A High Court judge ruled that the U.K. government’s approval of a plan to meet climate targets lacked evidence of deliverability. The plan aimed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by two-thirds of 1990 levels by 2030 and achieve net zero by 2050. The judge criticized the plan for being vague and lacking necessary details for proper evaluation. It was the second time in two years that the government’s main climate action plan was found to be insufficient in meeting legally-binding targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Justice Clive Sheldon sided with three environmental groups who brought the case, ruling that the government’s decision to approve its Carbon Budget Delivery Plan last year was not justified by the evidence presented.
The plan outlined how the U.K. aims to achieve its climate targets, including pledges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about two-thirds of 1990 levels by 2030 and to reach net zero by 2050. The judge stated that the details in the draft plan were “vague and unquantified,” and didn’t provide officials with enough information on whether the plan should be approved. Lawyers representing the environmental organizations argued that the government failed to share “risk tables” or information about whether its policies could be implemented with Parliament and others, making it difficult to scrutinize the plan. The government’s lack of transparency and insufficient evidence led to the High Court judge ruling that its actions were unlawful in approving the plan without proper justification.
“The courts have now told the U.K. government not once, but twice, that its climate strategy is not fit for purpose,” said a lawyer for the group ClientEarth. This judgment emphasizes the need for the government to take credible action to address the climate crisis with a plan that can be trusted to deliver results. The government defended its record on climate change, stating that it has set out more detail than any other G20 country on how it will reach its ambitious carbon budgets. However, the judge’s ruling highlights the importance of a plan with concrete steps that can be implemented and relied upon to meet climate targets.
Last year, the U.K. government’s own climate advisers expressed concerns about its ability to meet emission targets and criticized officials for backtracking on fossil fuel commitments. This lack of confidence in the government’s decarbonization efforts further underscores the need for a detailed and credible plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The government’s statement in response to the High Court judge’s ruling emphasized the need for progress towards the shared goal of reaching net zero, but did not address the specific criticisms raised by the court. Officials have committed to publishing a new report within 12 months following the judge’s ruling, indicating a willingness to address the deficiencies highlighted in the case.
Overall, the High Court judge’s ruling highlights the importance of evidence-based decision-making in climate action planning. The lack of transparency and insufficient detail in the U.K. government’s plan to meet climate targets led to its approval being deemed unlawful. Moving forward, the government must prioritize the development of a comprehensive and credible plan that can be trusted to deliver results in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The need for a clear roadmap towards achieving net zero by 2050 is essential in addressing the climate crisis and meeting legally-binding targets to combat climate change.
