Plan B Earth & Ors, R. (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Business, Energy And Industrial Strategy

The Secretary of State has a discretion, rather than a duty, to amend the 2050 emissions target under the Climate Change Act 2008. The discretion may be exercised by leaving the target unchanged where the Secretary of State has obtained and taken into account the Committee on Climate Change’s advice. The Paris Agreement does not impose a legally binding domestic target requiring the United Kingdom to achieve a specified temperature level by 2050. A decision to defer revision of the target is not unlawful merely because greater ambition may eventually be required. The decision was also not shown to interfere with Convention rights or to engage the public sector equality duty in the manner alleged.

Plan B Earth and eleven individual claimants sought permission for judicial review of the Secretary of State’s refusal to revise the statutory 2050 carbon target. They alleged misunderstandings of the Committee on Climate Change’s advice and of the Climate Change Act 2008, irrationality, breach of Convention rights, and failure to comply with the public sector equality duty.

Permission had previously been refused on the papers by Lang J. The renewed application concerned whether the existing target was compatible with the Paris Agreement and whether the Secretary of State was required to revise it immediately.

1. Application refused. The claim was not arguable.
2. Under sections 1 and 2 of the Climate Change Act 2008, the Secretary of State has power, but no mandatory duty, to amend the 2050 target. Section 2(2) permits amendment where significant developments in scientific knowledge or European or international law or policy make it appropriate. Having regard to the Committee’s advice, the Secretary of State was entitled to leave the target unchanged at that time.
3. The Committee’s 2016 report had to be read as a whole. It considered that the existing target was compatible with the Paris Agreement, while recognising that greater reductions, potentially including net zero emissions, might later be required. The Secretary of State had not misunderstood that advice. The existing target and a future net-zero target were inter-related, but the absence of an immediate net-zero target did not make the decision unlawful.
4. The Paris Agreement pursued two levels of ambition: holding warming well below 2°C and pursuing efforts towards 1.5°C. It did not impose a binding legal obligation on each contracting party to achieve a specified temperature level by 2050.
5. The human-rights challenge was unsustainable. The claimants identified no interference with an identifiable victim’s rights under Articles 2 or 8 of the Convention, Article 1 of the First Protocol, or Article 14. The decision involved a wide executive discretion informed by domestic and international considerations.
6. The public sector equality duty did not require differential consideration of groups potentially affected by global temperature policy in the circumstances. The Secretary of State’s aim was to set targets with a good prospect of assisting all groups.

Permission had previously been refused on the papers by Lang J. The renewed application was heard and refused by the High Court (Administrative Court).