Back to cases
In 2008, the UK Government passed the Climate Change Act 2008, which aimed to commit the UK to making a “fair” contribution to maintaining the politically recognised global climate change limit of 2˚C. The “carbon target” was set at making an 80% reduction of emissions by 2050 compared to a 1990 baseline.
In December 2015, the UK Government, along with 197 others, adopted the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, which rejected the 2˚C limit as inadequate and dangerous, and committed government to limiting warming to “well below” 2˚C, while aiming for 1.5˚C.
Yet by April 2017, the Government had still made no plans to conduct a review of the Climate Change Act, to align its domestic carbon target to the Paris Agreement it was committed to.
That’s when Plan B began writing to both the Government and the Committee on Climate Change, urging them to take action.
By September 2017 we had not received a satisfactory response from either, so we issued a formal “letter before legal action”. As we still didn’t get any commitment to revising the target, we issued formal legal proceedings in December 2017 along with 11 UK Citizens from all walks of life.
Just one month later the Committee on Climate Change recommend the Government undertake a review. By April 2018 the Government had agree to conduct a review and by June 2019 they had introduced a new target of “net zero” by 2050, which though still dangerous, inequitable and inadequate, was an improvement on what went before.
No doubt influenced by these developments, the Court refused us a full hearing on the case. The lesson, from our perspective, was that litigation could make things happen, whether inside or outside Court.
Published here with kind permission of Lawtext.
Environmental Liability, Law, Policy and Practice, Vol 24, Issue 3, 2016 The Paris Agreement Implementation Blueprint: a practical guide to bridging the gap between actions and goal and closing the accountability deficit (Part 1) Tim Crosland Plan B, UK Aubrey Meyer The Global Commons Institute, UK Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh University of the South Pacific, Vanuatu
Environmental Liability, Law, Policy and Practice, Vol 24, Issue 5, 2016 The Paris Agreement Implementation Blueprint: a practical guide to bridging the gap between actions and goal and closing the accountability deficit (Part 2) Tim Crosland Plan B, UK Aubrey Meyer The Global Commons Institute, UK Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh University of the South Pacific, Vanuatu
We are the charity Plan B and a group of 11 concerned citizens aged between nine and 79.
We are all worried about our futures.
View
I am pleased to announce that after the IPCC report later this year, we will be seeking advice from the UK’s independent advisers, the Committee on Climate Change, on the implications of the Paris Agreement for the UK’s long-term emissions reduction targets.
Stating that the basis of its advice to the government was that the current 2050 target was ‘potentially’ consistent with the Paris Agreement. It emphasises that its advice was that greater ambition was in fact feasible.
Judge Nicola Davies adjourns the case on the grounds that:
Highlighting the inconsistency between the positions of the Secretary of State and the CCC.
Their respective positions conflict. BEIS claims to be acting on CCC advice that a more ambitious 2050 target is unfeasible. CCC says that a more ambitious target is in fact feasible.
Which we serve on Secretary of State for BEIS (the Defendant) and the Committee on Climate Change (the interested Party). Both have 21 days to submit their responses.
It confirms its refusal to revise the carbon target.
Challenging its ongoing failure to set a carbon target that accords with science and international law.
…the Paris Agreement describes a higher level of ambition than the one that formed the basis of the UK’s existing legislated emission reduction targets.
And received a brief acknowledgement indicating a substantive response would be received “shortly”. Plan B responded the same day to highlight the urgency of the matter. No further response has been received.
We called for the Secretary of State to: