Time for yet another revised ‘net zero emissions’ plan. Whether any country that used to depend largely on fuel-burning power stations for electricity can meet the demands of its own time-limited climate plans/targets is open to question. The BBC report once again wheels out the old climate propaganda con trick of pretending that sunset shadow effects are scary pollution clouds in its report image.
– – –
The government has been defeated in court – for a second time – for not doing enough to meet its targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, reports BBC News.
Environmental campaigners argued that the energy minister signed off the government’s climate plan without evidence it could be achieved.
The High Court ruled on Friday that the government will now be required to redraft the plan again.
In response the government defended its record on climate action.
A Department for Energy Security and Net Zero spokesperson said: “The UK can be hugely proud of its record on climate change. We do not believe a court case about process represents the best way of driving progress towards our shared goal of reaching net zero.”
The legal challenge was brought by environmental groups Friends of the Earth, ClientEarth and The Good Law Project.
Tony Bosworth, lead campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said it was “an embarrassing day for the government”.
Speaking outside the court to BBC News he said: “What we now need to see is a climate plan which is robust, which is comprehensive and which is fair, which makes sure we meet all our climate targets, and which does that in a way which doesn’t leave anybody behind.”
The three groups had previously won a case against the government back in 2022 arguing that its Net Zero Plan was not detailed enough to explain how the UK would cut its emissions – as required by the Climate Change Act.
In response the government produced a plan which laid out how each of its policies would cut emissions.
But the campaigners said the former Energy Secretary Grant Shapps did not consider the risks to deliver the plan and signed it off assuming all the policies would be achieved.
In his judgement, Mr Justice Sheldon said: “It is not possible to ascertain from the materials presented to the Secretary of State which of the proposals and policies would not be delivered at all, or in full.”
Later on Friday, the judge is expected to provide a deadline for reviewing the plan.
. . .
The UK has a target to reduce its emissions by 78% by 2035 against 1990 levels.
Full report here.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Looks like the black robes will have to roll up their sleeves and micro-manage UK’s energy platform. This week some US high court justices were more prudent:
“We held that declaratory relief was “not substantially likely to mitigate the plaintiffs’ asserted concrete injuries.” Juliana, 947 F.3d at 1170. To the contrary, it would do nothing “absent further court action,” which we held was unavailable. Id. We then clearly explained that Article III courts could not “step into the[] shoes” of the political branches to provide the relief the Juliana plaintiffs sought.“
https://rclutz.com/2024/05/02/may-day-appeals-court-rules-against-kids-climate-lawsuit/
So the government is guilty of not being able to predict accurately the future, and these judges somehow know that now?
More legal activism.
Yes, I’m afraid so: legal activism. Try as an engineer , explaining things to a Sheriff in non-legalese. It don’t work. for them 1+1 is something else, etc. Laws of Physics don’t apply. As my friend said, when he gave up on studying Law. Laws of Nature / Physics are more stable and “known” ABOUT than many other laws. Law of the Land is …… ( I think you all know the answer for that one )
The UK has a target to reduce its emissions by 78% by 2035 against 1990 levels.
The 2034 court case should be a laugh 😎
What were our ‘emissions’ in 1990? They mean CO2? How measured and what from?
Is ‘carbon capture’ doomed?
Citing costs, Capital Power cancels $2.4 billion carbon capture project
Capital Power said CCS is “technically viable” but not economically feasible, even with government subsidies.
https://www.power-eng.com/emissions/citing-costs-capital-power-cancels-2-4-billion-carbon-capture-project/
It can’t ever be economic if it produces nothing to sell.
[…] UK Government defeated in High Court over climate plans – as usual […]