Court Rules Against UK’s Rosebank Oilfield for Climate Impacts
In a monumental decision that has sent reverberations throughout the environmental and energy sectors, the Court of Session in Edinburgh ruled against the approval of the Rosebank oil and gas field off Shetland by the previous Conservative government in the United Kingdom. This ruling, delivered by Lord Ericht, deemed the consent for the Rosebank oilfield unlawful due to the failure to consider the carbon emissions that would result from the burning of oil and gas at the largest untapped oilfield in the UK.
Climate advocates and activists gathered in Westminster, London, on Jan. 15, 2023, to protest against the development of the Rosebank oil and gas field, calling on the government to halt the project due to its detrimental impact on the environment. The ruling by Lord Ericht is part of a growing trend in the UK judicial system, marking the third instance in the past year where courts have mandated the consideration of ‘downstream’ emissions in planning decisions.
Robert Clarke, a lawyer from ClientEarth, emphasized the significance of the court’s decision, stating, “This is a resounding signal from the courtroom that companies and governments can no longer turn a blind eye to the vast majority of the emissions their coal, oil, and gas fields create.”
Implications of the Ruling
The court’s judgment not only invalidated the approval for the Rosebank oilfield but also extended to Shell’s Jackdaw gas field, deeming the consent for both projects unlawful. As a result, the owners of these oilfields are required to seek fresh government approval before proceeding with any extraction activities. The ruling has far-reaching implications for the oil and gas industry, highlighting the need for a more detailed environmental impact assessment that considers the climate effects of burning fossil fuels.
While work on the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields will be allowed to continue during the gathering of new information, extraction activities cannot commence without the issuance of new approval. Lord Ericht, in his 57-page judgment, emphasized the necessity of remaking the decision on a lawful basis in the interest of the public, citing the significant impacts of climate change that outweigh the interests of developers.
Uplift Executive Director Tessa Khan urged the current Labour government to reject approval for both projects, emphasizing the urgent need to align with climate science and prevent the creation of new oil and gas fields. The court’s decision was met with elation by environmental campaigners, with Philip Evans from Greenpeace describing it as a “historic win” that signals the end of governments approving drilling sites without considering their climate impacts.
The Path Forward
As the court’s ruling places the fate of the Rosebank and Jackdaw oilfields back into the hands of the government, stakeholders are awaiting the UK Department for Energy Security and Net Zero’s response to the environmental guidance that accounts for emissions from oil and gas activities. The government is expected to deliver an update in the spring, outlining a revised regulatory regime that aligns with climate goals and legal obligations.
The decision to halt the Rosebank oilfield serves as a pivotal moment in the transition towards a clean energy future, shifting the focus towards renewable energy sources that offer greater sustainability and economic benefits. The court’s ruling underscores the imperative for governments and financial institutions to reassess their support for new fossil fuel projects and prioritize investments in the renewable energy sector.
As the climate crisis continues to escalate, the UK’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and transitioning to cleaner energy sources remains paramount. The court’s decision to reject the Rosebank oilfield approval underscores the crucial role of regulatory bodies in upholding environmental standards and ensuring a sustainable future for generations to come.
Cristen, an experienced writer with a background in law and creative writing, eloquently captures the essence of the court’s ruling and its implications for the energy landscape. Her insightful commentary provides a nuanced perspective on the complex interplay between environmental activism, legal challenges, and governmental policy in shaping the future of energy production and consumption.
