Latest news with #FriendsOfTheEarth
The Guardian
4 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
Labour warned to keep spending review in line with net zero or face legal action
If the decisions the UK government makes in its upcoming spending review are not in line with the net zero climate target it risks being taken to court again, campaigners have said. Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, will set out her spending review for the rest of this parliament on Wednesday. Amid continuing economic uncertainty and Labour's promise to boost defence spending, many departments are facing deep cuts to dearly held commitments. Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, has been fighting for the promised £13.2bn for home insulation to be protected, as experts and charities have warned that failing to insulate Britain's draughty homes will undermine the restoration of winter fuel payments to many pensioners. There are also questions over the funds available for GB Energy, the publicly owned company that invests in green energy, and support for farming and for flood defences. The campaign group Friends of the Earth, which successfully took the last Conservative government to court over its net zero plans, has said it will take legal action again if Reeves's plans appear to fall short. The high court ruled that the last government had failed to set out a credible plan to meet the legally binding target of reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, and ordered ministers to come up with a comprehensive plan on climate action. The duty now falls on Labour to publish it by 29 October. Friends of the Earth has written a letter, seen by the Guardian, to Keir Starmer, reminding him of the high court's demands, and warning that any major cuts by Reeves to programmes that boost clean energy or cut emissions could be subject to legal challenge in light of the ruling. The group's interim chief executive, Jamie Peters, said: 'The decisions made as part of the [spending review] could significantly influence your government's ability to comply with the court order.' Mike Childs, Friends of the Earth's head of science, policy and research, added: 'The government has a legal duty to deliver on climate targets – no amount of political manoeuvring can change that. With the planet already warming to a dangerous degree, extreme weather costing lives and livelihoods, and the UK's current and future prosperity hanging in the balance, Friends of the Earth will, if necessary, go to the high court to ensure the UK delivers on its legal obligations.' Spending on climate measures now would reduce the cost of extreme weather – such as droughts, floods and storms – in the future, he added. 'It's imperative the chancellor does not sideline the future of the planet in her upcoming spending review.' Reeves boosted public transport this week by announcing £15bn for trams, trains and buses outside London, which will come out of the £113bn earmarked for capital projects and infrastructure. But there is no such guarantee over the future of the £13.2bn for home insulation. Ed Matthew, UK director at the climate change thinktank E3G, warned that if Labour failed to help people with the high costs of energy, by boosting renewables and insulating homes, it would give added impetus to the rightwing populist Reform party. Sign up to Down to Earth The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential after newsletter promotion He said: 'The Labour government has so far underplayed the importance of the green economy in sparking economic growth. This was mostly a result of No 10 attempting to appease potential Reform voters. But this strategy has backfired. Most of these voters love renewables because they bolster energy independence and can lower energy bills.' He said Reeves would be missing a vital opportunity if she failed to invest in the green economy, which according to recent CBI research grew by 10% last year, three times the rate for the rest of the economy. 'Failing to centre the clean economy in their capital spending plans would be an act of economic self-harm and undermine their political fortunes,' said Matthew. 'Reeves must now deliver the biggest boost to the clean economy in UK history at the spending review. It is green growth or bust.'
The Independent
28-05-2025
- Business
- The Independent
Lawsuits aim to hold fossil fuel companies responsible for climate change. Here's a look at some
A German court is expected to rule Wednesday in a landmark climate lawsuit brought by a Peruvian farmer against energy company RWE that claims global warming fueled by the firm's historical greenhouse gas emissions puts his home at risk. Farmer and mountain guide Saúl Luciano Lliuya said glaciers above his hometown of Huaraz are melting, increasing the risk of catastrophic flooding. RWE, which has never operated in Peru, denies legal responsibility, arguing that climate change is a global issue caused by many contributors. Experts say the case at the state court in Hamm, in western Germany, could set a significant precedent in the fight to hold major polluters accountable for climate change. Here's a look at other climate cases being watched closely: An environmental group has asked the Dutch Supreme Court to uphold a landmark lower court ruling that ordered energy company Shell to cut carbon emissions by net 45% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels. That ruling was overturned in November by an appeals court — a defeat for the Dutch arm of Friends of the Earth and other environmental groups, which had hailed the original 2021 ruling as a victory for the climate. Climate activists have scored several courtroom victories, including in 2015, when a court in The Hague ordered the government to cut emissions by at least 25% by the end of 2020 from benchmark 1990 levels. The Dutch Supreme Court upheld that ruling five years ago. ___ The United Nations' top court held two weeks of hearings in December into what countries worldwide are legally required to do to combat climate change and help vulnerable nations fight its impacts. The case was spurred by a group of island nations that fear they could simply disappear