High Court finds Government carbon reduction plan to be unlawful for second time

The Government acted irrationally and unlawfully, breaching the Climate Change Act 2008, when it adopted its Carbon Budget Delivery Plan, the High Court has found.

The claim, brought by ClientEarth, Friends of the Earth, and the Good Law Project, is the second successful claim to have been brought by the three organisations over the Government's climate plans.

In 2022, the High Court ruled that the adoption of the previous version of the plan, named the Net Zero Strategy, breached sections 13 and 14 of the 2008 Act. 

The Government later adopted its new climate plan, the CBDP, in March 2023.

This included more detail, but the three claimants lodged a second judicial review challenge, arguing the plan was still "dangerously inadequate" and again breached the 2008 Act. 

The High Court considered five grounds at the second hearing.

The first ground contended that the Secretary of State had breached section 13(1) of the 2008 Act by failing to consider mandatory material considerations.

The second and third grounds argued that the Secretary of State's conclusions that the proposals and policies in the CBPD would be rolled out and achieve 100% of their intended emissions cuts were both unlawful (ground 2) and irrational (ground 3).

The fourth ground stated that the Secretary of State breached section 13(3) of the 2008 Act, which requires the Secretary of State to prepare proposals and policies for meeting carbon budgets, which "taken as a whole must be such as to contribute to sustainable development".

The claimants argued that the Secretary of State had not applied this test when assessing the plan and had instead applied a lower and less rigorous test.

Ground 5 meanwhile argued that the Secretary of State breached section 14 of the 2008 Act by failing to include critical information in the published plan itself on the level of risk associated with the individual policies and how likely they were to achieve their intended emissions cuts.  

All of the grounds except for the fifth ground were successful.

Friends of the Earth lawyer Katie de Kauwe said the ruling "shows the strength of the Climate Change Act […] to hold the government of the day to account for meeting its legal requirements to cut emissions".

She added: "We've all been badly let down by a government that's failed, not once but twice, to deliver a climate plan that ensures both our legally binding national targets and our international commitment to cut emissions by over two thirds by 2030 are met."

ClientEarth Senior Lawyer Sam Hunter Jones added: "The courts have now told the UK government not once, but twice, that its climate strategy is not fit for purpose. This time the court made it emphatically clear: the Government cannot just cross its fingers and hope for high-risk technologies and uncertain policies to plug the huge gaps in its plans."

Emma Dearnaley, Legal Director of Good Law Project, meanwhile said: "This welcome ruling shows that the law is our best –and often last – line of defence against a government that is failing to act as it must to address the climate emergency."

A Department for Energy Security and Net Zero spokesperson said: "The UK can be hugely proud of its record on climate change. Not only are we the first major economy to reach halfway to net zero, we have also set out more detail than any other G20 country on how we will reach our ambitious carbon budgets.

"The claims in this case were largely about process and the judgment contains no criticism of the detailed plans we have in place. We do not believe a court case about process represents the best way of driving progress towards our shared goal of reaching net zero."

Adam Carey