Supreme Court Ruling: Impact of Oil Extraction on Climate Change – A Detailed Analysis
Supreme Court Overturns Court of Appeal Decision on Oil Extraction Emissions
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has overturned the Court of Appeal’s ruling on the emissions from the use of oil extracts from an oil well. The majority of the Supreme Court, led by Lord Leggatt, held that these emissions are indirect effects of the extraction of oil, even if the project is limited to oil extraction and does not include any refining process.
The judgment, which saw Lord Kitchen and Lady Rose agreeing with Lord Leggatt, while Lord Sales and Lord Richards dissented, has significant implications for environmental impact assessments. The majority’s decision highlights the importance of considering both direct and indirect effects in the EIA process.
Lord Leggatt emphasized that combustion emissions are direct effects of oil extraction because they are almost entirely independent of any intermediate variables. He pointed out that knowing the oil will be refined and used as fuel is enough to predict and quantify combustion emissions, making them a direct effect of the extraction activity.
The judgment also delved into the 2013 Guidance on Integrating Climate Change and Biodiversity into Environmental Impact Assessment, highlighting the need to consider indirect effects like GHG emissions caused by supporting activities or infrastructure linked to the project.
The dissenting judgment, led by Lord Sales, disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of the legislation and its focus on downstream emissions. Lord Sales argued that decisions on oil use and GHGs fall outside local authority powers and should be addressed at the national level to ensure coherence and consistency in policy-making.
The Supreme Court’s decision has far-reaching implications for future environmental impact assessments and the regulation of emissions from oil extraction projects. The judgment underscores the need for a comprehensive approach to assessing the environmental impact of projects and the importance of considering both direct and indirect effects in the decision-making process.
Legal representatives from various parties, including Horse Hill Developments (UK Oil and Gas), the Secretary of State, and Friends of the Earth, were involved in presenting arguments before the Supreme Court.
For more details on the judgment, you can access the full document here.