Receive a complimentary Morning Headlines email containing updates from our journalists around the globe.
Register for our complimentary Morning Headlines email service.
Chris Packham, a television presenter, has taken legal action in the High Court against the government’s decision to dilute important climate policies.
Packham, an experienced advocate for the environment, has requested a legal examination of the government’s choice to abandon the timeline for eliminating petrol and diesel vehicles, as well as postponing the phase-out of new gas boilers.
A representative from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero stated that they dispute Packham’s allegations and will strongly defend against the challenge.
The government’s Carbon Budget Delivery Plan, which was presented to parliament in March, outlined the measures and schedule that were to be implemented.
Rishi Sunak declared in September that the prohibition on selling new diesel and petrol vehicles would be postponed from 2030 to 2035. Additionally, he stated that approximately 20% of households will be excluded from a proposed ban on gas boilers, as he wants to avoid imposing financial strain on the general public.
After the announcement, Packham sent letters to the prime minister, energy secretary, and transport secretary to dispute the decision. He argued that Mr. Sunak does not possess the authority to modify the schedule for carbon budget commitments without legal justification, as the implementation of the Carbon Budget Delivery Plan is dictated by law.
.
Packham has actively opposed government funding reductions for organizations responsible for preserving the environment.
Packham stated that he was not given a satisfactory answer to his letter, leading him to submit a judicial review application at the High Court.
According to him, the government’s reply to his letter indicated that the decision was made without involving the public, informing the Climate Change Committee, informing parliament, or giving any explanation for the policy delays.
The lawsuit argues that there must be a plan in place to adhere to budget requirements if any changes are made to the proposed policies and plans.
According to Packham, the obligation to confirm or outline their plans for meeting the current budget has been violated by the secretaries of state.
The lawsuit also claims that there was a lack of consultation regarding the changes, specifically not considering current discussions on off-grid heating and minimum energy efficiency in rental properties.
According to the source, it is alleged that the decisions made were influenced by incorrect information. This includes the government’s assertion that the UK’s success in exceeding previous targets for reducing greenhouse gases meant that certain actions were no longer necessary. It was also claimed that adhering to carbon budgets would impose excessive financial burdens on struggling British families, and that there was a lack of transparency in the decision-making process. Finally, it was stated that the most recent budget was approved with little regard for the difficult choices required to fulfill it.
At the Cop28 conference in Dubai, David Cameron was present.
According to Packham, this communication is incorrect because the sixth carbon budget was determined while considering the financial and societal consequences of the Climate Change Act’s section 10.
The lawsuit also claims that there was a violation of the obligation to notify the public about the rationale behind the decisions to modify the policies.
According to Packham, our current situation poses a global threat that endangers all living beings, including ourselves.
We have the ability to decrease this danger, we possess the answers and we have established plans and objectives. We must stay focused on them.
Acting impulsively for temporary political benefits is irresponsible and shows a lack of concern for the long-term safety of the world.
Packham stated that the vehicle and gas boiler policies’ impact on emissions reduction is crucial for the UK to come closer to meeting its net zero goals.
According to Rowan Smith, a solicitor from Leigh Day, if the government’s legal team is accurate, the secretary of state would have unrestricted authority to disregard climate change policies without facing any consequences.
This legal challenge holds great significance as it has the potential to hold the secretary of state accountable for fulfilling their commitments to implementing policies that will help meet carbon budgets.
After a successful legal challenge by Friends of the Earth, it was determined that the 2021 sixth carbon budget did not provide enough information to show how the UK will achieve net zero emissions by 2050, as required by the Climate Change Act 2008.
A representative from the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero stated: “We firmly deny these allegations and will vigorously defend against this challenge.”
“We have consistently exceeded expectations for each carbon budget so far, and these adjustments will help us stay on course to fulfill our legal obligation of reaching net zero emissions. We regularly release forecasts for future emissions in all industries and will continue to do so.”
Families can now take longer to adjust, which could potentially save them thousands of pounds during a period of high living expenses.
Source: independent.co.uk
