The High Court of Australia Weighs Climate Liability in Coal Mine Expansion
A landmark case could determine whether state planning authorities must consider overseas emissions from exported coal when approving mining projects.
The High Court of Australia is hearing an appeal that could reshape environmental planning law: whether state authorities must account for local climate impacts from coal burned overseas when assessing a mine expansion.
Case Background
The Mount Pleasant open-cut coal mine, located in the Upper Hunter Valley near Muswellbrook, New South Wales, is operated by MACH Energy Australia — a subsidiary of a mining conglomerate owned by Indonesian billionaire Anthoni Salim.
Mining began in 2018 under consent originally granted in 1999. In 2022, the New South Wales Independent Planning Commission (IPC) approved an extension of the mine's life to 2048 as a State Significant Development. The existing license expires in December 2024.
The approved extension would:
- Allow operations to continue until 2048
- Double production to 21 million tonnes per year
- Increase the workforce from approximately 400 to 600 jobs
Legal Proceedings
The community group Denman Aberdeen Muswellbrook Scone Healthy Environment Group (DAMSHEG) challenged the IPC's approval. In July 2024, the New South Wales Court of Appeal unanimously invalidated the approval.
The court found that the IPC failed to consider the environmental impacts of climate change — specifically greenhouse gas emissions from exported coal — as required under the Environmental Planning and Planning Assessment Act.
MACH Energy is now appealing that decision to the High Court.
Core Arguments
MACH Energy's Position
"The Act does not require consideration of climate change impacts, as such impacts are not local in nature and are regulated by broader agreements and policies."
The company stated it welcomes the opportunity to present its case and aims to provide "long-term continuity and certainty" for staff and community.
DAMSHEG's Position
"The Act requires consideration of environmental impacts in the locality, and evidence showed climate change would disproportionately affect the project's region."
DAMSHEG's submission notes the mine would contribute an estimated 0.065% of global anthropogenic emissions annually, arguing that "every tonne of CO2 emissions adds to global warming."
Key Facts and Context
- The expansion would add an estimated 870 million tonnes of CO₂ from coal burned overseas
- The IPC had previously stated that greenhouse gas emissions were "adequately assessed under the NSW Net Zero Plan"
- DAMSHEG originally opposed the expansion in 2016, leading to a legal challenge dismissed by the NSW Land and Environment Court in 2024 — but overturned on appeal
- Professor Nicole Rogers of Bond University described it as the first climate change case heard by Australia's apex court
- The case was heard concurrently with a ruling by the International Court of Justice at The Hague that countries could violate international law if they fail to protect the planet from climate change
This case tests whether Australia's highest court will require state planning bodies to account for global emissions from coal exported and burned abroad — a precedent that could ripple across resource-dependent economies worldwide.