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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll