Our new research in @sciencemagazine shows that no new fossil fuel projects are needed to meet energy demand in scenarios limiting warming to 1.5°C. We need bans & advocacy to build a #NoNewFossil norm @OlivierBvK @st_pye @FuelOnTheFire @ucl @IISD_Energy.

Now with correct link!

Generate videos in just a few seconds. Try Grok Imagine, free for a limited time.

The UK's strong new climate test for proposed oil & gas projects casts Australia's environmental impact assessment laws in an unflattering light: my new piece in @insidestorymag @UCLPolicyLab.

RT @UCLPolicyLab: Read @carla_denyer on the latest UCL report exploring the implications of new oil and gas fields in the UK, co-authored b….

Yesterday the UK govt issued strong new guidance to oil & gas producers on incorporating combustion emissions into their environmental impact assessments. I comment on the new guidance and link it to my new legal research working paper, here: @uclspp.

Check out our new report reviewing the evidence on the climate impact of new oil and gas fields. @UCLPolicyLab @uclspp @UCL_Energy.

A reminder that the application for this research fellow/research assistant position is due end of the day this Friday (30 May)!.

. "It is for the referring court to assess whether the conditions are satisfied in the main proceedings, in the light of the content of the national provisions and the information available to it." [121] So, in this case, the Norwegian appeals court must make this assessment.

But this does not preclude "regularisation" of an already-operating project by conducting the EIA while it is operating, so long as (i) this does not allow parties to circumvent their obligations and (ii) the project's past as well as future impacts are assessed. .

#6 Re the 'implications' questions: A national court may not retroactively dispense with the obligation to assess env. effects. A national court is required, to the extent possible under national law, to eliminate the unlawful consequences of a failure to carry out a full EIA . .

. On this, the court said regard cannot be had to “speculative analyses of knock-on effects on other projects elsewhere” [96]. This logic is similar to that of the UK High Court in the Cumbria Coalmine decision. These are important cracks in the market substitution argument.

#5 The market substitution argument was resolutely rejected in principle. The fact the project's production may displace other production from another project is irrelevant to assessing the climate impacts of the combustion emissions of the project. .

#4 The fact that the extracted fuel's end-uses may be uncertain (e.g., some petrochemicals applications), is no bar to their likely emissions being accounted for and assessed; am emissions "range" can be used to capture uncertainties.

Thus, fossil fuel (FF) companies can't hide behind the Paris Agmt's rules about how countries *account* for emissions to deny they have a responsibility to assess the climate impacts of the scope 3 (combustion) emissions likely to result from their export-oriented FF projects.

#3 The fact that the combustion emissions may occur in a different jurisdiction from the extraction project is not relevant to whether they must be assessed. Nor is it relevant that the Paris Agreement requires countries to account for emissions on a territorial basis. .

#2 The fact the extracted petroleum undergoes intermediate treatment (e.g., refining), which may also be subject to an EIA requirement, is no bar to including the combustion emissions in an EIA for the extraction project. Effects must be considered at the earliest possible stage.

Yet, it is a landmark decision - not least because some other courts (e.g., some Norwegian courts; UK courts pre-the UKSC ruling in Finch) have taken the contrary view, and because the Norwegian appeal court that referred the matter to the EFTA Court evidently had doubts.

Accordingly, this is, in one sense, not at all a surprising finding. Indeed, scholars have argued that such a finding would follow from the most plausible interpretation of the Directive and CJEU case law: see esp. . .

#1 The Court held that emissions from the combustion of petroleum are (indirect) 'effects' of petroleum extraction projects that must be assessed under the EIA Directive. This finding is consistent with the wording, objects & purposes of the Directive. .

My key takeaways from the EFTA Court advisory opinion on the requirements for assessing petroleum extraction projects under the EU's Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive and the implications of failing to adhere to those requirements.

Important judgment of the EFTA Court clearly establishes that emissions from the combustion of petroleum are 'effects' of petroleum extraction projects that must be assessed under the EU's EIA Directive. Consistent with UKSC judgment in Finch