High Court’s coal emissions ruling defies common sense
On 7 October, the High Court ruled against the already approved expansion of the Mount Pleasant thermal coal mine in NSW. The High Court ruled that the NSW government regulator “was required to consider imposing conditions to minimise to the greatest extent practicable all greenhouse gas emissions, including scope 3 emissions”. The rule was absurd The post High Court’s coal emissions ruling…
On 7 October, the High Court delivered a ruling that defies logic and common sense when it concerned the expansion of the Mount Pleasant thermal coal mine in New South Wales. The court determined that the NSW government regulator "must consider imposing conditions to minimize as much as possible all greenhouse gas emissions, including scope 3 emissions."
This ruling appeared absurd because it would essentially require Australia to count its own carbon emissions as well as emissions from other countries resulting from the burning of Australian energy sources like coal. The ruling effectively doubles-counts emissions. Applying the High Court's logic, one could argue that emissions within Australia from burning liquid fuels such as petrol and diesel should instead be attributed to oil-exporting nations like those in the Middle East, since they provided the fuel. In 2025, oil accounted for 40% of Australia's primary energy consumption.
Written by urgent.news from MacroBusiness's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
