{"id":6301,"date":"2019-02-19T15:03:12","date_gmt":"2019-02-19T20:03:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?p=6301"},"modified":"2023-02-28T10:38:14","modified_gmt":"2023-02-28T15:38:14","slug":"big-climate-win-down-under-australian-court-blocks-coal-mine-citing-negative-impacts-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2019\/02\/19\/big-climate-win-down-under-australian-court-blocks-coal-mine-citing-negative-impacts-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions\/","title":{"rendered":"Big Climate Win Down Under: Australian Court Blocks Coal Mine Citing Negative Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>
\"\"<\/a>
Photo of scenic Gloucester Valley by Groundswell Gloucester<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

By Dena Adler<\/em><\/p>\n

A groundbreaking ruling will break no new ground for a proposed Australian coal mine. On February 8, 2019, the Land & Environment Court of New South Wales upheld<\/a> the government\u2019s denial of an application by Gloucester Resources Limited to construct an open cut coal mine in New South Wales (NSW). The proposed Rocky Hill Coal Project aimed to produce 21 million tonnes of coal over a period of 16 years. The court determined the project was not in the public interest after weighing the social and environmental costs of the project, including an extended consideration of how the project would worsen climate change.\u00a0 While the decision\u2019s specific legal context may limit its exact replicability, the decision to uphold a permit denial on the basis of negative climate change impacts, could bolster climate suits around the world. This blog provides a quick review of the case and its noteworthy developments.<\/p>\n

An Overview of the Case <\/u><\/p>\n

The Department of Planning denied the Rocky Hill Coal Project application in December 2017, after reviewing the associated environmental impact report. Gloucester Resources Limited promptly appealed the decision. In court, the Minister of Planning and a local community action group called Gloucester Groundswell Inc. defended the government\u2019s denial of the permit. The Minister for Planning and Groundswell argued that the Rocky Hill Project application should be denied on several grounds including that approving the Rocky Hill Coal Project worked against the public interest because the project\u2019s associated greenhouse gas emissions will contribute to climate change in a manner \u201ccontrary to the principles of ecologically sustainable development.\u201d<\/p>\n

Section 4.15(1) of Australia\u2019s Environmental Planning & Assessment Act (the EPA), obligates the government to consider the public interest as part of its review of a development application. As part of its consideration of climate change impacts, the court held that both upstream and downstream emissions of the project should be considered by the Planning Department because the EPA and its regulations require consideration of \u201cthe principles of ecologically sustainable development\u201d (\u201cESD\u201d) which can encompass climate change impacts. The court also pointed to the requirements under the EPA to consider \u201cany environmental planning instrument\u201d or \u201cdevelopment control plan\u201d and cited language in the State Environmental Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum \u00a0Production and Extractive Industries) of 2009 and the 2010 Gloucester Local Environmental Plan as including consideration of ESD and the cumulative greenhouse gas emissions associated with a project.<\/p>\n

After weighing the costs and benefits of the project, the court upheld the government\u2019s denial of the application, finding \u201cthat the negative impacts of the Project, including the planning impacts on the existing, approved and likely preferred land uses, the visual impacts, the amenity impacts of noise and dust that cause social impacts, other social impacts, and climate change impacts, outweigh the economic and other public benefits of the Project.\u201d While not foreclosing all mining projects, the court ruled that this project was not a \u201csustainable use\u201d because of the combination of climate change impacts of the project and the high environmental and social costs of constructing a coal mine in this particular location.<\/p>\n

In the ruling, Chief Judge Preston boiled this logic down to the idea that this project would be \u201cin the wrong place at the wrong time.\u201d He explained,<\/p>\n

\u201cWrong place because an open cut coal mine in this scenic and cultural landscape, proximate to many people\u2019s homes and farms, will cause significant planning, amenity, visual and social impacts. Wrong time because the GHG emissions of the coal mine and its coal product will increase global total concentrations of GHGs at a time when what is now urgently needed, in order to meet generally agreed climate targets, is a rapid and deep decrease in GHG emissions. These dire consequences should be avoided. The Project should be refused.\u201d<\/p>\n

Given the limitations of the global carbon budget, he suggested that only a limited number of fossil-fuel development projects can proceed and used a balancing test to determine which projects may have benefits justifying the costs.<\/p>\n

Four Key Takeaways<\/u><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Climate Change Was Recognized as Grounds for the Denial<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Rather than simply requesting the company disclose information related to production of greenhouse gas emissions, the court weighed the impacts of climate change as part of its balancing test to determine whether the project was in the public interest. In the U.S., government agencies have in some instances considered the costs and benefits of climate change during their environmental reviews and regulatory impacts analyses, and several courts have required<\/a> agencies to give further consideration to the greenhouse gas emissions associated with a project; but these environmental review cases have typically not evaluated how climate change affects the public interest. Here, the Australian court factored downstream emissions into the public interest evaluation.<\/p>\n

    The Australian court conducted its analysis in the specific context of a \u201cmerits appeal\u201d under NSW environmental planning legislation, which requires the court \u201cto remake the determination\u201d of the agency in weighing the merits of the development application; the court did not perform a judicial review of the legality of the agency\u2019s decision similar to what we typically see in the United States and other jurisdictions. Nonetheless, the court\u2019s decision reinforces the legitimacy of an agency denying a permit based on climate impact considerations. Particularly significant is the court\u2019s recognition of downstream emissions and the valid connection between an individual permit denial and the global climate challenge, as discussed below.<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Consideration of Climate Change Impacts Included Downstream Emissions<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      The ruling considered the cumulative greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project, including the downstream emissions from the transportation and combustion of coal product from the mine. Given that the downstream emissions represent approximately 95% of the 38 million CO2-e (tonnes) estimated to be associated with the project, such a finding significantly enlarges the climate impacts associated with the project which in turn shapes the balancing test for the public interest. To support this conclusion, the court points to the legislation, regulation, planning documents, and principles of ESD discussed above. Interestingly enough, it cites not only Australian case law, but U.S. cases in which the courts struck down agency decisions for their failure to adequately consider or estimate downstream greenhouse gas emissions. While such a ruling has not blocked agencies in the U.S. from completing an emissions analysis and reapproving the project, as in the case<\/a> concerning the Southeast Market Pipelines Project, here these U.S. decisions are used to bolster an Australian agency\u2019s denial of a permit.<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. Arguments Decoupling the Specific Project from the Global Climate Problem Were Rejected<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        The coal company failed to persuade the Australian court that the proposed project\u2019s contributions to climate change constituted only a small portion of a global problem. The court cited the recent Urgenda<\/em><\/a>\u00a0<\/em>decision rejecting the Dutch government\u2019s argument that its contribution to climate change was relatively small.\u00a0 In contrast, the tension between local and judicial action to address a global problem has recently proven to be more of a sticking point<\/a> in U.S. federal courts considering municipal suits against fossil fuel companies for climate-related damages. The Australian court rejected arguments by appellants related to market substitution, carbon leakage, the theoretical possibility that other projects would offset the emissions of the Rocky Hill Coal Project, and the inefficiency of this denial as a mechanism for global abatement of emissions.<\/p>\n

          \n
        1. Ruling Could Lift Next Wave of Climate Suits<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          The Rocky Hill Coal ruling can still be appealed to a higher court, but it marks a noteworthy development in the global climate change litigation landscape. While it\u2019s true that courts do not have an obligation to consider the rulings of their international peers, the Rocky Hill Coal decision, in relying on cases from other countries, demonstrates how cases around the world can inform one another and incrementally advance progress in tackling climate change.<\/p>\n

          To view primary source documents and keep abreast of developments in this case<\/a> and other international climate change litigation check out the Sabin Center\u2019s Non-U.S. Litigation Database<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

