Igniting the Green Revolution: some brain storming from environmental lawyers

21 April 2018 by

Image may contain: 3 people

Image Credit: Tobias Schreiner, PIEL UK

On Friday 6th April, Public Interest Environmental Law (PIEL) UK hosted their 12th annual conference. The student-led association, which was founded in 2007, is inspired by the US conference of the same name which has attracted ever-growing numbers of delegates since it began in 1983.

This year’s conference boasted three panels packed with academics and practitioners, and a keynote address from Richard Macrory CBE. In light of the movement’s snowballing strength, it seemed apposite that this year’s conference be themed ‘Environmental Litigation: Has the Green Revolution Reached the Courts?’

In fact, speakers ranged beyond this brief, partly due to recognising that it would take the coalescence of strategic litigation with procedural reform and public interest to truly ignite the ‘green revolution.’

This theme persisted from opening speaker Dr. Emily Barrit’s call to think creatively about moving beyond a private-rights-based approach to environmental justice, through to closing speaker Gillian Lobo of Client Earth, who concluded a fantastic summary of Client Earth’s three successful High Court challenges to the government’s air quality plans by reminding attendees:

the campaign was equally important to us…[it] created the social atmosphere for these cases to succeed,

and created a legacy. The campaign, she said,

changes how people think, and what they require of their MPs and what they require of vehicle manufacturers.

In other words, the green revolution doesn’t just need litigation, it needs people to buy into its message. Richard Macrory CBE, who gave a spirited history of the developments leading to the birth of the UK’s environmental tribunal in 2010, and unveiled his four-point plan for future procedural reform, spoke too of the need for a social ‘ignition event.’ Change necessitates serious analysis of existing problems, but it also often requires a big scandal to strike the match: Macrory analysed the early 2000s as marked by a lot of analysis, but crucially, no scandal.

Image may contain: 2 people, people sitting

Image Credit: Tobias Schreiner, PIEL UK

Yet importantly, he remarked, there is no use in an ignition event if the serious analysis has not already been done. This leads, among other harm, to the danger of bad laws being pushed through suddenly – a suggestion which recalled Naomi Klein’s ‘shock doctrine’ theory. Thankfully, there was plenty of serious analysis on offer, encompassing not only procedural court reform, but also strategies for successful litigation. Dr. Veerle Heyvaert spoke about the ‘obstacle course’ of tort-based litigation, a frequent David and Goliath scenario with a poor track record, yet concluded that, surprisingly, all is not quiet on the tort front. Dr. Heyvaert detailed a wave of new cases: Lliuya v RWE, San Mateo & Marin county lawsuits, San Francisco & Oaklands lawsuits, Milieudefensie v Shell, and finally Urgenda, which we were reminded was won on a tort basis. She observed that, as climate change is legally disruptive, tort’s past track record may not be a good predictor for the future.

Appropriately, later in the day Leigh Day gave a more empirical presentation describing ongoing tort litigation, designed not as a comprehensive guide to environmental litigation, but a toolkit of successful strategies. Speakers tackled the problems presented by attempting to distil systemic failures by multinationals into specific legal arguments, and urged attendees to think creatively to establish a duty of care, including making use of public statements. Elsewhere, Client Earth detailed their judicial review actions against the UK Government.

Image may contain: 3 people, people standing and suit

Image Credit: Tobias Schriener, PIEL UK.

However, in keeping with the broad-church approach of the conference, analysis was not confined to the domestic sphere. Dr. Emily Barrit urged us to see the value of procedural rights as elevated by the Aarhus Convention: she observed that some of our oldest rights are procedural, and that they are not deprived of normative purpose simply because they are not substantive. Dr. Virginie Rouas presented environmental success stories from French litigation, and Dr. Gitanjali Gil provided a fascinating counterpoint to the keynote address on England and Wales’ environment tribunal system, introducing us to the radically different role of India’s more interventionist judiciary.

In particular, she spoke of India’s National Green Tribunal, where judging panels are comprised of a 50:50 split of judges and scientists, placed on an equal footing. The NGT, we were told, takes a highly liberal approach to standing, which is coupled with low costs, and which is moving towards an increasingly collaborative and inquisitorial model. Whilst there were hiccups when it came to implementing the infrastructure in full, India’s judiciary remained ‘strong, imaginative, innovative and pro-active,’ and in Dr. Gil’s opinion provided an entirely appropriate template for developing countries, which faced their own set of socio-ecological problems demanding innovative solutions. The pro-active approach of the courts in the face of a growing population, poor regulation and a corrupt executive among other factors, reflected values of realism, guardianship, welfare and social responsibility.

Image may contain: 1 person

Image Credit: Tobias Schriener, PIEL UK.

This, really, was the spirit of the conference: thinking creatively, with whichever tools one has, to embody these values in law and policy in a way which encourages the development of the green revolution. We were told that two things were necessary, and they seemed on offer in spades: serious analysis, and the commitment to the public spirit necessary to ignite the green revolution.

A full list of speakers and topics from the conference can be found here.

3 comments


  1. swan101 says:

    A post to read and share. Of major importance will be whether this will lead to less effective inaccurate lobbying from those such as the wind industry. They should then be forced to stick to accurate facts – and provide proof of claims made. So in this respect, the scientists involved must be seen to be unbiased and skilled in their appreciation and knowledge of emerging science. For example , the progress in technology for measuring the full spectrum of sound from wind turbines, and the effect of wind turbine infra-sound emissions on all forms of life. As we know, the world is still largely relying on the British ETSU standard of sound measurements which, in the absence of such vital coverage, is not fit for purpose.

  2. swan101 says:

    Reblogged this on UPPER SONACHAN WIND FARM and commented:
    A post to read and share. Of major importance will be whether this will lead to less effective lobbying from those such as the wind industry. They should then be forced to stick to accurate facts – and provide proof of claims made. So in this respect, the scientists involved must be seen to be unbiased and skilled in their appreciation and knowledge of emerging science. For example , the progress in technology for measuring the full spectrum of sound from wind turbines, and the effect of wind turbine infra-sound emissions on all forms of life. As we know, the world is still largely relying on the British ETSU standard of sound measurements which, in the absence of such vital coverage, is not fit for purpose.

  3. peakcrew says:

    This is all very well, but do the general public actually *want* a “green revolution” that will make everything more expensive and less convenient? Do they want two centuries of increasing standards of living to be reversed because some academics have a bee in their bonnets? Personally, I think not. Issues like disposable plastic cups and straws are one thing, serious change such as restricting car use is something completely different. I fall very much into the category of seeing too much waste for no gain – such as plastics and packaging – but will fight tooth and nail against removing technological advances that have made lives better.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


7/7 Bombings 9/11 A1P1 Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy private nuisance private use Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecution Protection of Freedoms Act Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest protest rights Protocol 15 Public/Private public access publication public authorities public inquiries public interest immunity quango quarantine Queen's Speech queer in the 21st century R (on the application of EH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 2569 (Admin) Rabone and another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust [2012] UKSC 2 race relations Rachel Corrie Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion resuscitation RightsInfo right to die right to family life right to life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials security services sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates spending cuts Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax Taxi technology Terrorism terrorism act tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: