At issue: The legality of the grant of development consent for a new dual carriageway, including a new tunnel, crossing the Stonehenge World Heritage Site
At issue: Whether the decision to grant environmental authorisation to conduct exploratory drilling off the South-West coast should be set aside in that it was taken without proper assessment of the environmental impacts of the proposed project
At issue: Whether statements by two UK-based airlines about their efforts to reduce and/or offset climate impacts adhered to the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises on responsible business conduct.
At issue: Whether statements by a UK-based energy company about its carbon emissions and environmental impacts adhered to the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises on responsible business conduct.
At issue: The Drax power station is a large biomass power station in Drax, North Yorkshire, England. In January 2024 the Secretary of State granted development consent to install carbon capture technology at the plant. That decision has been challenged on public law grounds. The claimant is Biofuelwatch UK, which campaigns against the burning of biofuels. It argues the decision was unlawful as the likely harmful environmental effects were not assessed or taken into account, in breach of the relevant environmental impact assessment (EIA) regulations. Specifically it is said the regulations were breached:
• By zero-rating the carbon (CO2) emissions from biomass burning, i.e. treating it as producing no greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, despite the obvious and indisputable fact that the combustion of biomass releases huge quantities of GHG emissions
• By excluding the CO2 emissions from the units to be fitted with the carbon capture technology
• By treating the works to construct and operate transport and storage facilities for captured carbon as a separate project. Biofuelwatch says the Humber Low Carbon Pipelines Project to transfer the CO2 and store it in rock formations under the North Sea is essential for the Carbon Capture Usage and Storage (CCUS) to operate as a whole and should have been treated as the same project for EIA purposes.
The impact of these errors on the decision is said to be significant, on the basis they allowed the energy secretary to treat the project as resulting in a net reduction in emissions of 7,975,620 tCO2e per annum.
The next step is for the High Court to decide whether to give permission for the claim to proceed to a full hearing.
At issue: Claimants challenged mining project, arguing that environmental assessment failed to consider climate impacts to human rights and environment.
At issue: Whether the oil drilling license obtained by ReconAfrica from the Namibian Government is legal with regard to exacerbating climate change in a region especially prone to droughts and endangerment of wildlife, as well as the duty to consult local communities.
At issue: Whether MINAM fulfilled its obligation to collaborate with indigenous or aboriginal communities and submit a design for a guarantee fund to the Executive Branch within the mandated timeframe.
At issue: Whether the implementation plan for the NDC provides constitutionally required protection of the fundamental rights of the plaintiffs from the threat of climate change.
At issue: Whether the South Korean NDC provides constitutionally required protection of the fundamental rights of the plaintiffs from the threat of climate change.
At issue: Whether the climate law provides constitutionally required protection of the fundamental rights of the plaintiffs from the threat of climate change.
At issue: Whether the greenhouse gas emitting activities of New Zealand’s largest emitters amount to violations of common law duties under public nuisance, negligence, and a novel climate tort.