Abstract
EDITORIAL
Autumn has sprung, lockdowns have withered into tiered restrictions and the government has produced a flurry of secondary legislation at a volume and rate previously unheard of. This edition of the ELR update offers few case updates, but a wealth of statutory vicissitudes.
Two cases leap out as being of particular interest. First, a District Court in Poland has, following a legal challenge by ClientEarth against Europe’s largest power plant, ordered the plant operators to negotiate with ClientEarth on methods to accelerate the plant’s closure. ClientEarth hails this as a landmark decision in which Polish civil law has been leveraged to compel a fossil fuel company to work with environmental experts to find a solution that works for the climate. Second, the case of Jalla v Shell – a negligence and nuisance claim brought by lead claimants on behalf of individuals and communities said to have been affected by an oil spill off the Nigerian coast – continues in the High Court. The Court grappled with representative elements of the claim and gave general direction on how a Court will approach who could be a party within a representative action.
The onslaught of European Union (EU) Exit legislation continues; the different statutes and statutory instruments published over the last quarter are legion. A common feature of the regulations drafted or enacted over the last quarter, most of which carry the moniker ‘(EU Exit)’, is that they seek to rectify what they describe as ‘failures of retained EU law’ to operate effectively. The new legislation is diverse and touches upon everything from CITES, the use of wild animals in circuses, to the risk preparedness of the electricity network. It remains to be seen how the mass of new legislation will operate in practice, and whether the Government’s wholesale reform of environmental law, against a backdrop of Brexit, will prove to be a success. The Government has notably already enacted the ban on plastic straws, cotton buds and stirrers (see Environmental Protection (Plastic Straws, Cotton Buds and Stirrers) (England) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020, No. 971)). Read on for more in this update.
Update
Newcastle University
Anna McClean, Jennifer Wardle
Trinity Chambers
Alice Richardson, Matthew R Crowe, Parissa Najah, Shada Mellor
EU LEGISLATION AND TEXTS
Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1499 of 28 July 2020 on the applicability of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council to production and wholesale of electricity from renewable sources in Italy (notified under document C(2020) 5026)
The question referred for determination was whether there is market competition in Italy’s renewable electricity argument. The Decision was affirmative.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32020D1499&qid=1603734672508
Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1222 of 24 August 2020 on the approval of efficient vehicle exterior lighting using light emitting diodes as an innovative technology for reducing CO2 emissions from internal combustion engine powered light commercial vehicles with regard to NEDC conditions pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2019/631 of the European Parliament and of the Council
The Regulation concerns the implementation of efficient light emitting diodes in vehicle exterior lighting on light commercial vehicles. The use of this innovative technology is important for reducing CO2 emissions in vehicles.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32020D1222&qid=1603734672508
Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1232 of 27 August 2020 on the approval of the efficient generator function used in 12 Volt motor-generators for use in passenger cars and light commercial vehicles, including certain hybrid electric vehicles and vehicles capable of running on alternative fuels, as an innovative technology pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2019/631 of the European Parliament and of the Council
The Regulation concerned the implementation of the efficient generator function of the 12 Volt motor-generator in passenger vehicles. The use of the generator is significant in reducing CO2 emissions from passenger vehicles.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32020D1232&qid=1603734672508
Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/1285 of 11 September 2020 establishing a fisheries closure for swordfish in the Atlantic Ocean, South of 5° N for vessels flying the flag of Portugal
The fishing quota allocated to Portugal for the stock of swordfish in the Atlantic Ocean, South of 5° N for 2020 has been exhausted.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32020R1285&qid=1603734672508
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1294 of 15 September 2020 on the Union renewable energy financing mechanism
The Regulation outlines the stages for the implementation and functioning of the Union renewable energy financing mechanism. The mechanism supports renewable energy deployment across the Union.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32020R1294&qid=1603734672508
Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/1315 of 16 September 2020 establishing a fisheries closure for undulate ray in Union waters of 9 for vessels flying the flag of Spain
The fishing quota allocated to Spain for the stock of undulate ray in Union waters of 9 for 2020 has been exhausted.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32020R1315&qid=1603734672508
