Environmental groups have filed a lawsuit against the UK government, challenging the issuance of new oil and gas licences in the North Sea.
The legal action argues that the licences, granted to expand fossil fuel extraction, violate climate commitments and fail to properly consider their environmental impact. This case could have significant implications for the UK’s energy policy and its commitment to reducing carbon emissions.
Britain’s decision to issue more than two dozen oil and gas exploration licences was challenged at London’s High Court on Wednesday, with campaigners saying the government failed to consider the impact on climate change and risk of accidents.
Marine conservation organisation Oceana UK is bringing the case over 28 licences granted in May 2024 under Britain’s previous government, which it also argues did not properly assess the risk to protected marine life.
Far-right demonstrators clash with London Police
But Britain’s energy department – which did not defend similar cases after a 2024 Supreme Court ruling – is opposing the case, saying the licences only allow early exploration and further assessments will be carried out before oil or gas is produced.
Oceana’s case is the latest challenge over fossil fuels to reach court, as environmental campaigners increasingly turn to the law to try and tackle climate change, with mixed success.
The licences were issued as part of the North Sea Transition Authority’s latest oil and gas licensing round and grant their holders the right to search for fossil fuels.
An exploration licence does not necessarily lead to production, though Oceana’s lawyers said in court filings that they provide “a clear pathway towards extracting oil and gas”.
Its lawyer Zoe Leventhal said the wider impact should be considered at the licensing stage, when the authorities can assess “all the sites across all the areas at the same time”.
Britain’s Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, however, argued it was not possible to know the impact on climate change before the scale of any production was known.
The government’s lawyer Beth Grogan argued in court filings that the licences were for “purely exploratory activities … and will not inevitably lead to consent for production or the burning of hydrocarbons”.
London mayor orders review of the capital’s statues
Oceana’s case comes after the British government dropped its defence in other challenges after the Supreme Court ruled planning authorities must consider the impact of burning, rather than just extracting, fossil fuels when approving projects.
This included the approval of two vast North Sea oil and gas fields, which was overturned by a Scottish court in January, casting doubt on the future of new fossil fuel projects.
But Prime Minister Keir Starmer last month indicated he would not stand in the way of one those projects, saying that “oil and gas is part of the future mix for decades to come”.
