The Supreme Court sets an energy policy

The Supreme Court judgement which says anyone wishing to extract oil and gas in the U.K. or any licensing or planning authority wishing to let them has to consider the CO 2 burning those fuels is a bad call.

The truth is this country is going to need large amounts of gas for home heating and industrial processes for a good many years. It is going to need oil products for vehicles and other purposes. It will take time for people and business to convert that to electricity and time and huge money to put in the grid, renewable generation and storage it would take.

So the decision today is do we import all the oil and gas or do we try to use what local resource we have? It is a no brainier that we should prefer to use our own. The Supreme Court needs to grasp that lowers world CO 2. Imported LNG gas gives off far more CO 2 than piped home gas, given the energy needed to liquefy, gassify  and transport.

Home fuel brings many well paid jobs to the U.K. It bring big tax revenues. If we switch to importing we pay the taxes away to foreign governments, and pay the salaries for jobs elsewhere.

It also leaves us dependent on the goodwill of foreign suppliers, which can prove difficult and expensive as we saw over the Ukraine war.

The Supreme Court should not set energy policy.

140 Comments

  1. BW
    June 22, 2024

    Surely the Supreme Court doesn’t make policy. It interprets bad legislations which of course could have been changed over the last 14 years. Politicians have created this obvious madness with so many back door deals with unchallenged international treaties. It’s not the courts making policy. This decision probably has its root in the ridiculous Climate Change Act which could have and should have been repealed long ago.

    1. Lifelogic
      June 22, 2024

      May’s moronic net zero (Geography) and Ed Miliband’s insane Climate Change Act. (PPE) with all (but a tiny handful of sensible people like Peter Lilley, Anne Widecombe, JR…) of virtue signalling, art graduate idiots in support of this economic (and defence) suicide. Scrap net zero, scrap the deluded Committee for Climate Change and all the rest of the madness. The BBC say all the main parties support net zero – no the second most supported party Reform is climate realist that is reason alone to vote for them. They are also immigration realists, economic growth realists, vaccine harm realists, tax level realists, size of government realists five more reasons to ditch the uni-parties.

      1. Bloke
        June 22, 2024

        It is the PM who advises the monarch to fix who the dozen or so ‘Justices’ should be.
        The current PM’s judgement is demonstrably bad. He goes with the weather and stays wet.
        The so-called ‘Supreme’ court was a creation of Tony Blair; perhaps worse.
        At one time some judges used to associate with Cynthia Payne, with poor judgement.
        What a dozen of them know about oil and gas is way below what our country needs. Possibly net zero.

        1. Mickey Taking
          June 22, 2024

          ‘associate’ Gave me a smile first thing in the morning!

        2. jerry
          June 22, 2024

          @Bloke; Indeed the Supreme Court was created by Tony Blair, to replace an even worse system based within the HoL, who often DID make wholly politicized judgments – of course as many favored the establishment the Right-wing rarely thought anything was amiss.

          “At one time some judges used to associate with Cynthia Payne”

          At least there were no Russian naval attachés involved… 😮

          1. Bloke
            June 22, 2024

            One might have needed to be a regular visitor to know that, jerry.
            Mickey Taking was smiling this morning, so might know more.

        3. Hope
          June 22, 2024

          The Tory party should have scrapped Supreme Court and reversed everything Blaire did. Slimy Cameron was in awe of him and gold plated all the damage he did! The key question why it did not. Same for civil service, public services, quangos etc.

          There is no difference other than presentation. Skidmore shows true conviction of EU one nation Tories, like Sharmer, Clarke, Soubry, Boles etc. EU clones.

          Time for Reform Party.

      2. BOF
        June 22, 2024

        Yes LL and that is why voting Reform has become a no brainer. Reform is now 2nd in the polls and the new opposition party in spite of being denied much media coverage.

        As I walk around our village talking to people I am starting to believe that existing parties are in for a shock.

        1. graham1946
          June 22, 2024

          Reform doesn’t get much coverage unless things go wrong then the pile on starts. Latest is Farage’s opinion on the reason for the Ukraine invasion, perfectly sensible views but all are out to make out he is a supporter of Putin such are the liars in the parties and MSM. These days no-one can have an opinion other than the left wingers, this I think being the most damaging recent aspect of our society, backed up by a corrupt voting system of FPTP to guarantee only two parties can ever govern.

          1. Roy Grainger
            June 22, 2024

            Actually Farage’s views on Russia align with Corbyn’s so the BBC bias is not really against Farage but rather in favour of Blairite Labour and One Nation Conservatives.

          2. Richard II
            June 22, 2024

            None of the other parties dare mention the question of whether, on top of £6bn we’ve already spaffed on Ukraine, they would continue with this wasted expenditure we can ill afford. How many crumbling schools could have been repaired, how many local authority care homes could have been kept open, how many new police officers on the beat, could have been funded with that money?

          3. BOF
            June 22, 2024

            +1 Graham.

          4. Ed M
            June 22, 2024

            I disagree with Nigel over *Ukraine. But in fairness he rightly opposed the daft wars in Afghan and Iraq.

            * Ukraine much closer to home. Putin would have invaded Ukraine whether NATO / EU or not. And then invaded Easter Europe under former Soviet Union. And he would be playing games on Western Europe in so many ways unacceptable to modern, free, capitalist economies. The guy is a gangster and got to stand up to people like him on our doorstep. And threatening the West with nuclear weapons is simply beyond the pale (and now palling up with Communist North Korea and Vietnam)
            Nigel got it wrong on this one.

        2. Lynn Atkinson
          June 22, 2024

          Farage is 100% right about the war with Russia, which none of us want.
          These Judgements are proving the powerlessness and incompetence of the political class.
          When CCO redirects resources to what were safe seats, they are confirming the movement of the ‘marginal’ line. What was safe, like Tatton is now forfeit with the ‘whole north’ (including Richmond?) as they desperately try to hold onto 60 seats.
          This is monumental. Holden is acting on internal polling. His actions speak louder than any public poll.
          People must ditch the Lib Dems, Greens, Tories. It’s Labour and Reform now. If Reform can win – vote for them, else vote Labour to get rid of the dead wood.
          BTW we can pick off Labour later – just as during the war we had to deal with the Germans first so we have to deal with these vicious Tories first.
          Longterm we need the two main parties to be Reform and the new, renamed Tories.

