Australia Institute calculations show average annual emissions from burning coal from Adani’s proposed mine would be more than many countries and big cities
 |
| Smog covers midtown Manhattan. The Carmichael coalmine’s annual emissions are projected to be 20% more than New York City. Photograph: Adam Rountree/AP |
Coal from Adani’s proposed $16bn Carmichael project will create annual emissions similar to those from countries like Malaysia and Austria and more than New York City, according to calculations designed to highlight the scale of the mine’s environmental impacts.
The Australian Conservation Foundation has launched another legal action against the federal government’s renewed approval for the mine – this time on the grounds that environment minister Greg Hunt failed to consider its impact on climate change and therefore on the Great Barrier Reef.
Progressive thinktank the Australia Institute has sought to illustrate just how big those emissions will be. It says the average annual emissions from burning the coal from Carmichael – 79m tonnes of CO2 – is more than the annual emissions from Sri Lanka, more than Bangladesh with its population of 160 million, about the same as those from Malaysia and Austria and only slightly less than the annual emissions from Vietnam.
Compared to annual emissions from cities, it says Carmichael’s emissions will be three times the average annual emissions from New Delhi, double those from Tokyo, six times those of Amsterdam and 20% more than New York City.
“As the international community prepares for the Paris talks, the world’s climate change abatement efforts rely on leaving the bulk of coal resources in the ground,” the institute says.
Under international negotiations, emissions are calculated in the country where they occur, not the country where the fuel is sourced, but the conservation movement is arguing against the development of major new coalmines on the grounds that they are incompatible with the globally recognised threshold of limiting warming to two degrees.
The previous successful court challenge, which forced Hunt to re-examine his approval for Adani, was on technical grounds, because he had failed to consider its impact on two species. Hunt reapproved the mine.
The new challenge is a test case for the minister’s obligations to consider the climate change impacts on the Great Barrier Reef from burning the mine’s coal.
Hunt insists the project has been approved in accordance with the law, and that 36 strict conditions have been imposed, including on groundwater monitoring, protecting local fauna and funding research for conservation in the Galilee Basin.
The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act requires the minister to consider the principles of ecological sustainable development when assessing projects of national environmental significance, but it is not clear whether this could include the consideration of the climate change impact on the reef of the emissions from the coal when exported and burned.
There have been previous decisions in the federal court where decision-makers were required to take into account these so-called “scope three” emissions.
After the original legal action, the former Abbott government tried to rush through laws preventing such challenges, arguing they were “lawfare” and tantamount to economic “sabotage.” That bill was deferred after Malcolm Turnbull became prime minister, but the new challenge has prompted Queensland Liberal National party senator Matthew Canavan to call for it to be brought forward.
ACF president Geoff Cousins has said the aim of the litigation is to stop the mine.
The ACF application refers to article four of the world heritage convention, which dictates Australia “do ‘all it can to the utmost of its resources’ to identify, conserve, present and transmit to future generations the outstanding universal value of the Great Barrier Reef world heritage area” – and that this must be the “primary purpose” of management of the area.
It says Hunt “made an error of law” by characterising emissions from transport by rail, shipping and then the burning of the Adani coal overseas as “not a direct consequence of the proposed action”.
The Australian Conservation Foundation has launched another legal action against the federal government’s renewed approval for the mine – this time on the grounds that environment minister Greg Hunt failed to consider its impact on climate change and therefore on the Great Barrier Reef.
Progressive thinktank the Australia Institute has sought to illustrate just how big those emissions will be. It says the average annual emissions from burning the coal from Carmichael – 79m tonnes of CO2 – is more than the annual emissions from Sri Lanka, more than Bangladesh with its population of 160 million, about the same as those from Malaysia and Austria and only slightly less than the annual emissions from Vietnam.
Compared to annual emissions from cities, it says Carmichael’s emissions will be three times the average annual emissions from New Delhi, double those from Tokyo, six times those of Amsterdam and 20% more than New York City.
“As the international community prepares for the Paris talks, the world’s climate change abatement efforts rely on leaving the bulk of coal resources in the ground,” the institute says.
Under international negotiations, emissions are calculated in the country where they occur, not the country where the fuel is sourced, but the conservation movement is arguing against the development of major new coalmines on the grounds that they are incompatible with the globally recognised threshold of limiting warming to two degrees.
The previous successful court challenge, which forced Hunt to re-examine his approval for Adani, was on technical grounds, because he had failed to consider its impact on two species. Hunt reapproved the mine.
The new challenge is a test case for the minister’s obligations to consider the climate change impacts on the Great Barrier Reef from burning the mine’s coal.
Hunt insists the project has been approved in accordance with the law, and that 36 strict conditions have been imposed, including on groundwater monitoring, protecting local fauna and funding research for conservation in the Galilee Basin.
The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act requires the minister to consider the principles of ecological sustainable development when assessing projects of national environmental significance, but it is not clear whether this could include the consideration of the climate change impact on the reef of the emissions from the coal when exported and burned.
There have been previous decisions in the federal court where decision-makers were required to take into account these so-called “scope three” emissions.
After the original legal action, the former Abbott government tried to rush through laws preventing such challenges, arguing they were “lawfare” and tantamount to economic “sabotage.” That bill was deferred after Malcolm Turnbull became prime minister, but the new challenge has prompted Queensland Liberal National party senator Matthew Canavan to call for it to be brought forward.
ACF president Geoff Cousins has said the aim of the litigation is to stop the mine.
The ACF application refers to article four of the world heritage convention, which dictates Australia “do ‘all it can to the utmost of its resources’ to identify, conserve, present and transmit to future generations the outstanding universal value of the Great Barrier Reef world heritage area” – and that this must be the “primary purpose” of management of the area.
It says Hunt “made an error of law” by characterising emissions from transport by rail, shipping and then the burning of the Adani coal overseas as “not a direct consequence of the proposed action”.
No comments:
Post a Comment