JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Legally it’s the wrong time? Coal mine rejected by judge who hopes to change weather

Sometimes we have laws, and sometimes it’s the wrong time for them

A judgement today in a minor NSW court banned a coal mine in the hope of making storms and floods nicer for our great grandchildren. Curiously, it was not the much hated thermal coal mine, it was a coking coal mine – the stuff we use in making steel. It takes 600 kilograms of coal to make one ton of steel and Australian coking coal is considered some of the world’s best. It follows that either the world uses a bit less steel, or it buys the coal from somewhere else. Does the judge have something against steel? Let’s melt down wind turbines and solar panels instead.

Most likely the world will buy the coal from somewhere else. It will likely be less pure and more polluting with few environmental controls or worker’s rights, but hey-de-ho, Judge Preston is not there to worry about environmental global concerns. It’s not like he’s a judge in the NSW Land and Environment Court. Oh…

Effectively, an Australian court decided to increase global pollution by blocking a clean coal mine*. As usual, there is no scientific or legal consistency; No principle apart from impressing people at dinner parties?

The court decision may put $100b of coal projects at risk:

Coal is our number one export earner:

[Perry Williams, The Australian]

An unprecedented court ruling that links Australia’s coalmines to global climate change may place a $100 billion pipeline of fossil fuel developments in peril.

But who needs money? (Or steel…)

Bear in mind the decision may be appealed. (More money for lawyers).

Tick, tock, time to be legal?

Strangely the judge concludes that moving 0.03% of global coal production from Australia this year to China next year will make the world a better place for the NSW taxpayers who fund his salary.

The developer of the mine, Gloucester Resources — controll­ed by German mining billionaire Hans Mende — aimed to produce 2.5 million tonnes a year of coal from the open-cut mine 3km south of Gloucester.

Total global coal production is 7 billion tons or more. India has built 52 new coal mines in the last five years.

But development consent was refused, with the court’s chief judge Brian Preston …concluding the mine “would be in the wrong place at the wrong time”. “The project will be a ­material source of greenhouse emissions and contribute to clim­ate change,” Justice Preston said.

If this project was disapproved because the locals hated it, or the company was negligent, or it really did threaten the spotted quoll, there might be good reasons to say no. It was apparently rejected by NSW Department of Planning and Environment and the state’s Planning Assessment Commission (so I wonder why the environment court needed to pass judgement?), but the judge specifically said this was a climate change decision. It’s brazen. It sets a new precedent. Was that the point — to scare away investors?

Pollution from the coalmine would increase global emission levels “at a time when what is now urgently needed, in order to meet generally agreed climate targets, is a rapid and deep decrease in emissions”, Justice Preston said. “These dire consequences should be avoided. The project should be refused.”

He [Mr Morris, from the EDO] noted that the “wrong time” legal concept may be used in future cases involving fossil-fuel projects.

What “wrong time” legal concept?

The court determined that the project would not assist in meeting climate change targets in the second half of the century.

So we need a free market to decide the best way to meet carbon targets except when we need an unelected bureaucrat?

If coal mines can be banned for legal “climate reasons” so could practically anything.

As Chris Kenny says, “Taxpayers’ money used to deliberately attack our No 1 export.”

The EDO [Environmental Defenders Office] fought the mine on behalf of local residents group Groundswell Gloucester.

And former principal EDO lawyer became The Judge:

…the court’s chief judge Brian Preston [was] a former principal solicitor at the EDO — …

So it’s not like the Judge was a former activist for the environment then?

I thought “we the people” elected representatives to make these sort of judgement calls and face the music at polling booth? Instead the cowardly MP’s farmed out the decisions years ago to professional lobbyists.  Bit by bit the Deep State takes more power from the people.

UPDATE: As Andrew Bolt says:

This is astonishing:  HOW COULD THIS GREEN JUDGE SIT ON THIS CASE?

I should add:

The Telegraph is not suggesting any bias on the part of Judge Preston…

The Council of Chief Justices of Australia’s most recent Guide to Judicial Conduct said judges may need to disqualify themselves from matters if their relationship to a “litigant community organisation” creates even the perception of bias. It also strictly warns judges not to hold “strong views” on matters they will preside over in court.

Read on. ”Strong views” are sure held by this judge when it comes to global warming.

And the judge, by the way, took no evidence from a single climate scientist about the positive effects…

 

h/t Brendan, Graham Dunton.

*Clean coal means clean coal here, coal with less pollution. This is not “Clean Coal”TM a frivolous ambiguous term used to mean the act of stuffing a useful fertilizer into a useless hole in the ground.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (108 votes cast)
Legally it's the wrong time? Coal mine rejected by judge who hopes to change weather, 9.3 out of 10 based on 108 ratings

220 comments to Legally it’s the wrong time? Coal mine rejected by judge who hopes to change weather

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    Stunned!

    231

    • #
      Alice Thermopolis

      Extract below is from today’s New Daily, an e-newspaper owned by Labor industry super funds.

      https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2019/02/08/emissions-cited-in-nsw-coal-mine-refusal/?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Saturday%20News%20-%2020190209_WA

      Note: Justice Preston was once the principal solicitor at the activist NSW Environmental Defender’s Office.

      So not surprising he dismissed the company’s claim as “speculative and hypothetical”.

      “A consent authority cannot rationally approve a development that is likely to have some identified environmental impact on the theoretical possibility that the environmental impact will be mitigated or offset by some unspecified and uncertain action at some unspecified and uncertain time in the future,” he said.

      Picture caption: “The very picture of rural tranquility, this Gloucester paddock will remain safe for cows – not home to earth-gouging machines. Photo: ABC”

      Climate Council chief executive Amanda McKenzie naturally celebrated the decision.

      “The NSW Land and Environment court has effectively ruled that coal – just like tobacco and asbestos – is bad for us,” Ms McKenzie said in a statement.

      “I’m thrilled to see the law catching up with the science.”

      When ideology catches up with pseudoscience, this is the outcome.

      310

      • #
        Salome

        Safe for cows? But I thought cows . . . . Oh, never mind.

        50

      • #
        cohenite

        Preston should have recused himself. Better still the Land and Environment court should be abolished. We just need a couple of pollies with guts to do it; oh wait.

        90

    • #
      Hivemind

      You think you’re stunned! I have to live in the same country as these eco-brownshirts!

      120

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Stunned. Why? The judge showed such good judgment. A few more rulings like that and the world might collapse under the sheer weight of… …well, his good judgment.

      61

  • #
    AndyG55

    Indonesia will be happy.

    They are trying to boost their exports, but have a constant fight because their coal is somewhat lower quality.

    Maybe this will provide that chance to help their struggling economy.

    262

  • #
    Kevin Anderson

    https://www.zdnet.com/article/google-eu-copyright-rules-will-cut-45-percent-of-traffic-to-news-sites/

    Google: EU copyright rules will cut 45 percent of traffic to news sites
    No news snippets or pictures will dramatically harm traffic to news sites in Europe, according to Google.

    130

  • #
    AndyG55

    If you stop coal mining in the area, all those local towns will slowly die.

    262

    • #

      It’s not just that, there are much wider ramifications to Australia as a whole.

      It might appear insignificant at the moment, but it’s the first steps towards de-industrialising Australia.

      It also sends the wrong message (or correct message depending on your point of view) to potential overseas investors.

      These people never consider the unintended consequences.

      390

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Time to fire up my old Blacksmithing skills, any Coopers out there?

        50

      • #
        Dennis

        At a federal budget breakfast meeting conducted by one of the major accounting firms in Sydney a guest speaker from a mining company addressed the gathering. He spoke about foreign investment and how important that is for Australia and our national prosperity.

        He warned that in relation to mining ventures that take many years before producing revenue for the investors the adverse impact of foreign investment being lost would take a decade or two before the decline in our economy was obvious. At the time, the 1990 and following years recession, the worst in Australia for 60 years, issues such as native title and sacred sites was big news and impacting on mining ventures. And now the left side of politics has become an equally dangerous problem.

        Without foreign investment Australia would not have become a wealthy prosperous country.

        The UK and US are the main source of foreign investment in Australia, Singapore is in fifth position followed by China in sixth.

        I do not have the mining investment statistics but do know that rural landholding is mostly Australian owned with foreigners holding about 12 per cent.

        200

      • #
        Tom R. Hammer

        It’s a ruling against fossil fuels in general based on the perceived impact of carbon dioxide. If the decision holds up against appeal, it will be a millstone around the neck of every future coal mine and fossil fuel fired power station. All those supposed proposals for new coal fired power stations? You can bet the financial backers are starting to have second thoughts.

        231

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          I’d heard in the USA there were “activist judges” – have we just seen our first one here?

          The Establishment wants to destroy our first world conditions to appease their demented religions’ beliefs, this shouldn’t be a surprise. The world will notice we have a whole bunch of loose cannons rolling about the deck, and start to avoid us in terms of investment, but this is what the Establishment want – to kill our industrial civilization by a 1000 cuts.

