, as it spends more on security
After promising £1.6 billion to the UN’s flagship climate fund in 2023, the UK government has now said it will only hand over half as much
If confirmed, a failure to meet the goal is likely to further strain relations between developed and developing countries within the UN climate process. A previous pledge to provide $100 billion a year of total climate finance by 2020 was only met two years late, a failure labelled “dismal” by the UAE’s COP28 President Sultan Al Jaber and many other Global South diplomats.
Missing that goal would also raise doubts about donor governments’ commitment to meeting their new post-2025 adaptation finance goal. At COP30 last year, governments agreed to urge developed countries to triple adaptation finance – without defining the baseline – by 2035.
African and other developing countries have pointed to lack of funding as a key flaw in ongoing attempts to set indicators to measure progress on adapting to climate change.
Speaking to climate ministers from around the world in Copenhagen on Wednesday, Turkish COP31 President Murat Kurum stressed the importance of climate finance. “It is easy to say we support global climate action,” he said, “but promises must be kept.”
He said the COP31 Presidency will use the new Global Implementation Accelerator and recommendations in the Baku-to-Belem roadmap, published last year, to scale up climate finance – and will hold donors accountable for their collective finance goals.
He noted that developed countries should this year submit their first reports showing how they will deliver their “fair share” of the new broader finance goal set at COP29 in 2024, to deliver $300 billion a year in climate finance by 2035. They are due to report on this once every two years.
Broader climate finance
The OECD data shows that the overall amount of climate finance – including funding for emissions cuts – provided by developed countries grew fast in 2023 before declining in 2024. In contrast, the amount of private finance developed countries say they “mobilised” increased in both 2023 and 2024, pushing the top-line figure to a record high.
While the OECD does not say which countries provided what amounts, data from the ODI Global think-tank suggests that the 2024 cuts to bilateral climate finance were spread broadly among wealthy nations.
Thwaites of NRDC welcomed the fact that overall climate finance provided and mobilised by developed countries exceeded $130 billion in both 2023 and 2024. He said that this was “well above earlier projections” and “shows that when rich countries work together, they can over-achieve on climate finance goals”.
But Sehr Raheja, programme officer at the Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment, said these figures are “modest” when set against the new $300-billion goal.
“While the headline total figure of climate finance remains alright,” she said, “declining bilateral climate spending raises important questions about the predictability of high-quality, concessional public finance, which has consistently been a key demand of the Global South.”
She also lamented that loans continue to dominate public climate finance and that mobilised private finance is concentrated in middle-income countries and on emissions-reduction measures rather than adaptation projects. “Private capital continues to follow bankability rather than climate vulnerability or need,” she added.
Ritu Bharadwaj, climate finance and resilience researcher at the International Institute for Environment and Development, said the figures painted an outdated picture as climate finance has since declined as rich countries shrink their overseas aid budgets and increase spending on defence.
Last month, the OECD published figures showing that international aid – which includes climate finance – fell by nearly a quarter in 2025. The US was responsible for three-quarters of this decline. The OECD projects a further decline in 2026.
With Thursday’s climate finance report, the OECD is “publishing a victory lap for 2023 and 2024 at almost the same moment its own aid statistics show the funding base eroding underneath it,” Bharadwaj said.
The post New data shows rich nations likely missed 2025 goal to double adaptation finance appeared first on Climate Home News.
New data shows rich nations likely missed 2025 goal to double adaptation finance
The country’s most valuable utility didn’t like offshore wind. But a proposed merger with Dominion would include a $11.4 billion project in Coastal Virginia.
A utility megamerger announced this week would mean that the largest offshore wind project in the United States would be owned by the same company that already is the nation’s leading developer of renewables and battery storage.
NextEra Energy to Join the Offshore Wind Club, But Does It Matter?
-
Climate Change9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测