The High Court ruled that the case brought by three young people of the Global Majority and Plan B, which advances the modest proposition that the Government has a positive legal obligation under the Human Rights Act 1998 to take practical and effective to align action to the 1.5˚C limit, is “unarguable” on the grounds (among others) that:

“the Claimants are using compliance with the Paris Temperature Limit as a test for compliance with Article 2 (and Article 8) [the rights to life and to family life]. The effect is that the Court is being asked to enforce the Paris Agreement, contrary to the guidance in [the Supreme Court decision of SC].” [judgment para 53]

The Claimants had presented the Court with uncontested evidence that the Bank of England and the FTSE100 are knowingly financing between 3-4˚C warming which, according to the scientific consensus, would mean loss of human life and displacement on an unimaginable scale.

Tim Crosland said:

“If the courts are bound to ignore the scientific evidence of what is needed to safeguard life, then ‘the right to life’ is no more than an illusion in a political economy which privileges the safety of short-term corporate profit over the welfare of ordinary people. We’ll appeal to the Court of Appeal and, from there, to the European Court of Human Rights.”

Press release

High Court judgment in full