Climate change sits at the center of a closely watched Supreme Court ruling that reshapes how the government must handle oil and gas decisions, as the court ruled that authorities must consider climate impacts when they decide whether to offer blocks for tender. At the same time, the judges clarified that once the tender process is complete, the government does not need to revisit climate considerations during permit approvals, because doing so would undermine the purpose of inviting applications. As a result, the court underlined that offering exploration blocks can ultimately lead to fossil fuel extraction, and therefore climate impacts must be addressed clearly and decisively at the very start of the decision-making process.
Court explains when climate change becomes a legal duty
To understand the ruling, it helps to look at how oil and gas exploration works. First, the government decides whether to open certain areas for exploration. This step is known as offering blocks for tender. If the government offers these blocks, companies can apply. After that, the government may grant exploration permits.
The Supreme Court ruled that climate change must be considered during the first step, when blocks are offered for tender. According to the judges, this decision begins a process that is intended to move forward toward petroleum extraction if companies succeed. The court said climate change is “so obviously relevant” to these decisions that it becomes a mandatory consideration. In other words, the government must think about climate impacts before inviting companies to explore for oil and gas.
In addition, the judges explained that the Crown Minerals Act requires decisions to benefit the country as a whole. That benefit is not limited to economic returns or energy supply. Instead, it also includes long-term well-being, which is directly affected by climate change.
However, the court rejected the argument that climate change must be reconsidered when permits are granted after a tender is completed. The judges said that refusing permits at that stage could undermine the purpose of the tender process. Once the government invites applications, it signals an intention to allow exploration to proceed. As a result, the court placed the legal responsibility firmly at the front of the process, not at the end.
How the legal challenge moved through the courts
A climate-focused student group brought the case to court. The group argued that the government failed to properly consider climate change when it granted onshore exploration permits. They pointed to official climate advice that warned against locking in new fossil fuel projects.
First, the High Court rejected the challenge. The judge ruled that the Crown Minerals Act is designed to promote fossil fuel development for national benefit. While climate change is important, the law still allows petroleum activity, even if it harms the climate.
Next, the Court of Appeal also dismissed the case. The judges found no legal requirement to consider climate change when granting permits. However, one judge added an important point. She said climate change could still be taken into account if decision-makers chose to do so. This was because climate laws allow public agencies to consider emissions targets and carbon budgets.
Finally, the case reached the Supreme Court. Here, the judges took a more detailed view. They agreed that the permitting stage was not the correct point to impose a mandatory climate test. Yet, they also made it clear that climate change must be considered earlier, when the government decides whether to offer blocks for tender. This approach allowed the court to dismiss the case while still setting a clear legal rule for future decisions.
Climate obligations and fossil fuels under national law
In its decision, the Supreme Court stressed that climate change is a pressing issue for the country’s present and future wellbeing. The judges noted that the government has entered into binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
They also highlighted a key fact. Petroleum extraction and consumption are major contributors to climate change, both locally and globally. Because of this, decisions that could lead to new fossil fuel projects carry serious consequences.
“A dangerous precedent for the world”: Brazil’s Lula pushes back against US pressure on Venezuela
The court explained that offering oil and gas blocks is not a simple administrative step. Instead, it starts a process that is meant to lead toward extraction if successful. Therefore, climate change must be weighed before this process begins.
At the same time, the judges reviewed the specific permits challenged in the case. They found that officials had provided detailed advice on climate-related issues. Decision-makers were aware of broader climate policy work and national energy planning. As a result, the court ruled that the permits were granted lawfully.
Although the challenge failed, the judgment created an important legal clarification. Climate change is now a mandatory consideration when the government decides whether to open new areas for oil and gas exploration. By placing climate responsibility at the tender stage, the Supreme Court connected environmental reality with resource management. The ruling confirms that decisions about fossil fuels cannot be separated from their climate impacts, especially when those decisions shape the country’s long-term future.