Council Decision (EU) 2020/1325 of 21 September 2020 on the position to be taken on behalf of the European Union in the framework of the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the North-East Atlantic Fisheries as regards the application for accession to that Convention submitted by the United Kingdom, and repealing Decision (EU) 2019/510
The position to be taken on behalf of the EU will be to approve the application of the UK to join the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the North-East Atlantic Fisheries.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32020D1325&qid=1603734672508
Council Regulation (EU) 2020/1323 of 21 September 2020 amending Regulation (EU) 2020/123 as regards certain fishing opportunities for 2020 in Union and non-Union waters
The Regulation places limitations on fishing for Spain, Portugal and the general Union in subareas 9 and 10 of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and division 34.1.1 of the Fishery Committee for the Central Atlantic.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32020R1323&qid=1603734672508
Council Regulation (EU) 2020/1404 of 30 September 2020 establishing a fisheries closure for mackerel in areas 6, 7, 8a, 8b, 8d and 8e; Union and international waters of 5b; international waters of 2a, 12 and 14 for vessels flying the flag of Poland
Polish vessels are prohibited from fishing for mackerel in 6, 7, 8a, 8b, 8d and 8e; Union and international waters of 5b; international waters of 2a, 12 and 14, as their quota has been exhausted.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32020R1404&qid=1603734672508
DOMESTIC CASE LAW
Environmental Impact Assessment
London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust v Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government [2020] EWHC 2580 (Admin); [2020] 10 WLUK 7
This case involved a proposal for an EIA development put forward by the local authority that had been called in for determination by the secretary of state. Article 9a of the EIA Directive 2011/92 states that where the competent authority is the also the developer, Member States must implement, within their organisation of administrative competencies, an appropriate separation between conflicting functions when performing the duties under the Directive. The claimant claimed that the UK had failed to properly transpose Article 9a into English law. The court set out a number of requirements for ensuring independence but held that the Directive did not require national legislation to enshrine the criteria for defining the appropriate level of independence. It held that the Regulation 64(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 requirement for ‘appropriate administrative arrangements’ to be made to ensure functional separation was a perfectly proper transposition of the Article 9a requirement for ‘appropriate separation’ to be implemented within ‘organisation of administrative competences’ and that it was entirely appropriate that the legislation allow for arrangements to be tailor-made in that way by individual authorities. The court concluded that Regulation 64(2) properly transposed Article 9a into English law. The court did, however, hold that the current version of the handling arrangements for determining the planning application failed to comply with Regulation 64(2) as it did not refer to Regulation 64(2) and had not been published. The court held that it was important to bring home to those to whom the arrangements applied that the document setting out the arrangements laid down a regime to comply with the secretary of state’s obligations under Regulation 64(2) and that it should be amended to comply with the requirements for independence set out by the court.
Judicial Review
Gathercole v Suffolk CC [2020] EWCA Civ 1179
This case involved an appeal against a decision upholding the respondent council’s decision to grant planning permission for the construction of a new school near to a military airfield. The planning application was supported by an environmental statement that listed seven potential alternative sites and gave reasons why each was unsuitable. The council granted planning permission, subject to noise mitigation measures. The appellant claimed that the council had failed to have regard to its public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2020 in respect of the effect of aircraft noise on children with protected characteristics. While the mitigation measures would disproportionately help those sensitive to noise, the planning officers report did not refer to the need to take account of the needs of those children. The court held that the existence of the mitigation measures alone could not mean that the council had had due regard to the duty when the officers report made no mention of it, and the mitigation measures were generic and not targeted as those children with protected characteristics. The court, however, applied section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 Pt II and held that there was no basis for the suggestion that if due regard had been had to the duty the result would or could have been different and therefore the decision should not be quashed. The appellant also argued that the environmental statement did not assess the environmental effects of the alternative sites properly and the decision to grant planning permission in reliance on it was therefore unlawful. Under Directive 2011/92 Article 5(3)(d), a developer is required to include in the environmental statement an outline of the alternative sites and the main reasons for its choice. The court held that this did not require a detailed assessment of each alternative and the question of the sufficiency was a matter for the decision maker not the court. The court dismissed the appeal.
