Greenpeace UK and Uplift v. Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and the North Sea Transition Authority

Following the UK government’s approval of the Jackdaw (2022) and Rosebank (2023) offshore fossil fuel developments, environmental NGOs Uplift and Greenpeace brought judicial review proceedings in the Court of Session in Edinburgh in December 2023. The claimants challenged the legality of the decisions, arguing that the approvals failed to consider the full climate impacts of the projects, in particular the downstream (Scope 3) emissions resulting from the eventual combustion of extracted oil and gas. In August 2024, the UK government conceded that the original decision was unlawful in light of the UK Supreme Court’s Finch v Surrey County Council ruling, which clarified that environmental impact assessments (EIAs) must account for downstream emissions. The cases proceeded on whether the consents should be quashed or left in place pending further review. Main Legal Issues: 1. Omission of Downstream Emissions: The environmental assessments for both projects had excluded Scope 3 emissions. The applicants argued this violated legal obligations under domestic and EU-derived environmental law. 2. Lack of Transparency: The NSTA failed to provide adequate reasons for concluding that the Rosebank development passed the “net zero” test. 3. Marine Environmental Impacts: In the Rosebank case, the applicants further alleged that the approval failed to properly assess the project’s impact on the Faroe-Shetland Sponge Belt Marine Protected Area. On January 30, 2025, Lord Ericht ruled that the development consents for both Rosebank and Jackdaw were unlawful due to the failure to consider downstream emissions. Citing Finch, the court held that the environmental assessments must account for the climate impact of burning fossil fuels extracted by the projects. The consents were overturned. The ruling emphasized that the “public interest in authorities acting lawfully and the private interest of members of the public in climate change outweigh the private interest of the developers.” While preparatory work on the fields may continue, no extraction can occur unless and until new, lawful approvals are issued under updated guidance. Outcome: • Approval for both the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields quashed. • Government must reassess the projects under new environmental guidance accounting for downstream emissions. • Development cannot proceed without new consents based on a full environmental impact assessment. • The decision sets a precedent for integrating climate impacts into all future UK fossil fuel project assessments. Next Steps: Rosebank and Jackdaw developers must submit new Environmental Statements, including downstream emissions, once the UK government finalizes revised guidance (expected Spring 2025). Any new consents will be subject to public consultation and scrutiny.