Is it a landmark? The question now is: what does ‘must be considered’ mean in order to satisfy the courts? Oil can be used for a variety of purposes, including lubrication of wind turbines with 200-1400 litres of it.
– – –
The future of new oil and gas projects in the UK has been thrown into doubt following a landmark decision by the Supreme Court, says Sky News.
The court concluded the environmental impact of emissions from burning fossil fuels must be considered in planning applications for new extraction projects – not just the impacts of the emissions produced in extracting them.
The case hinged around an oil drilling project at Horse Hill in Surrey, granted planning permission by Surrey County Council in 2019.
Local campaigner Sarah Finch argued the environmental impact of the project should have taken into account not just the carbon emissions created in extracting the oil, but the environmental impact when they are burned.
She challenged an earlier Court of Appeal ruling dismissing her case, having also lost a legal battle in the High Court.
But the Supreme Court justices ruled on Thursday three to two in favour of allowing her appeal, and quashed the decision to grant planning permission for the site.
Speaking after the ruling, former Surrey resident, Ms Finch said she was “absolutely over the moon” adding that it was a “welcome step towards a safer, fairer future”.
In his judgement, Lord Leggatt concluded: “In my view, there was no basis on which the council could reasonably decide that it was not necessary to assess the combustion emissions.”
He went on: “Given the agreed fact that all the oil produced would be refined, I see no reason why environmental impacts resulting from the process of refining oil should not in principle fall within the scope of the EIA for the extracting of oil.”
Full article here.
– – –
Image – Oil in Surrey – go or no-go? [credit: glaconservatives]
via Tallbloke’s Talkshop
June 21, 2024 at 09:46AM
Iowa Climate Science Education 