www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/1179.html&query=(title:(+gathercole+))
R (oao Packham) v Secretary of State for Transport [2020] EWCA Civ 1004; [2020] 7 WLUK 494
The case concerned the application of an environmental campaigner for permission to appeal against the refusal of permission to seek judicial review of the government’s decision to continue with the construction of the high-speed rail project HS2. In 2019, a review was commissioned to consider whether and how to continue with the project and the review report indicated that the project should continue with qualification to reduce carbon emissions and other mitigation measures. On 11 February 2020, the government adopted the decision to continue with the project and the application to seek judicial review of this decision was brought on 27 March 2020, six weeks and three days after the decision under challenge. The Divisional Court concluded that the claim had not been brought promptly in accordance with claims for planning matters and dismissed the claim. The court refused permission to appeal and permission to apply for judicial review. The court held that what satisfied the need for promptness varied from case to case and was met in the current circumstances. However, the court held that the decision on whether it was in the public interest to continue with the project was a matter of national political significance and in decisions of political judgements on matters on national economic policy, the court held that the appropriate test was that of irrationality with a broad margin of discretion and that it could only intervene on grounds of bad faith, improper motive and manifest absurdity. The court also found that the government had been entitled to continue with the implementation of HS2 on the basis of an independent review report that was not commissioned on any statutory basis and did not purport to present an up to date assessment of the project’s environmental impacts.
www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2020/1004.html&query=(title:(+packham+))
Environmental Permitting
Environment Agency v Ryder [2020] EWCA Crim 1110; [2020] 8 WLUK 176
This case was an appeal by the owners of a waste management site against confiscation orders imposed following their convictions for environmental offences. The Environment Agency revoked the appellant company’s environmental permit. The company had gone into liquidation prior to revocation of its permit and forfeited the lease of the site but certain waste activities continued at the site. The appellants were convicted of three charges relating to depositing waste and operating a regulatory facility without a permit. The recorder had found that the appellants had continued to operate the facility post-revocation of the permit in their personal capacity and had benefited from their criminal conduct by pecuniary advantage comprising an amount equal to the costs of removal of the waste and apportioned the benefit equally between them. A restraint order was made by the recorder against their assets and a restriction entered at HM Land Registry which extended to the second appellant’s joint interest in his matrimonial home and they were sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment suspended for 18 months. The appellants submitted that the recorder had not been entitled to include the removal costs in the benefit figure as this asserted benefit did not result from and was not connected to the conduct with which they had been charged. The court held that their conduct accorded with the broad approach to be taken to the words ‘as a result of or in connection with’ used in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 section 74(4) and (5) and came within the terms of Regulation 12(1)(a) and Regulation 38(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010. The second appellant submitted that the recorder had erred in including the share in the jointly owned property without taking into account an asserted equitable charge in favour of a third party. The court held that the charge, if valid, needed to be brought into account in valuing the appellant’s available assets and the critical question was whether the charge was genuine. The recorder had made no findings of fact on that issue which made it appropriate to remit the issue to the Crown Court for determination.
Nuisance
Jalla v Shell International Trading and Shipping Co Ltd [2020] EWHC 2211 (TCC); 2020 8 WLUK 119
This case involved a claim in negligence and nuisance issued by the lead claimants on behalf of individuals and communities said to have been affected by an oil spill off the Nigerian coast. The issues before the court concerned the representative elements of the claim. The court held that the mere existence of a claim for individual relief was not automatically a bar on the use of representative proceedings. The purpose of representative action was to a accommodate multiple parties who had the same interest. The ‘same interest’ was a common interest, based on a common grievance, in obtaining relief beneficial to all represented parties, and it was not sufficient that the claimants wished to bring claims that had some common question of fact or law, and the existence of potential defences affecting some represented parties’ claims but not those of others tended to militate against representative proceedings being appropriate. The court held that any individual or community would need to prove that they had suffered damage to the extent that justified their claim for remediation relief and the representative elements of the proceedings were struck out.
EU CASE LAW
Land Baden-Wurttemberg v D.R, Deutsche Bahn AG, Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht,Case C-619/19, 16 July 2020
This Advocate General’s Opinion concerns, in part, public access to environmental information and what if any exceptions exist in relation to such access. The Opinion addressed in large part the question of whether internal communications are shielded from disclosure, and whether that is limited in time. The documents in this case concern principally DR’s request for environmental information contained in certain documents held by the state ministry. The documents concerned a transport and urban planning project in Stuttgart Castle park. The Advocate General opined that the exception for internal communications covers any document intended to be addressed to someone, regardless of its content, and which has not yet left the sphere of a public authority on the date on which the competent authority has to take a decision on the request which has been made to it. It was further said that the temporal scope of the exception is unlimited. The time elapsed may, however, constitute an element which indicates that the internal communication requested must be disclosed and must therefore be included in the balancing exercise of disclosure.
Naturschutzbund Deutschland - Landesverband Schleswig-Holstein eV v Kreis Nordfriesland, Deich- und Hauptsielverband Eiderstedt, Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts, Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht, Case C-297/19, 9 July 2020
This request for a preliminary ruling concerned, principally, the interpretation of ‘occupational activity’ and ‘normal management of sites, as defined in habitat records or target documents or as carried on previously by owners or operators’, as variously described in Directive 2004/35/CE on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage. The issue arose in proceedings in Germany between the parties concerning measures to limit and remedy environmental damage that have been asked for by Naturschutzbund Deutschland. The Court, in considering the Directive, explained that the concept of ‘normal management of sites, as defined in habitat records or target documents or as carried on previously by owners or operators’, as mentioned in the Directive, must be understood as covering, first, any administrative or organisational measure liable to have an effect on the protected species and natural habitats which are on a site, and interpreted, if need be, by reference to domestic legal rules transposing particular Directives concerned with the environment or, failing this, is compatible with the spirit and purpose of those directives. The Court went on to find that the Directive 2004/35 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘occupational activity’ which is defined therein also covers activities carried out in the public interest pursuant to a statutory assignment of tasks.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62019CA0297
LB v College van burgemeester en wethouders van de gemeente Echt-Susteren, Case C-826/18, 2 July 2020
This Advocate General’s Opinion considers the right of citizens, under Netherlands law, to participate in a public participation procedure leading to the adoption of a decision concerning an environmental activity. The access however to a court to challenge any final administrative decision issued within that procedure is subject to two cumulative conditions: (1) the person must be an interested party, with its interests directly affected by the decision in question; and (2) that person must have participated during the public participation procedure by submitting its observations concerning the draft decision, unless that person may not reasonably be criticised for not having done so. The Opinion considers the dissonance in the scope of both frameworks of a very open administrative stage but much narrower judicial stage. The Advocate-General considered the provisions of the Aarhus Convention and opined that it conferred full participation rights only to ‘the public concerned’ within the meaning of those instruments, but not to ‘the public’ at large. The Opinion goes on to read that neither the Aarhus Convention or associated Directives are opposed to the exclusion of ‘the public’ who do not fall within ‘the public concerned’ within the meaning of those instruments, from access to court.
