Greenpeace has lost its court case, challenging the UK
government’s decision to grant a permit to BP to drill the
Vorlich Field, in the North Sea. Judges in Scotland’s highest
court have ruled that the government’s decision to grant a permit
was lawful, despite the fact that the government gave no
consideration to the climate impact of burning the fossil fuels
extracted.
Greenpeace will seek to launch an appeal before the Supreme
Court.
The full written judgment can be found here.
Footage of Greenpeace’s Vorlich protest, confronting a BP rig at
sea, is here. Case background
available here.
John Sauven, Greenpeace UK executive director, said: "The
government is celebrating a win for the fossil fuel industry
after its lawyers argued in court that emissions from burning oil
extracted by BP are ‘not relevant’ when granting an oil permit.
"And now the Prime Minister is poised to sign off even more oil
if he approves a new oil field at Cambo - against official
guidance from climate experts.
"In just a few weeks’ time, will be opening global
climate talks where his actions, not his words, will be what
counts.
"And right now his actions are covered in oil. We will not give
up the fight for the climate. Our intention is to appeal this
ruling before the Supreme Court.”
Judges concluded that:
- It is not possible to assess emissions that
result from burning oil and gas.
- The UK is still reliant on oil and gas,
referencing the current gas price crisis, but confusingly added
that extracting oil and gas does not increase or maintain
consumption of oil and gas.
- It could not be argued that oil and gas has
any material effect on climate change.
- The matter is political, not legal.
In a written ruling, Lord Carloway, the Lord President, said: “It
would not be practicable, in an assessment of the environmental
effects of a project for the extraction of fossil fuels, for the
decision maker to conduct a wide ranging examination into the
effects, local or global, of the use of that fuel by the final
consumer.”
The government has said that it plans to introduce climate compatibility
checks for new licences before next year.
Referencing recent political developments, around the gas price
crisis, the Lord President added: “Although the appellants’
aspiration is for such extraction to cease, it does not appear to
be contended that the UK economy is not still reliant in a number
of different ways on the consumption of oil and gas. At present,
a shortage of oil and gas supplies is a matter of public
concern.
“The argument is, in any event, an academic one. It is not
maintained that the exploitation of the Vorlich field would
increase, or even maintain, the current level of consumption.
Unless it did so, it is difficult to argue that it would have any
material effect on climate change; even if it is possible to
arrive at a figure for its contribution by arithmetical
calculation relative to the production of oil and gas overall.
The Secretary of State’s submission that these are matters for
decision at a relatively high level of Government, rather than
either by the court or in relation to one oilfield project, is
correct. The issue is essentially a political and not a legal
one.”
ENDS
NOTES TO EDITORS
