Let’s break the cycle of building congested and climate disaster roads

The Government has rushed through several new road scheme approvals before the general election.  And one of the most costly and exceptionally carbon polluting schemes was the A12 Chelmsford to A120 in Essex, which was approved in January 2024.  

The A12 is a £1.3 billion road with a high carbon footprint of almost 2 million tonnes.  It is taking us backwards on climate change, and potentially risks the UK not meeting our promises under the Paris Agreement.  

As securing the Paris agreement is of vital concern to all our futures, I launched a legal challenge in February.  However, on May 22^nd Mrs Justice Lang refused permission for the High Court to hear the case.   Together we must contest this when most scientists agree that the world has already breached the Paris agreement 1.5 degrees target (77% of climate scientists expect a temperature rise of at least 2.5 degrees, see chart below) and that humanity is already into the climate danger zone. 

We are beyond saving all of the Paris agreement, but we must strive to protect what is left.  For that, the Courts must ensure that decisions by UK ministers are pursued lawfully and align with this vital UK international obligation.

"Every new carbon polluting road scheme is one more cut in the death by a thousand cuts being inflicted on the UK’s commitment to the Paris agreement.  Our government is eroding again and again any climate credibility which we once had with the international community."    Dr Andrew Boswell

By refusing permission for this case, the High Court has failed to enforce UK law to protect our legal obligations under the Paris agreement, nor has it ensured that decisions are properly risk assessed against meeting UK climate targets, despite the very clear judgment in the recent Net Zero II case (see below).  

"I am now launching an appeal to the Court of Appeal to protect our commitments under the Paris agreement."  Dr Andrew Boswell

The recent Net Zero II case

This appeal builds on a recent landmark judgment (May 3^rd 2024, “Net Zero II”) which found that the Government’s Climate Change plan (the Carbon Budget Delivery Plan, CBDP) was unlawful. Mr Justice Sheldon ordered the Government to produce a revised and legally compliant plan within 12 months (ie by May 2025). This judgement means, among other things, that no legal measures exist for the UK to fully meet its 2030 Nationally Determined Contribution (“NDC”) which is our national commitment under Article 4(2) of the Paris Agreement.

Even before the Net Zero II judgement, the UK was not on track to comply with the Paris agreement because the CBDP was only designed to meet previously set UK carbon budgets which require less demanding reductions in carbon pollution.  

Also quantified measures in the CBDP were known to only meet 92% of the 2030 NDC, with just under half of these measures having low or very low confidence of delivery (policy delivery risk).  Further, the UK is failing to reduce emissions from road transport: transport expert Professor Greg Marsden recently said the DfT has a ‘Dangerously Inadequate’ decarbonisation plan.  The Net Zero II judgment showed that the Government’s climate plan is in tatters especially on meeting our Paris commitments.  The graph below reproduced from the Net Zero II judgment, taken itself from internal Government briefing notes, shows that just under half of the carbon savings for the NDC have low or very low confidence.

Paying lip service to the Paris agreement is not enough

During the A12 planning examination, I submitted evidence why the Secretary of State (SoS) must very carefully consider if the carbon pollution from building and operating the road would have an impact on delivering our commitments under Paris. Why?  If meeting the 2030 NDC was already looking out of reach - as it was (because it was already clear that Government had inadequate policies with very low confidence of success, now proven by the Net Zero II case) - then the minister approving the A12 must be certain that the decision would not impact the UK commitments under Paris agreement.  

In approving the A12, the SoS claimed that he had considered its impact on the Paris agreement.  However, he did so in the pretence that the CBDP would be fully delivered.  And despite it being known that the CBDP itself was never going to fully deliver our Paris commitments in the first place.  This is only paying lip service to the Paris agreement at best: at worst, it is dangerously undermining the UK's chances of meeting our international commitments.

“Paying lip service to the UK commitments under the Paris agreement is not the same as genuinely striving to, and ensuring that we can, deliver our commitments.  I am challenging the A12 approval because the minister making the approval did not, in any serious and genuine sense, consider whether the A12 scheme would undermine our UK commitments to the Paris agreement.”  Dr Andrew Boswell 

Legal grounds summary

My lawyers have found potential legal flaws in the decision making including:

• failure to consider that the A12 would have a material impact on the Paris agreement and 2030 NDC, including that the 2030 NDC requires a 68% reduction in UK emissions and the SoS relied upon an assessment against the 5^th carbon budget (2028-2032) which requires the considerably smaller 58% reduction;
• failure to consider the delivery risks of current government policy, that is the now found unlawful CBDP for achieving Net Zero;
• unlawful conclusion on the significance of carbon pollution in breach of the EIA Regulations.

Read the Statement of Facts and Grounds for more detail.

Destroying nature as well as the climate

As well as driving up carbon emissions, the scheme would also destroy 45 hectares of woodland, potential veteran trees, and 16km of hedgerows. It would also adversely impact on ancient woodland, including Perry’s Wood nature reserve. Protected species that would be harmed include bats, badgers, otters, brown hare, hedgehogs, barn owls, breeding and wintering birds, common reptiles, and great crested newts.

Badger sow and cubs family feeding in a woodland forest (Credit: Tony Baggett)

Loss of farmland 

There would also be a loss of 474 hectares (nearly 5 sq km) of arable farmland to the scheme, adversely impacting on the UK’s food security.

Harm to human health

The A12 scheme would also lead to an increase in air pollution which is harmful for both human health and biodiversity. NOx would increase by an extra 2,599 tonnes, and PM10/PM2.5 by 318 tonnes. There would also be an increase in noise pollution, due to increased traffic and speeds, with 3,911 households suffering from increased daytime noise, and 3,664 households with increased noise at night.

What happens next?

I instructed experienced lawyers at Leigh Day.  Ricardo Gama from Leigh Day and my barristers, Peter Lockley and David Wolfe, KC are working on the appeal case.  I am grateful to an initial fixed-sum grant from lawforchange to cover my potential liability for the other parties’ costs which enabled me to develop the case so far, and to barristers Merrow Golden and Ben Mitchell for developing the core legal arguments. Now the legal team are generously filing my claim to the Court of Appeal for a discounted fee, but I still need to build up a fighting fund of £10,000 for preparing and arguing the detailed arguments at the Court of Appeal and any further hearings or appeal if necessary.  (I have an initial target of just £500 to get us over the qualifying line, so we will receive all donations pledged).  

Please help me raise these funds by supporting this vital legal case to protect the precious Paris agreement with a donation now, and please share widely on your social media and email networks (quick link to quote: tinyurl.com/A12-APPEAL)

Thank you for your support.

Follow more on the science, policy and law of climate, transport and energy at  x.com/Andrew9Boswell

(Cover photo credit: yevtony)