          This ruling needs to be appealed, so that the witchdoctor “climate science” can be dragged through the courts and exposed for what it is. If an appeal is blocked, you have your answer as to whats really going on.

          Roll on a crowd funded challenge….

          291

          • #
            Interested

            Many years ago, most probably the 1980s – can’t remember what publication – I read a very unusual report about something which sounds preposterous even today. But I think everything I’ve seen since then has borne out the substance of that report.

            It implied there was a group of people making broad-stroke plans for humanity’s future. This was BIG stuff; not window dressing. Although I don’t recall all the details, I do remember what was said about Australia.
            The gist of it was that Australia’s continuation as a 1st-world country was not necessary. All the things associated with 1st-world status – such as quality manufacturing and refining industries, European-standard health, world-standard education, etc. – would gradually be wound down as superfluous to requirements.
            Australia’s only role was to be as a quarry for raw materials. Other countries were to provide the rest of the world’s needs, according to a plan.
            So yes it was a one-world government scenario with planet-wide control of everybody and everything.

            At the time, I didn’t take it very seriously but, since then, the slow and steady destruction of our economy by political decisions which make no sense has continued relentlessly. The dumbing down of the populace and the erosion of what was once, arguably, the best health system on Earth (my wife has been a Registered Nurse all her life and so I feel qualified to comment on this aspect), have been clearly apparent to anyone with eyes to see.
            Effective law-and-order has declined markedly, as activist lawyers and judges have ‘gone soft’ on serious crime and police forces have become demoralised by the lack of support.
            In fact, the very fabric of society – charities, good manners, morality, integrity – is constantly undermined.

            Obviously, most people say this is all circumstantial – just a random series of events – but, in the light of that report I read so many years ago, it looks to me very much as though a slow but persistent effort is under way to destabilise Australia in preparation for a new order.
            I don’t believe it’s feasible to make this many political and societal ‘mistakes’ over so many years, unless there’s an underlying intelligent but malignant control.

            I do appreciate how paranoid this sounds but it’s simply a logical conclusion drawn from repeated observations of the facts over the last 3 decades or more.
            I have a degree in applied science. It doesn’t mean to say I’m clever (many of the worst half-wits I ever met were at university!) and that’s not why I mentioned it. All I’m saying is, I have a good understanding of how science works.
            And I can’t help but apply that system to the political world, just as scientists apply it to the natural world. You see a pattern: you formulate a hypothesis which explains the pattern; then you devise experiments or make further observations to see if the hypothesis holds up.

            Here’s a hypothesis:

            There’s been a group of people, since back in the days of The Club of Rome and probably well before. They disdain democracy. They believe central control of the world is superior.
            Over the years, people have called them nazis, socialists, communists, and Fabians (my preferred term). Some have equated them with the highly-secretive cabal called the Bilderberg Group, which meets regularly to discuss the world (and/or manipulate it).
            The United Nations is home to many of them (read Agenda 21 for details), as is the European Union, although where they have their principal headquarters I don’t know.

            There are no doubt many avenues by which these people push the world toward centralised totalitarian control, but the one which opened my eyes is the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) deception.
            Having a science background, this was a topic I could evaluate for myself. I can read a graph and I can generally gauge the credibility of a science-based proposal on its merits.
            But when I examined the climate data behind the alarmism, I was stunned by the disconnect between the actual facts and the nonsense we were being fed every day in the media. Only in this way did I gradually become aware of the enormity of the scam.
            I knew then: This ISN’T paranoia; this is reality!

            The hypothetical group of people seeking a totalitarian world government have found in CAGW an ideal tool by which to channel people’s thoughts and actions in the required direction. As Vladimir Lenin described his own supporters during the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917, today’s rank-and-file environmentalists, out to ‘save the planet’, are the new ‘useful idiots’.
            They’ve been inculcated with the belief that we have a global problem necessitating a global solution.
            Whist ‘doing the right thing’ for the world in their own minds, they unwittingly advocate the surrendering of more and more of their individual freedoms to the totalitarian group.

            CAGW is a lie; a deception on a scale so vast that the average person simply can’t see it – and wouldn’t believe it if they could.
            The only deception bigger than CAGW is the plan behind it. We’re being directed, slowly but surely, to a new Stalinism of planetwide dimensions – a totalitarian regime which Stalin himself could only have fantasised about.

            So, I agree with ‘OriginalSteve’ when he says: “The Establishment wants to destroy our first world conditions ..” I think he’s hit the nail squarely on the head.
            And many others have voiced the same frustrations.
            But what I offer is a hypothesis which is falsifiable; an explanation of the apparently inexplicable political decisions being made all around us here and overseas. To that extent, then, it’s a scientific hypothesis. You look around you, gather the facts, insert them into the hypothesis and see if they fit. I’ve had to adjust this hypothesis over time – refining it and adding to it – but I’ve yet to see it depart sufficiently from the facts to discard it altogether.

            Thanks to our beloved Joanne Nova and other marvellous and irreplaceable people like her, we might just have a crack at pulling down CAGW. But it’s a bigger task than many of us know because it’s just one tentacle of a much bigger octopus.

            450

            • #
              Yonniestone

              Thank you for a a rather insightful comment, is there any way you can remember that publication?

              90

            • #
              Richard Ilfeld

              The world is full of conspiracy theorists. To me, it is important to understand that the kind of goal that is often the supposed focus of shadowy groups pursued by tinfoil hat people can be pursued openly by generally like minded individuals.
              The essential difference between a ‘movement’ and a ‘cabal’ is that here need be no secret leadership group, no meetings behind closed doors or occult rituals. All that is needed is to establish a family of ideas as: first, beyond debate, second,
              as necessary for the survival of the state, or of humanity depending upon your scope; and finally, requiring authoritarian implementation because a massive resistance by the powers that be.
              Because society need mechanisms to evolve, we have established two traditional arena where revolutionary ideas can be discussed with fewer constraints than society at large; the pulpit and the academy. We, have, in modern time, added a third: the permanent bureaucracy, protected by rules even stricter that academic tenure.
              The key to watch for is, in the nascent phase, the plan is an “idea”. Extreme groups, that come out to do something radical, arm themsleves, and take on the establishment headon, are usually squashed….until that moment in history when a society has been rotted from within and has been prepared to be upended.
              “Earth Day” started out worrying about global cooling, then became a focus for selling warming, but it’s just a gathering to discuss an idea, don’t you know… Conspiracy theorists say: But but but its funded by these secret…..They aren’t secret.
              Soros isn’t a secret. The Kochs aren’t secret. The Clinton Foundation wasn’t a secret. Because they claim to live in the world of ides, rather than direct actions, the get a pass. We still get to VOTE, you know.

              The idea folks are confident that they can get us to vote for our own destruction. All too often they are right. All children want to rebel against their parents. Each new cohort has a touch of revolution in it, and will work for ‘change’.
              Often, it has been progress. Economically, we’ve moved from subsistence agriculture and a typical life lived in a twenty mile radius to a global economy that benefits many; sometimes the new ideas are good.

              Sometimes, they are not. The mistake we often make is to fight the spokespersons along the way, rather than squashing the idea with an alternative. In a voting democracy, the target is usually more dispersed than the source. The hardest task is focus. Often, when focus comes…its too late; the power is gone.

              50

            • #
              kevo

              Australia is safer – law and order – now than ever before – statistical fact – science based.

              Australia’s economy has grown year on year for 26 years – not being destroyed – fact – science based

              Climate change in the form of a slow drift of the standard weather patterns in existence in human not earth history is real. Climate drift will change many millions of peoples lives. Some places will be too hot, others too wet, to conduct the activity that caused the population to establish at that place. Climate drift is a real problem witnessed by sea level rises, increased frequency of droughts, ferocity of fires, in places that didn’t experience that frequency previously. The delta is a scientific fact. The only logical cause is climate drift caused by an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.

              01

              • #

                The only logical cause is the Sun. Look at the long term data — droughts have been longer, fires were worse, storms were worse, seas rose faster, the Earth warmed quicker and 99.9% of history (according to ice cores) CO2 was flat and unchanging. Solar cycles correlate with rain, streamflow, ground water recharge, crop growth, jet streams, … etc etc
                Current climate models ignore almost all the major solar variables and pretend the sun is a ball of light and then say “look Mum, Solar can’t be the cause”. The Sun is so much more — an electrodynamic dual dynamo with a magnetic field larger than our orbit and a stream of particles hitting our upper atmosphere at 500km per second. Not to mention the changing spectrum, don’t get me started on UV…

                20

              • #
                Kinky Keith

                No.

                That’s a completely unscientific statement of belief.

                Atmospheric CO2 doesn’t influence atmospheric temperature because it is surrounded by:

                The Atmosphere.

