Climate groups taking government to court over “dangerous” aviation strategy
Climate charity Possible and Group for Action on Leeds Bradford Airport (GALBA) have each had their legal challenge against the government’s aviation emissions strategy progressed, and their lawyers will face the government in court.
Back in October 2022, lawyers at Leigh Day filed for a judicial review of the “Jet Zero” strategy, which the Department for Transport released in July, on behalf of each of the two groups.
When the strategy was published, a wide range of climate groups and experts criticised it as utterly inadequate to hold the industry to account on reducing emissions in line with the UK’s legally binding climate commitments. Possible’s co-director, Leo Murray, said it relied too heavily on “pie in the sky technologies” that are completely unproven. To meet their own climate targets, demand management and reducing the overall number of flights are essential.
The key grounds on which the challenge will be heard in the High Court are:
The government failed to lay a report before Parliament setting out how the strategy would enable carbon budgets to be met.
The government failed to consult in a lawful manner by having a “closed mind” before the consultation commenced on whether demand management measures were required.
In their most recent report this week, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a grave warning that the world must “massively fast-track climate efforts” in order to stand a chance of limiting warming to 1.5C. Demand management policies, which the government refused to include in the Jet Zero Strategy, have been noted by the IPCC as a vital part of bringing down emissions. The UK’s Committee on Climate Change has also consistently stated that the government needs to “implement a policy to manage aviation demand as soon as possible” to ensure there are adequate mechanisms in place “in the likely event” that low emission technologies are not commercially available in time to sufficiently reduce emissions from flights.
Possible is calling for the introduction of a progressive aviation tax targeted at frequent flying to fairly reduce demand for flights, rather than taking the dangerous gamble that the industry can cut emissions while allowing continual growth in passenger numbers. The frequent flyer levy, a policy which is both popular and fair, would manage demand by placing a progressively higher tax on the small group of people who fly frequently, with just 15% of people taking 70% of all UK flights. It is considered the most equitable method of reducing aviation demand.
Alethea Warrington, senior campaigner at climate charity Possible, said:
“Flights are highly polluting and very difficult to decarbonise. Rather than take sensible steps to tackle this problem by limiting frequent flying, the government’s dangerous strategy encourages huge growth in flights. The climate crisis is here now. The government has refused to listen to their own advisors on climate, who have repeatedly warned that we need to limit flights. We can’t allow the government to continue to give airports and airlines a free ticket to keep cashing in as our world burns. And when we see the government in court, we’ll make that clear.”
Nick Hodgkinson, a GALBA member from Leeds, said:
“The Royal Society and Imperial College London recently analysed all the measures that the government proposes in Jet Zero to cut aviation emissions. They were all judged to be inadequate. The only reliable way to cut emissions from flying is to limit flying. If anyone thinks that climate action can be delayed, try telling that to the people who lost their homes and loved ones in the unprecedented floods in Pakistan or the mega storm in Malawi. We need effective measures to cut aviation emissions right now.”
Leigh Day solicitor Rowan Smith, who represents Possible, said:
“This is another hugely important milestone in climate change litigation in the UK: the Government’s strategy for net zero aviation will now be tested in Court. Our clients argue that the Government has relied too much on technological fixes without having policies to curb demand for air travel. It will be argued that the failure to consider this risk to delivery of its plans renders its net zero aviation strategy unlawful."
Leigh Day solicitor Ricardo Gama, who represents GALBA, said:
“Until there is a credible pathway to decarbonising the aviation sector, it is a massive gamble for the government to allow the unchecked growth of the sector without any attempt at managing demand. Our clients are therefore pleased that the important question of whether the government's approach is lawful will be tested in court."
ENDS
Notes to editors:
For media enquiries and further information please contact press@wearepossible.org or 07806431577.
Alethea Warrington, senior campaigner at climate charity Possible, and a spokesperson from GALBA, are available for comment. Please email press@wearepossible.org for more information.
Nick Hodgkinson, GALBA activist, has Motor Neurone Disease which causes various physical impairments, including speech. He can speak on the phone or via Zoom/Teams but needs to pre-arrange a date and time by email: GalbaUK@protonmail.com
Possible is a UK-based charity that brings people together to take positive, practical action on climate change. Combining individual and local actions with larger systemic change, we connect people with each other, and communities with ways to address the climate crisis. wearepossible.org.
GALBA is a group of concerned citizens from across West Yorkshire who successfully campaigned against a planning application by Leeds Bradford Airport (LBA) to expand by three million passengers a year. The group submitted detailed responses to both “Jet Zero” consultations and recognises “Jet Zero” as a threat to their aim of preventing any expansion of LBA. More information about GALBA is available on their website: www.galba.uk
The grounds on which the challenge was originally, made were as follows:
The strategy breaches the Climate Change Act as the Secretary of State failed to ensure that the strategy would enable the UK’s carbon budgets to be met and, as a result, its policies risk failing to deliver net zero.
The Secretary of State failed to give lawful reasons for departing from advice given by the Climate Change Committee that, given uncertainty around technological solutions to aviation emissions, a demand management policy framework is also needed.
The Secretary of State failed to consult, in a lawful manner, on the strategy because it was decided beforehand that demand management measures - moves to cut flight numbers - were not going to be included in the strategy.
There was also a failure to take account of the need to reduce emissions other than CO2 that are produced by flights, which, altogether, cause roughly twice the amount of heating.
GALBA filed their claim with additional grounds of:
Ground 4: the government failed to carry out a cost/benefit impact assessment.
Ground 6: the government failed to take into account relevant planning decisions on airport expansion.
Ground 7: the government failed to carry out its responsibilities under the Public Sector Equality Duty.