Last week, the UK Supreme Court, in a majority 3 to 2 verdict, upheld a claim by a former Surrey resident, Sarah Finch, on behalf of the Weald Action Group (and supported by Friends of the Earth) that the local planning authority had acted unlawfully by failing to take into account the downstream emissions produced from oil to be extracted from the expansion of a small well near Gatwick in Surrey. The decision documents are here. I'd been trying to understand this story in poorly referenced articles in the newspapers. Thanks then to a net zero watch blog by John Constable for a detailed response.
Lower courts had rejected this claim because the well was not responsible for the emissions, since these arose from a subsequently produced refined product used in machinery that was nothing to do with the well. The Supreme Court over-ruled this decision arguing that:
"The process of refining crude oil does not alter its basic nature or intended use and cannot reasonably be regarded as breaking the causal connection between the extraction of the oil and its subsequent combustion."
Lower courts saw that on this logic, industries such as steel production would be liable for the emissions of vehicles manufactured from the steel. The majority 3 would have none of it. In para 123 they write:
The oil produced from the well site will not be used in the creation of a different type of object, in the way that a component part is incorporated – along with many other different and equally necessary components – in manufacturing a motor vehicle or aircraft. Refining the oil is simply a process that it inevitably undergoes on the pathway from extraction to combustion. Nor is there any element of conjecture or speculation about what will ultimately happen to the oil. It is agreed that it will inevitably be burnt as fuel. And a reasonable estimate can readily be made of the quantity of GHGs which will be released when that happens.
There is a fundamental mis-understanding of the chemical industry here as not all crude oil or gas ends up being burnt for energy release. Some (around 2%) gets turned in to petrochemicals, for example; some to fertiliser and some to asphalts, tars, waxes and lubricants. Our current lifestyle and economy depend on all these. Did no one in all these fine courts have chemistry GCSE?
A more substantive issue is that, as this was a 3:2 verdict with the two dissenting judges agreeing with the lower courts, it amounts to little more than a difference of opinion. And yet the matter is settled and will likely have (perhaps huge) ramifications as those trying to get the UK to stop using oil and gas altogether (by 2030 some say), and who wish to force their views on the rest of us, press their cases in the courts.
In an article for The Times, Lord Sumption wrote:
"Lord Sales points out in his powerful dissent — is that in a field that cries out for coherent policy-making, the majority’s answer is incoherent. The real issue in the case was not what to do about climate change, but who is to decide what to do about climate change."
That is, is it parliament, judges or the 324 UK planning g authorities? I'd say parliament, but maybe it's time to buy yet more sweaters ...
Responses
Another good report on the inability of the hierarchical system trying to force fit their antiquated worldviews into a modern world that demands a completely new way of thinking.