Thread Reader

BREAKING: Clive Palmer Waratah Coal mine refused by Qld Land Court!

Big question - can the court consider combustion emissions of the coal? As a matter of law, court has decided it can. Good decision!
"How to assess the significance of these emissions when this mine is only one source?... There is sufficient certainty in the link the project coal to climate change"
Judgement includes consideration of carbon budget and says project is "a material contribution" to emissions.
Judge rejects coal industry claim that emissions wouldn't change (drug dealer defence). Also rejects claims that Waratah coal is cleaner than coal it would displace.
Financial and economic "viability of the project matters" as economic benefits will not be realised if project is unviable under future coal markets. @Richard Denniss
Any economic benefits "uncertain and might not be realised".
"The costs of climate change, to which the project would contribute, has not been properly quantified"
But lots of things can't and shouldn't be human rights.
Finds link between climate impacts and human rights has been established.
Several human rights would be limited by the project: Rights of owners of bimblebox. Right to life of all queenslanders Rights of first nations Rights of children
"I have taken into account human rights as a matter relevant to the public interest in making my recommendations."
Roderick Campbell
Research Director @TheAusInstitute Honorary Fellow @DeakinArtsEd
Follow on Twitter
Missing some tweets in this thread? Or failed to load images or videos? You can try to .