High Court hears ground-breaking bid to recognise coal-induced climate impacts locally
Retired science school teachers and EcoNetwork members, Wendy Wales and Tony Lonergan (pictured), supported by Johnson Legal and barristers headed by Senior Counsel Naomi Sharp, are fighting to defend their ground-breaking win all the way to the High Court.
They won in the NSW Court of Appeal against the Independent Planning Commission (IPC) that coal mines in NSW must consider local climate change impacts from greenhouse gas pollution, but now MACH Energy is appealing that decision in the High Court.
The High Court heard submissions on 13 May 2026 with a ruling still to determined.
In the interim, thanks to the victory in the NSW Court of Appeal, the law is clear that the IPC must consider the impacts of climate change when weighing up coal mine projects.
Implications of the IPC hearing is ground breaking for further mine expansions
“Right now, the stakes couldn’t be higher. In the coming months, NSW’s IPC will decide on three major coal mine expansions – including the Hunter Valley Operations (HVO) Continuation Project on Wonnarua Country, the biggest coal mine proposal ever considered in NSW.
Alongside the Maules Creek coal mine in Narrabri on Gomeroi Country and the Moolarben coal mine in Mudgee on Wiradjuri Country, these projects pose a serious threat not only to our climate, but also to bushland, productive agricultural land, groundwater and river systems. ” (Lock the Gate Alliance)
High Court hears bid to overturn block on 22-year Mount Pleasant coal mine extension
ABC High Court Reporter Elizabeth Byrne on 13 May reported in an easy-reading summary on the story leading into the High Court proceedings – Original ABC Article is here and below we have included the article with updates from Wendy noted in orange.
By Elizabeth Byrne ABC | 13 May
What climate change impacts should a planning authority have to take into account when assessing a mining project?
That is the question confronting the High Court in Canberra today, as operators of the Mount Pleasant coal mine in the Upper Hunter Valley try to overturn a ruling against extending the operation.
In 2022, the site’s owner, MACH Energy, secured approval to extend the mine’s life by 22 years to 2048 as a State Significant Development.
But the consent for the project was later ruled invalid after a community and environmental body, the Denman Aberdeen Muswellbrook Scone Healthy Environment Group (DAMSHEG) won a challenge to the decision in the New South Wales Court of Appeal.
The upshot of the finding was that the state’s Independent Planning Commission (IPC) had failed to take into account a mandatory consideration by not addressing environmental impacts in relation to climate change, specifically the impacts of greenhouse gases from exported coal. (Note – They did consider the Scope 3 emissions would add to climate change, but said that was covered by the Paris Agreement, the contribution was accounted for in Japan, Korea, China or Taiwan BUT environmental climate impacts here were NOT considered, as required.)
The High Court appeal is focused on the interpretation of a provision in the state’s Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, which requires any evaluation to include the likely environmental impact on “the natural and built environments, and social and economic impacts on the locality”. (Note i.e. = climate impacts on us)
Company’s mining operations began in 2018
Consent for the coal mine was originally granted in 1999.
MACH Energy began mining operations on the site in 2018, establishing an open cut mine.
The seeds of today’s High Court challenge began in 2021, when the miners first lodged their application to extend the life of the project with the state’s IPC.
The miners say the process included an environmental statement, which was exhibited by the New South Wales Department of Planning and Environment and received a large number of submissions from the public.
There was also a public hearing.
At the time, the Department of Planning and Environment found that, on balance, the benefits of the project outweighed the costs and that the greenhouse gas emissions had been accounted for in the NSW government’s Net Zero Plan (Note: accounted for in the Paris Agreement). The submissions also highlight the comments by the IPC that greenhouse gas emissions are felt globally, are regulated accounted for (Note: “accounted for” as Paris doesn’t regulate anything) through broad national and international agreements — such as the Paris Agreement — and the emissions from the project “have been adequately assessed”.
Focus on greenhouse gas emissions
Today, the mine operators will tell the High Court that climate change is not capable of being considered an environmental impact of a development “in the locality” under the Act, and there was no specific requirement to conduct a causal enquiry as to the mine’s impact on climate change.
But the DAMSHEG will argue the NSW Court of Appeal established that there was an obligation to consider the environmental impact of climate change, particularly in their locality.
Quoting from Justice Christine Adamson in the NSW Court of Appeal, the group said:
“Her Honour … identified that in this case, the evidence before the [IPC] … established that global warming would have particular impacts in NSW and, disproportionately, in the locality of the project.”
The DAMSHEG is specifically targeting what is known as Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions.
Scope 1 emissions are directly from sources an organisation owns such as vehicles, and Scope 2 refers to indirect emissions, such as purchased electricity.
Scope 3 takes in all the other indirect greenhouse gas emissions — upstream and downstream, and in this case, where the coal is burned.
‘Every tonne of CO2 emissions adds to global warming’
The environmental group’s submissions to the High Court pointed out that the Scope 3 emissions were estimated at 98 per cent of the mine’s total emissions, and it was estimated that the mine would contribute 0.065 per cent of global anthropogenic emissions annually.
“Other courts around the world including the International Court of Justice, have also accepted a causal link between a particular source of emissions and a particular climate change impact,” DAMSHEG said in its submissions.
“Consistent with that recognition was the evidence before the [IPC] in this case, where the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that ‘every tonne of CO2 emissions adds to global warming’ and that there was a ‘near-linear relationship between the cumulative CO2 emissions and global warming’.”
The environmental group is being supported by several expert bodies including the UK-based Sabin Centre and the US-based Union of Concerned Scientists. The Court accepted submissions by several expert bodies including the Columbia University based Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, and the US-based Union of Concerned Scientists and Melbourne Climate Futures.
The case is expected to run for a day.
Posted Wed 13 May 2026 at 6:50am, updated Wed 13 May 2026 at 12:33pm