Call from ” sue Minister on climate

Getty Images

The Minister should drag the UK’s official climate change goal or expect the courts, the government’s former chief scientist has said.

Prof Sir David King is forcing the support for a legal dispute to shrink the Minister carbon emissions to zero by 2050.

He says that the current goal of the government is to protect an 80% reduction of the emissions by the same date – is too weak, the climate.

The Minister promised a more ambitious climate policy, in its forthcoming and long-delayed Clean growth plan.

But Prof king told BBC News knew the government that the target of 80% cut behind this plan was too weak.

After about 18 months, the environment Secretary Andrea Leadsom, a 100% reduction in emissions promised to keep the England is on the track of, its obligations pursuant to the 2015 Paris climate agreement.

But the Ministers did not anchor, that a 100% cut in the Climate Change Act.Potential Disaster

“This is crazy,” Prof king told the BBC. “The government knows very well what needs to be done – but it is to do it.

To force “when there is legal action, the Minister, do the right thing, then so be it – I’ll support it.”

Prof king is a carrier of a preliminary action of a small group, Plan B, run by a former government lawyer Tim Crosland.

It is argued that Business-Secretary of state Greg Clark is committed to, the goals to intensify, under the law, if the science shows that it is necessary. This is the basis of the case.

Mr. Crosland has written to Mr Clark and says, if there is no satisfactory response after 14 days, he takes the case to the High Court on judicial review.

“The science has hardened considerably, to Act as climate change, it was agreed,” he said.

“When the scientists tell us, our current course of emissions, which potentially leads us to disaster, then it is irrational to stay the current course.

“The best available science tells us, the risks of crossing tipping points rise very sharply between 1.5 and 2C. And this means that UK emissions to zero.”Counterproductive?

His case, argued before the court that Jonathan Crow, Attorney-General, Prince Charles, and a former senior Treasury lawyer.

Mr Crosland says his co-plaintiff, a rabbi “who learned not to ignore a humanitarian crisis,” young people, out of fear for the future; and a supporter of the Mauritius island States most affected by the rising sea water.

The other groups are similarly frustrated with long delays in the government’s climate strategy, and some are also considering legal action.

There are fears, though, are pushing for a zero-emission-strategy, if the government can still achieve the lower target is counterproductive.

Client earth, one of England’s most successful environmental groups in the past ten years, has to deliver the pioneer in the use of the courts in environmental policy.

Jonathan Church, a climate lawyer with the group, said: “We hope that Plan B’ s demand, will help draw attention to the urgency of the challenge we face and ensure that our government keeps their eye on the targets agreed in Paris.

“But not to reduce the targets on their own emissions.”

He added that the focus should be now, that the climate change Act fulfills its purpose.

The government said it would consider the Plan B to the letter and respond in due time, and added: “The UK is a world leader on climate change”.

A spokesman said the impending Clean growth plan, describing how the reduction of emissions to be reduced, would be “ambitious and robust… and build on the economic opportunities throughout the country”.

Follow Roger on Twitter @rharrabin