Policy Exchange Suddenly Wakes Up to the Tentacles of the Green Blob

After years of pushing Net Zero on the dime of green billionaires, the Conservative-leaning think tank has started to see the problem

According to a new report from the Conservative-aligned think tank Policy Exchange, an ‘Advisory Opinion’ issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) may leave Britain exposed to excessive climate litigation. This litigation may include trillions of pounds in climate reparations, the report claims, and could prevent the exploitation of North Sea oil and gas, even if the government was willing to allow it. It is indeed an extremely worrying possibility and a grotesque departure from the notions of democracy and national sovereignty. But why is anyone surprised by this destruction of democratic national sovereignty? Surely that has long been the point of green globalism?

It’s a strange report to see from Policy Exchange, because the think tank has long been at the centre of driving the green agenda into the Tory perspective. Policy Exchange has published many dozens of reports that candidly give thanks to its sponsors, which include the European Climate Foundation (ECF), Bloomberg Philanthropies, WWF and the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF), which have given support to green policies. Policy Exchange also incubated some significant climate wonk careers, including Guy Newey, now CEO of the Net Zero research funding quango Catapult Energy Systems and Director of the UK100 campaign, which inserts the Green Blob into local governments to accelerate Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and Clean Air Zones, despite local opposition. Another Policy Exchange alumnus is Ben Caldecott, co-founder of the Conservative Environment Network and of the Oxford Smith School’s Sustainable Finance Group, where he is Associate Professor.

But despite this history of Policy Exchange supporting an agenda that made it first among indistinct Green Blob funded and legacy-party aligned think tanks, ‘Litigating Climate Change‘ is an extremely worthwhile (though not so readable) report which sheds vital light on important political developments, and is written by people with genuine expertise in this domain.

Britain’s governments have long sustained a commitment to international law as part of a contested ‘international rules-based order’, though both concepts are vague. Many countries do not accept the ICJ’s jurisdiction – Britain is alone amongst the permanent UN Security Council in sustaining a commitment to the ICJ’s jurisdiction, the others having either not signed up in the first place (USSR/Russia, China), or having quit following disputes (France, USA). The report argues that, for various reasons, the advisory opinions of the ICJ, which are non-binding, often come nonetheless to be treated by governments, courts and international institutions as highly authoritative statements of what is required by international law. Consequently, the authors argue that the ICJ may be creating law, rather than (as supporters might counter) clarifying the meaning and implications of international treaties such as the Paris Agreement.