Last week the UK Supreme Court ruled that the process to approve an oil and gas field in Surrey should have taken into account the impact of burning oil and gas produced. This is a huge victory for the local campaigners who have been fighting this case for years, but it is also potentially a huge setback for the oil and gas industry across the UK, which will now have to admit ultimate responsibility for the climate change that their products cause.
The case relates to the environmental impact assessment carried out to justify an application to operate an onshore oil and gas field at Horse Hill in Surrey. However, the legal principle it establishes is that oil and gas companies need to take into account the impact of the use of their products, the ‘downstream’ impacts.
To date the industry has resolutely refused to do this – it is someone else’s problem. In Scotland, they have promised to reduce the carbon intensity of oil and gas extraction, while ignoring the other 90% of their contribution to climate change. This is like a landmine factory saying they will improve health and safety conditions for workers, but completely ignoring what their products actual do.
Of course the International Energy Agency and others have already concluded that burning the oil and gas already consented is enough to take the world past the 1.5ºC danger rise threshold.
Last week’s judgement follows a similar one in a Norwegian court in January. Similar conclusions are being drawn in Australia, the Netherlands and the US. The judgement could influence the result of current UK legal challenges to the Rosebank oil field and the Jackdaw gas field. Both these cases were paused to await the outcome of the Horse Hill case.
So what does this mean for the pledges that the parties are making this election ? Everyone wants an organised transition to low-carbon jobs but how and when vary considerably.
The Scottish Greens of course are promising to put an end to new oil and gas licensing and to revoke recently issued licences.
At the other extreme, the Tories want to get out every last drop of oil and gas from the North Sea.
Labour says that it will not grant any new licenses. Sounds good, but so many licenses have already been granted that extracting all that oil and gas will put us well beyond any version of a fair emissions limit. Which they acknowledge by saying oil and gas will be flowing for decades to come. They will also be increasing the windfall tax on oil and gas profits.
The SNP has dropped Nicola Sturgeon’s policy of a presumption against new developments but maintained its position that any new licenses should be assessed against a climate compatibility assessment. Sort of sounds reasonable, but of course the UK Government already has the climate compatibility checklist which appears to work like this: question “is it OK to give the go-ahead to this carbon-budget-busting proposal ?” answer “yeah, on you go then.”
The LibDems plan a windfall tax on the oil industry and to end subsidies for oil and gas, but are silent on current and new licences.
On the face of it the new judgment from the UK Supreme Court should make it much harder to justify any new oil and gas licences, which a problem for the Tories and perhaps the LibDems. But properly implemented it should mean a review of existing licences, which is much more challenging for Labour and the SNP.
A version of this article appeared in the Scotsman newspaper on the 26th June 2024.
Image: campaigners outside the Supreme Court last week – Extinction Rebellion James Knapp