Skip to content
Bramble

Climate

High Court of Australia rules planners must weigh climate harm in Mount Pleasant coal mine case

Three of five High Court judges sided with a Hunter Valley residents' group, finding planning approval for the Mount Pleasant coal mine expansion had to account for climate effects. Mach Energy said it was disappointed but accepts the decision.

2 outlets · 2L · 0C · 0R First reported Account updated
Image: ABC News (Australia)
Image: Al Jazeera

1 / 2

The story, neutrally told

Left · 1Australia's High Court ruled that planning authorities must consider local climate change effects when approving fossil fuel projects, in a case over the Mount Pleasant coal mine expansion in the Hunter Valley, New South Wales. Left · 2Three of the court's five judges found in favour of a Hunter Valley residents' group, which had halted the expansion in the New South Wales Court of Appeal last year; the High Court agreed with that judgement. Left · 1According to Al Jazeera, the judges found planning authorities had failed to ensure greenhouse gas emissions would be "minimised to the greatest extent practicable", and were obliged to consider consent only with conditions ensuring that.

Left · 1ABC News said the approval needed to take into account local climate effects from emissions caused by the project's coal exports, and that the case is expected to have national implications for how approvals treat global emissions and local climate impacts. Left · 1The case was brought by retired science teachers Wendy Wales and Tony Lonergan. Campaigners called it the first climate case to reach the country's highest court and said it set a "binding national precedent". Left · 1Mach Energy sought to extend the open-cut mine's life by more than 20 years, to 2048, and nearly double its annual output. Mach is owned by Droxford International, a subsidiary of Indonesia's Salim Group. The project was initially approved by the NSW Independent Planning Commission.

Left · 1Mach argued that coal exported and burned overseas could not be clearly linked to environmental effects felt near the mine. After the ruling it said it was "disappointed with the outcome" but accepted the decision, and would "continue to actively pursue all available options" for the mine's long-term continuity. Left · 1Wales said the court had affirmed that coal cannot be dug up and shipped overseas without owning the climate consequences. Lonergan said it was not the end of coal overnight but the end of approvals that "look the other way on climate". Their lawyer, Anita O'Hart, called the ruling "historic" and said it would be applied across Australia and studied internationally.

Every sentence links to the reporting it rests on. The pill in front of each says where its sources sit: Left, Centre or Right when one side supplies at least half of them, Mixed when they are evenly split. The number is how many outlets it cites.

Left2 outlets

Framing
Both outlets present the ruling as a landmark win for climate considerations in project approvals; ABC leads with the legal finding, Al Jazeera adds campaigners' and the company's reactions and the case's background.
Emphasis
National and international precedent, the community group's win, climate harm from exported coal.
Leaves out or plays down
Neither gives detail on the dissenting judges' reasoning or the government's response; ABC's text omits Mach Energy's position.
Charged language
“landmark climate ruling”“binding national precedent”“historic”
For example
“a landmark climate ruling that could redraw how fossil fuel projects are approved in Australia” — ABC News (Australia)
“Campaigners say ruling sets a precedent requiring climate damage be weighed when fossil fuel projects are considered.” — Al Jazeera

Centre0 outlets

No centre outlet in our sources has covered this story yet.

Right0 outlets

No right outlet in our sources has covered this story yet.