                Equilibrium Rules. One in, all in.

                The overwhelming controller of atmospheric CO2 is the Sun playing with the great repository of available CO2;

                The Oceans.

                00

              • #
                Kinky Keith

                Fact.

                Most crime these days goes unreported because the victim fears retribution and believes that there will be no punishment anyhow.

                It was very safe to walk around 60 years ago, at night, because any attacker would 97% likely to be caught, tried and jailed for a minimum of 18 months.

                A deterrent was in place.

                Similarly comment could be made about your other claims, but what good would eventuate.

                Australian debt has grown year on year for 26 years on the back of government borrowing to pay homage to supporters and give the impression that Australia still has functional industry at work.

                Make work strategies usually don’t last for more than 2 elections.

                10

              • #
                AndyG55

                “The only logical cause is climate drift caused by an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.”

                There is absolutely ZERO empirical evidence that increased atmospheric CO2 has any affect on temperature or climate.

                I defy you to produce some.

                As such, yours is a TOTALLY ILLOGICAL assumption, based on absolutely nothing.

                10

        • #
          Sceptical Sam

          I’m sure the coal fired power stations would be OK provided we imported the coal to fire them up from China.

          Bob Carr would make sure it was so.

          40

    • #
      Dennis

      Many Gloucester area people are not opposed to coal mining and gas extraction because they understand the value to the local economy, and broader economy.

      However there is an active noisy protest group backed by the Greens.

      241

    • #
      el gordo

      The local towns are already in a perpetual slumber, the mine would have done little to change that.

      40

    • #
      glen Michel

      Coal mining has been a local issue for some time; lots of signs about protecting groundwater etc. “Farms not Coal” bumper stickers- along with “ABC. INDEPENDENT,ALWAYS”

      70

      • #

        Our township is exactly the same, but not from farmers and the like, just the unwashed greenies and tree change blow-ins from Mornington and similar.

        101

    • #
      toorightmate

      That will make Alan Jones and the horse stud folk very happy.
      Your honour obviously does not understand that our high standard of living is due to COAL.
      It provides 70% of our power and is head and shoulders our biggest export income earner.

      140

      • #
        el gordo

        Yeah but we value our environment the way it is, there is nothing in this for us.

        Premier Gladys is Sydney centric and happy to let multinationals tramp over our land and take what they want so that she can continue her spending splurge in capital city.

        Its over, we are shutting the gate.

        21

  • #
    Richard Ilfeld

    There are two possibilities.
    1. Liberalism is a mental illness.
    2. Liberalism aims to destroy western cultures and economies so that perfect
    universal state can rise from the ashes.

    or both.

    Force true believers or fellow travelers like this judge who are in
    public service to eat their own cooking, and the idiocy will stop. Every aspect of this judge’s life must now be conducted so as to not harm the environment- his home, car, and personal use of energy must conform to the standard he is applying.

    270

    • #
      Latus Dextro

      And former principal EDO lawyer became The Judge

      I fail to understand why he did not recuse himself and declare a conflict of interest? … or wasn’t challenged in court with a demand for retrial?
      Surely an appeal in the offing to challenge and overturn this ideologically contaminated injudicial ruling?

      460

      • #
        robert rosicka

        I looked him up on google and he has a history of environmental causes before he was a judge , he even won an award for his environmental work that was part sponsored by the American EPA .
        I’m still suspicious of the ruling and the circumstances surrounding it there is something not right here .

        370

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        The Cause comrade, the cause….its all about the Cause….

        “When books are burned, in the end people are burned too”

        70

      • #
        Bill in Oz

        This “Judge” is a fool and and dope.

        If he has a conflict of interest, he has a legal obligation to excuse himself from hearing and deciding this case.

        He hasn’t.

        This should be appealed and must be appealed.

        And this Preston fellow sacked from the court for not following normal legal precedents & rules.

        271

      • #
        Mike Jonas

        Conflict of interest – my first thought. Maybe some lawyers were asleep at the wheel, but in any case conflict of interest alone should be sufficient grounds for appeal. I understand that an appeal has to be on the basis of an error in law by the judge, but presumably there is a law against a judge having a conflict of interest???

        80

    • #
      • #
        Dennis

        I posted a link to the Wentworth Group Of Concerned Scientists here yesterday, the who’s who of members includes some high wealth people, one according to Business Review Weekly in the late 1990s was worth $500 million, and BRW can only estimate wealth based on public records.

        The Greens have a number of high wealth supporters that are in my opinion often unworldly dreamers albeit with good environmental intentions, misguided believers in IPCC climate change hoax.

        121

    • #
      Dennis

      Liberalism is not the Australian Liberal Party which is centre to centre right, some centre left traditionally but in more recent years until end of 2018 slightly more centre left than the others.

      Some might say further left than centre left, as I do.

      60

    • #
  • #
    AndyG55

    The judge needs to be informed that he has almost certainly increased the future global CO2 output

    This coking coal will be sourced elsewhere, but being of a lesser quality, will require more of it, hence more CO2 emissions.

    Because it is an export product, it is not counted against Australia’s emissions, so meeting Australia’s emission targets is also a furphy.

    So, we have figured out the impact of “not” mining Rocky Hill.

    A future increase in global CO2 emissions above that of mining Rocky Hill

    Well done judge. :-)

    352

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘The court heard from Emeritus Professor Will Steffen, who gave evidence that no new fossil fuel developments can be approved if we are to avoid overspending our carbon budget ….’ EDO

      So our side had nobody to argue that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming.

      Personally I support the judge’s decision on the visual impact and its about time we stopped multinationals raping our land.

      311

      • #
        robert rosicka

        Another climate activist professor from the ANU was only yesterday gloating how Australia would meet and beat our Paris commitment and do it five years early .

        101

      • #
        Dennis

        Check out the Climate Council Team … and note the 2018 record on the front page …

        https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/team/

        40

        • #
          robert rosicka

          Don’t even have to look at it Dennis to know it’s 97% of Australia’s academic activists .

          70

        • #
          glen Michel

          Nice glossy publication.Must have lotsa money to virtue signal in style…then again it’s all about the MONEY!!

          40

      • #

        We have complete control of the mining process el gordo.
        When I drive through the first sections of the Hunter that were open cut and now rehabilitated, you can’t tell where the mining was. Sure, there’s a messy 20-30 year interim, but for the sake of direct jobs, capability of Australian mining service providers, employment at many other levels, and huge mining royalties, I am a strong supporter of large scale mining. Plus I know the main reason for these objections, human produced CO2-caused global warming, is of no concern, a passing bluff which will soon collapse under the weight of mounting contrary evidence.
        There is also a sovereign risk reason why we should mine and sell needed resources – if we destroy our income and workforce, we cannot support a reasonable defense deterrent, and by refusing sale, we invite invasion. It seems impossible today, but once the path is chosen, you cannot easily reverse the outcome.

        10

  • #
    Kinky Keith

    I’m all for mining, but a quick look on google maps shows a mine about 18 km South of Gloucester.

    Isn’t 3 km getting a bit close to the town?

    A lot of people could be subjected to industrial scale mess up at 3 km.

    And that is my main concern.

    KK

    141

    • #
      AndyG55

      If the judge had stuck to that part about local amenity etc, I would have no problem with the decision.

      Its bringing all that anti-science climate change CO2 hatred that shows this is a politically based decision of an AGW activist judge.

      312

      • #
        AndyG55

        rather than say “political”, I like Dextro’s wording…

        “ideologically contaminated injudicial ruling”

        191

        • #
          robert rosicka

          Another snippet I heard on the radio yesterday was the local group that was fighting the mine was asked to include climate change in the court hearing but by who .

          130

        • #
          Bobl

          In legal parlance needs to be proven to have grounds, how do you prove that this particular coal mine has any effect on CO2 especially given that they don’t burn the stuff and create any CO2 other than so-called fugitive emissions. Also the problem of lower CO2 causing less food needs go be brought up in these cases.

          This is wrong not just in common-sense but it’s wrong in LAW

          20

      • #
        Kinky Keith

        Totally with that line of thought Andy.

        And you find that the mine had already been canned by another arm of the nsw government making this decision redundant or a political statement.

        Who does this guy work for, State or Federal?

        Who authorized the case, but more importantly how much did it cost and who paid for it.

        I believe that he should be made to make up the time he used on this and pay ALL costs.

        A couple of days ago Robber mentioned his experience with global warming and the education system.

        For myself, not having watched TV for almost 3 years, I’m a bit out of touch.

        That probably made my experience last week at the dentist a bit harder to take.
        Lying in the chair there’s a distractor TV screen in view and when a group of Tasmanian school eco warriors came on and were followed by an educational promo I took notice.

        The ABC add said that our atmosphere was being polluted by “chemicals” which were causing the world to overheat.
        Cartoons of humans breathing out CO2 followed by a spurting volcano we were told were of minimal effect compared with the real beast: fossil fuels.

