In court last year, Shell’s lawyer, Christine O’Neill KC, said the company accepted that greenhouse gas emissions contributed to climate change and urgent action was needed to tackle it.

However, she added, “whether, how and to what extent” any individual project contributed to climate change was “a complex one.”

In his judgment, Lord Ericht wrote: “The effect of the burning of fossil fuels on climate change and the lives of individual persons is now well recognised in law.”

The judge has now, in effect, batted the case out of the judicial arena and into the wilds of politics, where the landscape has shifted even in the two months since verbal arguments in the case were heard in Edinburgh.

Republican Donald Trump is now back in the White House promising to “drill, baby, drill” while Labour chancellor Rachel Reeves is stressing economic growth over environmental concerns as she backs airport expansion.

There has been speculation that Ed Miliband is uncomfortable with this position but he has not broken ranks.

On the other hand, the oil industry says it is already facing difficult conditions because of political uncertainty and high levels of taxation, with the US firm Apache recently announcing it would leave the North Sea by the end of 2029.

Given that backdrop, Shell is now understood to be pressing government in private for assurances about Jackdaw.

“The addition of downstream emissions will add to the assessment process a new and significant factor which was not included on the previous assessment and may change the result of the assessment,” wrote Lord Ericht.

If it does, that would delight climate campaigners and dismay the oil companies but industry insiders have told BBC News it is more likely that, in the end, the government will allow both Rosebank and Jackdaw to proceed.