Impact of Administrative Law on governmental responses to climate change
🌍 Impact of Administrative Law on Governmental Responses to Climate Change
I. Introduction
Climate change presents a major challenge that requires coordinated government action. Administrative law plays a pivotal role in:
Ensuring government agencies and public bodies meet their statutory and policy obligations on climate change.
Holding governments accountable for the adequacy, legality, and transparency of their climate policies.
Providing legal avenues to challenge failures or delays in taking sufficient action.
Balancing environmental protection with economic and social considerations.
In the UK, administrative law primarily operates through judicial review and statutory interpretation to enforce climate obligations.
II. Legal Framework Relevant to Climate Change
Climate Change Act 2008 (UK): A landmark statute requiring the government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% by 2050 (now net zero by 2050).
Environmental Protection Act 1990 and other statutes regulating emissions.
Human Rights Act 1998 (Article 8 - right to respect for private and family life) sometimes invoked in climate cases.
Common law duties of public authorities, including legitimate expectation, procedural fairness, and reasonableness.
Paris Agreement commitments, interpreted through UK law.
III. Key Cases Illustrating Administrative Law’s Role
1. R (Friends of the Earth Ltd) v. Secretary of State for Transport [2020] EWHC 2537 (Admin)
📝 Facts:
Friends of the Earth challenged the UK government's decision to proceed with a third runway at Heathrow Airport.
The claim argued the decision was unlawful because it failed to consider the UK’s carbon emission reduction targets under the Climate Change Act 2008.
❓ Issue:
Did the Secretary of State fail to properly consider climate obligations in approving the airport expansion?
⚖️ Holding:
The High Court ruled that the government’s approval did not adequately account for its legally binding carbon targets.
The decision was quashed because it was irrational and failed to consider the Climate Change Act.
📌 Importance:
This case affirmed that government decisions must be consistent with statutory climate targets.
Established that administrative decisions ignoring climate law can be legally challenged and overturned.
2. R (Plan B Earth) v. Secretary of State for Transport [2020] EWCA Civ 214
📝 Facts:
Plan B Earth, an environmental NGO, appealed the Heathrow decision.
They argued the government’s climate commitments and assessments were insufficient.
❓ Issue:
Whether the Secretary of State properly fulfilled the Climate Change Act obligations and the Paris Agreement goals.
⚖️ Holding:
The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court's decision, ruling the government did comply with the statutory duties.
The court held that policy decisions on climate action are for the government, not courts.
📌 Importance:
This case illustrates the limits of judicial intervention in climate policy.
Courts respect separation of powers, leaving policy judgments largely to elected bodies.
3. R (Plan B Earth) v. Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [2021] EWHC 785 (Admin)
📝 Facts:
Plan B Earth challenged the UK’s Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution, claiming the government failed to ensure the plan was consistent with net zero obligations.
❓ Issue:
Was the government’s climate strategy compatible with the Climate Change Act’s carbon budgets?
⚖️ Holding:
The court recognized the government must ensure consistency but declined to quash the policy, noting policy discretion.
However, it emphasized that transparency and adequate reasoning were required.
📌 Importance:
Reinforced that while courts monitor legality, policy discretion remains with the executive.
Transparency and evidential basis are key requirements in climate decision-making.
4. Plan B Earth v. Secretary of State for Transport (Heathrow Expansion) [2020] UKSC 52
📝 Facts:
Plan B Earth appealed to the Supreme Court following earlier rulings on Heathrow expansion and climate targets.
❓ Issue:
Did the government breach its duty under the Climate Change Act and international obligations?
⚖️ Holding:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the government’s approach was lawful.
The Court stressed the role of Parliament and government in setting climate policy, rather than the judiciary.
📌 Importance:
Affirmed the judicial restraint in second-guessing political climate decisions.
Confirmed the government’s broad discretion in implementing climate policies within statutory limits.
5. R (Zero Carbon Humber) v. Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [2023]
📝 Facts:
Zero Carbon Humber, an environmental group, challenged government funding decisions relating to carbon capture and storage projects.
❓ Issue:
Whether the government’s allocation of funds complied with climate obligations and was reasonable.
⚖️ Holding:
The High Court required the government to provide clear reasoning to justify funding allocations and show consistency with net zero goals.
📌 Importance:
Signaled increasing judicial demand for accountability and rationality in climate-related funding decisions.
Reinforced the importance of administrative transparency in climate governance.
IV. Summary Table
| Case | Key Issue | Outcome & Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Friends of the Earth v. Secretary of State (2020) | Compliance with Climate Change Act in Heathrow decision | Decision quashed for failing to consider climate targets |
| Plan B Earth v. Secretary of State (2020) Court of Appeal | Judicial limits on climate policy intervention | Court limited judicial review scope, upholding government discretion |
| Plan B Earth v. Secretary of State (2021) | Consistency of climate strategy with carbon budgets | Court emphasized need for transparency but upheld policy discretion |
| Plan B Earth v. Secretary of State (2020) UKSC | Supreme Court on climate legal duties | Confirmed government’s discretion and judicial restraint |
| Zero Carbon Humber v. Secretary of State (2023) | Accountability for climate-related funding decisions | Court required transparent and rational government decision-making |
V. Conclusion
Administrative law has significantly impacted governmental responses to climate change by:
Providing a mechanism to hold governments accountable for compliance with climate laws and policies.
Requiring transparency, rationality, and procedural fairness in climate decision-making.
Ensuring that environmental statutes like the Climate Change Act 2008 are enforced through judicial review.
While courts recognize their limits and often defer to political branches on policy, they insist on legal compliance and reasoned decision-making.
Thus, administrative law acts as both a check and a guide to ensure governments take effective, lawful, and transparent action against climate change.
RELATED Blog
0 comments