Policies for GHG reductions on an individual mine "arbitrary and unfair", says Tribunal

Following the Anvil Hill case in New South Wales, the question as to whether development of coal mines in Queensland would require the consideration of Greenhouse Gas ("GHG") emissions caused by the eventual consumption of the coal produced from that mine has been raised in a number of forums.

This very issue was heard by President Koppenol in the recent Land and Resources Tribunal decision of XStrata -v- Queensland Conservation Council, handed down on Thursday 15 February 2007.

Koppenol P's decision in that matter determined that while GHG resulting from the use of coal produced is a relevant consideration, he did not consider that under present legislation it should result in a failure to grant statutory approvals or that any conditions should be imposed on the development of the mine relating to GHG emissions.

Background

In this case the Queensland Conservation Council (QCC) and the Mackay Conservation Group lodged an objection to a mining lease application by Xstrata on the basis that conditions should be imposed on the mining lease and/or Environmental Authority including that Xstrata should avoid, reduce or offset the greenhouse gas emissions from the mining, transport and use of the coal from the mine.

President Koppenol's decision

Koppenol P held that although GHG emissions from a coal mine is a relevant consideration under the provisions of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (Qld) ("MRA") and Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld), due to the difficulty of proving the impact on global warming of any particular reduction of GHG from a specific mine, he did not consider that it was appropriate to impose conditions on the mining lease or environmental authority relating to GHG.

President Koppenol criticised the Stern Review and the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ("IPCC"). President Koppenol held that he was

"…not satisfied that … a causal link between the mine’s GHG emissions and any discernible harm – let alone any "serious environmental degradation" – caused by global warming and climate change…has been shown by QCC to be valid"

President Koppenol also added that any conditions imposed would drive wealth and jobs overseas, and cause serious adverse economic and social impacts upon Queensland. These are also relevant considerations under the MRA.

More details about decision

President Koppenol made the observation that according to papers recently released by Professor Robert Carter et al and Professor Sir Ian Byatt et al, the Stern Review's claim that scientific evidence showed that GHG caused global warming and climate change was wrong. President Koppenol also criticised the recently released IPPC's Summary for Policymakers (which was released after the hearing) which he said showed that temperatures had only increased 0.5°C from 1900 to 2006. He noted that the fact that temperatures have fallen 0.05°C over the last eight years was not mentioned or explained and added

"...a temperature increase of only about 0.45°C over 55 years seems a surprisingly low figure upon which to base the IPCC's concerns about its inducing many serious changes in the global climate system during the 21st century."

President Koppenol maintained that the QCC had failed to show a substantial link of cause and effect. Koppenol P indicated that if this mine's greenhouse gas emissions were eliminated completely, QCC failed to show that that would have the slightest effect on global warming or climate change.

He said that to impose policies for GHG reductions on an individual mine would be arbitrary and unfair and cannot be what the law requires.

What this means for the mining industry

Given the President's strong comments and in the absence of an appeal, it is unlikely that conservation groups will in the near future be successful in their arguments relating to this case in other Queensland mining lease applications.