The High Court has found that the Government’s strategy for getting to Net Zero is inadequate and unlawful, following a successful legal challenge brought by Good Law Project, Joanna Wheatley, Client Earth and Friends of the Earth.
The Climate Change Act requires the Government to hit Net Zero by 2050, to make proposals for how it will meet that target, and to place a report before Parliament.
In a detailed judgment and order published yesterday, amid the UK's first ever red alert for extreme heat, the High Court held that the proposals for achieving Net Zero approved by the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy were too vague to enable him to be satisfied that the statutory targets would be met. In addition, the report placed before Parliament lacked the specificity necessary to meet the Secretary of State’s duty to inform Parliament and the public of his plans.
The Good Law Project described the illegality of its landmark climate change strategy as “a huge political embarrassment to the Government.”
Launched in October 2021, the Net Zero Strategy was hailed by Prime Minister Boris Johnson in a foreword saying “Our strategy for net zero is to lead the world in ending our contribution to climate change.” and by the Secretary of State, Kwasi Kwarteng: “This strategy demonstrates how the UK is leading by example, with a clear plan for the future.”
In a landmark ruling, the Court has now ordered that the existing strategy be fleshed out with the detail necessary for Parliamentary and public scrutiny within the next eight months and by no later than 31st March 2023. The Government has also been ordered to pay costs.
Justice Holgate has also refused Kwasi Kwartengs application to appeal against the decision, referring to “the lamentable lack of clarity in the defendant’s case in this area, and the confusion he introduced in this part of the application for permission to appeal “.
Justice Holgate concluded by saying:
Turning then to what the proposed grounds for appea are really about, the thrust of the criticism is that mu conclusions involve a misinterpretation of the legislation. Unfortunately, however, the defendant does not grapple with that analysis or say why it is arguably wrong, let alone with a real prospect of success. In those circumstances it would be inappropriate to grant permission to appeal. It has not been shown that there is a real prospect of success or a compelling reason.”