In 2021 when Ireland\u2019s amended climate law was going through the legislative process, critics noted it contained no legal mechanism to force compliance by government. But these concerns were dismissed in the hope the obligations on public bodies and government would steer the economy and society on to a net-zero emissions pathway. <\/p>\n
If the law is working, it should align our investment<\/a> and planning decisions<\/a> with commitments under the Paris Agreement<\/a>. This necessarily requires a long-term view, since emissions released today will be hanging around for a very long time. On human timescales and with currently available technology, carbon dioxide that we release into the atmosphere will stay there causing climate change<\/a> to worsen for thousands of years. The more we put up there, the worse the problem gets. <\/p>\n The uncompromising physics of climate change simply can\u2019t be managed with actions deferred to a future date, or by relying on unproven or immature technologies, or by promising to do good deeds elsewhere.<\/p>\n We\u2019re all a little bit responsible \u2013 this is true \u2013 but big emitters have a particular duty to act, as do countries. Climate cases taken by citizens around the world have sought to clarify and enforce this duty, including the Irish \u201cclimate case\u201d taken by Friends of the Irish Environment<\/a> which was ultimately successful in the Supreme Court in 2020. In 2024 in the KlimaSeniorinnen<\/a> case, the European Court of Human Rights<\/a> established a direct legal link between a state\u2019s failure to meet carbon reduction targets and the violation of individual human rights. The Senior Women for Climate Protection had formed in 2016 to challenge the Swiss government\u2019s failure to act effectively on climate change. <\/p>\n With so much at stake, not least mounting concerns over food and energy security, you\u2019d think our Government would be planning for a future without fossil fuels. However, legally binding limits are not being translated into practical policies and statutory decisions with the urgency that climate action demands. It is deeply concerning that since the 2021 Climate Law was adopted, numerous planning approvals will substantially increase Ireland\u2019s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or lock-in fossil fuel demand even further. For example, approximately 40 additional data centres<\/a> have received approval since the amended climate law was enacted.<\/p>\n In March this year, the High Court<\/a> refused an application<\/a> by environmentalists to quash a decision of An Coimisi\u00fan Plean\u00e1la<\/a> that would allow the construction of a \u20ac1.6 billion, 200MW data centre campus in Ennis, Co Clare. According to Colin Doyle, a physicist who took the legal challenge along with Friends of the Irish Environment, the proposed data centre will emit 700,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases \u2013 more carbon than 50,000 people would produce \u2013 every year. This one data centre will consume 21 per cent of the carbon budget for the electricity sector by 2030. <\/p>\n Yet the numbers in the case \u2013 the additional emissions the data centre\u2019s energy demand would generate \u2013 were not deemed to be a good enough legal reason to quash the decision. The High Court was satisfied by the argument made by the developer and An Coimisi\u00fan Plean\u00e1la that, when considered in global or European terms, \u201cthe GHG emissions associated with the project are small\u201d and that a commitment to procure renewable electricity through a Corporate Power Purchase Agreement would count as adequate mitigation in \u201cnet\u201d terms. <\/p>\n In another recent High Court decision<\/a>, Judge Richard Humphreys refused an application<\/a> to quash permission for a 600MW power station on the Shannon estuary, accepting the developer\u2019s argument that the facility would replace existing, less efficient, and more carbon-intensive power generation. However, this ignores the cumulative impact of carbon dioxide and its residency in the atmosphere. Any additional emissions will cause additional climate harm: that\u2019s the basic physical and moral challenge of climate change. <\/p>\n The legal firm William Fry, which acted for the developer in the Ennis case, concluded that the judgment confirms that section 15 of the Climate Act 2021 \u201cdoes not preclude the <\/a>commission from granting planning permission for a development that generates substantial GHG emissions\u201d<\/a>. That\u2019s good news for data centres and power plants, but bad news for the climate. <\/p>\n