All
those political donations to the Liberal and National parties seem to
be paying off for the Minerals Council of Australia –
$28,800 in 2015-16, $50,645 in 2016-17, $88,700 in 2017-18.
Cheap
at twice the price if this comes to pass…….
The
Guardian, 2
October 2019:
The
New South Wales government is considering legislation that could
limit the ability for planning authorities to rule out coalmines
projects based on the climate change impact of emissions from the
coal once it is burned.
It
comes after a campaign from the NSW Minerals Council over decisions
that have referenced the impact of “scope 3 greenhouse gas
emissions” as a reason for either rejecting a mining project
entirely or for imposing conditions on it.
For
a coalmine, scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions are from the burning of
the coal after it is sold into the market, including overseas.
The
planning minister, Rob Stokes, said it was “not appropriate for
state governments to impose conditions about emissions policies in
other countries”.
He
said the government was looking at a range of options, including
legislation or a new guideline for how planning authorities should
factor scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions into the assessment process.
The
recent decisions include the NSW land and environment court’s
rejection of the Rocky Hill coalmine in February, which cited the
impact the mine would have on climate change, including through the
burning of coal in other countries, at a time when “a rapid and
deep decrease” in global emissions was urgently needed.
In
August, the NSW Independent Planning Commission approved the expanded
United Wambo coal project near Singleton but as a condition said the
coal could only be exported to countries that have ratified the Paris
agreement.
In
September the commission rejected the development of a greenfield
coalmine in NSW’s Bylong Valley, citing the impact the mine would
have on groundwater, agricultural land and on climate change.
The
NSW Minerals Council has since launched attack ads that target the
planning system for “failing the people of NSW”.
In
a statement last week, the council’s chief executive Stephen
Galilee said the decision to launch a campaign came after months of
“warnings to the minister for planning and others in the government
about the risk of the planning system to jobs and investment”.
He
said the situation had reached “crisis point” with the Bylong
Valley decision.
Stokes
said the Minerals Council was one of the stakeholders the government
was consulting in its development of a policy on scope 3 emissions.
“We
are working with key stakeholders, including the federal government,
NSW Minerals Council and consent authorities, to develop a clear
policy direction as quickly as possible to provide certainty to the
community, industry and investors,” he said.
“We
are looking at a range of options including legislation.”
The
consent authorities in this instance include the NSW land and
environment court.
But
environment groups are warning the government not to bow to pressure
from the mining industry. Lock the Gate said the impact of downstream
greenhouse gas emissions “is arguably the most complicated, severe
and lasting environmental impact of NSW’ export coalmines”.
Lock
the Gate coordinator George Woods said the public should also have a
say in how planning decisions address the climate consequences of
coal developments and that should be done through a public hearing
process run by the independent planning commission.
“It’s
disappointing and frankly dangerous for the planning minister to
narrowly consult only with the mining industry on a matter of
profound importance like this,” she said.
“The
mining industry has flexed its political muscle but the government
really needs to address the bigger issue and the public sentiment on
this.”
Elaine
Johnson, the principal lawyer with the Environmental Defenders Office
of NSW, which represented Groundswell Gloucester in the Rocky Hill
case, said if the government was planning changes to the way planning
authorities consider scope 3 emissions, the consultation for that
should be broad and include other key stakeholders such as community
and environment groups.
“The
land and environment court, in the Rocky Hill decision, has confirmed
that it is entirely appropriate for decision-makers to impose
conditions on projects that will contribute to dangerous climate
change in a planning context,” Johnson said.
She
said that was recognised by the independent planning commission in
the United Wambo and Bylong Valley assessments.
“We
would also say that in 2019 we are making planning decisions in a
context which includes advice from the world’s best scientists that
we’re approaching a climate emergency,” she said.
“If
global emissions continue to rise and if serious action is not taken
at all levels of government, by communities and business, the impacts
of dangerous climate change will be catastrophic.”...... [my yellow highlighting]
No comments:
Post a Comment