IE v Magistrat der Stadt Wien, Case C-477/19, 2 July 2020
This request for a preliminary ruling concerned the interpretation of Article 12(1)(d) of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC). The request arose in proceedings in Vienna between the parties concerning the adoption by the City Council of an administrative decision imposing on IE a fine and, in the event that that fine is not paid, a custodial sentence for having caused, in the course of a property redevelopment project, the deterioration or destruction of resting places or breeding sites of the Cricetus cricetus (European hamster) species, which is on the list of protected animal species set out in Annex IV(a) to the Habitats Directive. IE brought an action challenging the imposition of the fine on the grounds that, among others, the European hamster burrows were not being used by the hamsters when the harmful measures were implemented and those measures did not lead to the deterioration or destruction of resting places or breeding sites of that animal species. The issue of the interpretation therefore of phrases such as ‘resting places’ and other terms fell to be considered. The Court found that the term ‘resting places’ referred to in the Habitats Directive included resting places which are no longer occupied by one of the protected animal species, such as the European hamster, where there is a sufficiently high probability that that species will return to such places, which is a matter for the referring court to determine.
Föreningen Skydda Skogen and Others v Länsstyrelsen i Västra Götalands län, Case C-473/19, 10 September 2020
This Advocate-General’s Opinion concerned the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and the Birds Directive (2009/147/EC). The Court was faced with questions regarding species protection which it has already encountered in a similar form in connection with the protection of sites. The main question that arose concerned whether the application of the prohibitions under the law on the protection of species can depend on the fact that the measure in question is detrimental to the conservation status of the species concerned. However, a good conservation status is an express condition for a derogation, at least in the Habitats Directive. Furthermore, derogations in that directive require specific reasons and an assessment of alternatives. The situation is similar for bird protection. The Court recognised however there needed to be balance between species protection and human activity. This balance was examined in greater detail. The Advocate-General offered a raft of opinions on the interpretation of the law, including, among others, that (1) under the Birds Directive, Member States are required to adopt systems of protection for all species of naturally occurring birds in the wild state in the European territory of the Member States to which the Treaty applies. Systems of protection that cover only those species which are listed in Annex I to the Directive or are at some level at risk or are suffering a long-term decline in population do not meet these requirements; (2) the prohibition on the deterioration or destruction of breeding sites of animals listed in Annex IV(a) to the Habitats Directive does not require that the conservation status of populations of the species concerned is likely to deteriorate as a result of the act in question. Nor does a favourable conservation status of the species concerned affect the prohibition; (3) the prohibitions on killing and destruction in the Habitats Directive and Birds Directive do not presuppose a risk that the measure in question will have a negative effect on the conservation status of the animal species concerned; (4) under the Birds Directive, disturbances must be prohibited if they have a significant effect on the objective of maintaining populations of bird species at a satisfactory level or adapting them to that level, particularly if they are detrimental to rare birds when breeding or rearing.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62019CC0473
Friends of the Irish Environment Ltd v An Bord Pleanála, Case C-254/19, 9 September 2020
This request for a preliminary ruling concerned the interpretation of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC). The issue arose in proceedings in Ireland between the Claimant and the Planning Board of Ireland, concerning the latter’s decision to grant an additional period of 5 years for the construction of a liquefied natural gas regasification terminal on top of the 10-year period originally set in a previous decision. The Court considered that the decision must be regarded as an agreement of a project within the meaning of Article 6(3) of the Directive where the original consent, having lapsed, ceased to have legal effect on expiry of the period originally set for those works and the latter have not been undertaken. The Court considered that it was for the competent authority to assess whether a decision extending the period originally set for carrying out a project for the construction of a liquefied natural gas regasification terminal, the original consent for which has lapsed, must be preceded by the appropriate assessment of its implications under the Directive and, if so, whether that assessment must relate to the entire project or part thereof, taking into account, inter alia, previous assessments that may have been carried out and changes in the relevant environmental and scientific data as well as changes to the project and the existence of other plans or projects. The Court put a caveat on this view to say that the assessment of a project’s implications must be carried out where it cannot be ruled out, having regard to the best scientific knowledge in the field, that the plan or project might affect the conservation objectives of the site.
