The Lifeboat News
[ Message Archive | The Lifeboat News ]

    Tim Crosland - Personal Statement on the Supreme Court's Heathrow verdict Archived Message

    Posted by sashimi on December 15, 2020, 11:47 pm

    15 December 2020

    (quote)
    Tomorrow, 16 December, the Supreme Court will publish its judgement on
    Heathrow expansion. I have taken the decision to break the embargo on
    that decision as an act of civil disobedience. This will be treated as
    a "contempt of court" and I am ready to face the consequences. I have
    no choice but to protest the deep immorality of the Court's ruling.

    Chris Grayling took his decision to approve Heathrow expansion in June
    2018. That was 2 ½ years on from the Paris Agreement. Yet he assessed
    the climate impacts of Heathrow expansion against the historic
    temperature limit of 2˚C warming - which the UK Government and the
    international community had rejected as inadequate and dangerous in
    2015. He did not inform the public or Parliament that that is what he
    did, but it became clear through the disclosure in this litigation
    that that is what he did[1].

    Had he assessed Heathrow expansion against the 1.5˚C temperature goal
    in the Paris Agreement, he could not have approved it. According to
    the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global
    decarbonisation by 2050 would still leave a 50% chance of exceeding
    1.5˚C (even assuming the rapid development of negative emission
    technologies). According to the Government's own figures, Heathrow
    expansion would mean 40 million tonnes of CO2 by 2050, just from UK
    aviation[2]. Those two figures can not be reconciled[3].

    In February 2020, the Court of Appeal ruled that Mr Grayling should
    have relied on the Paris Agreement temperature limit (not the 2˚C
    limit) and consequently ruled his decision unlawful[4]. Boris Johnson
    informed Parliament that the Government would accept that decision and
    abide by the Paris Agreement[5].

    But Heathrow Airport Limited, the company which plans to profit from
    expansion launched an appeal, supported by an army of
    lawyers. Tomorrow the Supreme Court will overturn the Court of
    Appeal's judgement in Heathrow's favour and rule that Mr Grayling
    acted lawfully.

    As the IPCC has shown, the consequences for humanity of exceeding the
    1.5˚C temperature limit are dire, with the younger generation and the
    Global South on the frontline. Mr Grayling's hidden reliance upon the
    discredited, dangerous 2˚C limit to support his plans was a treasonous
    betrayal of the young people of this country and made a mockery of the
    Government's commitment to showing international leadership in the
    face of the climate emergency, which our Parliament[6] and the UN
    Secretary General have declared[7].

    The pandemic has reminded us of our subjection to natural laws[8]. The
    Paris Temperature Limit is all that divides us from a grim future of
    crisis upon crisis. The Government was right to accept the Court of
    Appeal's verdict. The Supreme Court's judgment, which has legitimised
    Mr Grayling's use of the deadly 2˚C threshold, has betrayed us all.

    I have been a lawyer for 25 years and a legal adviser to government
    agencies. I was a Deputy Director at the Serious Organised Crime
    Agency. I have deep respect for the rule of law and the vital role of
    the judicial system in holding power to account. That is why it is a
    duty to protest a decision that so gravely betrays that purpose.

    I take this act of protest for the sake of my two children and in
    memory of all those who have lost their lives on the frontline of the
    climate crisis, in the UK and around the world.

    /* References */
    [1] - For evidence of what Grayling said at the time, see Plan B's statement of case (SoC), paras 74ff:
    https://planb.earth/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/SC-Plan-B-case-final.pdf
    [2] - SoC, paras 68ff
    [3] - See DfT's evidence: "any continued emissions of CO2 from aviation using fossil fuels beyond around 2050 will be inconsistent with the Paris Agreement \
    goals in the absence of extra measures",
    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/813343/international-aviation-paris-agreement.pdf
    [4] - https://planb.earth/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Court-of-Appeal-Final-Order-1.pdf;
    https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Heathrow-judgment-on-planning-issues-27-February-2020.pdf
    [5] - On 4 March 2020, the Prime Minister stated in Parliament: "we will ensure that we abide by the judgment and take account of the Paris convention on cli\
    mate change".
    [6] - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48126677
    [7] - https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-emergency-ambition-summit-antonio-guterres-un-secretary-general-b1771420.html
    [8] - Sir David Attenborough has recently said: "We are facing a crisis and one that has consequences for us all. It threatens our ability to feed ourselves,\
    to control our climate, it even puts us at greater risk of pandemic diseases such as COVID-19."
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2020/extinction-the-facts
    (/quote)
    -- https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HxxC4TQgHh_haFkikww74CBhwgYaKfu1Nooi9NwKJns/edit

    Message Thread: