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”.

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

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Firm strengthens global fund finance practice with London partner hire.

DWF—Stephen Webb

DWF—Stephen Webb

Partner and head of national planning team appointed

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

Corporate team expands in Birmingham with partner hire

NEWS
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll