Countries that want to grant a permit for the extraction of fossil fuels such as oil and gas must from now on carefully investigate the consequences for the climate. They must argue how those emissions fit within their climate goals, and also look at the emissions from using those fuels – even if that is.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled this in a statement published on Tuesday pronunciation. According to experts, the ruling could also have major consequences for the Netherlands.
The case, brought by environmental organizations Greenpeace and Young Friends of the Earth Norway, centers on ten permits for exploration in the Barents Sea. Norway provided these fens to oil companies in 2016, but according to the NGOs, they took too little account of the climate. The government would have violated this.
After the Norwegian Supreme Court ruled, the action groups went to the court in Strasbourg in 2021. It ruled on Tuesday that although Norway has not violated human rights, it emphasized that countries are obliged to look at the climate impact of new fossil fuel extraction.
Scope 3 emissions
The central question is how countries such as Norway exactly calculate the climate impact. “The question is, what emissions are you taking with you?” says Clemens Kaupa, a law lecturer at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU). “Do you only look at the emissions from extracting the oil, for example the energy consumption of your drilling platform? Or do you also take into account the emissions from burning the extracted oil?”
It is precisely the latter form of emissions, the so-called scope 3 emissions, that is a sensitive issue in Norway. The country is leading the energy transition and obtains almost all of its electricity from clean sources. But it is also by far the largest oil producer in Europe. Norway sells the vast majority of that oil abroad.
The result, as appears from it verdict: 95% of the total CO2emissions resulting from Norwegian oil extraction occur outside Norway. In this way, Norway can make a nice show of its climate policy, while it earns billions from fossil emissions in other countries.
Self responsible
This ruling changes that, and not just for Norway, says VU climate lawyer Tim Bleeker. “The court makes countries partly responsible for these emissions. They must provide insight into the climate impact of the oil and gas sold.”
According to Bleeker, it doesn’t stop there. Countries that are bound by the European Convention on Human Rights, including the Netherlands, must from now on provide scientific substantiation as to why the additional emissions resulting from new oil and gas extraction are “compatible with their obligations under international law”.
According to the climate lawyer, this will not be easy. The International Court of Justice in The Hague recently emphasized that countries must do everything to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees. If countries want to achieve that goal, an estimated 60 percent of the currently known oil and gas must remain in the ground, scientists calculated in 2021. For coal this is even 90 percent.
If countries want to achieve the 1.5 degree target, an estimated 60 percent of the currently known oil and gas must remain in the ground
Big step forward
So the science is clear, says Bleeker: there is hardly any room for new oil and gas extraction. “But for the time being, countries are issuing more permits for oil and gas extraction than fit within the remaining carbon budget. This ruling will make that a lot more difficult.”
There are already signs of this new reality in Norway. Although the Supreme Court ruled against Greenpeace and Young Friends of the Earth in 2020, it imposed the same condition on new oil and gas projects as the European Court now does. In 2024, the judge annulled three permits because the government had not looked closely enough at the climate impact.
From now on, all countries that are members of the European Human Rights Treaty will have to deal with this rule. Frode Pleym, head of Greenpeace Norway, called the verdict “a big step forward.” “It is a relief to see that the court recognizes what science has been telling us for years: that new oil and gas fields threaten our most fundamental human rights,” said Pleym.
Also read
After high-profile climate lawsuits, Norway must now better account for environmental risks
NEW: Give this item as a gift
As an NRC subscriber you can subscribe every month 10 articles give as a gift to someone without an NRC subscription. The recipient can read the article directly, without a paywall.