Comment
Author: Admin | 2025-04-28
Effect.President Kingham found the proposed mine would risk unacceptable climate change impacts on Queenslanders, which were not outweighed by the mine’s economic and social benefits.75 The Paris Agreement served as both context and substance for the court’s determinations in relation to climate change impacts. The co2 emissions from coal combustion, the existence of the Paris Agreement’s global warming limitation goals, and the fact that current efforts are insufficient to achieve those goals were all undisputed in the case.76 It was contested, however, whether the emissions from the combustion of the coal from the proposed development could be considered by the court in reaching a recommendation.77 President Kingham found that the emissions could be considered, relying on the principles of ecologically sustainable development and public interest.78 The legal implications of the Paris Agreement’s temperature goals were engaged by the judge, who acknowledged that her decision did not guarantee a particular temperature outcome.79 Nevertheless, it was relevant to the decision that the projected co2 emissions from the coal was ‘a meaningful contribution to the remaining carbon budget to meet the long-term temperature goal of the Paris Agreement’.80 Making the coal available for combustion could limit the options for achieving the Agreement’s Article 2 goals.81 The following evidence, provided by climate scientists in the proceedings, was relied on by the court:A project can be consistent and ‘meet’ the requirements of Australia’s ndcs and the obligations of the Paris Agreement while being contrary to the intent of both. From the perspective of climate change
Add Comment