Cornerstone Barristers’ Post

A UK court has ruled that the government unlawfully approved the Rosebank and Jackdaw oil fields, requiring fresh consent considering downstream emissions. The decision has sparked debate over energy security and climate commitments.  Read more: https://lnkd.in/gC8-eb8y Greenpeace Tessa Khan Charlie Kronick Greenpeace #OilAndGas #EnergyTransition #ClimatePolicy #RenewableEnergy #UKGovernment

In a landmark decision, the UK Supreme Court recently quashed planning permission for expansion of an oil production site because a developer failed to consider downstream “scope 3” greenhouse gas emissions. The case is expected to have significant implications for future fossil fuel developments in the United Kingdom and may also have implications for major developments in the EU. Click below to download our Commentary on the case and the impact of the court's decision. Richard Adams Aidan Lawes Chris Papanicolaou Will Land #oilandgas #environmentallaw #ESG

Worth a read not just in relation to future fossil fuel developments in the UK but also to understand the potential impact on major developments in the EU

In a landmark decision, the UK Supreme Court recently quashed planning permission for expansion of an oil production site because a developer failed to consider downstream “scope 3” greenhouse gas emissions. The case is expected to have significant implications for future fossil fuel developments in the United Kingdom and may also have implications for major developments in the EU. Read Jones Day's Commentary on the case and the impact of the court's decision. https://ow.ly/uj1i50SEE8I #oilandgas #environmentallaw #ESG

UK to Implement EU-Aligned F-Gas Ban Starting January 2025 How is the United Kingdom tackling the environmental impact of F-Gases within its borders? 👉 Read more on our website today https://lnkd.in/dSDTG8mj

Last week's UK Supreme Court decision in Finch v Surrey County Council grapples with important issues around assessing greenhouse gas emissions in EIA development. As ever the devil is in the detail; it is particularly relevant to any new large-scale development proposals relating to fossil fuels, but even there its implications might be fairly limited in practice. That said, it is likely to pave the way for more litigation, so if you don't relish reading all 101 pages, you can read my summary and thoughts at the link below. Do please get in touch if you want to know more. #environment #TLT #EIA

The Rosebank oil field has been ruled unlawful by the Scottish court 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿   In October 2023, Uplift and Greenpeace first filed the case against the approval of the Rosebank oil field under the previous conservative government.    Today, after 15 months of campaigning and legal battles, the judge has ordered that Rosebank’s approval now be overturned as it did not account for the emissions that would be caused by burning the field’s oil. If Rosebank’s owners, Equinor and Ithaca Energy, still wish to move ahead with the project, they must now resubmit a new ‘Environmental Impact Assessment' to the UK government, which accounts for the field’s enormous ‘scope three’ emissions.    Through the dedicated efforts of the #StopRosebank movement we have a breakthrough today in stoping this project.    Greenhouse Communications has been supporting Uplift with this case since it had been first filed in October 2023 and we are thrilled to share positive climate news with this verdict.   Read more in The Guardian👇 https://lnkd.in/eewE3tJV

FortisBC aims to have its Tilbury Phase 2 LNG expansion in Delta ‘carbon neutral (that is, net zero) by 2030.’ See page S-40 at https://ow.ly/E6os50UkY6O. The BC Environmental Assessment Office will soon hold a public hearing on the project.

More of this, please. “New York state will fine fossil fuel companies a total of $75 billion over the next 25 years to pay for damage caused to the climate under a bill Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law on Thursday. The law is intended to shift some of the recovery and adaptation costs of climate change from individual taxpayers to oil, gas and coal companies that the law says are liable. The money raised will be spent on mitigating the impacts of climate change, including adapting roads, transit, water and sewage systems, buildings and other infrastructure.” https://lnkd.in/eY-8nbba

An evolution of the line of argument could be to attempt block any project that would consume fossil fuels or energy derived from fossil fuels? The real issue they want to address is the use of fossil fuels, not where in the globe a particular gallon of fuel was extracted. How can consumption be fine if extraction isn't?