Norway’s district court in Oslo recently made a decision on fossil fuels that deserves the attention of every person concerned about climate change.
This ruling, which compels energy firms to account for the industry’s entire carbon footprint, could change the way oil and gas licenses are awarded in Norway – and inspire similar legal challenges to fossil fuel production in other countries.
The court ruled that three petroleum production licenses, held by energy companies including Equinor and Aker BP, were invalid largely due to the lack of consideration that had been given to so-called “downstream emissions”. That is, emissions from burning the petroleum that these firms would extract from the North Sea (also called scope 3 emissions).
This case is a big win for environmental campaigners who have tried to make oil and gas companies account for the emissions that come from burning their products. Similar efforts have been defeated in legal challenges elsewhere over the last few years.
Our mission is to share knowledge and inform decisions.
The plaintiffs, who range in age from 5 to 22, successfully argued that the state’s refusal to consider climate change impacts before supporting fossil fuel development violated their right a clean environment under the Montana state constitution. Their lawsuit was the first to reach trial among several similar cases in the United States and is likely to bolster other actions seeking to use the legal system to force action on curbing emissions.
An Amazon Indigenous protester stages a demonstration
Judgments across public and private sector expected to throw light on worst perpetrators and force action
Over the past 12 months, courts from Indonesia to Australia have made groundbreaking rulings that blocked polluting power plants and denounced the human rights violations of the climate crisis. But 2023 could be even more important, with hearings and judgments across the world poised to throw light on the worst perpetrators, give victims a voice and force recalcitrant governments and companies into action.
Although the bulk of climate lawsuits have been filed in the US, most have been thrown out of court or bogged down in procedural arguments. This year will, however, finally see a case go to trial when a group of children and young people between the ages of five and 21 square off against the state of Montana.
Over two weeks in June, they will argue that the US state is failing to protect their constitutional rights, including the right to a healthy and clean environment, by supporting an energy system driven by fossil fuels. They will also say climate breakdown is degrading vital resources such as rivers, lakes, fish and wildlife which are held in trust for the public.
“Never before has a climate change trial of this magnitude happened,” says Andrea Rodgers, senior litigation attorney with Our Children’s Trust, which is behind the case. “The court will be deciding the constitutionality of an energy policy that promotes fossil fuels, as well as a state law that allows agencies to ignore the impacts of climate change in their decision-making.”
She said the trial would be watched around the world and “is set to influence the trajectory of climate change litigation going forward”.
Other cases against US states could also be given permission to go to trial.
In Canada, a ruling is expected this year in the country’s first climate lawsuit to have had its day in court. Seven young people, fronted by now-15-year-old Sophia Mathur, made history last autumn when they challenged the Ontario government’s rollback of its 2030 greenhouse gas emissions reduction target.
And in Mexico, young people have led several important court cases challenging the slow pace of the country’s clean energy system. The supreme court is due to decide whether they are allowed to seek justice in at least one case.
CVD 