under rising sea waters, prompting the U.N. General Assembly asked the International Court of Justice for an opinion on 'the obligations of States in respect of climate change.' Any decision in the case, the largest in the court's history, would be non-binding advice and could not directly force wealthy nations to act, though it could serve as the basis for other legal actions, including domestic lawsuits. In another advisory opinion requested by small island nations, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea last year said carbon emissions qualify as marine pollution and countries must take steps to mitigate and adapt to their adverse effects. ___ Colombia and Chile are awaiting an advisory opinion from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on whether countries are responsible for climate change harms and, if so, what their obligations are to respond on human rights grounds. A four-day hearing was held this month in the Brazilian state of Amazonas and an opinion is expected by the end of the year. Much of the testimony focused on indigenous rights in Latin America, including whether industries violate their rights to life and to defend their land from environmental harm. ___ Dozens of U.S. states and local governments have filed lawsuits alleging that fossil fuel companies misled the public about how their products could contribute to climate change, claiming billions of dollars in damage from more frequent and intense storms, flooding, rising seas and extreme heat. In March the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit from Republican attorneys general in 19 states aimed at blocking climate change suits against the oil and gas industry from Democratic-led states. And state supreme courts in Massachusetts, Hawaii and Colorado have rejected attempts by oil companies to dismiss lawsuits, allowing them to proceed in lower courts. Even so, the Trump Justice Department recently sued Hawaii and Michigan to prevent the states from seeking damages from fossil fuel companies in state court for harms caused by climate change. The DOJ also sued New York and Vermont, challenging their climate superfund laws that would force fossil fuel companies to pay into state-based funds based on previous greenhouse gas emissions. ___ The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Lawsuits aim to hold fossil fuel companies responsible for climate change. Here's a look at some
A German court is expected to rule Wednesday in a landmark climate lawsuit brought by a Peruvian farmer against energy company RWE that claims global warming fueled by the firm's historical greenhouse gas emissions puts his home at risk. Farmer and mountain guide Saúl Luciano Lliuya said glaciers above his hometown of Huaraz are melting, increasing the risk of catastrophic flooding. RWE, which has never operated in Peru, denies legal responsibility, arguing that climate change is a global issue caused by many contributors. Experts say the case at the state court in Hamm, in western Germany, could set a significant precedent in the fight to hold major polluters accountable for climate change. Here's a look at other climate cases being watched closely: An environmental group has asked the Dutch Supreme Court to uphold a landmark lower court ruling that ordered energy company Shell to cut carbon emissions by net 45% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels. That ruling was overturned in November by an appeals court — a defeat for the Dutch arm of Friends of the Earth and other environmental groups, which had hailed the original 2021 ruling as a victory for the climate. Climate activists have scored several courtroom victories, including in 2015, when a court in The Hague ordered the government to cut emissions by at least 25% by the end of 2020 from benchmark 1990 levels. The Dutch Supreme Court upheld that ruling five years ago. ___ The United Nations' top court held two weeks of hearings in December into what countries worldwide are legally required to do to combat climate change and help vulnerable nations fight its impacts. The case was spurred by a group of island nations that fear they could simply disappear under rising sea waters, prompting the U.N. General Assembly asked the International Court of Justice for an opinion on 'the obligations of States in respect of climate change.' Any decision in the case, the largest in the court's history, would be non-binding advice and could not directly force wealthy nations to act, though it could serve as the basis for other legal actions, including domestic lawsuits. In another advisory opinion requested by small island nations, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea last year said carbon emissions qualify as marine pollution and countries must take steps to mitigate and adapt to their adverse effects. ___ Colombia and Chile are awaiting an advisory opinion from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on whether countries are responsible for climate change harms and, if so, what their obligations are to respond on human rights grounds. A four-day hearing was held this month in the Brazilian state of Amazonas and an opinion is expected by the end of the year. Much of the testimony focused on indigenous rights in Latin America, including whether industries violate their rights to life and to defend their land from environmental harm. ___ Dozens of U.S. states and local governments have filed lawsuits alleging that fossil fuel companies misled the public about how their products could contribute to climate change, claiming billions of dollars in damage from more frequent and intense storms, flooding, rising seas and extreme heat. In March the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit from Republican attorneys general in 19 states aimed at blocking climate change suits against the oil and gas industry from Democratic-led states. And state supreme courts in Massachusetts, Hawaii and Colorado have rejected attempts by oil companies to dismiss lawsuits, allowing them to proceed in lower courts. Even so, the Trump Justice Department recently sued Hawaii and Michigan to prevent the states from seeking damages from fossil fuel companies in state court for harms caused by climate change. The DOJ also sued New York and Vermont, challenging their climate superfund laws that would force fossil fuel companies to pay into state-based funds based on previous greenhouse gas emissions. ___ The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
