Environmental groups are cheering a decision in NSW's Land and Environment Court that found the emissions of greenhouse gases and resulting climate change from a proposed coal mine were among the reasons to reject the project.
Brian Preston, chief judge of the court, handed down his judgment in a case between Gloucester Resources Ltd and the NSW Planning Minister in Sydney on Friday. He concluded the mine project was "in the wrong place at the wrong time".
The chief judge of the NSW Land and Environment Court dismissed Gloucester Resources Limited's appeal of the Department of Planning and Environment's 2017 decision to not approve the mine in the NSW Hunter.
He dismissed an appeal by developers of the controversial Rocky Hill open-cut coal mine near the Mid North Coast town of Gloucester against any earlier planning rejection.
Last April, the Environmental Defenders Office of NSW secured approval from the court to join the case, arguing on behalf of its client Groundswell Gloucester that the mine's detrimental impact on climate change and on the social fabric of the town must be considered.
The EDO dubbed it a "once in a generation case" as it was the first time an Australian court had heard expert evidence about the urgent need to stay within a global carbon budget in the context of a proposed new coal mine.
Justice Preston noted the "significant adverse social impacts on the community" from the proposed mine but - in a court-first in Australia - highlighted the climate impacts of coal mining.
"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," Justice Preston said in his judgement.
'Reverberate across Australia'
Di Montague, a member of Groundswell Gloucester, told fellow anti-mine campaigners, "we've won, we've won".
 |
| Gloucester residents are jubilant after their win in the Land and Environment Court. Credit: Janie Barrett |
"It's a very strong judgement," David Morris, EDO NSW's chief executive, said after the judgment was released to a packed court room.
Planning Minister Anthony Roberts declined to comment on the judgement's wider importance, saying only: "That’s the legal process and we respect the court’s decision”.
A spokesman later added that Minister Roberts was "gratified that the Land and Environment Court agreed with his original decision to refuse a mining licence on the grounds that the proposal did not meet environmental and social requirements. These decisions are made on a case-by-case basis."
Brian Clifford, chief operating officer for Gloucester Resources said the company was disappointed by the court's decision after the mine had "met all the non-discretionary criteria".
"Gloucester Resources Limited will assess the implications of today’s decision and consider its
next steps," Mr Clifford said.
Stephen Galilee, chief executive of the NSW Minerals Council, said his organisation did not accept that the verdict amounted to a "landmark case"because the Planning Department had already recommended against the project's approval.
"We’ll take a close look at the judgement, including what appears to be a range of different reasons for the outcome," Mr Galilee said.
'Shutting the door'
The result was being watched with interest internationally. Climate litigation, particularly in the US and European nations such as the Netherlands, is growing as climate campaigners frustrated by insufficient political action seek alternative routes to cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
 |
| Hunter Valley coal mines: will it be harder to expand or dig new ones after NSW court ruling? |
"It is absolutely clear that the Paris climate targets cannot be met if we continue to open up new fossil fuel reserves," Professor Steffen said.
"This landmark decision sends a clear message to the fossil fuel industry that it cannot continue to expand if we are serious about tackling climate change."
"Shutting the door on new fossil fuel developments will be a major turning point in the battle to stabilise the climate system - and will add further momentum to the shift to clean, reliable renewable energy systems," he said.
'All emissions contribute'
Justice Preston elaborated on his judgement, noting that "all of the direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions of the Rocky Hill Coal Project will impact on the environment".
"All anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change," he said.
In aggregate, the mine would have contributed 37.8 million tonnes of carbon-dioxide equivalent, "a sizeable individual source" of such emissions, Justice Preston concluded.
"It matters not that the aggregate of the Project's greenhouse gas emissions may represent a small fraction of the global total", he said. "The global problem of climate change needs to be addressed by multiple local actions to mitigate emissions by sources and remove greenhouse gases by sinks."
'Wrong place, wrong time'
In summarising, Justice Preston said an open-cut coal mine in "this part of the Gloucester valley would be in the wrong place at the wrong time".
It was the wrong place because of "this scenic and cultural landscape", including indigenous ones, and its proximity to home.
However, it was also the "wrong time because the greenhouse gas emissions of the coal mine and its coal product will increase global total concentrations of [those gases] at a time when what is now urgently needed, in order to meet generally agreed climate targets is a rapid and deep decrease" in those emissions, Justice Preston concluded.
Such a judgment "will be generally applicable to any coal mine in Australia", Mr Morris from the EDO said.
Mr Morris also drew attention to Justice Preston's recognition and apparent acceptance of the need for a carbon budget to keep global average temperatures from rising more than 1.5-2 degrees compared to pre-industrial times, as agreed in the Paris climate accord.
That budget meant "most fossil fuel reserves will need to remain in the ground unburned", Justice Preston wrote.
Justin Field, a NSW Greens MP, said the decision put the government and miners "on notice".
"NSW's contribution to climate change from the burning of fossil fuels mined here has been recognised by the court's decision and should rightly be a consideration in any proposed developments," he said.
Long battles
The town of Gloucester and its campaigners are no strangers to the spotlight.
Groundswell Gloucester successfully saw off energy giant AGL and its plans to develop at least 330 coal seam gas wells in the valley, with the anniversary of that result three years ago last Monday.
"There's been so much angst" over the CSG and coal mines in the region, Julie Lyford, president of Groundswell Gloucester and a former mayor of the town, said.
Licences, including for coal and CSG exploration near Gloucester, "had been handed out like confetti" by the previous state Labor government, Ms Lyford said. "The Gloucester community has been living with the results of that disgraceful period" for more than a decade.
It was now important for the planning, environment and resources departments to "take a serious look" at how they have colluded to promote mining over other interests, she said.
"It's about time something changed," Ms Lyford said.
Links
- 'New weapon': courts offer hope for driving serious climate action
- See You In Court, Citizens Tell Governments On Climate Change
- A Surge Of Climate Lawsuits Targets Human Rights, Damage From Fossil Fuels
- 2018 In Climate Liability: When A Trend Became A Wave
- Big Coal And Friends On Track To Shut Down Your Climate Activism
- Children Demand Climate Change Action Through Protests And Lawsuits
- 'New Weapon': Courts Offer Hope For Driving Serious Climate Action
- Vanuatu Says It May Sue Fossil Fuel Companies And Other Countries Over Climate Change
No comments :
Post a Comment