Politicians, not judges, should decide whether coal mines are built

An activist justice on the Federal Court seems to think they he, rather than our elected representatives, has the right to approve – or disapprove – new coal mines.

Anti-fossil fuel activists are increasingly harassing the big banks and other financial institutions to try to stop them financing new fossil fuel developments, whether in coal, oil or natural gas.

This harassment includes filing endless legal challenges to projects that will provide high-paying jobs for working class people. The activists seem to think that the people who would be working in a new coal mine or oil field can easily find similar paying work in the renewables space, despite there being little evidence that they can.

Adani’s Carmichael coal mine is Exhibit A here, which environmentalists spent years trying to stop until the Coalition finally adopted some intestinal fortitude and approved it.

Unfortunately, stopping the “climate emergency” (FKA climate change FKA global warming FKA global cooling (!)) has become a religion, mostly amongst people such as professionals and others living in our inner cities who are completely insulated from the negative consequences of their ideology.

And it appears this religion has been adopted by Federal Court Justice Mordecai Bromberg in a judgement on a coal mine expansion.

The judgement related to a request from a group of teenagers (read: activist parents and their lawyers using naïve teenagers as a front for their radical green ideology) for an injunction to stop Federal Environment Minister Susan Ley approving the expansion of Whitehaven Coal’s (ASX: WHC) Vickery coal mine from 4.5m to 10m tonnes per year.

While the Justice refused to grant the injunction, in his judgement he suggested that unconditionally approving the mine would breach a supposed “duty of care” imposed on Ms Ley to avoid personal injury to the children from the mine.

Judicial activism

This is judicial activism writ large.

The Justice is using supposed “climate risks” to argue that Susan Ley has a “duty of care” to protect young people from “climate change”.

Frankly, this is a decision based neither on fact nor on precedent and consideration should be given as to whether Justice Bromberg remains suitable to continue on the bench.

As the various commentators to the ruling noted, it is highly likely to be overturned on appeal, as it should be.

Moreover, regardless of whether or not “climate change” will lead to harm, it is politicians and the relevant regulators who should be approving or disapproving applications to build or expand fossil fuel developments.

Incidentally, given “climate change” is supposed to lead to warming temperatures rather than cooling temperatures, which are far more dangerous to humans, it is unlikely that it will actually cause harm overall, instead probably being a net benefit to humanity.

And governments’ decisions should be based on the applicable Australian laws and regulations, not borrowing from some ridiculous decision in another country to enforce a political viewpoint, as seems to be the case here. (Anti-fossil fuel activists have been celebrating a recent decision by a Dutch court that forces Shell to reduce its fossil fuel emissions in line with Dutch law).

Thankfully, Minister Ley quite sensibly refused to take the hint from the ruling and approved a 5 year extension for another mine, the Russell Vale project south of Sydney. She pointed out the obvious: that if she rejected the extension, then China would quite simply source coal from other countries and so there would be no change in CO2 emissions globally whether or not she approved the extension.

Minister Ley has also appealed the decision by Justice Mordecai Bromberg to avoid his judicial activism becoming legal precedent.

Unfortunately for those employed in Australia’s fossil fuel industry, this activism shows no sign of waning. Hopefully, politicians on both sides oppose the politicization of fossil fuel developments and continue to allow these developments to proceed and provide high-paying jobs for Australians.

Comments (115)
Lorem ipsum
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elit
Lorem ipsum
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elit Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elit

Leave a Reply

Suggested Stories

Who would have guessed laws required companies to request...

DisinterestedSep 25, 2022
0 mins read

The subsidisation of unreliable “renewable” power is why ...

DisinterestedJun 19, 2022
0 mins read

The Soviet Union, the reason NATO was created, died 31 ye...

DisinterestedMay 04, 2022
3 mins read

Joe Biden and the Democrats’ policies are responsible for...

DisinterestedApr 09, 2022
3 mins read

Premier Steven Marshall fell to a deserving loss, and Lib...

DisinterestedMar 24, 2022
3 mins read

The infamous advocate of the climate change hoax has brou...

DisinterestedMar 17, 2022
4 mins read