AARON PATRICK: The High Court’s climate intervention could drive voters to the right

Under the Paris climate accord, if a power station in Japan burns Australian coal, Japan is responsible for the contribution to global warming. The High Court made a decision on Wednesday that shifts the climate-change burden back to Australia.

A majority of the judges ruled that authorities in New South Wales are required to consider the effects of what are known as “Scope 3” carbon dioxide emissions when approving projects.

The judgment against Mach Energy Australia, which wants to extend the life of an old BHP coal mine in NSW’s Hunter Valley, marks the culmination of a two decade-long campaign by the environmental movement to turn the law into a weapon against coal and gas projects.

Unhappy with the global system for offsetting Scope 3 emissions, activists have pursued lawsuits in Australia, the US and Europe to convince judges to impose stronger climate protections than politicians are prepared to.

Their victory in Canberra was overwhelming. The three prevailing judges didn’t hedge their decision, criticising NSW’s Independent Planning Commission for not imposing conditions on the Mount Pleasant coal mine that would “minimise to the greatest extent practicable all greenhouse gas emissions”.

The ruling creates law “that is expected to be applied in other states and in future climate litigation across Australia”, according to the Climate Council pressure group, which calculated 17 coal projects awaiting approval in NSW will be affected.

New Greens leader David Shoebridge celebrated the retired science teachers, Tony Lonergan and Wendy Wales, who were responsible for the lawsuit, calling them “good friends and long-time Greens”.

A recipe for endless legal challenges

The political ramifications of subjecting the industry to what the top coal lobbyist, Tania Constable, called “well-funded legal attacks over a number of years” may not be what the Greens desire.

Disrupted by out-of-control inflation, housing shortages and high immigration, Australian politics has become more conservative. A judicially imposed climate tax on the nation’s second or third-largest export industry for a problem primarily caused by China, the US and India may not please many people.

That is the Coalition’s view, which accused the High Court of threatening “thousands of future mining jobs”. “This is absurd,” said Liberal leader Angus Taylor and Nationals leader Matt Canavan in a joint statement. “Holding Hunter miners responsible for power stations in Japan, Korea and India is a recipe for endless legal challenges.”

One Nation leader Pauline Hanson accused the Labor Party and Coalition, which she said was responsible for the mines-approval law in NSW, of sacrificing “regional communities and blue-collar jobs at the altar of net zero”.

Coincidentally, Anthony Albanese is attending a United Nations climate conference in Fiji this week with 4000 other carbon-generating people. Apart from the embarrassment of the lights going out during one session — a warning of what would happen if coal was banned in Australia — the event is a good place for Australia to promote its climate record.

Emissions fell 2.1 per cent last year, according to the government, and are down 24.5 per cent since 2005 thanks to huge subsidies for wind and solar power. Now, under the High Court’s expansive view, activists will be able to assert that Australia’s contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions is more like 3 per cent than 1 per cent.

Australian coal, gas and iron ore helps drive Japan, South Korea and China’s economies. By shifting responsibility for their commercial and environmental decisions to Australia, the esteemed justices of the High Court may inadvertently drive voters who care more about their rising fuel bills than Pacific sea levels to One Nation or the Coalition.