View in EDS

A duty to assess an oil project's downstream greenhouse gas emissions: The UK Supreme Court in Finch.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: A duty to assess an oil project's downstream greenhouse gas emissions: The UK Supreme Court in Finch.
Authors: Mayer, Benoit1 (AUTHOR) b.mayer@reading.ac.uk, Slowik, Mateusz2 (AUTHOR)
Source: Review of European Comparative & International Environmental Law. Nov2025, Vol. 34 Issue 3, p288-294. 7p.
Subject Terms: *ENVIRONMENTAL impact analysis, GREENHOUSE gases, APPELLATE courts, GREENHOUSE effect, CONSTITUTIONAL courts
Abstract: National environmental impact assessment (EIA) frameworks have generally been applied as requiring an assessment of the effects of projects on greenhouse gas emissions and, thus, on climate change. Yet, a question that has repeatedly been asked is whether an EIA should only consider a project's direct, on‐site emissions, or also its indirect emissions. In R (Finch) v County of Surrey, the UK Supreme Court found that the approval of an oil project was unlawful on the ground that the EIA had not considered the downstream emissions that would result from the combustion of the oil by its end users. This judgment contributes to the emergence of a global consensus on the need for the EIAs of fossil‐fuel projects to consider downstream combustion emissions. Yet, it leaves many questions open as to how far indirect emissions are to be assessed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Review of European Comparative & International Environmental Law is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Business Source Index
Description
Abstract:National environmental impact assessment (EIA) frameworks have generally been applied as requiring an assessment of the effects of projects on greenhouse gas emissions and, thus, on climate change. Yet, a question that has repeatedly been asked is whether an EIA should only consider a project's direct, on‐site emissions, or also its indirect emissions. In R (Finch) v County of Surrey, the UK Supreme Court found that the approval of an oil project was unlawful on the ground that the EIA had not considered the downstream emissions that would result from the combustion of the oil by its end users. This judgment contributes to the emergence of a global consensus on the need for the EIAs of fossil‐fuel projects to consider downstream combustion emissions. Yet, it leaves many questions open as to how far indirect emissions are to be assessed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:20500386
DOI:10.1111/reel.12607