          1. Hope
            June 22, 2024

            The judiciary selection procedure totally infected with left wing socialists. Tory party chose not to change it. Recently we had a judge letting off Hamas sympathisers! Good grief.

            Lynne,
            I think we need everyone to vote Reform Party. Starmer is going to rig elections.

          2. BOF
            June 22, 2024

            LA. +1

      3. Lifelogic
        June 22, 2024

        So Rishi Sunak accuses Farage of “dangerous appeasement”. Yet another “unequivocally” good reason not to vote for Sunak’s dire fake Tories unless in Mogg, Patel, Braverman, Badenock or a few other constituencies with relatively sound candidates.

        Another unequivocally good reason to hold Sunak in total and utter contempt.

        1. Lynn Atkinson
          June 22, 2024

          Look up interviews with Bridgen on YouTube, you will be shocked.

        2. Hope
          June 22, 2024

          Sunak ..appeasement …after he gave away N.Ireland to EU!! Sunak has no shame. Little Usurper back stabber really has no emotional sense.

      4. Ed M
        June 22, 2024

        Fossil fuels are going out (like smoking). I’m pretty agnostic about the whole debate except that I accept the reality Green Energy is going to happen and that there is a tonne of money to be made out of it!

        (Although what tips the balance of me against fossil fuels is pollution in cities including the noise of fossil-fuel cars. I love London and would love to see a time when there is no pollution there, the streets are quiet – and more green – more trees! As well as more people on their bikes like Amsterdam).

        So I think we need more right-wingers offering ideas how we help to make the UK the leading country for Green Energy Tech (worth potentially zillions of pounds and in hight quality jobs, skills, brands and exports). The Greenies are not going away (my Conservative niece at Exeter University and all her public-school chums are ALL greenies – so if you can’t convince them – you won’t be able to convince the rest of the younger generation and, increasingly, their parents).

        (And the Oil & Gas companies need to diversify even more into Green Tech too for the sake of their shareholders, long-term. At least they’re going to have to make the leap at some point).

    2. Lifelogic
      June 22, 2024

      Indirectly they do indeed in effect make policy. Not just with judgement but with the treats of judicial review so ministers back down even before any judgements. Blair did vast damage to the UK constitution with his botched devolution and supreme court with dire deluded lefty academic judges like spider woman types.

      1. Lifelogic
        June 22, 2024

        Threats not treats!

    3. David Andrews
      June 22, 2024

      This world is intentionally created by the political class. Labour plans to extend the concept and practice when it gains power by creating statutory bodies that will interpret and implement policy beyond the power of MPs to change. I believe it is called “entrenching” by its advocates. “Stitch up” might be a more appropriate description. The Climate Change Act and the committee set up to oversee and recommend measures is a precursor. It is said it will lead to profound constitutional changes that will be extremely difficult for a future elected government to alter or overturn. Brussels by the back door? It is arguably the most dangerous consequence of electing a Starmer led government.

    4. Peter
      June 22, 2024

      “ The Supreme Court should not set energy policy.”

      The Supreme Court should not be taking over the role of parliament. It interferes in so much more than energy policy.

      The function of the Supreme Court needs to be removed. It is unaccountable.

      We don’t need another unelected, interfering woman wearing a spider brooch.

      1. IanT
        June 22, 2024

        We managed without a Supreme Court for hundreds of years and could quite happily get along without them again. The primacy of Parliamant should be restored, not further diluted (as I suspect will happen under Starmer)

        1. Lifelogic
          June 22, 2024

          It sure will be further diluted under Starmer or indeed under Sunak types.

          Sad to see Jacob Reece-Moog, one of the few sound Tories standing, has only circa a 23% chance or so of beating Labour looking at the odds. I hope he has enough down the back of the Sofa to pay the extra £400k of VAT for private school fees for his six kids. On top of the £2M or so of fees of course. Best wishes to him.

        2. Timaction
          June 22, 2024

          Actually thousands of years and the Tory’s took no action over 14 years to remove them or the other significant constitutional changes. So nu Labour had selections stitched up in all our woke health and public services going forward. After 14 years of Tory misrule, one can only assume they not only agreed with nu Labour selections and policy but added to it with non Equality laws, DEI, ESG, trans sex education etc.

      2. Lifelogic
        June 22, 2024

        She claimed later that the spider brooch was not planned/intentionally selected!

      3. Ed M
        June 22, 2024

        I agree. But some sort of Supreme Court should have been involved in judging Blair’s terrible wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
        Even a dope like me knew the war was wrong when Blair refused to allow Blix to finish searching for WMD. It was a no-brainer then that the war war wrong. And ultimately in the sense that the war would breed more trouble for the UK than security. And most of Parliament followed Blair into the war. Parliament has a lot to answer for over Iraq and Afghan. All those solders killed. The cost – £20 billion or something. And then the disastrous political instability it created in the region including terrorism.

        1. Bill B.
          June 22, 2024

          I think the Iraq war happened for the same reason as you think the Green energy future will happen, Ed. Because there was “a tonne of money to be made out of it”.

          1. Ed M
            June 23, 2024

            ‘a tonne of money to be made out of it’

            – ‘Net Zero’ Will Make Wall Street Richer at Main Street’s Expense – Wall Street Journal

            – ‘ The finance industry’s palpable excitement is electrifying to climate activists and the politicians who cater to them. Wall Street is now squarely on their side. Yet the enthusiasm of asset managers and banks is hardly surprising. Any government mandate that a large amount of capital must be swiftly retired and replaced creates a tremendous opportunity for financiers, no matter the underlying reason’ – Wall Street Journal

    5. PeteB
      June 22, 2024

      Agree BW. This is a Court interpreting poor legislation.
      I am awaiting the case claiming imported hydrocarbons have also failed to meet net zero legislation – it’ll happen at some point…

      1. Lifelogic
        June 22, 2024

        Or imported things like EVs, batteries, phones, cement… built using large quantities of fossil fuels in China, India…so undercutting home produced products.

