The Federal Court has ruled that Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek does not have to consider the environmental impacts of emissions when approving coal and gas projects.
The Federal Court has ruled that Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek does not have to consider the environmental impacts of emissions when approving coal and gas projects.
The ruling establishes a precedent that the federal government can ignore the risk such fossil fuel projects pose to protected plants, animals, and places when deciding whether to approve them.
The environment minister has veto power over major projects if they would impact “matters of national environmental significance”, such as protected plants, animals and ecosystems.
The council still maintained the minister didn’t properly assess the risks posed by the emissions when the coal is burnt, and appealed to a full bench of the Federal Court.
The “drop in the ocean argument” is that overall, these emissions are insignificant compared to the problem, and can’t be directly responsible for the environmental impacts that the ECoCeQ argues are happening.
Lawyers for ECoCeQ told the court that demand for coal was declining internationally, and there was too much uncertainty to claim that the projects wouldn’t cause a net increase in emissions.
The original article contains 548 words, the summary contains 173 words. Saved 68%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The Federal Court has ruled that Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek does not have to consider the environmental impacts of emissions when approving coal and gas projects.
The ruling establishes a precedent that the federal government can ignore the risk such fossil fuel projects pose to protected plants, animals, and places when deciding whether to approve them.
The environment minister has veto power over major projects if they would impact “matters of national environmental significance”, such as protected plants, animals and ecosystems.
The council still maintained the minister didn’t properly assess the risks posed by the emissions when the coal is burnt, and appealed to a full bench of the Federal Court.
The “drop in the ocean argument” is that overall, these emissions are insignificant compared to the problem, and can’t be directly responsible for the environmental impacts that the ECoCeQ argues are happening.
Lawyers for ECoCeQ told the court that demand for coal was declining internationally, and there was too much uncertainty to claim that the projects wouldn’t cause a net increase in emissions.
The original article contains 548 words, the summary contains 173 words. Saved 68%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!