Gray v. Minister for Planning

An Australian Court rejected an environmental assessment for a proposed coal mine on account that it had not considered Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions and the adverse impacts they would have on the environment.

Background
The Minister for Planning approved an Environmental Assessment (EA) of the Anvil Hill Coal Project Mine, which was predicted to produce 10.5 million tons of coal annually for 21 years. The coal would be used for both domestic and overseas power plants. Under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EPAA), the study of "indirect emissions", or coal-burning by a third party, is an optional reporting category. However, indirect emissions were left out of the EA which is why the Minister's decision was challenged by Peter Gray, an environmental activist and member of the climate change group Rising Tide Newcastle.

Relevant Law and Principles

 * Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Ruling
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, declaring the Minister's approval void because it was not broad enough in its assessment. The court found that the Minister had a duty to investigate third-party emissions and their environmental impact on New South Wales. Any project that contributes to emissions directly or indirectly requires assessment of all climate change impacts with precise quantifications.

Takeaways
This case was important in ensuring the government's responsibility for assessing and understanding all environmental impacts of projects. By ruling that quantified studies of climate change must be done, including indirect emissions, the court ensured that the government must be aware of any potential environmental impacts.

Links

 * Rising Tide Newcastle
 * Anna Rose, Gray v Minister for Planning: The Rising Tide of Climate Change Litigation in Australia