        1. Ed M
          June 22, 2024

          OK, ok but the Wright Brothers started off flying something like a kite on the beach and within a few decades we had supersonic jets!
          20 years ago, a mobile phone was the size of a fridge (didn’t put Steve Jobs off ..).
          Sorry, sir, but your point here is fallacious.
          If there’s a demand for something, then tech improves very, very quickly.
          As Capitalists, we need to jump onto the Green Tech bandwagon. Tonne of money to be made!

          1. Lynn Atkinson
            June 22, 2024

            Ton of money to be lost!

          2. Bill B.
            June 23, 2024

            Taxpayers’ money, mainly. Thanks to subsidies. Green energy wouldn’t make money without them.

          3. Ed M
            June 23, 2024

            Also, notice how arch capitalist O’Leary is embracing Green challenge with more green-friendly planes and that make less noise where as his lazy-capitalist rivals are ultra focused on trying to get government subsidies etc
            O’ Leary is a realist. And just gets on with it. Making a tonne of money more than ever!

    6. Tim Payne
      June 22, 2024

      Exactly right. As ever JR tries to fool us into thinking someone other than the Conservative party runs this country. Don’t be fooled, and use your vote wisely

      1. Timaction
        June 22, 2024

        Exactly. who’s been in charge of the tiller this last 14 years!!!!!!!!! Reform is on the march, despite the msm hatchet job!

    7. Peter Wood
      June 22, 2024

      Just so. And to add to that the ‘political philosophy’ of the civil service in drafting law. I’m sure the CS managers and lawyers are far more intelligent and experienced than the majority of MP’s, so we should expect their intentions to be written into law rather than any vague ideas discussed in the HoC.
      We are going to be bankrupted by Starmer and the CS, and left defenceless. No wonder the wealthy are leaving.

    8. Ian wragg
      June 22, 2024

      You’ve had 14 years to repeal the ruinous CCA but didn’t.
      No point whinging now. Let Starmergeddon have the headache and deal with the power cuts and ridiculously high energy bills, after all Great British Energy will reduce our bills and give us security because he says so.

      1. Timaction
        June 22, 2024

        He’ll also smash the gangs to stop the boat people. Just how he’ll do that when they operate in……………France is for the birds in Starmergeddon’s head. Of course France will want to keep the foreign illegal criminals in France and help the English……….said no one, ever! The Tory’s have only deported a handful of the 130000 boat people and Rwanda was always a non starter. IF WE WANT REPRESENTATION, WE NEED TO VOTE REFORM. They WILL deport these criminals and prevent the many serious crimes they are committing against the English people almost daily.

    9. glen cullen
      June 22, 2024

      Well said BW ….we’re in this mess because the parliamentary tories haven’t been ‘tory’

    10. Ian B
      June 22, 2024

      @BW – but the Government on our behalf would in a democracy have the power to amend and repeal all Laws etc. _ They as with everything else refuse their job, refuse to manage. The HoC seemingly supports this corruption to Democracy

      1. glen cullen
        June 22, 2024

        Matthew 5:29 :-
        And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee

    11. Stred
      June 22, 2024

      The law requires that emissions be net zero for CO2 in 25 years time. It is up to the government to decide how to achieve this. No political party has shown in a practical way how to do so. Even the Labour manifesto accepts that gas powered electricity will be necessary for backup. No party has shown how to stop using oil. Any reasonable person would not think it reasonable that a local authority planning department should decide how oil should be used or whether it would affect the ability to achieve net zero.
      The decision was 3 to 2. Obviously the majority of these self appointed lawyers are unfit for their office.

    12. Stred
      June 22, 2024

      The Legislation requires that government achieves net zero CO2 in 25 years time. No party has yet shown how to do so without using oil or gas. Even Labour has said that gas generation will be needed for backup. Any reasonable person would not think it possible for planning officers to assess whether oil from a well would affect the achievement of net zero.
      The decision was 3 to 2. This shows that the majority of these judges are unfit for office.

  2. Mark B
    June 22, 2024

    Good morning.

    The Supreme Court should not set energy policy.

    I agree. But by what law or treaty was this matter brought to their attention ?

    I confess I have not followed this but, it would not surprise me if the money used to bring this to court either in who or in part did not come from government in some way. It is high time that the government stopped funding various NGO’s, charities and businesses who see ‘lawfare’ as a way of getting what they want and, in some cases, removing competition.

    I will not name names, but there is a well known environmentalist and businessman who funds political parties in the hope of getting legislation that favours his business and removes said competition, all the while whilst receiving government grants and benefiting from price increases that poorer people have to pay for the energy his business produces. Energy that would not be economically viable in a open and competitive market.

    1. Lifelogic
      June 22, 2024

      Or from so called “charities” which get huge tax breaks on donations etc. Some charities are often largely government funded directly too.

    2. Lifelogic
      June 22, 2024

      Best not to name names, but no shortage of such people. Many switching from Tories to Labour to keep the gravy flowing in their general direction. The Tories are no use to these people now.

      The only rational explanation for “net zero” is crony capitalism, total corruption, people on the make or people honestly hooked on yet another mad and deluded religion.

    3. Timaction
      June 22, 2024

      Bit like Government funding legal aid and charities funding the boat people from our excessive taxes.

  3. Geoffrey Berg
    June 22, 2024

    Unlike the government the Supreme Court is not elected by the people. Therefore neither it nor any Court, foreign or domestic, should be setting any public policy. As we are supposed to be a democracy it is time and now necessary for Parliament to legislate for either the periodic election of Judges to make them part of our democracy or for reference back to parliamentary committee for decision of any case concerning public policy and the automatic dismissal of any Judge(s) who undermine democracy by acting otherwise. The rule of unelected lawyers is incompatible with proper democracy.

    1. agricola
      June 22, 2024

      Too late Geoff the fox has flown.

      1. Ian B
        June 22, 2024

        @agricola & @Geoffrey Berg – its been pushed out the door to create the Uni-Party Party/Single Party Socialist State. It is so deliberate it appears malicious intent

  4. Lifelogic
    June 22, 2024

    “The Supreme Court should not set energy policy.” Indeed but deluded mainly art graduate politicians have made a complete fist of it too. All but a handful support this lunacy. Worldwide the human energy coming from solar and wind is not much more than 2% of total energy use. In the UK it is no higher than 10% once back up, heating, transport, imports etc. are properly considered.

