In September, the UK government approved the development of the controversial Rosebank oil field. Rosebank is not compatible with a safe climate or liveable future.
We believe that this decision is not just morally and economically wrong, but unlawful. The government’s claim that drilling Rosebank is compatible with the UK’s obligations and a safe climate isn't adding up - and we will prove it in court.
We’re filing not just one, but two cases against the government so we can #StopRosebank. Two separate cases have been filed against the decision, one by Uplift, the other by Greenpeace UK and both will be heard in the Court of Session in Edinburgh.
The cases will argue that:
- The government has failed to assess both the emissions generated from burning Rosebank’s oil and are downplaying the disastrous marine impacts of the project.
- Rosebank is not compatible with the UK’s commitment for a safe climate. Government agencies should not be allowed to approve oil fields that would breach climate targets.
Want to support the court case? Tell the Government that this case is also in your name.
Add your name here.
These cases are being supported by: 350.org, BankTrack, Culture Unstained, Environmental Justice Foundation, Extinction Rebellion, Friday for Future Scotland, Friends of the Earth Scotland, Fossil Free London, Fossil Free Parliament, Fuel Poverty Action, Global Witness, Green New Deal Rising, Greenpeace Norway, Grandparents Climate Campaign Norway, Laudato Si Movement, Lawyers are Responsible, MedAct, Mothers Rise Up, Oceana, Oil Change International, Parents for Future UK, Platform, Sierra Club Canada, Tipping Point, War on Want, Whale and Dolphin Conservation, World Cetacean Alliance.
More about the cases
Uplift and Greenpeace are both filing judicial review challenges to the government’s decision to approve Rosebank. The cases argue that the decisions of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA) are unlawful because:
- The approval of Rosebank is incompatible with the government’s climate commitments. We argue that the approval of Rosebank makes it effectively impossible to achieve the emissions reductions targets in the North Sea Transition Deal (NSTD). The NSTD is the oil and gas sector’s contribution to the legally binding net zero target and according to the NSTA, the industry is already off track to meet that target. It is argued that the government cannot lawfully approve projects which mean these targets will be missed.
- The North Sea Transitional Authority (NSTA) has failed to give any reasons at all, let alone any rational ones, for its decision to grant consent to the development. The cases challenge the complete lack of transparency from the NSTA, particularly around what is involved in its net zero test and how it could have concluded that Rosebank passed this test.
- The government failed to consider downstream emissions caused by burning Rosebank’s oil and gas when assessing its environmental impact. Despite the fact that Rosebank contains almost 500 million barrels of oil and gas, the burning of which will produce more CO2 than the annual emissions of the world’s 28 lowest-income countries combined, the government has ignored the emissions that come from burning the fossil fuels that Rosebank will produce.
- The government has failed to adequately assess the marine impacts of Rosebank, including minimising the impacts on a Marine Protected Area (MPA). We argue that Rosebank will significantly hinder the conservation objectives of the Faroe-Shetland Sponge Belt which is a Nature Conservation MPA.
