May 19, 2026
When asked what it’s like to have a major climate ruling named after her, Sarah Finch responded, “It’s really cool!” A writer and editor from southeastern England, Sarah is now a well-known name in environmental circles thanks to the “Finch ruling,” a 2024 decision by the UK Supreme Court that requires environmental assessments to consider the downstream impacts that fossil fuels will have on the global climate, in addition to local impacts.
The Goldman Environmental Prize sat down with the UK climate activist to discuss her motivation to take on Big Oil, and her tenacity to see a multi-year judicial battle through to the finish line.
Goldman Prize: Sarah, you’ve been passionate about environmental issues since childhood. What inspired your early interest in these issues?
Sarah: I honestly can’t remember what sparked my interest in the environment, but it was there as long as I can remember. Growing up, I was haunted by news reports about acid rain and tropical deforestation, and I loved Gerald Durrell’s books about traveling the world to save endangered animals. There was never any question—working to improve the environment was all I ever wanted to do.
Goldman Prize: Walk us through the moment when you decided to take action against the oil drilling permits in Horse Hill, Surrey. What motivated you to get involved?
Sarah: By the time I heard about Horse Hill, I was already aware of climate change and the need to reduce the use of fossil fuels. But seeing a notice in the local paper about an oil well planned at Horse Hill—near my home—took it to another level. I was really shocked that something I’d thought of as a national issue was suddenly happening on my doorstep. I determined then to find out everything I could and do whatever I could to stop it.
That said, there was a long gap between that moment and taking legal action. For years, we protested and objected to the sequence of planning applications—test drilling, oil flow tests, and so on. It wasn’t until some years later that we turned to legal action.
Goldman Prize: You used some very creative fundraising efforts during your campaign, including sponsored walks, art sales, musical performances, and more. How did these efforts show the community spirit behind this movement, and how important was this grassroots support in sustaining this legal challenge and maintaining your own personal resolve?
Sarah: When we made the decision to take legal action, our first fundraising target was £35,000 to cover legal fees and lawyers’ costs. That seemed like a huge amount for a small group of people to raise. So we did all kinds of things—sponsored walks, art sales, music events, a crowdfunder—and we actually found it wasn’t that hard, because so many people were willing to give.
That’s one of the things I always want to stress about the ruling that has my name—the “Finch ruling.” It could give the impression that it’s all about me, that I did it alone. But that couldn’t be further from the truth. It was a real team effort, with the Weald Action Group at the core, and backed by the wider community.
Goldman Prize: Looking back on your nearly five-year legal battle, what kept you going through setbacks in the lower courts?
Sarah: One of the things that kept us going was having each other. There were times when each of us flagged or lost hope a bit, but the others were always there to keep things moving.
The other thing was the conviction that we were right! And the more we heard judges say we were wrong, the more certain we became that this was a really important point that needed to be heard.
We’d started off thinking the goal was simply to stop the development at Horse Hill. But we quickly realized there were many other sites—including much bigger ones—where we believed the same mistake had been made in planning: permission had been granted to produce fossil fuels without any assessment of the climate impact of then burning those fuels. So we knew we weren’t just doing it for Horse Hill anymore. We were doing it to establish a national principle.
Goldman Prize: To build on that, how has the Finch ruling shaped subsequent decisions on development in the UK? Do you see this win as a broader tuning point for UK climate law?
Sarah: Immediately after the Finch ruling, there was a domino effect of other projects being found unlawful, because they had been approved without assessment of downstream emissions. That included the coal mine near Whitehaven in Cumbria, the giant Rosebank oil field in the North Sea, and the Jackdaw gas field—all three had been approved without examining their scope 3 emissions, and all three were found to be unlawful. A host of smaller sites were affected as well.
The government then decided it needed to rewrite guidance for the offshore oil and gas industry on how to properly assess scope 3 emissions. So, as a direct result of our case, anyone who wants to produce fossil fuels in the UK now has to produce an environmental statement setting out the full impact of all stages of production and use. The ruling has completely changed the context in which planning decisions on oil and gas are made in the UK.
But its effects reach further than that. It’s now being seen as applicable to industrial agriculture too—proposed large-scale facilities for keeping pigs or poultry have been refused on the grounds of downstream emissions, citing the “Finch ruling.” And because the ruling requires assessment of all indirect impacts, that includes upstream impacts as well—such as the deforestation driven by soy production to feed livestock. The principle is proving to have very wide reach across different sectors.
Goldman Prize: Looking forward, what does continued success look like for you?
Sarah: First of all, it’s about defending the “Finch ruling” and making sure it isn’t weakened—and that it’s properly applied. Take Rosebank, for example. The developer has come back with a new environmental statement, and the government will once again decide whether to approve it. We want to make sure that approval doesn’t happen and, more broadly, that the ruling leads to the real change it should. Additionally, the Weald Action Group is also now looking at methane emissions from existing and abandoned sites.
Goldman Prize: Thank you, Sarah. And our final question: What advice would you give to someone who feels passionate about climate action but unsure how to make an impact?
Sarah: Find the other people who think like you. It’s so much easier to do something with others than alone. I used to think I was the only person who cared about the environment and the climate, but that is so far from the truth. So team up, find the people who share your values, put your heads together, and go from there.
