{"id":8605,"date":"2024-06-26T07:18:05","date_gmt":"2024-06-26T07:18:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/?p=8605"},"modified":"2024-06-27T07:02:57","modified_gmt":"2024-06-27T07:02:57","slug":"uk-supreme-court-fails-its-chemistry-test","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/2024\/06\/26\/uk-supreme-court-fails-its-chemistry-test\/","title":{"rendered":"UK Supreme Court fails its chemistry test"},"content":{"rendered":"

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<\/a> (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. \u00a0The decision documents are here<\/a>. \u00a0I'd been trying to understand this story in poorly referenced articles in the newspapers. \u00a0Thanks then to a net zero watch blog<\/a> by John Constable for a detailed response.<\/p>\n

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. \u00a0The Supreme Court over-ruled this decision arguing that:<\/p>\n

\n

\"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.\"<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Lower courts saw that on this logic, industries such as steel production would be liable for the emissions of vehicles manufactured from the steel. \u00a0The majority 3 would have none of it. \u00a0In para 123 they write:<\/p>\n

\n

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 \u2013 along with many other different and equally necessary components \u2013 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.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

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<\/a>. \u00a0Some (around 2%) gets turned in to petrochemicals, for example; some to fertiliser and some to asphalts, tars, waxes and lubricants. \u00a0 Our current lifestyle and economy depend on all these. \u00a0Did no one in all these fine courts have chemistry GCSE?<\/p>\n

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. \u00a0And 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.<\/p>\n

In an article for The Times, Lord Sumption<\/a> wrote:<\/p>\n

\"Lord Sales points out in his powerful dissent \u2014 is that in a field that cries out for coherent policy-making, the majority\u2019s answer is incoherent. The real issue in the case was not what <\/i>to do about climate change, but who<\/i> is to decide what to do about climate change.\"<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

That is, is it parliament, judges or the 324 UK planning g authorities? \u00a0I'd say parliament, but maybe it's time to buy yet more sweaters ...<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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...<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":237,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[2,3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8605","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-comment","category-new-publications"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8605","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/237"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8605"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8605\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8605"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8605"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.bath.ac.uk\/edswahs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8605"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}