        In terms of science the reality is actually the reverse with human origin CO2 being a very small part of emissions and made irrelevant by the fact that the ocean equilibrium of CO2 is the main driver.

        The quantification was a deliberate misrepresentation to force a point as well as the unmentioned fact that CO2 doesn’t Heat the atmosphere anyhow.

        Our children are being fed this manipulative tripe and those responsible are being paid huge amounts by a government agency. Paid to spread propaganda.

        We have made no human progress in the last 60 years and future generations will be so badly educated that they will not understand that they have No Freedom and are Virtually Slaves.

        KK

        140

    • #
      Ross

      So what the Australian Law the Judge based his decision on ? I’m confused or has Australia got activist Judges like the USA.

      160

    • #
      Dennis

      The existing mine is no problem, I drive past it regularly, it is well back from the road.

      80

  • #
    Mark M

    Can the judge be sued for any extreme global warming weather because there is no close source of carbon (sic) to make it nice?

    Global warming causes nice weather:

    https://globalnews.ca/news/3188392/climate-change-could-mean-nicer-milder-weather-in-canada-study

    Science!

    80

  • #
    Graham Richards

    That German investor will withdraw from Australia. Bang goes the investment, the export earnings, not to mention future investment by the German fella and probably many potential investors whom he will no doubt know & warn not to get involved with Australia at all as the judiciary appears to be in total control of the business side of things. Only investment in social non profit projects will be given the ” go ahead”!!

    110

  • #

    Presumably the judge’s decision was based on Australian law, so there must be a law to the effect that he can stop industries that would increase CO2 emissions. On that basis it would be hard for any industry to get permission. Or he was an activist judge who will be struck off and the decision reversed on appeal.

    260

    • #
      David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

      G’day Derek,
      A transcript of the proceedings should show what laws were invoked. Do you know if one’s available already?
      And I’d like to read Professor Steffan’s testimony, and how it was challenged??
      Cheers,
      Dave B

      40

      • #
        David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

        I’ve found a link, but I think it’s to the judgement rather than a transcript of proceedings. Having no legal training I suspect I’ll struggle with this. Help please.

        https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/5c59012ce4b02a5a800be47f

        Cheers,
        Dave B

        30

        • #
          Peter C

          Thanks David,

          I had a skim though the judgement. It seems that the case was not primarily about climate change.

          I would like to share this thought from the Learned Judge:

          I find that the Project will have significant negative social impacts on culture. The Project will adversely affect Aboriginal people of the area, by impacting their culture and Country. The impacts are not merely to the individual Aboriginal sites that have already been identified, but also there is the risk that other unidentified Aboriginal sites might be affected

          Others might like to explore the judgement in more detail. I have read enough already to dismiss David Preston, J. as a Lefty lawyer.

          Lefty Lawyer is my lowest opinion judgement.

          60

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      Good idea.

      30

  • #
    Robber

    Well that’s it for Australia’s future. How long will it be before an environmental group takes the owners of every coal mine in Australia to court demanding that they shut down because they are “a material source of greenhouse emissions and contribute to climate change”? It’s time for every coal generator to go on strike, refuse to provide electricity for 24 hours, and demand that the government change the laws. Remember, every brownout and blackout helps to rapidly reduce emissions. Oh, and the greenies could block every road in our cities and blockade every airport to stop all that pollution from cars, trucks and planes. Isn’t that what the greenies want?

    200

    • #
      robert rosicka

      I’m sure this ruling had nothing to do with trying to stop Adani !?

      121

      • #
        Dennis

        I wonder how the EV convoy led by former Greens Leader Bob Brown is travelling, driving from Melbourne to the Queensland Adani Mine project site?

        Are they recharging with “green energy” or from the electricity grid that is energised with coal fired Power Station generators?

        131

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          No…they will likely using evil portable diesel generators to recharge their EVs, to their fossil fuel cooled hotels to drive their fossil fuel cooled drinks and fossil fuel recharged mobile phones.

          We need to constantly expose the green hypocracy any chance we get…..

          120

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Its more corruption of the separation of powers, now an Environmental Court can stop a fully compliant mining company from breaking ground because a foreign power or entity has imposed a quasi-legal ban on such activity based on a scientifically created belief that CO2 will destroy the planet, Creighton couldn’t make this stuff up.

      161

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        They had already been knocked back once, this was an appeal

        23

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Meanwhile…in the great NSW land of La Mancha…..

        Wait…who is this Don Quixote figure I see?

        Accelerating the destruction of the electrical grid…..

        https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/labor-announces-plan-for-500-000-households-to-get-rooftop-solar-20190209-p50wrl.html

        “NSW Labor has announced it will support a program to help 500,000 households to install rooftop solar, reducing electricity bills in the next 10 years.

        “Under Labor’s Solar Homes policy, owner-occupied households in NSW with a combined income of $180,000 or less would be eligible for a rebate, to be capped at $2200 per household.

        “Shadow Minister for Energy and Climate Change, Adam Searle, said the policy could add solar to an additional million homes over the next decade, and could save the average household anywhere between $600 and $1000 a year on electricity bills.

        “This is a bold program to push NSW to the front of the energy revolution,” he said. “This will significantly cut electricity bills and carbon emissions.”

        00

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘Well that’s it for Australia’s future.’

      Not quite, its only NSW environmental law.

      https://www.edonsw.org.au/hys_introduction_to_environmental_law

      31

  • #

    Rich countries with mixed economies can afford to say no to mines which affect residents, landscape, water-table or agriculture.

    Rich countries with mixed economies don’t send both coal and ores offshore because they can’t afford to use them domestically to make the most basic finished product. Yet this is where Green Blob is taking us. A nation of full-time students and part-time baristas waiting for the eco-tourists to arrive.

    170

  • #
    Mark M

    If only the vikings didn’t mine coal … oh, wait … Science.

    The Vikings Got Lucky and Hit Greenland During a Warm Spell …

    But it didn’t go well for them when things got cold again.

    “A study recently published in the journal Geology suggests that when Vikings settled in Greenland, between 985 and 1450, they benefited from an unusually warm spell.

    https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/vikings-climate-in-greenland

    70

    • #
      sophocles

      Mark M said @ #13:

      But it didn’t go well for them when things got cold again.

      The pack ice increased after 1400 and that meant supplies couldn’t be shipped in. The ice and snow had put paid to their ability to feed themselves and their stock so they all died … of starvation. After 1415, there were no more Greenlanders. It took 115 years … get to it guys ‘n girls. You’ve got elections this year so get your message and the real science out there.
      Good luck

      30

  • #
    Jason Hall

    is there a way to share this to facebook?

    20

  • #
    Neville

    Sorry this is O/T but important. Another new study has found that the IPCC’s 2013 (2 metres by 2100) SLR claims are just exaggerated nonsense.
    IOW NO SLR apocalypse at all. When will these fra-dsters be held to account?

    https://www.thegwpf.com/study-pours-cold-water-on-sea-rise-apocalypse/

    110

    • #
      robert rosicka

      WUWT had a copy of a tweet from a NASA scientist that said when the sea ice melts the sea level will rise , hard to say if it was a genuine slip of the tongue or a genuine greentard .

      70

      • #
        George

        It will (slighty) won’t it ?
        H2O has the unusual property that colder ice is less dense than warmer water, so it floats and that part of the ice protruding above water will increase the water level if it melts.

        13

        • #
          John F. Hultquist

          It will slightly, but not for the reason you give. And it is minor.

          It has to do with the difference between ice and the salt water of the ocean.
          And it has to do with whether or not it is ‘first year’ ocean ice, or multiple years old ice.
          https://nsidc.org/news/newsroom/20050801_floatingice.html

          Further, the floating ice on the Arctic Ocean is, in fact, from that water and not rafted in from a land based glacier. Therefore it is making a round-trip, so it should make no difference.
          The half-trip (melting only) is a different matter. Experiments I’ve read about do not take note of the round-trip.

          40

        • #
          Annie

          ? As ice is less dense than water it will take up less volume once it melts. The bit that floats above water happens because of its reduced density so levels do not change when it melts. The Archimedes Principle. I’m sure more articulate writers than I am would put it better.

          90

        • #
          robert rosicka

          Simple experiment for you , three quarter fill a glass with ice then top up with water and wait for it to melt .
          How much has spilt over the top ?

          70

          • #
            Phil R

            Even simpler, 1 kg ice = 1 kg water. Therefore, 1 kg ice displaces 1 kg water. Ice is slightly less dense, so it floats, but when it melts the total volume remains the same. No overflowing glass, no rise in SL (with the caveat that there might be some slight volumetric differences between salt water and fresh water).

            90

            • #
              Peter Fitzroy

              Volume changes. Water changing state to ice expands it volume which is how the density changes.

              62

              • #
                sophocles

                Hey guys ‘n girls! Pay attention! pFitz got something RIGHT. For once!!
                pFitz = ONE.

                30

              • #
                AndyG55

                Only after half a dozen or so other people had told him first.

                pfutz is a SLOOOOOW learner. !!

                John is actually the one that is most correct.

                Melt a large chunk of plain ice in salt water and you should get a tiny change in water level.

                60

              • #
                AndyG55

                And remember, as sea ice forms from salt water, the salt is squeezed out, leaving a layer of extra salty water underneath.

                50

          • #
            George

            Sorry you’re right I didn’t think about that enough.
            Actually I remember I knew that once but got it confused.

            40

            • #
              robert rosicka

              Reason you got confused George is because you’ve got experts telling you that melting sea ice causes sea level rise .
              And the same experts telling you the oceans are becoming more acidic etc etc , some things are easier to expose as BS others get a bit too technical.

              40

    • #
      Mark M

      Darwin commemorates 150 years of European settlement since the arrival of the Moonta

      https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-09/150-years-darwin-settlement-goyder-northern-expedition/10793432

      Whoa! Wait. What?

      >> 150 years later, the exact site they landed at is still clear of global warming sea level rise??

      “Woodroffe Goyder, Surveyor General of South Australia, landed at an area between Fort Hill and the Darwin escarpment on 5 February 1869.

      From this location Goyder’s survey party surveyed the city that would become Darwin and eight other townships along Northern Territory waterways between February and September 1869.

      The camp continued to be occupied following the departure of Goyder for many years during the early years of settlement and expansion within Darwin.

      The camp area is also of historical significance as the landing point for the submarine telegraph cable between Java and Darwin that linked Australia to rest of the world in 1871 through telegraphic communications and was the site of the original Overland Telegraph Camp.”

      https://northernterritory.com/darwin-and-surrounds/see-and-do/goyders-park-darwin-waterfront

      70

  • #
    Karim Ghantous

    Funny how wind turbines are allowed to ruin the quality of life for human beings, while respectable projects like this coal mine are verboten.

    130

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Perhaps Environmental Law Courts also overlooked the tons of steel and concrete that goes into the turbines base,
      the rare earth metals used in its permanent magnets used to manufacture a 3-megawatt turbine contain some two tons of rare earth,
      the glassfiber/carbonfiber/epoxy composite materials used in its structure and blade manufacturing,
      the hundreds of litres of gearbox lubrication oil that’s used and changed throughout its lifetime,
      the ?kilograms of lubrication grease used in its nacelle rotor bearings,
      the electrical power need to run the turbines generated from coal and gas generation,
      the fuel used in combustion engines used in transportation for the turbines existence,
      the cost of all this passed onto those that can least afford it while those in unelected positions of power profit from it and doing nothing for any real environmental problems.

      Oops the last one is for another court in the near future……Gaia willing.

      101

  • #
    PeterS

    There is a powerful lobby group made up mostly of the globalist left who want to transform our nation to 100% renewables and to stop coal mining eventually. This is serious. I am not sure how and when enough people wake up to that fact and how much damage it would cause to our nation. If enough people were at that alert state by the time we have the next federal election I would expect to see the Greens votes collapse to near 0, the ALP vote to crash to below 20% and the LNP vote to stay around 40% with the rest split amongst the other minor parties starting with the ACP as the most popular and ON next. Of course I don’t really expect it to happen that way because I know from talking to many people they still don’t get it. If ALP+Greens form government it would prove as a nation we are walking blind over a cliff.

    151

    • #
      Karim Ghantous

      We probably do need the Greens and the ALP for three years. Sorry, but people need to see just how delusional these people are. We need an induced recession and a stagnating economy to wake the voters. Once that happens, only then will the Greens disappear.

      Notice how people tend to worry about their health *after* they get a serious disease? Prevention isn’t exciting. You need things to get worse so that they can get better.

      91

      • #
        PeterS

        Yes often learning things the hard way is better but it comes with a heavy cost. We along with the rest of the West is destined to collapse in the years/decades to come. What happens after than is debatable. I have my own ideas and opinions but only time will tell of course.

        50

  • #
    Cynic of Ayr

    This is just another demonstration of the stupidity of the legal system.
    One would think that governments would be able to write laws that are clearly described, and unambiguous.
    But no, there is an Army of Lawyers out there, arguing the Law. Not seeking justice, or obeying the Law, just arguing about it.
    We have the ludicrous situation where seven High Court Judges, supposedly impartial and honest, who cannot agree on what a Law says or means?
    Now we have the equally ludicrous spectacle of some miserable little Judge, in a tin pot department, whose personal opinions and beliefs are sufficient to pass a judgment! Not based on Law, but based on personal feelings!
    How would you like to be before this clown on a personal injury case. He could refuse you compensation because he thinks that wearing a blue shirt to court, was not the right thing to do!
    The ABC, and the Law, are both out of control in this country.

    151

  • #
    Bronson

    Will be overturned on appeal with comments detailing judges failings at law.

    70

  • #
    Jonesy

    I am amazed that no one yet has realised the extraordinary own goal that has been scored here. Without casting aspersions on our fine court system, the legal system of Australia has done what no other court in the world would ever be naive enough to do. Our courts have put Carbon and Carbon Dioxide on trial!

    90

    • #
      el gordo

      Its a great opportunity for us to argue our case in court, to prove beyond reasonable doubt that CO2 is innocent of all the charges laid against it.

      50

  • #
    Curious George

    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

    70

  • #
    Tdef

    Superstition has become judge made law. This will fall over on appeal. Not only is the judge compromised, it opens the way for a real investigation of his premise that coal changes the weather. That now needs to be proven in the supreme court room, not just alleged.

    Expect a feast for lawyers because the ruling threatens Australia’s biggest export and the source of at least 90% of our electricity. Every coal mine in Australia is now under threat of civil action and closure.

    Can you imagine the devastation with the loss of half our income? This may finally show that the man made Global warming story is fake. An amazing opportunity. It
    will be well funded. The judge will be infamous.

    160

    • #
      TdeF

      This is actually the “NSW Land and Environment” court set up in 1979. By its very nature, it is an environment court and perhaps given to accepting alarmist views.
      The legislated court of appeal is the “NSW Court of Appeal, part of the Supreme Court of NSW”. This in turn can be appealed to the High Court. The fact is that there is no law or act of parliament or unquestionable proof that coal causes GLobal Warming. Without Global Warming, “Climate Change” as people use the term, does not exist.

      So we may end up in a Mabo situation in the High Court of Australia.

      How much is at stake. Australia’s existence. Certainly half our income and all our power. We could not even afford windmills and solar panels. It’s back on the farm for the good people of Canberra. Shearing, digging potatoes, carting grain, building roads for cattle and horses, if they are not banned too.

      This is a good thing. All these Quangoes like the “Environment” Court will be shown to be as fake as the science of Tim Flannery and Al Gore. Asking American industrial chemist Will Steffen about meteorology is as sensible as asking a painter to wire your house.

      Good.

      140

      • #
        TdeF

        I’d also love to see the proof, even the theory that Global warming causes “extreme events”. That is totally without proof. In fact hurricane frequency over the last few decades has almost halved. So roll on the best funded attack on coal causing Global Warming since it started. Little Australia will have world attention with scientists the class of Flannery, who has no actual hard science qualifications.

        120

        • #
          AndyG55

          We have seen just how impossible it is for AGW apostles to produce actual scientific evidence that increased atmospheric CO2 causes warming.

          Every one of these AGW shills that has come here and been asked to provide that empirical evidence, has failed miserably.

          111

        • #
          Peter C

          Greg Sheridan wrote a long article in the Australian today about how the recent drought/ flood/ fires events are being promoted as proof of CAGW (aka Climate Change). It is almost as though the whole thing was planned, years ago (which it might have been).

          Regardless of the veracity of the claims, we are now seeing, and will see more of something called Attribution Science. Once again using models, Climate Non Scientists attempt to assign probabilities to specific weather events being caused by CO2 releases into the atmosphere.

          What is worse, the process seems to be working, especially on the young and impressionable.

          100

          • #
            TdeF

            All true and Graham Lloyd agrees in his article. The activists have won.

            However the reversal of this appalling decision on the truth or falsehood of coal produced Global Warming would shake governments. The billionaire investor is certain to appeal to the highest court. He will be supported in this by real scientists plus every coal miner in the country and overseas and many experts in the area and with limitless funding. Getup and the Greens will be stretched to defend this.

            The question is not whether they need to prove man made Global Warming is not real but whether anyone can prove beyond reasonable doubt that coal really causes Global Warming and further that either Global Warming or increased carbon dioxide are in themselves a problem and whether we can do anything about either. Apart from claiming every storm, flood, drought and fire as produced by coal mining as proposed, is there any actual evidence that this is true? If not, all the justification for the Clean Energy crowd vanishes overnight and all the absurd bodies like this specially established environmental Court with an activist lawyer sitting with the legal position of a judge.

