Australia’s High Court has voided the approval of a major expansion of the Mount Pleasant coal mine in New South Wales. In a 3-2 ruling on Oct. 7, it found regulators had not weighed ways to cut emissions, including from coal burned overseas. The mine itself is not shut down.
At a glance
- Ruling: The court dismissed MACH Energy’s appeal, leaving the 2022 approval invalid. Chief Justice Gageler and Justice Jagot dissented, law firm MinterEllison said.
- Expansion: Output would have doubled from 10.5 million to 21 million metric tons of coal a year, running to 2048 C.E., Environmental Justice Australia (EJA) said.
- Emissions: About 98% of the project’s projected emissions would come from burning the coal, mostly in export markets, RenewEconomy reported.
How the Mount Pleasant coal mine ruling works
A local group, the Denman Aberdeen Muswellbrook Scone Healthy Environment Group, brought the case. It is led by retired science teachers Wendy Wales and Tony Lonergan, Al Jazeera reported. They challenged the 2022 approval from the state’s Independent Planning Commission.
A state planning rule required the commission to consider conditions that cut all emissions. That includes emissions from exported coal, law firm Allens said. The majority found it had not done that.
All five judges agreed the commission had properly weighed the project’s environmental effects, including climate change. The 3-2 split was over a separate rule on conditions, EJA said.
What the decision requires
Officials must now truly weigh conditions that cut all of a project’s emissions, even from overseas burning. Citing national or global climate goals is not enough, MinterEllison said.
They do not have to impose such conditions. Allens said a regulator can decline them after real consideration. One example is emissions the operator cannot control.
A developer who offers no conditions can also be refused, MinterEllison said.
What remains unresolved
The ruling does not close the mine. It keeps operating under a separate approval running to 2032 C.E. State Resources Minister Courtney Houssos said that has not changed, RenewEconomy reported.
The expansion is not dead yet. The case returns to the state’s Land and Environment Court, which will decide what orders to make. MACH Energy said it accepts the decision and will keep pursuing options.
Lonergan was blunt about the ruling’s reach. “This isn’t the end of coal overnight,” he told Al Jazeera.
The Climate Media Centre called it a “landmark judgment,” RenewEconomy reported. Campaigners call it a binding national precedent. Lawyers say it turns on New South Wales law.
MinterEllison said it applies directly only there. Federal minister Murray Watt said it may not change national decisions, RenewEconomy reported.
What comes next
The Land and Environment Court can suspend the consent and set terms that would make it valid, MinterEllison said. The 22-year extension’s fate depends on that process. The state government said it will review the judgment and talk with MACH Energy, RenewEconomy reported.
MinterEllison expects more legal challenges to coal projects under the same rule. EJA called it the first time the High Court was asked to weigh climate change in approving a fossil fuel project.
Read more
For more on this story, see: Al Jazeera and Environmental Justice Australia
For more from Good News for Humankind, see:
- South Africa’s top court permanently blocks Shell oil off the Wild Coast
- Island states win historic climate case in world oceans court
- The Good News for Humankind archive on climate change
About this article
- 🤖 This article is AI-generated, based on a framework created by Peter Schulte.
- 🌍 It aims to be inspirational but clear-eyed, accurate, and evidence-based, and grounded in care for the Earth, peace and belonging for all, and human evolution.
- 💬 Leave your notes and suggestions in the comments below — I will do my best to review and implement where appropriate.
- ✉️ One verified piece of good news, one insight from Antihero Project, every weekday morning. Subscribe free.
