I'm not suggesting the result is bad, but I'd prefer balance in these decisions. Of course we don't want to see coal being burnt, but if these mechanisms to stop fossil fuels are used indiscriminantly, the transition to renewables will cause needless suffering. We need to at least consider the downsides.
I think of the famines exacerbated by biofuel policies that did almost nothing to improve global warming. Or how Victoria de facto banned gas production without a good plan to replace consumption. Now we have a gas crisis in a country with massive gas reserves.
What makes you think we won't survive 4C? I'm not saying you're wrong but the last IPCC report I read suggested global collapse was more on the order of 6 - 8 degrees.
The rights of the economy (who?) are often at odds with the rights of workers - who in mining communities are often shafted when mine companies decide to shut down mines due to lower than optimal commodity prices. The landscape of Australia is strewn with abandoned mining communities, which once thrived, and who's wealth has been sent offshore due to a friendly tax regime which exists in service of the mythically important personage of the "economy".
Mines are not worker's friends, and mining companies certainly aren't.
I grew up in a mining community, I've lived in communities around Mackay and Moranbah. I salute this judgement.
In my experience mines opening tend to be good for local economies and provide good jobs. Unfortunately state governments don't have much incentive to care about rural communities, so FIFO has replaced many mining towns. If it was easier to make new towns, mining companies would do it, since FIFO is so expensive.
What do you mean by this? It's a proposed mine, no workers are employed yet.
As I stated before, in this case eliminating coal is more important than these considerations, but that doesn't mean we should ignore them entirely.
This particular court rejected the “market substitution assumption”
From the article:
[Quote]
From a legal perspective, I believe there are four reasons in particular this case is so significant.
1. Rejecting an entrenched assumption A major barrier to climate change litigation in Queensland has been the “market substitution assumption”, also known as the “perfect substitution argument”. This is the assertion that a particular mine’s contribution to climate change is net zero, because if that mine doesn’t supply coal, then another will.
Kingham rejected this argument. She noted that the economic benefits of the proposed project are uncertain with long-term global demand for thermal coal set to decline. She observed that there’s a real prospect the mine might not be viable for its projected life, rebutting the market substitution assumption.
[/Quote]
Alternative power source is only part of the equation, to use it when you need it, you need a way to store it. This is why gas, oil and coal are so convenient - it is a source and a storage and you can dial production output up and down.
They started a trade war with Australia and lost due to not being able to get adequate coal from elsewhere.
Yes the court's decision comes in the form of a recommendation, but it is a significant one and will be difficult to ignore. At the very least it should remove any question of a social license for these kind of activities in Australia (i.e. thermal coal extraction!) - which are often presented as beneficial to first nations groups, yet are environmentally and culturally blasé through and through.
> The Land Court of Queensland has a unique jurisdiction in these matters, because it makes a recommendation, rather than a final judgment. This recommendation must be taken into account by the final decision-makers – in this case, the Queensland resources minister, and the state Department of Environment and Science.
Sounds like an advisory panel.
Seems like the main power it has is to compensate people, and recommend the state government do stuff.
Bashing Clive Palmer is a national sport in Australia and particularly in QLD so I imagine the government will take this advice relatively serious despite the quality of the legal argument.
Whose 'human rights' are we talking about here? In virtually all of these emotion driven decisions there is little thought for the enormous numbers of people who depend on the energy created by the coal internationally. It would be far more useful to focus on effective alternatives, such as small modular nuclear reactors, rather than creating devastating energy austerity in the name of what is essentially virtue signaling posturing based on very sketchy scientific claims. (Bracing for immediate down votes from the climate insecure...)
https://mastodon.nu/@gretathunberg
https://www.dn.se/sverige/greta-thunberg-joins-over-600-othe...
