Guest essay by Eric Worrall
An Australian court has just rejected an application to build a new coal mine, because of the alleged impact burning coal extracted from the mine would have on global warming.
Court rules out Hunter Valley coalmine on climate change grounds
Michael McGowan
Fri 8 Feb 2019 10.20 AEDT Last modified on Fri 8 Feb 2019 11.23 AEDT…
In his judgment, Preston explicitly cited the project’s potential impact on climate change, writing that an open-cut coalmine in the Gloucester Valley “would be in the wrong place at the wrong time”.
“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,” he wrote.
“Wrong time because the GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions of the coal mine and its coal 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 emissions. These dire consequences should be avoided. The project should be refused.”
…
The chief executive of EDO NSW, David Morris, said the findings were historic for Australian communities that had been trying to fight new fossil fuel projects because of climate change.
“It’s very difficult to see how any future coal project avoids the judge’s finding about this being the wrong time for it,” he said.
…
Morris said Australia was increasingly approaching a moment when approval of a fossil fuel project could be considered “unreasonable”.
“And unreasonableness is a ground of legal challenge,” he said.
…
You might be tempted to believe that a broad judicial attack against industry which indirectly provides jobs for 120,000 Australians, and earns billions of dollars for the Australian economy could be interpreted by observers as an act of economic sepukku.
But Australian politicians have a plan; they hope that any income lost by shuttering climate damaging industries like coal extraction will soon be replaced by what they claim is a trillion dollar export opportunity, selling green hydrogen fuel produced by electrolysing water using solar energy to China.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s election year in Australia at the federal level and New South Wales state level too. We will see both levels of Govn’t, currently liberal (Conservative) be swept away in a landslide to the Labor (ALP) party with most likely an ALP/Green coalition.
Australia is doomed!
The judge bases all his decisions on the Stern report , in one case he gave out CD’s about the stern report to both sides before the court case began .
So all his info comes from a failed economist who’s report was roundly blasted for its fake science and dodgy statistics.
Soylent Green is People!!
We, as citizens, commonly fail to learn from the lessons of history. We are all too prone to our minds filling up with useless trivia as well as the really important stuff. Not surprising, given the volume of material in front of us every day in this era of communication.
In Australia, with laws as at present, a judge should not be allowed to make decisions like this judge, Preston, has done because the matter is beyond his authority. His place is to decide if those before him are acting in accordance with the laws of the land. He has no mandate to judge on matters beyond the written law and in this case, there is none relevant to the way he stated his decision.
He might or might not be aware of some precedent. He used ‘environmental’ topic to say no to a coal mine. Back in 1987, some other judges said no to our uranium mining aspirations for ‘environmental ‘ reasons related to the United Nations World Heritage plans.
Judge Preston, as several have noted in the 2019 matter, held office with an activist environmental group, Environment Defenders Office. In 1987, we had judge Murray Wilcox, a past president of President of the Australian Conservation Foundation 1979-1984. Neither had the courtesy to recuse, although many citizens would likely see conflict of interest.
(As an aside, many people are now becoming more aware of the concept of “Sovereign Risk”, ways in which governments can shut the doors to international investment in their country by not maintaining a firm set of goal posts within which investors can be confident of reasonable stability. It is commonly a large ingredient in the collapse of nations and/or their governments).
Those with an interest in legal precedents might like more detail. Here is one link that leads to others, although I consider it rather biased in style against those ugly miners. I think I can comment like this, because I was the main person who conceived, developed and managed the case on behalf of, and with the unrestrained funding of, my then employer. However, I do not know many people who have ever heard of this court case to learn the lessons of history from it. Geoff.
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AdminRw/1987/31.pdf
Apparently, the judge is well within legal rights!
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/delicious-irony-how-miner-s-challenge-became-a-climate-change-win-20190208-p50wl0.html#comments
“Geoffrey Edwards
The common law has been evolving in precisely that way for several hundred years.”
Does not sound right to me!
Front your post…
“Judge Preston, as several have noted in the 2019 matter, held office with an activist environmental group, Environment Defenders Office.”
So, basically, an anti-coal, believer in climate change judge was found to make the ruling. You won’t find that little fact published in the Aussie MSM!
Geoff,
” He used ‘environmental’ topic to say no to a coal mine.”
I think you have been misled by this article. The judge did not do that. And he didn’t exceed his authority. It was a hearing of the Land and Environment Court. This hears disputes involving the Planning Ministry. In this case the company was appealing against the rejection of a planning application by the Minister, on environment grounds. The judge was required to adjudicate on the environment and planning issues. He did so at the request of the applicant. And he declined to overrule the Planning Minister’s decision.
Following this judge’s logic(?) he’s also breathing at the wrong place and at the wrong time. I suggest he stops immediately.
This “judge” should be nominated for some kind of stupidity award.
environment victoria is running a survey presently
their bias to green is staggering, but it figures.
however as a govt funded dept how they can suggest people who hold shares or use certain companies power,
or use named banks who have coal and other interests protest and push divestment.. beggars belief and I suggest those companies could and SHOULD take offence and legal action to desist