The decision represents a clear about-face for climate campaigners, who hailed February`s decision as an «extremely influential» step. Plan B, the climate-focused legal charity that helped bring the initial legal challenge to the track, protested that Wednesday`s decision «betrayed us all.» The Supreme Court was satisfied that the Minister had acted rationally and in accordance with his legal obligations. The Foreign Secretary`s report, which accompanied the ANPS, referred to the UK`s obligations under national and international law, and the Court stated that there was no need to go into detail. The respondents (and others) challenged the ANPS on the grounds that it ignored the Paris Agreement. The High Court dismissed his application for judicial review, but the Court of Appeal allowed his appeal, finding that the ANPS was unlawful. The applicant is now appealing to the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court). Since the release of Heathrow Airport`s National Policy Statement, the policy framework governing the construction of a third runway, the government has committed to a legally binding target of net-zero emissions by 2050. Earlier this month, it also pledged to reduce CO2 emissions by 68% by 2030. The High Court has rejected a number of appeals against a major expansion of London`s Heathrow Airport.

Challenges raised by local authorities and environmental campaigners said plans for a third runway, approved by MPs last summer, did not adequately address the impact on noise, congestion, air quality and climate change. Although the SoS did not appeal the Court of Appeal`s decision, Heathrow Airport, which had already made significant investments in promoting the runway expansion programme, decided to appeal the Court of Appeal`s decision. The saga of the third track has been highly controversial and has highlighted the impact of major infrastructure projects on climate change. Going forward, the government will likely work hard to ensure that new national policy statements meet all the necessary legal boxes, especially those with an environmental/climate change aspect. Although the Supreme Court ruled in its favour, a great deal of time and money has been spent defending the ANPS, and there is still a long way to go. We will continue to follow him and keep you informed. Dale Vince, founder of green energy company Ecotricity and a partner with the Good Law Project in the challenge, criticized the government for failing to make the bold decisions needed to meet the climate goals he brags about. Heathrow challenges third runway decision with climate pledges (The Guardian) Although Heathrow Airport Ltd ultimately succeeded, the move is unlikely to deter campaigners from finding successful grounds for a lawsuit against other major infrastructure projects, as tensions stem from sustainable development. «Since the Airport Commission recommended the expansion of Heathrow five years ago, the world has changed and noise, air quality and carbon assessments have been deemed inadequate. The challenge follows a Supreme Court ruling last week that the airport expansion was not illegal because the 2015 Paris Agreement was not treated as government policy. However, the Court`s judgment limited its reasoning to the legal system at the time of publication of the framework.

It did not take into account the impact of the government`s subsequent legally binding commitment. The decision, one of the first in the world to measure a state`s infrastructure plans specifically against its promises under the Paris Climate Agreement, called into question Heathrow`s expansion and opened a new frontier for legal challenges to major projects in the UK and around the world. The controversial legal review action against the ANPS was brought by the Mayor of London, five local authorities and several environmental groups. After losing their case in the High Court last year, the plaintiffs won their appeal case on a climate change ground. On this point, the Court of Appeal found that the ANPS should have considered not only the government`s objectives under the Climate Change Act, 2008, but also the government`s commitment to the Paris Agreement. In this context, the Court of Appeal concluded that the ANPS was illegal and without legal effect. Heathrow Airport Ltd appealed to the Supreme Court. Heathrow Airport Ltd has won Friends of the Earth`s judicial review of the government`s decision to give the green light for a third runway at Heathrow.

Initially, the government claimed to have considered the Paris Agreement. But when we looked at this claim throughout the court case, they relented, admitting that the expansion at Heathrow had not been assessed against the Paris temperature limit. They tried to argue that the Paris Agreement was «irrelevant» to government policy on climate change. «It opens so many doors that it`s almost hard to know which one to choose,» said Tim Crosland, director of Plan B, one of the groups that launched the challenge. «That`s absolutely what the courts are for, saying, `Stop, it doesn`t make sense, governments are failing in their fundamental responsibility to protect people.` «Setting targets does nothing to stop climate change. We really need to meet with them,» said Jolyon Maugham QC, Director of the Good Law Project. «And that means we only approve new transport infrastructure if it is compatible with this goal. We cannot allow climate protection targets to become lies that we tell our children and grandchildren. It is not too late to stop Heathrow`s expansion. However, environmentalists still plan to challenge every step of the construction application in court – including the European Court of Human Rights, where campaigners will argue that relying on outdated emissions targets is incompatible with the right to life.

While the decision left the door open for British Prime Minister Boris Johnson to reformulate plans and try again, it significantly backtracked on the runway expansion and prolonged a battle that had been raging for years. This has posed a dilemma for a country – a «truly global Britain», in Mr Johnson`s words – which is severing its close ties with Europe and seeking new trading partners from afar. «Heathrow`s expansion is more important than ever as we plan to leave the EU. Connectivity at our unique aviation airport is critical to productivity, and expansion is essential if global Britain is to attract foreign investment and increase trade with new, fast-growing foreign markets. But analysts said the decision also relieved Mr Johnson of having to oversee a project he had once rejected — so strongly, he once said, that he would lie down in front of bulldozers to stop it. And it halted some of the government`s aviation expansion plans at a time when additional flights threaten Britain`s legally binding target of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Prime Minister Boris Johnson is a long-time opponent of the Heathrow expansion and, significantly, his government did not join the appeal against the previous Court of Appeal ruling issued by Heathrow Airport plc.