A recent decision by the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court is reshaping the landscape for fossil fuel projects across Europe and beyond. On June 20, 2023, the UK’s highest court issued a landmark ruling that could significantly impede the approval of new fossil fuel extraction projects, as it mandates the consideration of greenhouse gas emissions from the combustion of extracted fuels—not just the emissions from their production.

This pivotal ruling came from a case concerning a new oil well at Horse Hill in southern England. The court determined that the authorities must account for the emissions resulting from burning the oil produced, arguing that these emissions are a direct consequence of the project.

As Judge George Leggatt noted, “The emissions that will occur on combustion of the oil produced are ‘effects of the project’ because it is known with certainty that, if the project goes ahead, all the oil extracted from the ground will inevitably be burnt, thereby releasing greenhouse gases into the Earth’s atmosphere in a quantity which can readily be estimated.”

A Ripple Effect Across Europe

The ruling, now popularly referred to as the “Finch ruling,” has already begun to influence legal battles over fossil fuel projects elsewhere in Europe. For instance, the decision has bolstered the legal arguments against a proposed coal mine in Cumbria, in the north of England, intended to provide fuel for steelmaking. The UK’s newly elected Labour government recently withdrew its support for the mine’s developer in an ongoing court case, stating that the previous Conservative government had committed an “error in law” when it initially approved the project. This reversal has been attributed in part to the Finch ruling.

Friends of the Earth, a prominent environmental organization, has cited the Finch ruling as a strengthening factor in their legal challenge against the Cumbria coal mine. According to their lawyer, Katie de Kauwe, the mine’s developers failed to assess the emissions from burning the coal, a legal oversight that has now been brought into sharp relief by the recent court decision. “We believe it’s very clear that was unlawful,” she stated.

Beyond the UK, this ruling could have far-reaching consequences for countries with similar legal frameworks, especially those still closely aligned with European Union (EU) regulations. Even though the UK has left the EU, much of its environmental legislation remains consistent with EU standards. Legal experts believe this case will serve as a persuasive precedent for courts in other jurisdictions.

Implications for Norway and Beyond

In Norway, a country not formally part of the EU but closely following its regulations, the ruling has been met with enthusiasm by climate activists. Greenpeace Norway, which is currently challenging the government’s approval of three new oil and gas fields, sees the Finch ruling as a significant boost to their case. The organization argues that the Norwegian government failed to properly assess the climate impact from burning these fuels, known as scope 3 emissions. Halvard Raavand, a Greenpeace Norway campaigner, remarked that the ruling provides a "strong precedent" that could influence Norwegian courts.

Raavand explained that while Norwegian and UK courts are not directly related, there is a tendency for courts across Europe to take note of each other’s decisions, especially when they share a common legal heritage. “Other courts across Europe might look to each other too,” he suggested.

Similarly, Dutch environmentalists are hopeful that the Finch ruling will bolster their legal challenge against oil drilling in the Wadden Sea. Sjoukje van Oosterhout, a campaigner with Friends of the Earth Netherlands, pointed out that this UK decision could serve as an important precedent in their ongoing battle against Dutch company One Dyas.

A Broader Influence on Climate Law

According to climate law professor Harro van Asselt, the UK ruling is “important” and could have implications for EU member states considering licensing new fossil fuel projects. He noted that similar rulings have been made in Australia and Norway in recent years, although some are still under appeal. Van Asselt believes that while the Finch ruling's immediate impact will be most strongly felt in Europe, it could also influence judgments in other parts of the world, particularly in common-law countries like Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, where judicial decisions play a significant role in shaping the law.

The Finch ruling also has broader implications for environmental impact assessments worldwide. De Kauwe of Friends of the Earth emphasized that the decision could lead to more comprehensive evaluations of the environmental impacts of proposed fossil fuel projects, potentially setting a new global standard.

Political Shifts and Their Consequences

The recent change in government in the UK is likely to compound the challenges facing new fossil fuel projects. Keir Starmer's Labour Party, which won the general election on a platform that included a commitment to banning fracking and halting new oil and gas exploration licenses, has already begun to act on these promises. This policy shift is seen as a significant step towards aligning the UK’s climate policies with its international commitments.

Gareth Redmond-King, the international lead at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, noted that the UK’s decision to stop issuing new oil and gas licenses sends a powerful message to other countries. He shared that during last year’s COP28 climate summit, negotiators from the Global South indicated that they had been using the UK’s previous pro-fossil fuel stance to justify their own continued exploration efforts. “That excuse has now been taken away,” he said, highlighting the impact of the UK’s policy shift on global climate diplomacy.

