Recent rulings from European courts affirm a significant shift in how the oil and gas industry must approach its environmental responsibilities, particularly regarding greenhouse gas emissions. The latest decision mandates that the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the burning of fossil fuels—known as 'Scope 3' emissions—must be included in Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) for extraction projects. This landmark ruling, delivered by a European court, could potentially reshape the regulatory landscape for fossil fuel extraction across the continent.
The necessity to account for these emissions has gained momentum following a Scottish court's prior ruling in January 2025, which nullified approvals for major North Sea oil and gas projects by Shell and Equinor. Environmental advocates successfully argued that the original decisions overlooked the environmental impact of downstream emissions, leading to a declaration that such approvals were unlawful. The court's directive means that the affected projects cannot proceed until new assessments are made, aligning with broader legal trends emphasising thorough environmental scrutiny.
Climate activist Sarah Finch has been instrumental in this legislative evolution. After discovering that her local government in southeast England had approved an oil drilling project without accounting for millions of metric tons of emissions from burning the extracted oil, she took her case to the UK Supreme Court. The resultant ruling empowered the enforceability of emissions disclosure by developers, establishing a precedent that has already resulted in the cancellation of various fossil fuel projects. Finch views this shift as a crucial step towards more conscientious environmental evaluations in fossil fuel sector approvals.
As scrutiny intensifies, environmental organisations are gearing up for further legal challenges. Greenpeace has indicated its intention to possibly challenge the UK government's support for oil and gas developments in the North Sea, ostensibly arguing that recent public endorsements from officials may render new decisions susceptible to legal vulnerability. Both the Rosebank and Jackdaw projects, which have substantial implications for UK energy security, have come under particular scrutiny. The government maintains that it is focused on creating a balanced approach to energy, one that addresses climate concerns while prioritising economic stability and job retention.
However, amidst growing calls for accountability, there remains pushback from major companies in the sector. For instance, a Dutch appeals court recently overturned a previous ruling requiring Shell to reduce its carbon emissions significantly by 2030, highlighting a complex legal landscape where companies like Shell argue that they can still contribute to emissions reductions without specific mandates. The court decided that while companies have a duty of care to limit emissions, overly prescriptive targets might hinder broader climate goals. Shell welcomed this development, reiterating its commitment to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, although environmentalists insist that such commitments must translate into action now, not later.
The intertwining of legal precedent, corporate responsibility, and environmental advocacy is establishing a new norm in energy policy, as countries grapple with the dual imperatives of energy security and climate action. As these cases progress, they will likely set vital precedents for how future energy projects are evaluated and approved, reshaping the trajectory of fossil fuel extraction in an increasingly climate-conscious world.
Reference Map:
Source: Noah Wire Services