    An absurdly one sided discussion on PM Radio 4 about 5.20pm as usual. It had quotes for the deluded and pompous Lord Debden(History) saying we “have” to hit a net zero grid. Why? We should not even be aiming for a net zero grid it would be vastly expensive and is not really even possible. It does not even confer any net benefits for this vast expenditure.

    The only way to hit a net zero grid would be to use vast amounts imported wood as the back up (rather than gas and coal) and pretend, as they do, that burning young coal is better than burning old coal – it is actually far worse in CO2 terms if that bothers you – more expensive too. Or to invest Trillions in batteries which would be economic and environmental lunacy.

    What next lawyers deciding how we run healthcare – oh well we already have the deluded lawyer Victoria Atkins with her “doctors under training” insults. Junior doctors are often paid about £13 an hour if you deduct their student loan interest. You get more stacking shelves at Waitrose/Tesco. Even less if you deduct tax, NI, commuting costs, prof. fees… I wonder why so many might be on strike or leaving the country Victoria? Or converting to law, banking… where salaries are often 3 times this level.

    1. Mark
      June 22, 2024

      Vic Starmer is an NHS lawyer.

      1. Lifelogic
        June 22, 2024

        So what does legal work does she do I for the NHS I wonder? Loads of NHS lawyers spend time defending the endless negligence claims from the many injured patients. If so she might know a great deal about just how very negligence the NHS so often is.

        The failing NHS negligence system must change, say MPs in April 2022 – A major reform of the way NHS clinical negligence claims are handled is needed. More than £2bn a year is paid out on claims but over 25% goes to legal fees. I do not think much has changed since then except the £2bn will be even larger.

    2. Timaction
      June 22, 2024

      I read this morning that the energy from our Sun produces in two minutes, the same amount of energy from all sources used by all of mankind in a year. But it’s that bogey gas CO2 that feeds ALL plants that impacts our climate…………………..of course it is and the Earth is flat and I’m off to find those pesky fairy’s hiding in my garden………………..let us pray!!!

      1. Lifelogic
        June 22, 2024

        That is only the Sun’s energy that actually hits the earth – which is a tiny, tiny, tiny % of the Sun’s total output. I could work it out but cannot be bothered!

        1. Timaction
          June 22, 2024

          Yes, it was the way I phrased it. Our (UK) 1% of the of the 3% man made CO2 making up 0.04% of the Earths atmosphere is causing a climate crisis that I must be missing. After 65 years on this Earth I’m looking out of our windows daily and must be missing something. Have I also missed the direct scientific evidence that CO2 is responsible for anything other than feeding all plant life, therefore all life on the planet? All models and b/s lapped up by our foolish politicos and msm costing us trillions£££. I remember promises of imminent ice ages in the 70s!!!

  5. agricola
    June 22, 2024

    This decision by the Supreme Court is based on residual EU legislation that your consocialist government failed to remove from the UK statute book. Guess who brought the case, a member of JSO. It went on for four years so should not be a surprise to your government.

    How many more EU statutes are still there waiting to harm the UK sovereign state due to your ex governments negligence. The Supreme Court itself should long ago have been cancelled. UK harmer Starmer is no doubt delighted at the power he will get to enshrine perpetual socialism via UK law.

    1. graham1946
      June 22, 2024

      My opinion is that the Tories weren’t simply negligent they were bone idle lazy. For instance, the Lansley 2012 cock up of the NHS would never have happened had Cameron been bothered enough to try to understand and learn what it all meant – he could have booted it into the long grass, instead when the extent of the failure became known he booted Lansley up to the Lords. Criminal lack of interest in my view.

    2. Timaction
      June 22, 2024

      ………………Starmer is no doubt delighted at the power he will get to enshrine perpetual socialism via UK law……………..and the Tory’s in the unlikely event they were ever to get back into power would never repeal it. Witness the last 14 years!!

      1. Lynn Atkinson
        June 22, 2024

        No Parliament can bind its successors. And allowing Starmer to win this election by default does NOT mean he will be there for 18 years. He will be there until we choose to sack him. Tories reverting to terror tactics again.

  6. Sakara Gold
    June 22, 2024

    The Supreme Court judges did not rule that the council in question should reject the proposal for new oil wells in the Surrey countryside, but that it should have considered the downstream CO2 emissions.

    One observes that this is a decision which will alarm the fossil fuel cartel, as it draws attention to the CO2 pollution – and the waste heat – which is released when their products are burned.

    1. DOM
      June 22, 2024

      A judge acting politically. It won’t end well.

      Well done Labour your constitutional vandalism is starting to pay off. And remember there’s been a Tory government since 2010.

      The Tory-Labour duopoly is destroying all that is good and proper

      1. glen cullen
        June 22, 2024

        +1

    2. Lifelogic
      June 22, 2024

      Well perhaps they should consider the downstream consequences of a tiny bit more CO2 plant, tree, seaweed and crop food. But then are, invaribly art graduate, lawyers or politicians in a position to judge such things. Not many are.

      CO2 is vital for life on earth and a net positive on balance. The world has been through several ice ages with CO2 at 20+ times current levels. We are living through a relative dearth of vital CO2. A bit warmer is a net good too in general.

      1. Lifelogic
        June 22, 2024

        I remember shouting at the radio when it was reported that some “expert” in court idiotically claimed that:- for an affluent non-smoking family, the probability of a single cot death was 1 in 8,543, so the probability of two in the same family was around “1 in 73 million”

        Yet no one in court the judges, defence, the accused, the defence experts seems to grasp this basic error in the maths to get this totally duff evidence thrown out. Evidence that any decent math O level student should have grasped in seconds. These two cot death events having the same genes, environment, house, food, lifestyle… are not remotely independent events so squaring the single probability is a very basic & moronic error.

        1. Christine
          June 22, 2024

          I agree. My family is that 1 in 73 million (not). We have had two heartbreaking cot deaths in our affluent non-smoking family. It has now been proven to be a rare genetic condition. How close to a prison sentence did my family come? Just like that poor solicitor woman who was jailed for years. The chances in my family are 25%. The saddest thing is that it would only cost 58p to test all newborns for this inherited condition which can be managed. This test is routinely done in most Western countries but our NHS won’t fund it. Yet they find plenty of money for Diversity Managers.

          So Lifelogic you are right in what you say but we can’t argue with experts, can we?

          Britain is broken – vote Reform.

          1. Lifelogic
            June 22, 2024

            Thanks, I did not know that.

      2. Lynn Atkinson
        June 22, 2024

        +1.

    3. Clough
      June 22, 2024

      As the Investors Chronicle drily observed: “It is not known whether the climate activists have taken account of the CO2 emissions that would be generated by the replacement barrels the UK would need to import if domestic production was curtailed.”

      1. Lifelogic
        June 22, 2024

        Exactly the whole thing is a total con trick. Burning imported forests of wood (young coal) at Drax causes more CO2 than burning coal (not less) and more environmental damage too. As does replacing older ICU cars with new EV ones.

        I just watched the attempted hit job by the rather dim Nick Robinson with his Farage interview. The dope read PPE needless to say and even thinks CO2 is pollution. Constantly interrupting with his pathetic and childish jibes could not lay a glove on him but his pathetic interruptions made it rather tedious to watch. The BBC news today in overdrive to try to hit Reform after Farage’s entirely sensible comments about the EU policies having given Putin a ruse to justify to his people the invasion. First item on the news. The uni party must be getting very worried.

        1. Mitchel
          June 22, 2024

          NATO policies.The EU was a relative bystander.

        2. Clough
          June 22, 2024

          LL, couldn’t you have predicted everything you say about the BBC ‘news’? I never watch it or listen to it.

    4. jerry
      June 22, 2024

      @SG; The same must therefore be true when licensing so called renewables and their support infrastructure, will councils now have to consider both the upstream and downstream CO2 emissions caused by the manufacture and use of such technology – the green lobby might have just shot their own fox, especially with regards PV arrays, battery storage and EVs were it is well known massive amounts of CO2 pollution is simply being off-shored!

    5. Original Richard
      June 22, 2024

      SG :

      CO2 is not a pollutant. It is the gas of life without which no life on the planet could exist and in fact we need more CO2 to be returned to the atmosphere from the Earth’s crust, where it has been locked up for millions of years, to promote plant growth and prevent famines. 8 times over the last 800,000 years when both temperature and CO2 have been exceptionally low with CO2 following temperature, CO2 has fallen to around 180 ppm just 30 ppm above the minimum level required for plants to survive. Hence the need for us to burn hydrocarbon fuels to restore atmospheric CO2 to previous, life promoting, levels.

    6. Bingle
      June 22, 2024

      To borrow a word from agricola – cobblers!

    7. Mark
      June 22, 2024

      CO2 is not pollution.

      1. glen cullen
        June 22, 2024

        Correct – its quite the opposite, its food and life for plants

    8. Original Richard
      June 22, 2024

      SG :

      Not all oil is burned, not that burning and releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere from whence it originally came is a problem. Some of it used to make thousands of products from pharmaceuticals to lubricants for wind turbines.

      Will this judge decided “downstream consideration” apply to any other products?

    9. Barbara
      June 22, 2024

      Paul Homewood has actually received a letter from the Deputy Director (Strategy) at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, acknowledging that plans to decarbonise the electricity grid by 2030 – or 2035 –are completely unworkable.

      https://dailysceptic.org/2024/06/22/senior-official-in-department-for-energy-security-net-zero-admits-labours-plans-to-decarbonise-u-k-s-electricity-grid-by-2030-are-completely-unworkable/

    10. Lifelogic
      June 22, 2024

      CO2 is vital for life tree, plant and crop food and not even remotely “pollution”. The world has had ice ages with CO2 levels 20+ times higher than now. We are living with a relative dearth of CO2 currently. Please do a bit of mugging up!

  7. Rod Evans
    June 22, 2024

    Sir John, all sound and sensible comment as usual. I believe the Climate Change Act of 2008 is the fount of the problems we now experience in this country.
    How any administration can sleep at night having blown up our reliable coal fired power stations and then ban the fracking route to endless domestic gas supply we possess, is beyond my understanding.
    The ongoing denial of domestic energy security is a criminal act in most peoples considered opinion. What authority does a government have to ban the extraction of our own resources, and then uses our tax money to provide import facilities needed to import the same banned gas we are not allowed to access under our own lands and shores?
    These are not the actions of the peoples representatives. These bizarre actions are the result of corruption and vested interests overriding the needs of the demos.

    1. Donna
      June 22, 2024

      Well Alok Sharma has a nice little earner out of his vandalism. He’s now got a very lucrative position in the Rockefeller Foundation to continue promoting and pontificating about climate goals.

      1. Original Richard
        June 22, 2024

        And Chris Skidmore (BA in Modern History) who was formerly the Conservative Minister of State for Energy and Clean Growth and who was the lead author for the laughable Net Zero Review and is now voting Labour (he says) with a consultancy job with the Emissions Capture Company as well as a professorship at the University of Bath to undertake research on sustainability and climate change!

    2. IanT
      June 22, 2024

      Please encourage all your family and friends to download the ‘Energy Dashboard’ and to look at it at least once a day. Right now (09.00) Wind is 13.1% and Solar 10.6% – so ‘renewables’ are delivering 23.7% of our energy needs (on a warm June morning). Gas is 19.6%, Nuclear is 18.1% and Biomass (Drax) 5.2%. We are importing 27.1% of our total energy at this point in time.

      Anyone who believes that a pure ‘Renewables’ strategy is the way to go is living in a fantasy world. It’s delivering about 25% of our needs this morning on a bright, breezy day. All that is happening is that we are becoming more and more dependant upon imported energy, which to my mind is both expensive and extremely dangerous. I guess many people don’t recall going into West End shops lit by Tilly Lamps during the three day week though….

    3. graham1946
      June 22, 2024

      When Miliband gets in again he will gold plate it all and as usual be long gone into lucrative retirement when the fan distributes the faeces all over the populace.

  8. Nigl
    June 22, 2024

    It’s a logical extension of environmental impact analysis presumably set out in Clean Air Acts, Net Zero legislation or international agreements etc.

