The Court of Appeal has dismissed Friends of the Irish Environment’s challenge to the State’s 2023 Climate Action Plan. The judges found that the group failed to show that the Government had breached the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act.
Ms Justice Butler delivered the ruling. She noted that both sides accepted the seriousness of climate change and described it as likely the single most serious issue facing society.
She said the case was not about political debates or wider climate policy. It turned on narrow points of law.
The appeal centred on whether CAP23, the first statutory climate plan under the amended 2015 Act, aligned with Ireland’s legally binding carbon budgets. FIE argued that the Government needed near scientific certainty that every measure in the plan would deliver the required emissions cuts.
The court rejected that view. It said the Act requires consistency with the carbon budget programme and does not require proof that each measure will succeed.
The judges said climate plans are forward-looking and updated each year as science and policy change.
A large part of the case dealt with agriculture. FIE said many of the measures asked farmers to change long-standing practices and were more aspirational than achievable.
The court cited a section of the Act that requires the Government to consider agriculture’s special economic and social role, including biogenic methane.
It said that farming is treated differently under the law and must be assessed accordingly.
The judges found that FIE did not engage with the detailed modelling and technical material underpinning CAP23.
Much of it came from external experts and had been disclosed during the proceedings. The court said that merely pointing to uncertainties or ambitious targets was not enough.
The group needed to show that the measures could not work or were clearly inconsistent with the carbon budgets.
FIE also relied on a later EPA report which said Ireland was off track for 2030. The court said a report published after CAP23 was adopted cannot be used to show that the plan was unlawful at the time.
Although CAP23 has since been replaced by CAP24 and CAP25, the court agreed to hear the appeal.
It noted, with a dry remark, that the annual update cycle makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for any challenge to be completed before the plan itself expires.
The appeal was dismissed. The court made no order for costs.