Naturalist Chris Packham secures High Court permission to challenge UK's abandonment of crucial green policies for net zero

Renowned TV presenter and naturalist Chris Packham CBE has been granted permission to pursue a judicial review in the High Court challenging the UK Government's decision to abandon statutory green policies crucial for achieving net-zero targets. The dispute centres around the government's carbon budget delivery plans, specifically its withdrawal from commitments outlined in the Carbon Budget Delivery Plan (CBDP).

Among the policies contested are the accelerated transition to zero-emission vehicles by 2030, the phasing out of gas boilers by 2035, a prohibition on fossil fuel heating in off-grid homes from 2026, and energy efficiency standards for rented homes. These measures were initially detailed in the CBDP presented to Parliament in March 2023, following a successful legal challenge by Friends of the Earth.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's announcement of policy abandonment raised concerns about the UK's ability to meet its sixth carbon budget, as mandated by the Climate Change Act 2008. Chris Packham, represented by legal experts from Leigh Day and prominent barristers, will argue three key grounds in court. Firstly, that the government has a continuous duty to have policies ensuring commitment to the Climate Change Act; secondly, that the government failed to consider relevant factors and advice, including that from the Climate Change Committee; and thirdly, that there was a lack of public and stakeholder consultation before abandoning the policies.

The hearing is scheduled for later in 2024, with Packham emphasising the importance of the abandoned pledges in the UK's net-zero plan and the need for informed leadership amid the climate crisis. Leigh Day solicitor Carol Day highlighted the significance of Packham's challenge, asserting that abandoning well-thought-out policies without suitable alternatives would render the government's report under the Climate Change Act as merely a snapshot in time. The case brings attention to the intersection of legal, environmental, and policy issues, with potential implications for the UK's climate commitments.