    Parliament has created this pathway from protecting newts to global warming so as usual, when rulings are unhelpful politicians blame judges.

    If an impact analysis for CO2 is required for the actual extraction process, the fact that what comes out is then ignored re the possible harm it can do, doesn’t add up.

    Personally I think it’s nonsense because surely the same products coming from abroad have the same impact so equally should be subject to said analysis.

    1. Lifelogic
      June 22, 2024

      “Personally I think it’s nonsense because surely the same products coming from abroad have the same impact so equally should be subject to said analysis.”

      It is indeed.

      EV cars for example. The energy to mine and manufacture car and battery should be considered for example – keeping your old ICU car is almost invariably far cheaper, far more flexible, has lower tyre wear, far less depreciation and with typical use and UK charging they cause more CO2 no less.

    2. Timaction
      June 22, 2024

      Indeed. Those imported goods made by coal power stations should have sufficient tariff to make it viable to manufacture here with less road/sea miles. Never see the oil protesters outside the Chinese or Indian embassies or lobbying for less mass immigration because of their carbon footprint. Selective demo’s.

  9. William Long
    June 22, 2024

    Why do politicians allow it to?

  10. James Morley
    June 22, 2024

    Who is the Supreme Court and who appointments them? Why do they seem to have more authority than the democratically elected Government ?

    1. Theopompus
      June 22, 2024

      The full list of Judges (past and present ) is on wikipedia ‘List of Judges of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom’. They are people who before the creation of the Supreme Court in October 2009 had been (or would have been) Law Lords in the House of Lords.

      The SC did not set up an energy policy, it just checked that the present Government energy policy against previously passed (and still enforceable) laws by Parliament and concluded that it was not consistent with the CCC.

      So a storm in a teacup?

  11. Donna
    June 22, 2024

    The Supreme Court didn’t make the law. It INTERPRETED the idiotic Climate Change Act which the Westminster Uni-Party put on the Statue Book and which effectively gave the Climate Change Committee of Vested Interests the right to control climate policy.

    Until the Climate Change Act is amended, or better still, repealed we are going to be forced down the road of energy lunacy and energy insecurity. And the climate will still change, because it always has and always will. Banning the extraction of coal, oil and gas in the UK won’t make a scrap of difference.

    Pre-Blair, we didn’t have a Supreme Court making politicised “judgements.” We had the Law Lords in the pre-Blair House of Lords and the country seemed to run a great deal better than it does now.

    Reply There are lots of other laws about energy supply that needed to be considered as well. The main nonsense is we will burn that same amount of gas whether we import it or use our own.

  12. jerry
    June 22, 2024

    The Supreme Court hasn’t set an energy policy, it has merely interpreted a point in Law; and since the ‘European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018’ it has been the UK who make such law, the last govt and parliament could have chosen to repeal any inherited EU Law rather than copying such legislation over as REUL, or repeal UN derived Law – as POTUS Trump did (since reverted by Biden).

    Of course our host is totally correct to say UK energy policy is woefully incompetent, but as usual he chooses to lay blame anywhere but at the feet of those at fault, his one-time colleagues within the Conservative party.

    “Home fuel brings many well paid jobs to the U.K. It bring big tax revenues.”

    Indeed, and something the UK govt should perhaps have remembered since 1985, I wonder if the Labour party would be so taken with anti-hydrocarbon eco arguments if they were still being bankrolled by the NUM?…

  13. Richard1
    June 22, 2024

    If the Supreme Court – or any other court – is going to make laws then it needs to be elected and capable of removal in an election.

    Ditto for all the other policy-setting quangos like the OBR and the climate change committee.

  14. The Prangwizard
    June 22, 2024

    Parliament authorised this and encouraged the following. Taken advantage of by extremists, both eco and politicians on the Left, and loved by many. Very few who dared speak out against such extreme ideas.

    It is another of the steps designed to destroy the country others built. If I was big in the oil and gas business, or in many others, I’d get out of the UK and fast.

    Well done Mr Redwood, you were part of it and still appear to believe it is just administration and better management.

    Reply I did not support the Climate Change Act and pushed for policy change. I am not your problem.

  15. glen cullen
    June 22, 2024

    The 2024 tory manifesto could have said that they’re going to disband the supreme court, the climate change committee, repel the climate change act and leave the ECHRs ….they chose not too ….tells you a lot about the intent of the parliamentary party and their direction of travel

    1. Timaction
      June 22, 2024

      Indeed. Reform it is then.

  16. Hat man
    June 22, 2024

    As was pointed out at the time Chris Skidmore stood down, in his Kingswood constituency there were 118,000 households, of whom 487 (0.4%) rely on renewable energy, while 77 % use gas. Once again the judiciary shows itself to be out of touch with the majority of the population.

  17. Linda Brown
    June 22, 2024

    Of course a court should not make policy but BLiar brought it in when he was in power and we are going to have the job completed if we get the other bloke called Starmer who cannot even tell the difference between men and women. It really if very worrying that we have the minerals in our own land but cannot get them out for our own consumption because of some badly educated judges (I see one of them was comprehensive educated which tells me a lot). We have too many lawyers in Parliament who need getting rid of. When the next war comes and I have been waiting for it all my life since I was born after the last one which was not ended satisfactorily for us monetarily, we will be not ready at all. Are these judges in the pay of Putin or North Korea does anyone know? Sound pretty dim to me.

  18. Ian B
    June 22, 2024

    And their Democratic mandate is???

    The Conservative Government refusing the UK is own Legislators, preferring to be ruled by the unaccountable unrepresented.
    The Conservative Government who we put in charge have done everything to sideline Democracy and Sovereignty, now is by its own actions forcing something much worse on us a one party Socialist State.

    Why did we empower and pay these people, when all they do is set out to wreck the systems, refuse to manage and then blame others for their failings,

    That is not a Political view that is recognising the whole system in all parties has become corrupted, our parliament no longer understands Democracy therefore it purpose – so why is it there?

    The Supreme Court has evolved into another bolt hole for those that cant get elected but want to make our Laws up as the go along. This Conservative Government is playing the game and corrupting and rejecting Democracy, it has happened on their watch when they are the management

  19. forthurst
    June 22, 2024

    The origin of this legislation is European Union Directive 92/11/EU which became English law in the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. The judgment decided that extracting oil could well result in the burning of the aforesaid oil leading to climate boiling and the end of civilisation as we know it, Perhaps the law should have made it clear that the Environment in this context referred locally and not the whole planet otherwise it is nuts.

  20. Ralph Corderoy
    June 22, 2024

    ‘The Supreme Court should not set energy policy’

    Has it? This is the first I’ve heard of it, but if they’ve said ‘has to consider the CO₂ burning those fuels’ then that’s fine as they’re not ruling out the offsetting that with the CO₂ of the alternative. I’ve considered it, I’ll still licence the drilling.

    This point aside, the Supreme Court should be scrapped and we return to the centuries-old system. Derry Irvine and Blair’s harm echoes far.

  21. Mike Wilson
    June 22, 2024

    The Supreme Court judgement which says anyone wishing to extract oil and gas in the U.K. or any licensing or planning authority wishing to let them has to consider the CO 2 burning

    On the face of it, that is meaningless. What did they actually say? Did they say if you import gas you don’t have to take the CO2 into account?

  22. Original Richard
    June 22, 2024

    CAGW is totally false as is the theory that it is caused by burning hydrocarbon fuels. Not only does historical data show that when temperature and CO2 are at historically low levels CO2 follows temperature (Antarctic Vostok ice core data) and complete nonsense that a 1.5 degree rise in global temperatures above the Little Ice Age (LIA) value will cause a climate catastrophe when it is known that Icelandic Norsemen colonised Greenland for several hundred years prior to the LIA and which required temperatures 5 degrees higher than today. Or the vines grown up by Hadrian’s Wall in Roman times. The reason that additional atmospheric CO2 has no additional greenhouse effect is because there is already sufficient CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb all the IR radiation available to it as defined by its IR bands and the Earth’s Planck IR radiation curve, a condition described as “IR saturation”. The IPCC know this, which is why they calculate just 1.2 degrees C for a doubling of CO2 (IPCC WG1 P95) and also the Royal Society.

    The purpose of CAGW and its “solution” is to destroy the economies and wealth of the democratic West. They know full well that Net Zero will not work which is why the full title of the strategy is “Net Zero Strategy – Build Back Greener”. To “build back” you must first destroy what exists. Pure Marxism straight from the Marxist manifesto.

  23. Mark
    June 22, 2024

    Indeed the Supreme Court should not set energy policy. Neither should the rest of the undemocratic quango process – the Climate Change Committee, OFGEM, ONR, IPCC, NGESO, DESNZ and Chris Skidmore who is responsible for the legislation on which the court relied and for pushing net zero through Parliament. He has now joined the Labour Party in a perfect illustration of Uniparty politics: it has long seemed likely that he was angling to replace Chris Stark as the CEO of the CCC or maybe Piers Fortster as the interim post Deben Chair, and the party switch encourages the suspicion.

    What we do need is honest information about the costs of energy policy alternatives and an end to the false claims propagated by the quangos and the media where they use outdated claims of falling costs while ignoring the costs of intermittency and massive grid and power distribution expansion. This must be before the economy is totally wrecked by net zero attempts.

  24. RDM
    June 22, 2024

    Ever the Cynic, but I think you’ll find you, or the new incumbents will find, they have been set up!

    You won’t be able to change the Law until after the GE!

    So, what’s could happen if the Eco nuts, within the Labour Party, had agreed before hand?

    The Monarch is going to like it, so he will be Pleased at this result!

    And, you say the HoL is not dew for Reform, it’s time to abolish it!

    This will destroy a large number of high valued jobs, and undermine planning applications of important projects!

    End of high value Manufacturing, Cheap Energy strategy, etc,…

    BR

    RDM.

  25. Bryan Harris
    June 22, 2024

    The Supreme Court should not set energy policy.

    Indeed – but it is just going along with the establishment view that netzero is the only way forward.

    How dare the supreme court make political decisions! When is someone going to challenge them?

  26. George Sheard
    June 22, 2024

    Hi sir John
    Just someone else to pass the blame on
    It’s always somebody’s else’s fault,
    Its every English man’s fault the country is
    Finished as we new it all we do is moan.
    Should be like the French and proteste
    God help our grand children, and their children when I say god I mean
    Jesus christ,

  27. RichardP
    June 22, 2024

    The Supreme Court seems to think that the only use for oil is to burn it! All other uses, such as medical, construction, furniture, electronics, agriculture etc, cannot be made from wind.
    If we need oil then producing our own should easily pass the ridiculous carbon test. CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a beneficial trace gas without which all life would cease.
    If we are not allowed to have oil then we face a cold, hungry and impoverished future. Perhaps that is the intention.

  28. John Downes
    June 22, 2024

    Never mind the ECHR…. it’s the ‘Supreme’ Court that we need to get out of. Put these jumped up lawyers back in their box.

    1. glen cullen
      June 22, 2024

      Scupper both

  29. The Prangwizard
    June 22, 2024

    Reply to reply.

    Did you vote against it? I suspect not. ‘Did not support’ – what did that mean, a few words saying it would not be good. The words chosen, like many others on this matter and elsewhere, would be softly and carefully spoken not to offend, and thus easily ignored because hearers would know there is nothing much to fear from them. There would be no action from the speaker which would need counter.

  30. Michael Staples
    June 22, 2024

    The Supreme Court should not set energy policy, but has been allowed to do so by 14 years of inaction by the Conservatives in allowing the Climate Change Act to stay on the stature book, with even more impossible and pointless targets inserted by the hapless Theresa May.

  31. Ed
    June 22, 2024

    There are, literally, dark days ahead.

    1. glen cullen
      June 22, 2024

      Didn’t the Tories learn anything from its last tussle with the supreme court ? Insert an amendment to disband the supreme court in the manifesto pdq ….the tories are woke cowards

  32. paul
    June 22, 2024

    What you are witnessing is the fall of the Western Empire.

    1. Mitchel
      June 22, 2024

      Virtually every frontier is crumbling simultaneously(whilst the Eastern empire stands firm behind its formidable defences and solid finances).

      Long live the barbarians!

