Will the law courts treat failing climate models as a justification for finding in favour of lawsuits designed to force the public to travel less? Debatable human rights arguments will be heard.
– – –
Plans for airports, energy and roads are facing multiple legal challenges over climate commitments, says BBC News.
Environmentalists are using the law to hound the government to force infrastructure plans into line with its climate change commitments.
Ministers are facing a fusillade of legal challenges on airports, energy and roads.
And now they have been threatened with new legal action unless their airports strategy reflects the drive towards a zero-emissions economy.
A separate legal challenge to the government’s road building strategy from campaign group Transport Action Network is already under way.
Earlier this week, campaigners won a battle to force ministers to review their energy policy statement so it reflects climate concerns.
The new action against the airports strategy comes from a not-for-profit group, the Good Law Project.
It is undaunted by this week’s Supreme Court defeat, when judges said the 2018 document didn’t break the law because at the time the UK was aiming for a 80% emissions cut by 2050.
Good Law accepts the Supreme Court ruling – but insists that the UK airports strategy must now be aligned with the Climate Change Act, which is now in force and which demands almost zero emissions by 2050.
The aviation strategy was agreed in the light of fears that airport capacity in south-east England was becoming over-loaded.
Good Law says the strategy should be reviewed because of the likely long-term dampening effect on business travel from the Covid pandemic – that’s as well as the carbon impacts of the runway.
A government spokesperson said it had always been clear that Heathrow expansion is a private sector project which must meet strict criteria on air quality, noise and climate change.
“We take our commitments on the environment and reducing greenhouse gas emissions seriously,” they added.
“The government is planning to consult next year on an aviation decarbonisation strategy, which will set out proposals for how the aviation sector will play its part in delivering our net zero commitments.”
Full article here.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Jo Nova: Cancel Culture intimidation affects lawyers and judges, whole court system
December 21st, 2020
https://joannenova.com.au/2020/12/cancel-culture-intimidation-affect-lawyers-and-judges-whole-court-system/
It has been decided that your are to destroy your country.
All these conversations are arguing over “How quickly do we do it?”
It’s the timing being discussed. The end is the same.
Easy answer, which will never be followed, is to change the climate change requirements to fit with the real world – in other words scrap the climate change stupidity that is destroying the country.
Uhuh, and are there ANY wisselblowers from the davos and similar summits? funny that. No leaks at all about who is REALLY deciding WHAT. I do KNOW that it will be Christmas in around 369 days, BUT Why are the Turkeys voting for it this now?
The Greens won’t win these cases. For a start, the courts accept – rightly – that overall policy is not defined by individual projects. Net zero is for the entire country and so what happens at one airport or road cannot determine whether net zero is achieved overall.
Second, it is at the Planning stage – gaining planning permission – that environmental effects are considered. The government can allow all sorts of projects to proceed and then they may be prevented at Planning if they will not meet whatever environmental responsibilities are in force.
What these cases illustrate is that Greens are not interested in Net Zero. They want things they don’t like stopped. The bizarre and irrational hatred of nuclear power has long been an example.
Norway’s top court dismissed an attempt by climate activists to halt Arctic oil exploration by Western Europe’s biggest petroleum-producing nation
— by Bloomberg
22/12/2020
“The verdict is important because it protects a long-standing Norwegian tradition where difficult political issues are assessed, debated and finally weighed by elected representatives in the parliament,” Petroleum and Energy Minister Tina Bru said in a statement.
https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/norway/287620/norway-rejects-arctic-oil-appeal-articleisfree/
So, it’s a human right to live by unsubstantiated theories, elaborate but flawed models, or belief in the metaphysics of a ‘climate crisis’.
Is it not a human right to demand to be governed by evidence, verified observations, and scientifically acknowledged reality?
Yes the climate varies but we humans have so little influence on it.