It was a thrilling week last week. Across the globe, there was evidence of potentially game-changing shifts in attitude towards the climate crisis in court rooms, in annual general meetings, and in new reports. In Australia, the federal court found that the government owes a common law duty of care to protect younger people against future harm from climate change, whilst a court in the Hague ordered Royal Dutch Shell to cut its global carbon emissions by 45% by the end of 2030 compared with 2019 levels after finding the Company had a duty of care and that the level of emission reductions of Shell and its suppliers and buyers should be brought into line with the Paris climate agreement.
In the US, ExxonMobil announced that shareholders had (despite the company’s strenuous opposition) elected two dissident candidates to the company’s board, both of whom pledge to push for climate action. The candidates were proposed by Engine No. 1, a tiny activist which owns just 0.02 per cent of the company’s stock, but persuaded some of the largest investors to back them not the board. This followed hard on more than 60% of Chevron shareholders voting to force it to account for the emissions caused by burning the oil it sells, again against the recommendation of the company’s leadership (but consistent with the Shell decision).
In the UK, over 99% of HSBC shareholders backed a resolution, supported by the board after a campaign led by ShareAction, which legally binds the bank to set a strategy and targets to align its financing with the goals of the Paris climate agreement. This coincided with a new study demonstrating that the amount of CO2 production financed by Britain’s banks and asset managers is nearly double the UK’s annual carbon emissions, according to a new study. It means that if the City of London were its own country, it would outrank Germany as the ninth largest emitter of CO2 in the world. It is likely, then, that other banks will elect, or be forced, to adopt similar targets.
These applications of the law and legal processes, showing governments and boards the strength of feeling that exists among the public and, critically, the investment market, illustrate the role law may play assisting in the dramatic emissions reductions required. One further announcement offered a further and striking indication of the shifting mood. The International Energy Agency called for an immediate end to all new development of fossil fuels if the Paris aspirations are to be met. This is a remarkable position for the body that represents the fossil fuel industry to take.
So why have I called this piece A Legal Leadership Vacuum? Because whilst all this is happening, The Law Society of England and Wales is increasingly conspicuous by its absence from the debate. Like all solicitors of these countries, I am a member. However, when I look on their website, I am hard-pressed to find out anything at all about lawyers and climate heating. I don’t know what is expected of us, and see no guidance on what we might do. There are no educational materials on the topic. There is nothing stating what the Law Society itself is doing to ensure it behaves in a manner compliant with the Paris Agreement. It does not seem interested in giving those in the profession who wish to, a means of engaging in the many live debates about the role law can play in addressing this crisis.
I wondered if this is typical of such organisations, so I looked on the website of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales. It turns out they have a Sustainability Committee, a Climate Hub, a dedicated network and an impressive array of resources all available for the benefit of their members. I also looked up the International Bar Association. It has published a statement on its position in respect of the climate crisis which runs to four pages and is full of useful reflections and suggestions for lawyers to take on board. Academics, architects and advertisers are just the start of a long list of other professions which have published statements on the issue. Actions of course speak louder than words, but this includes the act of seemingly ignoring the biggest issue of our day, or implying it is not relevant to lawyers, and vice versa.
I am aware that there are several It does seem to me a dereliction of duty for the Law Society to offer so little on something so profound and suggests an organisation not fit for the purpose of enabling and representing the legal profession we need to help respond to the extreme challenges of our times. All the more reason to be grateful for, and to engage with, the initiatives stepping into this leadership vacuum, including the Legal Sustainability Alliance, the Net Zero Lawyers Alliance, the Chancery Lane Project and Esela, each offering in their own way somewhere for concerned solicitors to go to find out more about how they might contribute, as well as what we might need to know to practise effectively in the future.
Thank you for shining a light on the Law Society and the lacuna in their place in the pantheon of climate-change unworthies. Then again, I long since gave up on them providing leadership to the profession; namely, taking a stand on something that might prove that lawyers are not just in it for the money -- which is, in my humble experience, so often the case. Take care, Julian