Introduction

In the landmark case of Friends of the Irish Environment v The Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications & Ors (Approved) ([2025] IEHC 61), the High Court of Ireland addressed a significant challenge posed by environmental activists regarding the adequacy of the government's Climate Action Plan 2023 (CAP23). The applicant, Friends of the Irish Environment, sought judicial review of CAP23, arguing that the plan lacked sufficient detail and quantification to ensure compliance with the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 (as amended).

This case revisits the issues raised in the earlier Friends I case, where the Supreme Court had quashed the 2017 National Mitigation Plan for being inadequately detailed. The central question in Friends II pertained to whether the more granular details provided in CAP23 sufficiently address the concerns of illegality and non-compliance with statutory requirements.

Summary of the Judgment

Justice Humphreys delivered the judgment on February 7, 2025, concluding that the Climate Action Plan 2023 and its accompanying Annex of Actions were lawfully adopted and sufficiently detailed to meet the statutory requirements. The High Court found that the applicant failed to provide adequate evidence to demonstrate any illegality or lack of specificity in CAP23. Consequently, the court dismissed the proceedings, reinforcing the government's position on the adequacy of its climate action measures.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced previous cases to substantiate its reasoning:

• Friends of the Irish Environment v. The Government of Ireland & Ors [2020] IESC 49 (Friends I): This case saw the Supreme Court quashing the 2017 National Mitigation Plan on grounds of insufficient specificity.
• R. (on the application of Friends of the Earth Ltd) v. Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [2022] EWHC 1841 (Admin): A UK case that highlighted the necessity for quantification in climate plans but concluded that quantitative analysis alone did not suffice to meet emission targets.
• R (Friends of the Earth Ltd and others) v. Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero [2024] EWHC 995 (Admin) (Friends of the Earth II): This case underscored the importance of basing climate strategies on accurate and justifiable emission reduction measures.

These precedents collectively emphasize the judiciary's stance on the need for detailed and quantified climate action plans to ensure that governmental measures are both transparent and effective in meeting statutory objectives.

Legal Reasoning

The High Court's decision hinged on several key points:

• Breach of Administrative Law Requirements: The court examined allegations of defective consultation with the Climate Change Advisory Council (CCAC), lack of reasons in relation to CCAC, failure to consider Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports, and failure to account for quantification in emission reductions. The court found that the government had adequately consulted with the CCAC and considered EPA materials.
• Lack of Specificity: The applicant contended that CAP23 lacked sufficient detail to allow the public to evaluate its effectiveness. The court, however, noted that CAP23 included comprehensive tables outlining emission reduction measures by sector, each quantified in terms of greenhouse gas emissions (MtCO₂eq). The court emphasized that the burden of proof rested with the applicant to demonstrate that these quantifications were inadequate.
• Burden of Proof: The judgment underscored that the applicant failed to engage meaningfully with the detailed quantifications present in CAP23. Without expert evidence or detailed analysis to refute the government's projections, the applicant could not substantiate claims of insufficiency.
• Statutory Obligations: The amendments to the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 in 2021 introduced stricter requirements for climate action plans, mandating quantified emission budgets and sectoral ceilings. CAP23 was designed to comply with these stringent obligations, further supporting the court's decision to uphold its validity.

The court's reasoning reflects a balanced approach, recognizing the necessity for detailed climate plans while also acknowledging practical limitations in absolute quantification.

Impact

The judgment has several significant implications:

• Reinforcement of Quantification Requirements: The decision reaffirms the judiciary's expectation that climate action plans must include detailed and quantified measures to ensure compliance with statutory emissions targets.
• Burden of Proof on Applicants: Environmental challengers are reminded that mere assertions of inadequacy are insufficient. They must provide comprehensive evidence, potentially including expert testimony, to substantiate claims against government plans.
• Guidance for Future Challenges: Future judicial reviews of climate action plans will likely focus on the adequacy of the applicant's evidence rather than the inherent complexity of climate policies, provided the government has presented a sufficiently detailed plan.
• Encouragement of Detailed Government Reporting: Governments are incentivized to maintain high standards of transparency and specificity in their climate action initiatives to withstand legal scrutiny.

Overall, the judgment strengthens the framework within which climate policies are developed and challenged, ensuring that plans are both actionable and verifiable.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Carbon Budgeting

Carbon Budgeting refers to the allocation of a specific amount of greenhouse gas emissions that a country can emit over a defined period. This budget ensures that emission levels remain within targets set to mitigate climate change effectively. In the context of this case, Ireland's Climate Action Plan 2023 was scrutinized to determine whether it sufficiently adhered to the carbon budgets established under the amended Climate Act.

Sectoral Emissions Ceilings (SECs)

Sectoral Emissions Ceilings are specific limits set on the amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted by different sectors of the economy (e.g., transportation, agriculture, residential). These ceilings aim to ensure that each sector contributes appropriately to the overall emission reduction targets. CAP23 included such ceilings, and the court examined whether the plan outlined clear measures to comply with these limits.

Smith and Limited's "Roadmap"

The term "roadmap" within the climate action context refers to a strategic plan that outlines the steps and measures required to achieve specific emission reduction targets. It is essential for providing a clear pathway from the current state to the desired emission levels, ensuring that all necessary actions are accounted for and quantified.

Conclusion

The High Court's dismissal of the judicial review challenge in Friends of the Irish Environment v Minister for Environment serves as a pivotal affirmation of the necessity for detailed and quantified measures within governmental climate action plans. By upholding the validity of CAP23, the court emphasizes the importance of robust, evidence-based planning in meeting Ireland's statutory emission reduction targets.

This judgment not only reiterates the legal obligations imposed by the amended Climate Act but also sets a clear precedent for how future challenges to climate policies must be substantiated with comprehensive and detailed evidence. It underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring that environmental measures are both actionable and accountable, thereby contributing to the broader goal of achieving a low-carbon and climate-resilient society.