A Turning Point in Climate Litigation?

The Finch ruling represents a significant turning point in the global fight against fossil fuels, marking a shift in how the environmental impacts of new projects are evaluated. By requiring a comprehensive assessment of all emissions associated with a project, including those resulting from the eventual use of extracted fuels, the ruling raises the bar for future fossil fuel projects. This could make it substantially more difficult for new projects to gain approval, both in the UK and potentially in other jurisdictions influenced by this precedent.

Campaigners and legal experts are optimistic that this ruling will serve as a catalyst for similar decisions worldwide. The legal reasoning underpinning the Finch ruling aligns with a growing recognition of the need to consider the full environmental and climate impacts of fossil fuel extraction and use, rather than narrowly focusing on the direct emissions from production alone.

The Global Context

The Finch ruling arrives at a time when the world is grappling with the dual challenges of energy security and climate change. Many countries are still heavily reliant on fossil fuels, and the transition to cleaner energy sources is proving to be a complex and politically fraught process. However, as this ruling demonstrates, the legal landscape is evolving rapidly, with courts increasingly willing to hold governments and companies accountable for their climate impacts.

This shift is not confined to Europe or countries with similar legal traditions. In Australia, courts have recently issued rulings that align closely with the principles outlined in the Finch decision. For example, in a notable case, the New South Wales Land and Environment Court refused to approve a new coal mine on the grounds that it would contribute to global climate change, referencing both direct and indirect emissions associated with the project. Such decisions are indicative of a broader trend towards more stringent judicial oversight of fossil fuel projects.

Challenges Ahead

Despite the optimism surrounding the Finch ruling, there are significant challenges ahead. Fossil fuel interests are deeply entrenched in many countries, and there is likely to be strong resistance to any efforts to restrict new extraction projects. Moreover, the economic implications of such restrictions, particularly in regions heavily dependent on fossil fuel revenues, could complicate efforts to transition to cleaner energy sources.

However, the momentum is clearly shifting. As courts increasingly recognize the need to account for all emissions associated with fossil fuel projects, including those resulting from combustion, the legal framework surrounding these projects is becoming more robust. This, in turn, is likely to drive greater scrutiny of new projects and potentially lead to more stringent regulations and oversight.

The Broader Implications for Climate Policy

The Finch ruling also has broader implications for global climate policy. By setting a precedent that requires a comprehensive assessment of all emissions associated with fossil fuel projects, the ruling could encourage governments to adopt more ambitious climate policies and accelerate the transition to cleaner energy sources. This is particularly important in the context of international climate negotiations, where there is often a gap between the rhetoric of climate commitments and the reality of policy implementation.

For campaigners and activists, the Finch ruling provides a powerful new tool in the fight against climate change. By highlighting the full climate impacts of fossil fuel projects, it strengthens the case for urgent action to reduce emissions and transition to a more sustainable energy future.

As the world continues to grapple with the challenges of climate change, the Finch ruling serves as a reminder of the critical role that legal frameworks and judicial oversight play in shaping the path forward. By holding governments and companies accountable for their climate impacts, courts can help ensure that the transition to a cleaner energy future is both fair and effective.

The Path Forward

Ultimately, the Finch ruling represents a significant step forward in the fight against climate change. By requiring a comprehensive assessment of the climate impacts of fossil fuel projects, the ruling sets a new standard for environmental accountability and could serve as a catalyst for similar decisions worldwide. While there are significant challenges ahead, the momentum is clearly shifting towards a more stringent approach to regulating fossil fuel projects and protecting the environment. As courts increasingly recognize the need to account for all emissions associated with fossil fuel projects, the legal framework surrounding these projects is becoming more robust, driving greater scrutiny and oversight of new projects and potentially leading to more stringent regulations.

This shift is not just a legal one; it is also a moral and ethical imperative. As the world continues to grapple with the devastating impacts of climate change, the need for urgent and decisive action has never been more apparent. The Finch ruling provides a powerful tool for holding governments and companies accountable for their climate impacts and ensuring that the transition to a cleaner energy future is both fair and effective. By setting a new standard for environmental accountability, the ruling could help to drive a more ambitious and effective response to the climate crisis and ensure that the world is better prepared to meet the challenges of the 21st century.