Climate change will require policy on new coal mines

We’re sorry, this feature is currently unavailable. We’re working to restore it. Please try again later.

Advertisement

This was published 4 years ago

Editorial

Climate change will require policy on new coal mines

NSW is facing a difficult decision on whether planning rules should consider the potential impact on climate change in deciding whether to approve new coal mines.

Loading

In three recent cases, decision makers have cited the likely impacts on climate change as a possible reason for rejecting new coal mines.

They have pointed out that approving the mines contradicts other NSW policies which support global emissions reduction.

In fact, no NSW coal mine has been stopped solely because of climate change. Global emissions were not the main factor in the two cases where the mines were rejected.

The Independent Planning Commission rejected KEPCO's Bylong mine and the Land and Environment Court rejected Gloucester Coal’s Rocky Hill mine because of the damage to local landscape. They just mentioned greenhouse gas emissions as another potential factor.

Loading

In the third case, the IPC approved Glencore and Peabody’s United Wambo mine near Singleton but on condition that the coal was only exported to countries that had signed the Paris Treaty on climate change.

Minister for Resources and Nationals leader John Barilaro says, however, that the United Wambo decision creates uncertainty because it is impossible to guarantee where the coal will end up once it is on a ship. He is promising to pass legislation excluding global greenhouse gas emissions from the environmental factors to be considered in approving a mine.

The dilemma is very similar to that posed by the Adani coal mine in Queensland. As the world’s largest exporter of coal, environmentalists would say that Australia indirectly contributes to global greenhouse gas emissions and has a responsibility to curtail coal exports.

Advertisement

Mining companies can point out, however, that under the Paris climate treaty countries are only responsible for curtailing their own emissions.

Loading

Moreover, they say that if NSW blocks a mine it won’t make any difference to global emissions because the shortfall will be made up by coal from other countries or indeed from extra production at existing Australian coal mines. Blocking NSW coal could theoretically even add to emissions if, as the coal industry claims, alternative coal supplies are inferior and dirtier.

The mining industry’s position is self-serving, since it seems to reject any action on climate change, both curbing coal exports and phasing out domestic coal-fired power.

Yet some of its points about blocking new mines have merit. The Herald supports strong action on climate change  but would argue that for now the IPC’s solution of limiting exports to countries that have signed the Paris Treaty is a reasonable compromise which the government should not overturn for short-term political reasons. In practice, all major customers for Australian co

al have signed the treaty so this restriction would make little commercial difference.

It would, however, establish a principle that NSW was committed to a very basic level of climate action in approving new coal mines. NSW could relieve the uncertainty by clarifying exactly how much care coal exporters need to take about where their coal goes.

Loading

The main focus of Australia’s efforts to control climate change should remain domestic. Mr Barilaro has said that the new legislation will include NSW government policy and guidelines on greenhouse gas emissions. Given the policy inertia at a federal level, NSW may have to take the lead.

The question is bitterly divisive but if the rise in global temperatures is to be contained to a safe level there will be little scope for new coal mines.

  • The Herald's editor Lisa Davies writes a weekly newsletter exclusively for subscribers. To have it delivered to your inbox, please sign up here

Most Viewed in Environment

Loading