header-logo header-logo

17 May 2007 / Peter Mcmaster
Issue: 7273 / Categories: Features , Environment
printer mail-detail

A lot of hot air?

Combating climate change is a matter of politics, not a judicial matter for the courts, argues Peter McMaster

On 13 March 2007 the Prime Minister proposed the draft Climate Change Bill amid much fanfare. If enacted, the bill will require the government to ensure that in 2050 UK CO2 emissions are 60% lower than in 1990. The three pillars on which the structure of the bill rests are:

  • Five-year periods during which CO2 emissions are to be progressively reduced to reach the 2050 target using carbon budgets.
  • Measurement and reporting of progress towards reducing CO2 emissions and adapting to climate change.
  • A Committee on Climate Change to advise and report on progress.

There is to be a legal duty to achieve emissions reductions; it is even said in the consultation material published with the bill that these are “legally binding policy commitments” and that a government that failed to stay within the targets would variously “be open to judicial review” and “could be required to take remedial action by order of court”. This looks like exaggeration.

KYOTO PROTOCOL

The Kyoto Protocol

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll