By Viv Forbes
A NSW judge has stopped development of the small Rocky Hill coking coal mine because the Commonwealth Government has signed the Paris Climate agreement which requires “rapid and deep reduction in GHG emissions”.
Three things are of concern:
Firstly, this decision has massive ramifications and must be appealed and overturned.
Secondly, Australia must immediately withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement.
Thirdly the Judge was so conflicted he should not have heard the case. He was previously Principal Solicitor at the NSW Environmental Defender’s Office and has received an award for his environmental activism.
If a project can be stopped because it adds to carbon dioxide emissions every development of coal, oil or gas in Australia can be challenged.
But the ominous implications go much further. The sports and tourism industries should be fearful. These industries encourage millions of competitors, visitors, tourists, officials and politicians to use cars, trains, buses, planes and ships to burn hydro-carbon fuels purely for entertainment. Car racing is out, as are new cruise terminals, stadiums, resorts, high rise hotels and fireworks.
Moreover, any new road, rail or airport development will add emissions and must be stopped along with any expansion of the grazing or timber industries and the brewing of beer.
There are some good things – it should mark the end of tax-funded climate jamborees and study tours for politicians – they should stay in their electorates and conduct electronic meetings via their own expensive NBN.
But if they can stop the mining of coking coal this will also stop metal smelting, refining and steel making.
Naturally Adani can expect even more green law-fare barriers.
This decision surely marks the high water mark of climate lunacy.
Good article, Viv, well done.
But I am surprised and disappointed that the (presumably highly paid) legal team of the coal mine owner were not aware of the previous history of this judge, and apparently failed to challenge him about what appears to be an obvious conflict of interest, or ask for his recusal (disqualification because of prejudice or conflict).
I am a layman, but when dealing with a judge in a ‘Land and Environment’ court, it seems obvious to check his background – or have I been watching too many American TV court dramas?
As you say, this decision must be appealed and hopefully overturned. Not long to wait – don’t they have 30 days in which to lodge an appeal?
Being in my eighty fifth year I am well aware of extreme weather changes at times . Distressed me to hear that Professor Ian Plimer on the Sky news recently said that many records of past years had been disposed of by the bureau of meteorology. They would have shown that all weather patterns like we are experiencing now have happened before many times.
It is a sad fact that we are living with new cult called “climate change” perpetuated by politically charged ignorancy that will have a damaging result if not stopped. We must get out of the Paris agreement to redistribute wealth on the basis of a lie. Thank goodness for Saltbush and the likes of Roman Dean and Ian Plimer.
I cannot agree with the previous writer’s comments about the judge regarding the Rocky Hills mine other than the judge used the word “climate change”because of one of the strong arguments was from a so called expert who was a scientist. It is the job of a judge to be impartial and weigh up the case. Also, it was a mine close to a town on prime agricultural dairy country.
I am all for Adani and new coal mining in areas that do not impact on local towns and farming communities .
However , the future must be to clean up like Ian Kieran did so well,seriously do something serious about nuclear and fight like mad to get out of the Paris agreement.