Coal mines, carbon budgets and human rights in Australian climate litigation: Reflections on Gloucester Resources Limited v Minister for Planning and Environment

Abstract

ABSTRACT This article examines the ground-breaking case of Gloucester Resources Limited v Minister for Planning and Environment in which, for the first time in Australia, a court endorsed the rejection of a coal mine partly on climate change grounds. This article provides an analysis of this case, which involved a challenge to a coal mine refusal, as a significant public interest case, and situates this case in the context of global climate litigation and previous litigation in Australia challenging the climate impacts of coal-fired power-stations and coal mines. It identifies how the decision established more ambitious, and climate-attentive, environmental standards for the assessment and approval of coal mines—especially due to its rejection of the ‘market substitution’ defense that has previously been relied upon by coal proponents and has been a major hurdle to successful climate litigation against coal mines in Australia. This article also suggests that this decision could, through its endorsement of the concept of a ‘carbon budget’, help advance future arguments that new coal mines and other fossil fuel developments should be refused due to the impacts climate change will have on a whole range of human rights.