Heathrow decision a ‘major breakthrough’ for climate justice

Judgment could finally put climate change at the heart of planning decision, environmental campaigners tell Isabella Kaminski, but plans to appeal the ruling mean the fight isn’t over yet

Britain's Court of Appeal ruled in favour of green campaigners who oppose a third runway at Heathrow airport (AFP/Getty)

A court judgment that plans to expand Heathrow were made illegally has been branded a “major breakthrough” for efforts to tackle climate change.

Environmental campaigners, the mayor of London and a group of west London councils have fought long and hard against the government’s decision to build a third runway at Heathrow, set out in a national policy statement on aviation in 2018. They argued that expansion would violate the UK’s international climate commitments under the Paris Agreement, increase local air pollution and noise, and harm biodiversity.

Last May, the High Court dismissed all legal challenges, and ruled that the 2015 UN Paris Agreement did not apply directly in UK law. The agreement, which has been signed by nearly 200 countries, aims to keep global warming to “well below” 2C. That requires rapid and significant cuts to carbon emissions across the globe over the next few decades.

But this morning the Court of Appeal disagreed. Lord Justice Lindblom upheld the lower court’s decisions on air pollution, noise and biodiversity but said the Paris Agreement “ought to have been taken into account by the secretary of state” when preparing the national policy statement … What this means, in effect, is that the government when it published the [policy] had not taken into account its own firm policy commitments on climate change”.

Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, assistant professor of public international law at Leiden University, said it was the first time that any court in the world had ruled that the Paris Agreement’s temperature goal is legally binding. “So it’s a major breakthrough. The Court of Appeal’s effective dismissal of this argument could inspire similar litigation in other countries that have signed the Paris Agreement.

Tim Crosland, director of Plan B, a legal charity which brought one of the successful claims, said it would have been hard to imagine this outcome a couple of years ago. “This is an important moment for all of us, and for our young people in particular. Some sanity is finally prevailing. It’s now clear that our governments can’t keep claiming commitment to the Paris Agreement, while simultaneously taking actions that blatantly contradict it.”

The UK’s climate commitments have got stronger over the past year. In May, parliament voted to formally declare a climate emergency and in June the UK became the first major economy in the world to sign into law a target for reaching net zero by 2050.

But Mr Crosland says the government now has to act on those commitments and has a crucial responsibility to show real climate leadership ahead of the next international climate talks in November.

Although the decision puts a brake on Heathrow expansion, it does not stop it entirely.

Lord Justice Lindblom said it was not the court’s place to decide whether to build a third runway and stressed that the government could theoretically produce a new national policy statement that is compatible with the UK’s climate commitments. “The government will now have the opportunity to reconsider the policy in accordance with parliamentary statutory requirements.”

The government will not challenge the decision. But Heathrow plans to appeal to the Supreme Court, describing the climate change provisions as “eminently fixable”. “In the meantime, we are ready to work with the government to fix the issue that the court has raised,” Heathrow operators said in a statement. “Expanding Heathrow, Britain’s biggest port and only hub, is essential to achieving the prime minister’s vision of Global Britain.”

Boris Johnson, whose Uxbridge constituency is near Heathrow, was once so opposed to the project that he promised to “lie down in front of those bulldozers” to stop it. Since taking up the country’s top political job, he has been more ambivalent on the subject.

But even with a supportive prime minister expanding the airport could be still difficult. As well as taking the national policy statement back to the drawing table, the government has yet to grant a development consent order for the project. For that to pass, the Cabinet Office must be satisfied the scheme meets commitments on air quality and noise as well as climate change.

In its earlier ruling, the High Court stressed that Heathrow expansion could only go ahead if it did not risk breaching air quality limits. The area around the airport is already frequently in breach of such limits.

Will Rundle, head of legal at Friends of the Earth, which also challenged the project on climate grounds, said the decision shows the importance of the legal system’s role in checking “the clear abuse of state power by government”.

“This judgment has exciting wider implications for keeping climate change at the heart of all planning decisions. It’s time for developers and public authorities to be held to account when it comes to the climate impact of their damaging developments.”