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&td=ALL&num=C-254/19
XN & Others, Case C-21/19 (Joined Cases C-21/19, C-22/19, C-23/19), 3 September 2020
These requests for a preliminary ruling concern the interpretation of a range of different Regulations, chief among which relate to the shipment of waste. The requests arose in the context of criminal proceedings instituted against three entities in relation to shipments of mixtures of animal by-products and other materials from the Netherlands to Germany. The Court interpreted the relevant Directives and Regulations. The Court found, among other matters, that the Directive on waste (2008/98/EC) and Regulation 1069/2009 on animal by-products must be interpreted as meaning that a material which cannot be classified as a ‘byproduct’ within the meaning of the former provision may nevertheless be regarded as an ‘animal byproduct’ within the meaning of the latter Regulation.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62019CJ0021
WWF Italia Onlus v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Case C-411/19, 16 July 2020
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerned the interpretation of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC). The reference was made in the course of proceedings which concerned the legality of the decision of 1 December 2017, by which the Council of Ministers declared compliance with the requirements the preliminary draft road link, north of Rome (Italy), along the ‘green route’ between Monte Romano Est (Italy) and Tarquinia Sud (Italy). The Court considered the interpretation of the Habitats Directive and found in part that Article 6 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not oppose national regulations allowing the continuation, for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, of the authorisation procedure for a plan or project whose impact on a special conservation area cannot be mitigated and on which the competent public authority has already delivered a negative opinion, unless there is an alternative solution with lesser disadvantages for the integrity of the area concerned, which is for the referring court to verify. The Court went on to find, among other matters, that where a plan or project has been, pursuant to Article 6 (3) of the Habitats Directive, the subject of an unfavourable assessment of its impact on a special conservation area and the Member State concerned has nevertheless decided to carry out the plan or project for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, Article 6 of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national regulations allowing that, after its unfavourable assessment and before its final adoption, this plan or project is supplemented by measures to mitigate its impact on this area and that the assessment of said impacts be continued. On the other hand, the Habitats Directive does not preclude, in the same case, national legislation making it possible to define the compensation measures within the framework of the same decision, provided that the other conditions for setting implementation of Article 6(4) of that directive are also fulfilled.
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-411/19&language=EN
CONSULTATIONS
NEWS AND MISCELLANEOUS
Carbon and Emissions
Energy Company Obligation
On the 8 July 2020, the House of Commons published a briefing paper which provides information on the Energy Company Obligation, which is a government energy efficiency scheme for low income and vulnerable energy customers which aims to reduce energy bills and carbon emissions. The scheme is supplier led and paid for by a levy on customer bills.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8964/
Order for Europe’s Largest Power Plant to Work with ClientEarth to Close
A District Court judge in Poland demanded the plant operators negotiate with ClientEarth lawyers to accelerate the plant’s closure and find a solution within three months.
www.clientearth.org/were-challenging-europes-most-climate-damaging-power-plant/
New Nuclear Power
The House of Commons briefing paper, published on 29 July 2020, summarised current progress on nuclear power, including conventional reactors, advanced designs, waste disposal and nuclear research.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8176/
Energy Policy: An Overview
On the 11 August 2020, the House of Commons briefing paper summarising the Commons Library publication on energy policy. The overview briefing paper provides background on energy in the UK, the basis for energy policy, and a timeline of significant developments in energy policy.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8980/
Housing and Net Zero
The House of Commons briefing paper published on 13 August 2020 discusses how emissions from housing can be reduced. Housing is currently responsible for 14% of UK emissions. The strategies to implement the reduction will be achieved through the Clean Growth Strategy, Energy Company Obligation and new builds built to be energy efficient.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8830/
Waste
Plastic Waste
The House of Commons briefing paper published on the 21 September 2020 discusses the extent of plastic waste in the UK. The Government’s ambition is that by 2025 all plastic packaging placed on the market will be recyclable, reusables or compostable.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8515/