      1. Lynn Atkinson
        June 22, 2024

        We are the barbarians.

  33. Donna
    June 22, 2024

    I wonder if Orkney and Shetland will see this moronic judgement as a good reason to hold a Referendum on leaving the UK and joining Norway, where the attitude towards oil and gas extraction seems to still be sane and run in the interests of Norway?

    It seems a sensible move to me.

  34. anon
    June 22, 2024

    Perhaps planning laws should remove planning and permits for ALL non-public flights? Large boats? Large cars? Large houses? Keeping lifestyle hobby farms? Expensive CO2 intensive restaraunts?

    Perhaps energy use for the rich should be rationed?

    Or is it just western plebs that have to import high cost energy. Which probably wont impact the climate but will reduce the western industry economies to zero.

    Its policy fully intended and executed as intended.

  35. Derek
    June 22, 2024

    Regarding the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court. Our Laws are sometimes misinterpreted by them, as with the occasion when they overruled a political decision by the elected PM, Boris Johnson, which surely was beyond their remit. And now they’re getting themselves involved in our elected Government’s energy policy. If it’s a point of law why not approach the government privately? Or do they deem themselves too great to do that?
    We definitely require new leadership to keep the judiciary in check AND/OR have them stand for election at least by a Parliamentary majority, before they are accepted.
    As a side point on elections, I’ve recently been approached by LibDem activists who was most indignant when I told them I was not voting for them but for Reform, who I believe are more conservative than the previous Tory government. They then verbally accused me of being a racist just because I had chosen to vote for Reform candidate as my MP.
    Definite proof how low the libdems have now stooped to attract our votes and further evidence why they should never ever be allowed to govern our country.
    ‘Liberal’ with their wishy-washy promises they maybe, but actual “Democrats”, never!

  36. Roy Grainger
    June 22, 2024

    The Supreme Court doesn’t set policy, it simply interprets existing laws brought in by the Conservatives so I’m not sure why you are complaining about the Court. It was the Conservatives who made achieving Net Zero a law for example.

  37. Barbara
    June 22, 2024

    ‘The Supreme Court needs to grasp that lowers world CO 2. Imported LNG gas gives off far more CO 2 than piped home gas, given the energy needed to liquefy, gassify and transport.‘

    They won’t grasp that – because this is not about CO2: it is about control. CO2 is just the excuse.

  38. BOF
    June 22, 2024

    I do not expect this to survive editorial but will you Sir John raise the question of why the leader of the party 2nd in the polls is not getting adequate media time and coverage? A leaders debate without Nigel Farage is nothing of the kind.

    The stench of censorship from Ofcom is overpowering and an attack on democracy. It needs exposing now, not after the event.

    1. paul cuthbertson
      June 22, 2024

      BOF – News is not just what happens, it is what a small group of individuals decide is news and want you to know.

  39. Ian B
    June 22, 2024

    The Judiciary making up laws to support those that wish to cancel the World, surely not! In one sense it is a bad law made by a corrupt HoC that are fighting the People and the Country while refusing to do the job they are empowered and paid to do.
    The outcome for all these heretics is to stop them being hypocrites, force them to do without oil and gas before the rest of us. Stop them from using synthetic materials in their clothing and homes, refuse them the right to access to imported replacements. Force them to lead by example.

  40. glen cullen
    June 22, 2024

    331 illegal aliens /boat people arrived yesterday from the safe country of France
    IT’S NOT EVEN IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO BE IN THE NEWS

  41. Peter
    June 22, 2024

    Glen Cullen,

    There is as much chance of stopping the boats as there is of preventing multiple posts by Lifelogic

    1. dixie
      June 22, 2024

      … and they likely come from the same geographic area.

  42. ChrisS
    June 22, 2024

    Even if we do have a left-of-centre Supreme Court, they can only make decisions on the legislation before them.
    Clearly, whoever drew up this particular legislation was sloppy in the extreme.

    With that idiot Miliband in the cabinet within two weeks, we are not going to see the law revised as most of us would like.

  43. agricola
    June 22, 2024

    A few days ago you were getting your knickers in a twist over multiple posts. Today of 80 posts 13 are from a single source. Do we apply for special dispensation or can you suggest a cure for compulsive writer syndrome. I imagine that most contributors are far too busy and can express themselves with a single shot. I speculate on how many have fallen to the moderators axe, appart from the 13 that didn’t.

    Reply I am now deleting quite a lot from multiple contributions. his long ones today were not posted.
    .

  44. paul
    June 22, 2024

    I forgot Italy.

  45. Corky
    June 22, 2024

    If environmental impact is determined as global temperature rise, using IPCC figures, the result should be immeasurable with a good case for being legally de minimis.

  46. outsider
    June 22, 2024

    Dear Sir John,
    Legal argument aside, there are three controversial elements in this judgment:
    I) The case hinges on interpretation of a 2017 Statutory Instrument brought in (after the referendum) to implement an EU Directive. This is just the sort of secondary legislation that the present Government pledged to sweep away but then shied away from. It is hard to think of any that might have a greater economc impact.
    2) The judgment was made exactly a year after the Supreme Counrt heard the arguments in June 2023. I don’t know how long these things usually take but another judgment issued on the same day related to arguments the Court heard in November 2023. If the Supreme Court had made its judgment earlier, the Government could easily have cancelled the Statutory Instrument ( though the Judges would not have known when the election was to be called).
    3) The judgment was spllt three to two. But one of the majority judges had announced his retirement in February 2023 and actually retired in September 2023, nine months before the judgment was given in his name. Why was he sitting in a case that started in June 2023 unless it was meant to be decided in three months?
    In consequence, it appears to me that any future planning application for oil or gas extraction would have to take full account of the likely global supply, demand and therefore price over the life of the wells and thereafter, leaving scope for any ruling to be appealed right to the Supreme Court. This seems to be a taster for many more decisions to be taken from Government and Parliament to the courts.

  47. paul cuthbertson
    June 22, 2024

    The Supreme Court introduced by that Globalist Blair should be disbanded immediately.
    They are irrelavant.

  48. Atlas
    June 24, 2024

    Quote: “The Supreme Court should not set energy policy”.

    Absolutely they should not.

Comments are closed.