Fergus Green

Thank you and congratulations to all involved, especially the courageous individual applicants, @greenpeace.no, @naturogungdom.bsky.social and the indefatigable Jenny Sandvig!

While the ruling only applies to the 46 Member States of the Council of Europe, the Court noted that its position echoes the broader position under international law and other treaties, per recent advisory opinions of ITLOS, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, ICJ, and ETFA Court. [320]-[324]

- "informed public consultation must take place at a time when all options are still open and when pollution can realistically be prevented at source." [319]

- "at the level of the public authorities, there must be an assessment of whether the activity is compatible with their obligations under national and international law to take effective measures against the adverse effects of climate change." [319]

- "In the context of petroleum production projects, the environmental impact assessment must include, at a minimum, a quantification of the GHG emissions anticipated to be produced (including the combustion emissions both within the country and abroad ...)". [319]

- States must provide for "an adequate, timely and comprehensive environmental impact assessment in good faith and based on the best available science" [318];

The @echr.coe.int today affirmed a set of important principles re the obligations of states under the European Convention on Human Rights with respect to the assessment of climate impacts from proposed fossil fuel extraction projects. hudoc.echr.coe.int#{%22itemid%2...

Yup!

a group of people smiling and eating ice creams in front of TV screens. Mostly men in suits.

The Norwegian Oil Ministry and several fossil fuel companies celebrating the approval of 19 new oil/gas projects with ice creams and big smiles.

Collectively, the projects will unlock > 800MTCO2-e of emissions; more than Germany emits in 1 year. The longest-running will pump out oil+gas until 2060.

Britain’s tough new climate test • Fergus Green Britain has leapfrogged Australia with strong rules for proposed fossil fuel projects

The UK's strong new climate test for proposed oil & gas projects casts Australia's environmental impact assessment laws in an unflattering light: my new piece in ‪Inside Story‬ insidestory.org.au/britains-tou... @uclspp.bsky.social @uclpolicylab.bsky.social @insidestory.bsky.social

UCL climate law expert shows importance of UK Government’s new test for oil and gas projects Dr Fergus Green has published a constructive proposal for assessing the 'significance' of fossil fuel extraction projects’ climate impacts in a legally appropriate manner.

Yesterday the UK govt issued strong new guidance to oil & gas producers on incorporating combustion emissions into their environmental impact assessments. I comment on the new guidance and link it to my new legal research working paper, here: www.ucl.ac.uk/political-sc... @uclspp.bsky.social

Rosebank oilfield: why more UK oil means more global emissions It’s a myth that producing oil with lower upstream emissions benefits the climate.

My piece in @uk.theconversation.com tries to bust myths in the UK oil & gas debate (esp. re Rosebank) that distract from a simple truth: more oil means more emissions. argumentshttps://theconversation.com/rosebank-oilfield-why-more-uk-oil-means-more-global-emissions-253055 @uclspp.bsky.social

A reminder that the application for this research fellow/research assistant position is due end of the day this Friday (30 May)!

... "It is for the referring court to assess whether the conditions are satisfied in the main proceedings, in the light of the content of the national provisions and the information available to it." [121] So, in this case, the Norwegian appeals court must make this assessment.

But this does not preclude "regularisation" of an already-operating project by conducting the EIA while it is operating, so long as (i) this does not allow parties to circumvent their obligations and (ii) the project's past as well as future impacts are assessed. ...

#6 Re the 'implications' questions: A national court may not retroactively dispense with the obligation to assess env. effects. A national court is required, to the extent possible under national law, to eliminate the unlawful consequences of a failure to carry out a full EIA ...

... On this, the court said regard cannot be had to “speculative analyses of knock-on effects on other projects elsewhere” [96]. This logic is similar to that of the UK High Court in the Cumbria Coalmine decision. These are important cracks in the market substitution argument.

#5 The market substitution argument was resolutely rejected in principle. The fact the project's production may displace other production from another project is irrelevant to assessing the climate impacts of the combustion emissions of the project. ...

#4 The fact that the extracted fuel's end-uses may be uncertain (e.g., some petrochemicals applications), is no bar to their likely emissions being accounted for and assessed; am emissions "range" can be used to capture uncertainties.

Thus, fossil fuel (FF) companies can't hide behind the Paris Agmt's rules about how countries *account* for emissions to deny they have a responsibility to assess the climate impacts of the scope 3 (combustion) emissions likely to result from their export-oriented FF projects.

#3 The fact that the combustion emissions may occur in a different jurisdiction from the extraction project is not relevant to whether they must be assessed. Nor is it relevant that the Paris Agreement requires countries to account for emissions on a territorial basis. ...

#2 The fact the extracted petroleum undergoes intermediate treatment (e.g., refining), which may also be subject to an EIA requirement, is no bar to including the combustion emissions in an EIA for the extraction project. Effects must be considered at the earliest possible stage.

Yet, it is a landmark decision - not least because some other courts (e.g., some Norwegian courts; UK courts pre-the UKSC ruling in Finch) have taken the contrary view, and because the Norwegian appeal court that referred the matter to the EFTA Court evidently had doubts.

Accordingly, this is, in one sense, not at all a surprising finding. Indeed, scholars have argued that such a finding would follow from the most plausible interpretation of the Directive and CJEU case law: see esp. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/... ...

#1 The Court held that emissions from the combustion of petroleum are (indirect) 'effects' of petroleum extraction projects that must be assessed under the EIA Directive. This finding is consistent with the wording, objects & purposes of the Directive. ...

My key takeaways from the EFTA Court advisory opinion on the requirements for assessing petroleum extraction projects under the EU's Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive and the implications of failing to adhere to those requirements. eftacourt.int/wp-content/u...

Important judgment of the EFTA Court clearly establishes that emissions from the combustion of petroleum are 'effects' of petroleum extraction projects that must be assessed under the EU's Environmental Impact Assessment Directive. Consistent with UKSC judgment in Finch eftacourt.int/wp-content/u...

The burning question: can we limit warming to 1.5°C, while still continuing to build fossil fuel infrastructure and open new extraction fields? According to analysis by @fergusgreen.bsky.social, the only answer is no. We need a new social norm: 💥 ✊ No. New. Fossil. Fuels. ✊ 💥

Milieudefensie‬ (Friends of the Earth NL) has launched a new climate case against Shell, arguing Shell's proposed new oil & gas developments violate their social duty of care. This action will help to build a legal #NoNewFossil norm.

We're hiring a short-term postdoc (think "summer project"), or PhD-student RA, with advanced expertise in quantitative text analysis to support myself and Dr Marion Dumas (LSE) in a European Horizon-funded grant project. Details here adjust-project.eu/job-call/