Associated Press
28-05-2025
- Business
- Associated Press
Lawsuits aim to hold fossil fuel companies responsible for climate change. Here's a look at some
A German court is expected to rule Wednesday in a landmark climate lawsuit brought by a Peruvian farmer against energy company RWE that claims global warming fueled by the firm's historical greenhouse gas emissions puts his home at risk. Farmer and mountain guide Saúl Luciano Lliuya said glaciers above his hometown of Huaraz are melting, increasing the risk of catastrophic flooding. RWE, which has never operated in Peru, denies legal responsibility, arguing that climate change is a global issue caused by many contributors. Experts say the case at the state court in Hamm, in western Germany, could set a significant precedent in the fight to hold major polluters accountable for climate change. Here's a look at other climate cases being watched closely: An environmental group has asked the Dutch Supreme Court to uphold a landmark lower court ruling that ordered energy company Shell to cut carbon emissions by net 45% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels. That ruling was overturned in November by an appeals court — a defeat for the Dutch arm of Friends of the Earth and other environmental groups, which had hailed the original 2021 ruling as a victory for the climate. Climate activists have scored several courtroom victories, including in 2015, when a court in The Hague ordered the government to cut emissions by at least 25% by the end of 2020 from benchmark 1990 levels. The Dutch Supreme Court upheld that ruling five years ago. ___ The United Nations' top court held two weeks of hearings in December into what countries worldwide are legally required to do to combat climate change and help vulnerable nations fight its impacts. The case was spurred by a group of island nations that fear they could simply disappear under rising sea waters, prompting the U.N. General Assembly asked the International Court of Justice for an opinion on 'the obligations of States in respect of climate change.' Any decision in the case, the largest in the court's history, would be non-binding advice and could not directly force wealthy nations to act, though it could serve as the basis for other legal actions, including domestic lawsuits. In another advisory opinion requested by small island nations, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea last year said carbon emissions qualify as marine pollution and countries must take steps to mitigate and adapt to their adverse effects. ___ Colombia and Chile are awaiting an advisory opinion from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on whether countries are responsible for climate change harms and, if so, what their obligations are to respond on human rights grounds. A four-day hearing was held this month in the Brazilian state of Amazonas and an opinion is expected by the end of the year. Much of the testimony focused on indigenous rights in Latin America, including whether industries violate their rights to life and to defend their land from environmental harm. ___ Dozens of U.S. states and local governments have filed lawsuits alleging that fossil fuel companies misled the public about how their products could contribute to climate change, claiming billions of dollars in damage from more frequent and intense storms, flooding, rising seas and extreme heat. In March the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit from Republican attorneys general in 19 states aimed at blocking climate change suits against the oil and gas industry from Democratic-led states. And state supreme courts in Massachusetts, Hawaii and Colorado have rejected attempts by oil companies to dismiss lawsuits, allowing them to proceed in lower courts. Even so, the Trump Justice Department recently sued Hawaii and Michigan to prevent the states from seeking damages from fossil fuel companies in state court for harms caused by climate change. The DOJ also sued New York and Vermont, challenging their climate superfund laws that would force fossil fuel companies to pay into state-based funds based on previous greenhouse gas emissions. ___ The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
BBC News
26-05-2025
- General
- BBC News
Bristol: New scheme to 'bring back nature' to Barton Hill
A new community garden project is being launched to "bring back nature" to nature-deprived of the Earth and The Co-operative Bank are working on a joint project covering about 1,000 spaces across the UK, including in Barton Hill, Bristol. City residents are being invited to an afternoon picnic to mark the opening of Aiken Street Community Garden in Barton Hill on 22 May. Gardener Harriet Wylie said the aim of the project is to create "wonderful havens" that benefit both nature and the local community. The picnic, hosted by Wellspring Settlement, will kickstart Ms Wylie's new role as a 'Postcode Gardener'.As part of the scheme, she will oversee a two-year programme to increase biodiversity in the Barton Hill has already started work to create a community orchard with the help of a group of dedicated volunteers. Research from Friends of the Earth shows one in five people in England live in nature-deprived areas without access to green space - be it private gardens, public parks or open Wylie said: "Despite the challenges of the last few years, this is clearly a community with a lot of resilience, positivity and a desire to create a local area that people can take pride in." 'Happier world' Rianna Gargiulo, from Friends of the Earth, said Barton Hill was identified as one of the areas that would most benefit from this initiative said: "Making Bristol a little greener brings us one step closer to building the healthier, happier and more harmonious world we know to be possible."The community picnic launch event will be held from 16:30 to 18:00 BST on 22 May.
