The US has a deep history of this kind of anti-fossil fuel lawfare.
Here are few previous examples of these tactics from the US:
The ongoing use of lawfare by activists around the world when they fail via politics and legislation now takes center stage in the UK.
The future of UK fossil fuels finds itself in the spotlight this week, with the case of Horse Hill oil extraction set to land in the Supreme Court on Wednesday. As reported by the BBC, this is:
“a challenge that could spell the end of new fossil fuel projects in the UK.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65965119
This case is being brought by a Surrey woman, Sarah Finch, who is challenging the legality of a local oil drilling permit.
The basis of the contention lies in the consideration of ‘downstream emissions’ during the approval of planning permissions. As the BBC calls them:
“the greenhouse gas emissions released when the oil is used.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65965119
Finch is arguing that Surrey County Council did not factor in the impact of such emissions, which she estimates could amount to 10 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over 20 years.
In making her case, Finch draws an analogy, saying,
“Planning authorities say that they don’t need to consider the climate impacts of the actual burning of the oil – just from the drilling. It’s like saying a chocolate cake is low calorie as long as you don’t eat it.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65965119
However, in a response from Surrey County Council, a spokesperson stated,
“The County Council is required to determine planning applications in accordance with the Development Plan, the National Planning Policy Framework, national policy and other material considerations, as set out in legislation and case law.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65965119
You know, the normal way policy is made in democratic societies.
As activists attempt to shut down all fossil fuel extraction, this is a lawfare strategy with national impact extending beyond the borders of Surrey. Katie de Kauwe, a lawyer for Friends of the Earth, noted,
“Developers are fighting court cases like this because they are very concerned that if decision-makers are confronted with the full carbon impacts of these projects, so with downstream emissions added, then they might think twice about granting them planning permission.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65965119
If they can’t shut down drilling permission at the national level, these activists are attempting to bully local governments into compliance.
Adding to the case’s significance is the participation of external groups who have been invited by the court to provide additional evidence. These include West Cumbria Mining, a company recently given permission to open the first new coal mine in the UK in 40 years. The Office for Environmental Protection is also making its first intervention, stating that it is doing so because it
“wants legal clarity on how decision-makers conduct Environment Impact Assessments when assessing fossil fuel projects.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65965119
The Horse Hill case underscores the complex legal battles at play in the energy production sphere. The outcome of this case could set a significant precedent for how these projects are evaluated and either greenlit or prohibited in the future.
A decision from the judges is expected to take three to six months.
HT/redge
Surely, this Surrey woman, Sarah Finch, has had her electricity and gas connections shut off by now.
If not, why not? If we can’t use it then surely she should be leading by example.
But surely, her house is all electric and 100% powered by “green energy” And if you believe that, I want to sell you tower bridge.
She certainly isn’t leading with logic.
“Planning authorities say that they don’t need to consider the climate impacts of the actual burning of the oil – just from the drilling. It’s like saying a chocolate cake is low calorie as long as you don’t eat it.”
The cake is low calorie to the person who only bakes it. It’s the person who eats it who must account for the calories. Even in her crazy system, the people who produce oil should only be accounting for the emissions generated in acquiring fuel, not burning it.
“if decision-makers are confronted with the full carbon impacts of these projects”, then we wouldn’t have wood-chip burning power stations, anaerobic digesters, wind turbines, solar farms and battery energy storage systems – in other words, no renewable energy projects.
How much difference to global temperatures will 10 million tons of CO2 make?
0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000K
I thought it would be less than that!
I certainly wasn’t expecting quite so many decimal places! Bdgwx would be mightily impressed at your, er, ‘precision’.
The Supreme Court…
Oh dear. The judiciary is onside with the loonies
Her case has failed 3 times (I think) so far – in each case the judge ruled that Surrey council complied completely with the regulatory laws and she had no case. This her last chance.
The Grauniad says she has already lost the case in the high court (2020) and the court of appeal (2022).
So who’s funding her?
Good question. The website of the Weald Group indicates that they crowdfunded a legal team. I’d have to bet that they got donations from various interested groups to top up a very expensive process, though.
We haven’t got much in common anymore bros-
Mining members to split from construction union (msn.com)
Besides without us you won’t have much to build with apart from mud huts by hand.
Did Oz win the Ashes? /cryptic
NO. Only the first match.
Sarah Finch has lost this case about four times already, so who the hell is backing her?
Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and the Office for Environmental Protection have also intervened, on Finch’s behalf.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/21/climate-campaigner-sarah-finch-takes-surrey-oil-drilling-case-to-supreme-court
I’m bringing today to the Supreme Court, on behalf of @WealdActionGr and supported by @friends_earth and @GreenpeaceUK
https://twitter.com/MadamPratolungo/status/1671389056578535425
Quelle surprise.
Crowdfunding and donations. They cover Sussex, Surrey, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight – quite a lot of money in those parts; retired London metropolitan elites and lots of other woke lefties.
UK Covid deaths among worst of big European economies get angry
You can not keep inflicting this shit on people without consequences – Government has completely lost the plot on what Governments are supposed to do and is now destroying the very people it is supposed to be helping.
They are all connected.
Why:
Because something has gone very badly wrong
The [UK] elites (Est 1660) have nothing but fear, loathing and disdain for the ordinary working class man or woman.
The referendum on the voting system was rigged to get the right result – and it did. We’re still on FPTP
They couldn’t rig the Brexit referendum, so they put a clown in charge of the campaign. If you look closely you can see even Bozo was gobsmacked that Leave had won. As a result of this epic error Parliament will take more powers. And we can already see our freedoms withering away on the hi-tech vine.
Oh dear, a sour loser.
The proponents of PR accepted the alternative form of voting on offer at that referendum. They had the clout to propose a different form. They didn’t. They lost. Get over it.
We voted to leave the EU (thank goodness – I’d been waiting nearly 30 years for the opportunity). Get over it.
Mostly they claimed deaths were due to covid when they weren’t. But they did use it as an excuse to shut down much of the NHS. Didn’t help with deaths from normal causes.
This is a good analysis.
“Government has completely lost the plot on what Governments are supposed to do and is now destroying the very people it is supposed to be helping.”
I don’t know if they lost the plot, this may be deliberate on the part of some, but their actions are definitely destroying the people they are supposed to be representing.
Peta, you forgot Sugar! (/s)
To win surely she must demonstrate that the corresponding or greater volume of oil would not otherwise be used. What is not produced at Horse Hill simply ends up being imported, to the detriment of the UK economy. She might have a small case concerning the delivery of the oil to a refinery. I suspect it is trucked to Fawley, a little under 100 miles. Despite the very low emissions per tonne mile of a VLCC the extra mileage means that delivery emissions are rather higher for imported crude.
There is no case.
On one of my first visits to the UK, I spent a couple of days at the Fawley refinery. I remember that the chocolate pudding in the cafeteria was really good. The world didn’t seem so crazed back then.
We already have 2 oil extraction sites around here. If you want some fun then try using google earth to spot them around J6 on the M25. The oil is piped away to the south. If you know where to look them are some indicators where they go under roads. Horse Hill is probably tapping in to the same basin – there was a drilling site down my road that was started by Cuadrilla but was capped off a year or so back.
I know the Palmers Wood sites. As does Mohammed Fayed, who has a pile on (appropriately) Hogtrough Lane: he tried to sue for royalties when it emerged they had drilled right under his house without him being aware of it – and failed.
I could also point out wells near Albury (gas) and Brockham (oil), as well as Storrington by the airfield.
No. To win she must show that Surrey Council did not fully comply with the planning regulations in failing to consider any emissions after the oil is sold. So far, the Courts have found against her 3 times (I think). We’ll see what happens.
From the article: ““Developers are fighting court cases like this because they are very concerned that if decision-makers are confronted with the full carbon impacts of these projects,”
What is the “full carbon impact”?
There is no discernable, provable “carbon impact” on the Earth’s climate from using oil and natural gas. Claiming there is a “carbon impact” means you are lying, or you are sadly misinformed.
First she needs to PROVE that CO2 will make any measurable difference to global temperature if it increases from the current level with the addition of the downstream output. Good luck with that.
Sarah Finch: “Planning authorities say that they don’t need to consider the climate impacts of the actual burning of the oil – just from the drilling. It’s like saying a chocolate cake is low calorie as long as you don’t eat it.”
To Sarah: People need calories to survive. Your analogy assumes that calories, in and of themselves, are evil & bad … and you demand that everyone survive by eating tree bark.
Someone should send her this graphic.
The proponents in some of these lawsuits should in court be charged eith perjury. There is no carbon emission. CO2 is a product of oxzidation of organic material which includes food in the gut of humans. There is about 3.8% in the nbreathe of humans. The CO2 is recycled to help plants grow. There is no gobal warming from CO2 in the atomosphere because of the second law of thermodynamics. Radiation from CO2 molecules goes to very cold space. A period in jail would be a cure for those going court with lies.