            This could be the best thing which ever happened and victory snatched from the jaws of defeat for real science, rational science, fact and proof based science, not Climate Scientology.

            120

            • #
              Peter C

              Yes, Graham Lloyd, Not Greg Sheridan. I got mixed up.

              I hope you are right about the almighty court battle that you predict. The last one in the USA fizzled out because the defendants chose not to challenge the CAGW science.

              “From Chevron’s perspective, there’s no debate about climate science,” said Theodore Boutrous Jr, the attorney for the US oil giant, which chose not to have scientists or experts testify on its behalf.

              https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/21/climate-science-lawsuit-san-francisco-sues-chevron

              60

              • #
                TdeF

                Yes, but the Greens are planning to wipe out fossil fuels and democracy in stages. So they have focused all their energies on coal. Attack cars and the world will rise up against you. Even the very poor have cars and are sensitive to fuel prices, which are mainly tax anyway.

                Coal is the enemy of the Democrat/socialist/fascist/Green organizers because ‘everyone knows’ it is dirty, black, pollution. They just don’t realise how much they depend on it for all their metals and so all their manufacturing and all their transport and jobs and 90%-100% of their electricity.

                So Chevron walked away, but the coal machine is backed into a corner. It is also far cheaper to fight a legal battle in Australia than in the US. What they need is a ruling that coal driven Global Warming is unproven. That’s all.

                80

              • #
                Peter C

                Well I know one Judge on the High Court who would not have a bar of any of this palaver.

                He has less than 2 years to serve before retirement. I really hope the case gets there before he retires.

                50

    • #
      Peter Fitzroy

      28 days (great movie by the way) to appeal – here are the rules:
      http://www.lec.justice.nsw.gov.au/Pages/types_of_disputes/appeals/appeals_2.aspx

      13

  • #
    George

    This Judge Preston has a long history of wrecking the mining industry -

    But long before he got the top job at the court, he helped found another key organ of environmental law: the Environmental Defender’s Office of NSW.

    It was the EDO that last week won a ruling in the Federal Court that found Environment Minister Greg Hunt had not properly considered advice on two threatened species, the Yakka skink and the ornamental snake, when approving Adani’s huge $16 billion Carmichael coal mine in Queensland.

    The verdict prompted Prime Minister Tony Abbott to declare that courts were being used to “sabotage” mining projects, adding that Australia “must, in principle, favour projects like this”. ……

    That response, Preston says, is not unlike the reaction he’s received from mining companies and politicians after some of his verdicts in the Land and Environment Court. Most prominent of these was the April 2013 decision – upheld on appeal – to overturn the state’s approval given to Rio Tinto for its Warkworth open-cut coal mine near the Hunter Valley hamlet of Bulga.

    https://www.smh.com.au/environment/lunch-with-justice-brian-preston-20150812-gixcdb.html

    60

    • #

      Strict adherence to constitution doesn’t suit the activists does it? Corrupting the judiciary is part of the Saul Alinsky long march through the institutions to bring about social and political change, not about upholding non-arbitrary rule of law for all. For the New World advocates, their (dis) utopian ideal must be realized by any means. Example in the US, the unsubstantiated charges against constitutional lawyer, Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Can’t have judges elected to the Supreme Court who refuse to interpret law according to the diktats of an invisaged higher good can we?

      70

  • #
    Serp

    If it really was the “generally agreed climate targets” which determined the judgment then it shouldn’t be too hard for it to be reversed; So far as I know the only place this peculiar principle is written into law is the stillborn NEG.

    80

  • #
  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    As always, the story is more complicated than was portrayed by “The Australian”

    Firstly – the proposal had already been knocked back once
    The NSW Liberal Government then intervened to allow the miner to appeal
    The Land and Environment court then heard the appeal.

    Now the appeal is a review of the previous judgement, and in this case what is unusual was:
    1. The NSW government intervention
    2. The EDO being granted the right to join the case.

    So if you are looking for evidence of political interference it’s down to the Liberals.
    Any questions on the bias of the judge would have been dealt with prior to the case being heard, however it is the Land and Environment court which had jurisdiction for this matter, so it could hardly be surprising that judges on that court would have experience in Land and Environmental matters.

    The minerals council, and the NSW government have accepted the ruling with as much grace as they could muster.

    The “Climate change” part of the ruling applies not so much to the accepted science, but to commitments Australian has signed on limiting GHC essmisions. The thrust of the successful argument was that the emissions from this mine would put those commitments into jeopardy.

    417

    • #
      AndyG55

      “but to commitments Australian has signed on limiting GHC emissions.”

      Except the coal would have been going overseas, so not counted against Australia’s emissions.

      That coal will now be sourced elsewhere, and be of lesser quality , requiring more of it, thus an INCREASE in global emissions above the emissions if this mine went ahead.

      The judge’s ruling has exactly the opposite effect to that stated.

      170

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        Sadly this will be the outcome, AndyG55.

        On the other hand, mining itself produces a lot of GHC’s most notably methane, which will mow not be the case, at least for this mine.

        412

        • #
          AndyG55

          No, NOT sadly.

          An increase of atmospheric CO2 is totally and absolutely beneficial to all life on the planet.

          Only thing sad, is that it is money and jobs that won’t flow into the local communities.

          110

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          Nor will there be a loss of amenity, a destruction of productive land, an increase in particulate pollution, an increase in heavy vehicle movements, and the profiteering of the few over the many

          As to jobs – according to the prime minister there is no problem in finding jobs /scarc off

          213

          • #
            el gordo

            There are always jobs in the startup phase, but when it comes to extraction they use intelligent machines and the town slips back into oblivion.

            We are in agreement, which is novel.

            For those interested in NSW politics, Premier Gladys promised Orange a sports stadium costing $250 million, then said we won’t get it if we vote for the Shooters Party.

            Red rag to a bull.

            42

            • #
              toorightmate

              el gordo,
              You are obviously not aware of the index effect of resource employment.
              It is approximately 6.

              30

          • #
            AndyG55

            Particulate mater, no where near populations

            Rail traffic , not heavy road traffic.

            pfutz on the road of ignorance, yet again

            ALL Australia profits from mining coal.

            Yes, even you, pfutz. Social security payments chew up a lot of money.

            Without coal and iron ore, we would be a third world country.

            …. which is what the anti-CO2 agenda is all about achieving.

            A third world country is far easier to drag into the socialist globalist meme.

            60

      • #
        BoyfromTottenham

        Andy, it is my understanding that the way Australia’s GHG ‘emissions’ are measured include all our hydrocarbon production, including that produced and exported, which is why our ‘emissions’ are so high compared to our population. Maybe someone can verify this.

        30

      • #
        TdeF

        This is the game that we are asked to sign up to vague and non compulsory treaties on the clear understanding that they are non obligatory and optional but perhaps harmless and even aspirational.

        Now to quote non compulsory international treaties agreements as if they were international and domestic legal obligations is wrong.
        While that was the subtle deceit of such worthless agreements, for an Australian judge to justify his ruling on aspirations is a travesty and will be appealed.

        As for the blatant accusation that people make money from coal, you may as well accuse the entire population of Australia. It pays for all the electronics, the computers, the software, the aircraft, the windmills, the solar panels, the refrigerators and the cars. Try paying for them without coal and sit on the ground without anything.

        60

  • #
    markx

    ‘Saving the world!’
    By one idealistic, blinkered hypocrite at a time.

    90

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    We, as citizens, commonly fail to learn from the lessons of history. We are all too prone to our minds filling up with useless trivia as well as the really important stuff. Not surprising, given the volume of material in front of us every day in this era of communication.
    In Australia, with laws as at present, a judge should not be allowed to make decisions like this judge, Preston, has done because the matter is beyond his authority. His place is to decide if those before him are acting in accordance with the laws of the land. He has no mandate to judge on matters beyond the written law and in this case, there is none relevant to the way he stated his decision.
    He might or might not be aware of some precedent. He used ‘environmental’ topic to say no to a coal mine. Back in 1987, some other judges said no to our uranium mining aspirations for ‘environmental ‘ reasons related to the United Nations World Heritage plans.
    Judge Preston, as several have noted in the 2019 matter, held office with an activist environmental group, Environment Defenders Office. In 1987, we had judge Murray Wilcox, a past president of President of the Australian Conservation Foundation 1979-1984. Neither had the courtesy to recuse, although many citizens would likely see conflict of interest.
    (As an aside, many people are now becoming more aware of the concept of “Sovereign Risk”, ways in which governments can shut the doors to international investment in their country by not maintaining a firm set of goal posts within which investors can be confident of reasonable stability. It is commonly a large ingredient in the collapse of nations and/or their governments).
    Those with an interest in legal precedents might like more detail. Here is one link that leads to others, although I consider it rather biased in style against those ugly miners. I think I can comment like this, because I was the main person who conceived, developed and managed the case on behalf of, and with the unrestrained funding of, my then employer. However, I do not know many people who have ever heard of this court case to learn the lessons of history from it. Geoff.
    http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AdminRw/1987/31.pdf

    121

    • #
      Bill in Oz

      Geoff the fundamental point is that lawyers like this Preston ‘judge’ character put themselves above the law of the land.

