The High Court has heard claims that a Government climate action plan is in breach of legislation because it fails to explain how its stated actions will meet legally-binding carbon emission targets.
The judicial review proceedings, brought by Friends of the Irish Environment (FIE) and which came before Mr Justice Richard Humphreys on Tuesday, claim the 2023 Climate Action Plan does not explain how the actions set out in the plan will achieve greenhouse gas emission reduction targets required to stay within legally- binding carbon budgets. This, FIE alleges, amounts to a breach of the Government’s duties under the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015.
The Government and the Minister for the Environment, the respondents, are contesting the case.
The State’s climate action plan is published annually, with an annex of planned actions, for the purpose of setting out a roadmap for meeting the Republic’s 2021-2025 legally-binding carbon budget, the total emissions permitted during that five-year period.
Ireland v England: Sam Prendergast set to get the nod against England
Paul Kearns: Many Irish friends agree with Michael D Higgins, but here in Israel there is anger and revulsion
Tech bros welcome masculine energy back to workplace. It’s news to me it ever went away
‘I’ve been blind to the fact that my partner is actually married to his mother’
James Devlin SC, appearing for FIE, argued that, according to the legislation, the “standard required” of the Government’s climate action plan is to “ensure” consistency with the national carbon budget programme. He argued that to meet that goal the plan should identify actions it will undertake, and “explain and justify” how those actions will work in achieving the emission reductions.
Mr Devlin cited Environment Protection Agency (EPA) reports that considered the 2023 CAP that, he said, outlined how the authority noted that the plan did not “[demonstrate] a pathway” to how certain emission targets will be reached. “[The EPA] can’t see the implementation plan,” he said.
“How can you ensure something is going to happen without at a minimum… demonstrating why you think it is going to work?” Mr Devlin said. “A big part of our case is, looking at the plan – we do not know how the Minister or the Government had faith in these measures to achieve what is required to be achieved.”
The proceedings draw on a 2020 Supreme Court judgment in another challenge brought by FIE, which found that a separate climate action plan was too vague.
Catherine Donnelly SC, for the State, argued that the 2023 CAP “more than meets” the obligations outlined in legislation. She said that the plan demonstrates specific actions on emission reduction, and provides justification for stated targets. She described it as a “detailed document”, “in terms of the action that is to be taken, as well as including hard-edged figures”.
Referring to 2023 CAP’s stated actions for increased renewable energy generation as an example, Ms Donnelly argued that the level of detail outlined was “difficult to reconcile” with the applicant’s suggestion that there is “no clear pathway to implementation” of emission targets.
She also said that numerical modelling underpinning the plan was made available to the public. While noting that the modelling systems were not “adopted directly” into the plan, she said that they do assist in demonstrating “the very concrete evidential basis that underpinned the plan”.
She said that it seemed what the applicant’s case is suggesting a plan should do “would go beyond the scope” of statutory requirements, and raises questions about the “feasibility of what [plans] could be produced”.
The case is due to conclude tomorrow.
- Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
- Join The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date
- Listen to our Inside Politics podcast for the best political chat and analysis
