The Climate Docket

WHAT WE COVER:

  • Liability Litigation
    • Baltimore Lawsuit
    • California Climate Lawsuits
    • Colorado Lawsuit
    • Mass. v. Exxon
    • New York City Lawsuit
    • Rhode Island Lawsuit
    • Other Suits
  • Access to Courts
    • Liability Waivers
    • State Legislation
  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Powered by Genesis

You are here: Home / International / Australian Judge Rejects Coal Mine on Climate Grounds
Australian Judge Rejects Coal Mine on Climate Grounds

Australian Judge Rejects Coal Mine on Climate Grounds

February 8, 2019 Filed Under: International, Liability Litigation

print

By Karen Savage

In a landmark decision, an Australian court on Friday rejected a plan to build an open-cut coal mine because of the proposed mine’s harmful effects on climate change.

“The construction and operation of the mine, and the transportation and combustion of the coal from the mine, will result in the emission of greenhouse gases, which will contribute to climate change,” Chief Judge Brian Preston said in a judgement handed down by New South Wales’ Land and Environment Court.

The decision stopped a controversial plan by Gloucester Resources Limited to build its proposed Rocky Hill coal mine just outside Gloucester, a town of about 3,000 people. The proposed mine would have extracted up to 2 million tons of coal a year for the next two decades. The mine, first proposed nearly a decade ago, was rejected by the New South Wales Planning Assessment Commission in December 2017, but Gloucester Resources was allowed to appeal.

The Environmental Defenders Office of New South Wales, which represented the community group Groundswell Gloucester during a hearing last August, argued that the mine was detrimental to the interests of the surrounding community, would worsen climate change and would prevent Australia from meeting the emissions targets it promised to the Paris Climate Agreement.

Australia vowed to cut emissions 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, which climate advocates say is insufficient to combat climate change and the Australian government said last year it isn’t on track to reach that goal. The 2018 Emissions Gap Report from the United Nations listed Australia as among the countries that will not meet its 2030 target.

Australia is the fourth-largest coal producer in the world and coal still powers about two-thirds of the country’s electric capacity.

“It’s one atmosphere, it’s one climate system, it’s one planet—and so we need to start thinking more carefully about the net effect of wherever coal is burnt, or oil or gas,”  said Will Steffen, emeritus professor at Australian National University’s Climate Change Institute during the hearing.

“The project’s contribution to cumulative climate change impacts means that its approval would be inequitable for current and future generations,” said Steffen.

The court agreed, ruling that even though the mine would contribute only a fraction of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, any contribution to a worsening climate was enough to halt the project.

“In short, an open cut coal mine in this part of the Gloucester valley would be in the wrong place at the wrong time,” Preston wrote in the ruling.

“Wrong place because an open cut coal mine in this scenic and cultural landscape, proximate to many people’s homes and farms, will cause significant planning, amenity, visual and social impacts.”

“Wrong time because the greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) of the coal mine and its product will increase global total concentrations of GHGs at a time when what is now urgently needed, in order to meet generally agreed climate targets, is a rapid and deep decrease in GHG emission.”

Gloucester Resources did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but Chief Operating Officer Brian Clifford said he is disappointed and the company is reviewing its options.

The decision is anticipated to have widespread ramifications for future fossil fuel projects.

“The judgment presents a foundational question for all decision makers, said David Morris, head of the Environmental Defenders Office.

“It is this: given that, if we are to remain within the global carbon budget, only a finite amount of additional carbon can be burned, and that existing approvals already exhaust that budget, why should this particular project be prioritized over any other, or displace an existing approval?” said Morris.

“That is ‘the wrong time’ test and will prove an insurmountable barrier for many projects going forward.”

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)

Filed Under: International, Liability Litigation

Don't Miss a story
Subscribe 
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Thanks for subscribing! Please check your email for further instructions.

Trackbacks

  1. 2019 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #6 | Climate Change says:
    February 11, 2019 at 7:46 pm

    […] Australia on track to meet Paris Agreement targets five years earlier than expected, research finds, by Gary-Jon Lysaght, ABC News (Australia), Feb 7, 2019 […]

  2. Coal company bows to investor pressure on climate, vows to curtail mining says:
    February 21, 2019 at 11:25 pm

    […] Australian Judge Rejects Coal Mine on Climate Grounds […]

  3. Has Australia violated human rights by failing to address climate change? says:
    May 12, 2019 at 10:30 pm

    […] groundwater management plans for the controversial Adani coal mine. A court in New South Wales ruled against another proposed coal mine due to its impact on climate change in […]

Don't Miss a story
Subscribe 
We promise not to spam you. Unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Thanks for subscribing! Please check your email for further instructions.

Latest News

Justice Dept. to Argue on Side of Oil Companies in Supreme Court Hearing

By Karen Savage The acting solicitor general will be allowed time to argue in support of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, BP and nearly two dozen other companies next week during oral arguments before … [Read More...]

Recent Posts

  • Colorado Judge Rejects Oil Companies’ Attempt to Move Climate Case
  • Biden’s DOJ Could Help Swing Momentum Around Climate Cases
  • Supreme Court Questions Oil Companies’ Tactics to Shake Climate Cases
  • Will Amy Coney Barrett, Whose Father Was a Shell Attorney for Decades, Recuse from Climate Suit?

Most Popular

  • Will Amy Coney Barrett, Whose Father Was a Shell Attorney for Decades, Recuse from Climate Suit?
  • Vulnerable Nations Call for Ecocide to Be Recognized As an International Crime
  • U.S. Government Knew Climate Risks in 1970s, Energy Advisory Group Documents Show
  • Oil Company Will Pay $100 Million for Damaging Louisiana Coast
  • EU Families Appeal 'People's Climate Case' Dismissal

Categories

  • Access to Courts
  • Baltimore Lawsuit
  • California Climate Lawsuits
  • Charleston, S.C. Lawsuit
  • Colorado Lawsuit
  • Connecticut Lawsuit
  • Delaware Lawsuit
  • Exxon Climate Investigation
  • Featured
  • Hoboken Lawsuit
  • International
  • Latest News
  • Liability Litigation
  • Liability Waivers
  • Mass. v. Exxon
  • Minnesota Lawsuit
  • New York City Lawsuit
  • Other Suits
  • Politics
  • Rhode Island Lawsuit
  • State Legislation
  • Uncategorized
  • Washington DC Lawsuit

Follow us

  • View climatedocket’s profile on Facebook
  • View climatedocket’s profile on Twitter

RSS

RSS Feed RSS - Posts

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.