      They think they know better than the voters and the parliaments.

      Surely that amounts to contempt for the law !

      81

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        I think all the appeal lawyers has to do is show the ruling in the case will present likely soveriegn risk, to have the ruling overturned….once the investment starts leaving NSW political will shall shift rapidly….

        I wonder though – if the Establishment want to kill Australia, they will block all further appeals ( like the Brexit sabotage ….) and use precedent to create a catastrophic Mabo-like impact on land use….

        Could get pretty ugly….

        10

    • #
      TdeF

      “He has no mandate to judge on matters beyond the written law and in this case, there is none relevant to the way he stated his decision.”

      Precisely. A judge is not above the law. Aspirational international agreements without obligation are not the law. However he has done so, opened the door to appeal and it will be out of his hands.

      If I am right, he has done everyone a service. Now is the time to demand proof that coal is heating the entire planet and dangerously. Will Steffen can turn up with facts now, not hide behind the meaningless IPCC tomes and political summaries. Now he can prove it or admit that he has no proof.

      $1.5Trillion dollars a year. $6Billion Australia dollars a year. Devastation of our electricity, our manufacturing and our way of life to make a few opportunists rich and a few communists into parliament as caring Greens. As I wrote, Climate Scientology.

      50

      • #
        TdeF

        We were the first country with the 40 hour week. We were the second country (after New Zealand) to introduce the vote for all women.
        We followed England into universal health.

        Little Australia can be first to rule that it is not proven in science that coal warms the planet dangerously.
        That should be proven before power stations are blown up, taxes are introduced or people have their cash ripped out of their electricity bills
        by strangers and to make other people rich. So others can own windmills and solar panels and force us to buy their electricity, so Canberra city can
        make $37Million in RET certificates just for owning windmills paid by the people of Australia.

        This has never been about science. This is all about cash and power and destruction of democracy.
        As Donald Trump said, the United States will never be a socialist country. Like Venezuela, Cuba and Hitler’s Germany.

        70

      • #
        TdeF

        I can prove to my entire satisfaction, beyond the shadow of a doubt that the human contribution to CO2 is under 5%. It may even be closer to 2%. That should be the end of the matter. The amount of man released fossil CO2 is absolutely measurable. No one can disagree with that simple science. A court can line up the scientists by the thousands who can verify this as fact. Including Professor Will Steffen.

        71

        • #
          TdeF

          You see it’s not about whether CO2 is going up. It’s not about whether this produces warming. It’s not about whether warming is dangerous. It’s only about whether the 50% increase is largely man made.

          If the 50% increase in CO2 is not man made, we cannot undo what we have not done, no matter how many laws we pass. There is no man made Global Warming. Also no man made Climate Change.

          71

          • #
            Kinky Keith

            Good points.

            The real issue of whether CO2 acts as a heating agent in the atmosphere is an obscure area that is difficult for the layperson to comprehend.

            It doesn’t of course but explaining why is a scientific issue with complexity attached.

            Much easier to go for the jugular in the area of quantification.

            Even the warmers acknowledge that human origin CO2 is no more than 4% of the atmospheric CO2 and as I’ve mentioned previously because the absorption bands of atmospheric Water and CO2 coincide this reduces Human Origin CO2 to a miniscule part of any Greenhouse effect, if there was one.

            The fact that the last person to endorse the greenhouse effect did so over 100 years ago and nobody since, says it all.
            A scam, based on a lie, propagated by a threat, and reinforced and cemented into place by school based indoctrination.

            Amazing what money can do.

            KK

            31

  • #

    This is related to the topic.

    Early on in what I do, back in early 2008, so I had a better idea of what I was talking about, it was a crash course in coal, because like the average ‘punter’, I just thought coal was coal.

    There are four grades of coal as shown at this link from the USGS. The ones used for power plants are Lignite (brown coal) sub bituminous, and bituminous (the two black coals), and bituminous is the better of those two, and ‘cleaner’ of the two. meaning here, burning better, at a higher heating value, and with less emissions, and most recent power plants use this coal exclusively.

    The last is Anthracite, the ‘hardest’ of the coals, coking coal, for use in steel manufacture.

    We are all aware that The Bowen Basin in Queensland has the largest deposits of bituminous coal and Anthracite.

    The site shown at this link has some information about The Bowen Basin, and shows a map with all the coal mines in the area, now more in 2018, as the map is dated earlier than now. The Bowen Basin covers ….. 60,000 Square Kilometres, and in fact is mined quite sparsely considering the available deposits there, even with so many mines there. There are 48 operational coal mines there and a further 50 or more under consideration.

    Try stopping that in the Courts. Good luck. The Queensland Government makes Billions just from the royalties alone.

    Trust me on this. Coal mining has a looooong future ahead of it yet here in Australia, despite what some obscure judge might decree.

    Incidentally, both Wikipedia sites are virtual copies of the site I linked to, almost word for word.

    Tony.

    160

    • #
      Another Ian

      Tony

      Some more figures for you

      “How Much Will the Green New Deal Cost?

      As it happens, a team of Stanford engineers led by Mark Jacobson outlined just such a plan back in 2015. Jacobson’s repowering plan would involve installing 335,000 onshore wind turbines; 154,000 offshore wind turbines; 75 million residential photovoltaic systems; 2.75 million commercial photovoltaic systems; 46,000 utility-scale photovoltaic facilities; 3,600 concentrated solar power facilities with onsite heat storage; and an extensive array of underground thermal storage facilities.”

      http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/index.php/2019/02/08/y2kyoto-ocasio-cortez-math/

      20

  • #

    Huh, not often I find myself in moderation.

    Tony.

    30

  • #

    .
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
    ❶①❶①
    ❶①❶① . . . Is Tamino stupid? . . .
    ❶①❶①
    ❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶①❶
    .

    Tamino is a funny little man.

    He likes to produce graphs which show how stupid Deniers are.

    But what are we meant to think, when Tamino produces graphs like the following ones?

    Is Tamino trying to show that Alarmists are just as stupid, or possibly more stupid, than Deniers are?

    My advice to Mr Tamino (which he will probably ignore), is that when you want to prove that somebody is stupid, don’t do something that is even stupider.

    Mr Tamino seems to belong to that group of people, who believe that any warming is “global warming”, but that any cooling is just weather.

    Mr Tamino, you may now take your foot out of your mouth. And you should get those self-inflicted bullet holes in your feet looked at.

    https://agree-to-disagree.com/is-tamino-stupid

    71

  • #

    No.Resources Sloth in the USA.

    From Watts up with That:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/08/florida-appeals-court-everglades-open-for-oil-drilling-drill-baby-drill/

    Florida Appeals Court: “Everglades open for oil drilling”… Drill, baby, drill!
    David Middleton / 1 hour ago February 8, 2019
    Guest cheer-leading by David Middleton

    Everglades open for oil drilling

    41

  • #
    Paul Miskelly

    Hi All,
    It may be of interest that, back in 2005, when hearing the Matter of the Taralga Wind Farm development proposal, presiding judge, Chief Judge of the NSW Land & Environemt Court, judge Brian Preston, at the commencement of one of the days’ hearings of the Matter, entirely unprompted by any of the Parties to the Matter, proceeded to lecture the Parties on the singular importance to the Matter, as he saw it, of the findings and conclusions of the then recently-released report to the UK government titled: “The Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change”, by Lord Nicholas Stern, the so-called “Stern Report”. Far from recusing himself from the matter, Chief Judge Preston, lecture concluded, then immediately produced sets of CDs/DVDs which he handed out to Counsel for the Parties to the Matter, stating that these materials contained relevant parts of the Stern Report which he indicated quite clearly would be salient to any subsequent Judgment he was to hand down in the Matter.
    A perusal of his subsequent Judgment in the Taralga Wind Farm Matter will leave the reader in no doubt that he relied heavily on the arguments presented in this “Stern Report” advocating the use of so-called “renewables technologies” such as wind farms, as a legitimate means to reduce CO2 emissions, to support his “Greater Good” argument as elaborated in the Taralga Judgment in which he approved the Taralga Wind Farm development. Indeed, the reader would see that he cites relevant, different, sections of the Stern Report many times throughout the Judgment as handed down.
    A quick check will confirm that Judge Preston’s findings in the Taralga Judgment have most certainly been used as precedents in similar matters since brought before the NSW L&E Court.
    Our little community group had neither the resources nor the means at that time to contest or seek to counter the relevant conclusions of what was the then just-released Stern Report, and so Judge Preston proceeded unchallenged to rely on that Stern Report in the Taralga Matter.
    That Discovery of the relevant wind farm performance data, subsequent to the Taralga Judgment being handed down, which shows clearly that the primary assumptions in that Stern Report on which the value of this technology is based, are in fact without any sort of foundation whatsoever, is of little assistance. To seek to overturn the Taralga Judgment, by presenting this discovered material to the NSW L&E Court, could only occur, I believe, by Appeal, requiring the careful preparation for another long, and hence, very expensive, court case.
    I was present for the entirety of the Hearings in this the Taralga Wind Farm Matter, the Chief Judge of the NSW L&E Court, Judge Brian Preston, presiding.
    Paul Miskelly

    170

    • #

      This Teralga Wind plant has really been beneficial to Australia, and helps lead the way towards saving Australia from the dread of coal fired power.