          By Dena Adler A groundbreaking ruling will break no new ground for a proposed Australian coal mine. On February 8, 2019, the Land & Environment Court of New South Wales upheld the government\u2019s denial of an application by Gloucester Resources Limited to construct an open cut coal mine in New South Wales (NSW). The proposed […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2068,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5673,5671],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-6301","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-litigation","7":"category-international","8":"czr-hentry"},"yoast_head":"\nBig Climate Win Down Under: Australian Court Blocks Coal Mine Citing Negative Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Climate Law Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2019\/02\/19\/big-climate-win-down-under-australian-court-blocks-coal-mine-citing-negative-impacts-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Big Climate Win Down Under: Australian Court Blocks Coal Mine Citing Negative Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"By Dena Adler A groundbreaking ruling will break no new ground for a proposed Australian coal mine. On February 8, 2019, the Land & Environment Court of New South Wales upheld the government\u2019s denial of an application by Gloucester Resources Limited to construct an open cut coal mine in New South Wales (NSW). The proposed […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2019\/02\/19\/big-climate-win-down-under-australian-court-blocks-coal-mine-citing-negative-impacts-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2019-02-19T20:03:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-02-28T15:38:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2019\/02\/groundswell-1024x680.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Dena Adler\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@sabincenter\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@sabincenter\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Dena Adler\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2019\\\/02\\\/19\\\/big-climate-win-down-under-australian-court-blocks-coal-mine-citing-negative-impacts-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2019\\\/02\\\/19\\\/big-climate-win-down-under-australian-court-blocks-coal-mine-citing-negative-impacts-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Dena Adler\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/a36fd38db967b23d453e1a86732108bc\"},\"headline\":\"Big Climate Win Down Under: Australian Court Blocks Coal Mine Citing Negative Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-02-19T20:03:12+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-02-28T15:38:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2019\\\/02\\\/19\\\/big-climate-win-down-under-australian-court-blocks-coal-mine-citing-negative-impacts-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1367,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2019\\\/02\\\/19\\\/big-climate-win-down-under-australian-court-blocks-coal-mine-citing-negative-impacts-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2019\\\/02\\\/groundswell-1024x680.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Climate Litigation\",\"International\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2019\\\/02\\\/19\\\/big-climate-win-down-under-australian-court-blocks-coal-mine-citing-negative-impacts-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2019\\\/02\\\/19\\\/big-climate-win-down-under-australian-court-blocks-coal-mine-citing-negative-impacts-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions\\\/\",\"name\":\"Big Climate Win Down Under: Australian Court Blocks Coal Mine Citing Negative Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Climate Law Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2019\\\/02\\\/19\\\/big-climate-win-down-under-australian-court-blocks-coal-mine-citing-negative-impacts-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2019\\\/02\\\/19\\\/big-climate-win-down-under-australian-court-blocks-coal-mine-citing-negative-impacts-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2019\\\/02\\\/groundswell-1024x680.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-02-19T20:03:12+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-02-28T15:38:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2019\\\/02\\\/19\\\/big-climate-win-down-under-australian-court-blocks-coal-mine-citing-negative-impacts-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2019\\\/02\\\/19\\\/big-climate-win-down-under-australian-court-blocks-coal-mine-citing-negative-impacts-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2019\\\/02\\\/19\\\/big-climate-win-down-under-australian-court-blocks-coal-mine-citing-negative-impacts-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2019\\\/02\\\/groundswell.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2019\\\/02\\\/groundswell.jpg\",\"width\":2048,\"height\":1360},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2019\\\/02\\\/19\\\/big-climate-win-down-under-australian-court-blocks-coal-mine-citing-negative-impacts-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Big Climate Win Down Under: Australian Court Blocks Coal Mine Citing Negative Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\",\"name\":\"Climate Law Blog\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/02\\\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/02\\\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png\",\"width\":2752,\"height\":260,\"caption\":\"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/sabincenter\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/a36fd38db967b23d453e1a86732108bc\",\"name\":\"Dena Adler\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/author\\\/dadler3\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Big Climate Win Down Under: Australian Court Blocks Coal Mine Citing Negative Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Climate Law Blog","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2019\/02\/19\/big-climate-win-down-under-australian-court-blocks-coal-mine-citing-negative-impacts-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Big Climate Win Down Under: Australian Court Blocks Coal Mine Citing Negative Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Climate Law Blog","og_description":"By Dena Adler A groundbreaking ruling will break no new ground for a proposed Australian coal mine. On February 8, 2019, the Land & Environment Court of New South Wales upheld the government\u2019s denial of an application by Gloucester Resources Limited to construct an open cut coal mine in New South Wales (NSW). The proposed […]","og_url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2019\/02\/19\/big-climate-win-down-under-australian-court-blocks-coal-mine-citing-negative-impacts-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions\/","og_site_name":"Climate Law Blog","article_published_time":"2019-02-19T20:03:12+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-02-28T15:38:14+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2019\/02\/groundswell-1024x680.jpg","type":"","width":"","height":""}],"author":"Dena Adler","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@sabincenter","twitter_site":"@sabincenter","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Dena Adler","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2019\/02\/19\/big-climate-win-down-under-australian-court-blocks-coal-mine-citing-negative-impacts-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2019\/02\/19\/big-climate-win-down-under-australian-court-blocks-coal-mine-citing-negative-impacts-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions\/"},"author":{"name":"Dena Adler","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/a36fd38db967b23d453e1a86732108bc"},"headline":"Big Climate Win Down Under: Australian Court Blocks Coal Mine Citing Negative Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions","datePublished":"2019-02-19T20:03:12+00:00","dateModified":"2023-02-28T15:38:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2019\/02\/19\/big-climate-win-down-under-australian-court-blocks-coal-mine-citing-negative-impacts-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions\/"},"wordCount":1367,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2019\/02\/19\/big-climate-win-down-under-australian-court-blocks-coal-mine-citing-negative-impacts-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2019\/02\/groundswell-1024x680.jpg","articleSection":["Climate Litigation","International"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2019\/02\/19\/big-climate-win-down-under-australian-court-blocks-coal-mine-citing-negative-impacts-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2019\/02\/19\/big-climate-win-down-under-australian-court-blocks-coal-mine-citing-negative-impacts-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions\/","name":"Big Climate Win Down Under: Australian Court Blocks Coal Mine Citing Negative Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Climate Law Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2019\/02\/19\/big-climate-win-down-under-australian-court-blocks-coal-mine-citing-negative-impacts-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2019\/02\/19\/big-climate-win-down-under-australian-court-blocks-coal-mine-citing-negative-impacts-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2019\/02\/groundswell-1024x680.jpg","datePublished":"2019-02-19T20:03:12+00:00","dateModified":"2023-02-28T15:38:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2019\/02\/19\/big-climate-win-down-under-australian-court-blocks-coal-mine-citing-negative-impacts-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2019\/02\/19\/big-climate-win-down-under-australian-court-blocks-coal-mine-citing-negative-impacts-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2019\/02\/19\/big-climate-win-down-under-australian-court-blocks-coal-mine-citing-negative-impacts-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2019\/02\/groundswell.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2019\/02\/groundswell.jpg","width":2048,"height":1360},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2019\/02\/19\/big-climate-win-down-under-australian-court-blocks-coal-mine-citing-negative-impacts-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Big Climate Win Down Under: Australian Court Blocks Coal Mine Citing Negative Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/","name":"Climate Law Blog","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization","name":"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png","width":2752,"height":260,"caption":"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/x.com\/sabincenter"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/a36fd38db967b23d453e1a86732108bc","name":"Dena Adler","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/author\/dadler3\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6301","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2068"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6301"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6301\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6301"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6301"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6301"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}