Disapproving a wind farm application, approving a coal mine extension?

You think about climate change litigation and what immediately comes to mind are cases about, for example, coal mine approvals, the human rights impacts of climate change, corporations and governments failing to act on climate change and so on. 

But climate change litigation is much, much broader than that. An interesting case filed this week in the Federal Court of Australia exemplifies this. 

Flotation Energy is seeking judicial review of the Federal climate change Minister's decision to refuse a feasibility licence to the Seadragon offshore wind project in the Gippsland offshore wind zone.

At the State level, there were concerns raised about the impact of the project on threatened and aquatic species, terrestrial, marine and freshwater environments, Aboriginal cultural heritage values, and landscape and visual amenity. 

What this case highlights, in particular, is that all projects involve a delicate balancing exercise about what we prioritise. We cannot meet climate goals at the expense of biodiversity or cultural heritage or social impacts. But these are really tough decisions made when the clock is ticking. Tricky.

Still when you juxtapose this against the Minister's decision to expand the existing Hunter Valley Operations North and South open-cut coal mines, including additional infrastructure upgrades and progressive rehabilitation, and to extend the mine life from 2025 to the end of 2050, it's a bit disheartening.

Read about both cases here: https://law.app.unimelb.edu.au/climate-change/case.php?CaseID=1027&browseChron=1 and https://law.app.unimelb.edu.au/climate-change/case.php?CaseID=1028&browseChron=1