      In the three and a half years it has been operational, it has generated a significant amount of power delivered to the grid, 995GWH in fact across those three and a half years, you know, the same amount of power delivered by Bayswater in 21 days.

      Yesterday, it had a good day, as did most wind power, and this Teralga plant ran at a Capacity Factor for the day of 36.4%, above its year round average of 29%. It delivered 935MWH of power to the grid across the whole day, you know, the same amount of power delivered by Bayswater in 21 Minutes.

      Quick, let’s build more of them.

      Tony.

      200

      • #
        Peter C

        Lets build more of them.

        Yesterday, during an annual evaluation flight in my motor glider, I found myself circling over some large scale civil engineering works on farm land near Elaine, Victoria. At first I could not fathom what was going on. A car park had been constructed, with parked trucks and cars. There were piles of gravel in a nearby site and roads were being constructed.

        After a while I noticed that the roads seemed to connect a lot of circular concrete pads and then it clicked. A new wind plant under construction.

        It so upsetting that I lost concentration and then the upgoing thermal. Soon after I had to start the engine, which spoiled my flight.

        91

        • #
          Yonniestone

          That would be the Lal Lal Wind Farm Peter, I missed the public meetings but spoke to a local that was astonished to hear some facts (mostly from TonyfromOz) about the flaws of wind power generation, they said none of this was mentioned or raised during the meetings, if anyone was there can they confirm?

          40

      • #
        Robber

        Looking at Tony’s excellent daily reports on Power Generation, across all wind farms the average daily wind generation varies from a low of 1.0 GW to a high of 2.4 GW, averaging 1.7 GW, with the lowest during any 24 hour period 0.2 GW. This means that wind is completely unreliable as a source of dispatchable power, and at all times there must be 100% reliable backup available. In other words, if all wind generators (5.6 GW nameplate capacity) were removed from the grid tomorrow, electricity demand varying from 19-34 GW could still be met, and we wouldn’t be paying in our electricity prices for a return on capital for the $10 billion invested in wind farms, and the $80/MWhr extra paid through renewable energy certificates.

        It surely won’t be long before some emboldened “environmental warmists” go before another “enlightened” judge and get a ruling shutting down coal stations in NSW, Vic and Qld. After all, they are all emitting CO2 that this learned judge has determined are all contributing to climate change.

        40

        • #

          Thanks for this Robber: (my bolding here)

          In other words, if all wind generators (5.6 GW nameplate capacity) were removed from the grid tomorrow, electricity demand varying from 19-34 GW could still be met…..

          And you see, therein lies the whole point of this.

          It’s absolutely true that Demand could still be met, well, perhaps they might have some trouble in SouthAus, but hey, that’s only 6.2% of the Australian total power consumption, and at a stretch, with the now increased Interconnectors to Victoria running in the red all the time, they could probably manage 75% or more of their demand anyway.

          And that’s not a false claim, because there have been times when wind power has been lower than 200MW across the whole of Australia, (lower than 1% of demand) and we’ve managed, in fact, without the general populace even being aware of the fact.

          So, we already have (just) enough traditional power (coal, gas and hydro) already in place to meet total demand, so then, it proves that thing we have been saying all along, that wind power and solar power needs 100% Backup to be in place.

          Tony.

          80

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        Comparable in nameplate capacity? Comparable in terms of levelised cost per kilowatt hour?

        28

        • #

          Oh Peter Fitzroy,

          simple maths here mate. Just multiply everything about the Teralga wind plant by 63 to give an equivalence to Bayswater. Construction cost for Teralga was $280 Million, so that comes in at $17.6 Billion, and Bayswater has twice the life span of the Wind Plant, so now we have $35.2 Billion.

          See now how levelised cost is a crock of bovine waste, no matter how much it gets massaged, and trust me, over the last eleven years I’v been watching, I’v lost count how many times it has been changed.

          Tony.

          172

          • #
            toorightmate

            Tony,
            Debating with this idjit is akin to playing chess with a pigeon.

            63

          • #
            AndyG55

            maths way to complicated for pfutz. !!

            no comprehendo. !

            43

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            Happy to accept your cost calculations, given the stated nameplate capacity for both plants.

            Since you don’t like levelised cost, how do you factor externalities?

            24

            • #
              Peter Fitzroy

              however, you have confirmed that the wind farm is as comparable to Bayswater, like a double A battery is comparable to a Tesla Powerwall

              44

            • #

              Since you don’t like levelised cost, how do you factor externalities?

              Hmm! I wonder what factored externalities could add up to thirty thousand million dollars plus.

              Surely I don’t need to add anything more than construction costs alone here. Nothing else even comes close.

              And surely you must know that you can’t use Nameplate as a guide. But then, I suppose like everyone else, you’re cluelessly locked locked into that Nameplate crock where you mention a AA battery compared to a Tesla firewall powerwall

              Tony.

              140

          • #

            Maybe “cost-factored levelised externalities” will keep us burrowing a bit longer.

            But nothing can change the fact that wind is a largely unimproved antique technology which is expensive, intrusive, fragile, diffuse, intermittent and feeble. Duh.

            Actually, that should be six duhs, levelised for externalities.

            73

            • #
              Peter Fitzroy

              It is that, mosomoso. However, it can underbid gas and coal (when the conditions allow). As I quoted from the AFR yesterday, we need a mix, the argument is about proportions.

              310

              • #
                robert rosicka

                How’s it going to out bid coal when the winds not blowing ?

                80

              • #
                AndyG55

                “we need a mix”

                Wind and solar are DISRUPTORS to mainstream electricity supply systems..

                They should never be part of “the mix”..

                A niche market where grid electricity is no available at a reasonable cost and reliability is not important.

                If there was an economic non-political choice, they would not be used in any mainstream system where solid reliable electricity was required.

                They are unreliable and can never be guaranteed to deliver.

                Would you send an important parcel by a courier that had a record of only delivering 30% or less of the time, even if they offered to do it for free ??

                62

              • #
                AndyG55

                ” it can underbid gas and coal (when the conditions allow)”

                Not without massive subsidies and charging coal to pay for the lack of wind.

                And it cannot be guaranteed to deliver even half an hour into the future.

                Wind can only exist in a spot-price situation, NEVER in a future bidding market where realistic penalties exist for non-supply.

                32

              • #
                AndyG55

                If the wind is blowing they can undercut, because the wind turbines have already been paid for by the subsidies, and they get a guaranteed income paid for by the coal companies.

                11

            • #

              Actually, I was moving faster than Usain Bolt for quite some time today. Conditions allowed. (He was asleep.) And if you average out my leg speed with Usain’s we’re a pretty quick team.

              When people call me slow I tell ‘em I’m part of a mix. Me and Usain. Our local pooch Mojie never stops eating (Cavs!) so I’ve called the little fattie on to the team to improve his speed. But because that’s created some lag I’m thinking of adding Josh-Addo Carr to our mix.

              Gotta get that mix right.

              70

              • #
                robert rosicka

                I can run my diesel 4wd on water , just add some hydrocarbon but you’ve got to get the mix right .

                10

        • #
          toorightmate

          Peter Fitzroy,
          You sure spew out plenty of ridiculous rubbish.

          93

    • #
      robert rosicka

      Thank you Paul great info and really does prove a bias , he has basically made his mind up before hearing the evidence / arguments.

      51

    • #
      Bill in Oz

      Preston is a dopey [snip] .There I’ve done it !

      Committed the crime of ‘Lese Majeste’

      But he deserves all the mockery and crap we can load on him.

      Maybe the stress will see him retired shortly.

      00

  • #
    robert rosicka

    So Stern was an economist and his report was roundly criticised and condemned but this judge fell in love with the theological ramblings of a nutter and bases all his decisions on failed science and bodgy statistics.

    51

    • #
      Serp

      Working for IT subcontractor inside a government department I noticed a young CAGW zealot who carried the Stern Report everywhere for a month and then landed a job at the Bureau of Meteorology presumably because of fresh familiarity with the BOM ideology.

      21

  • #
    Paul Miskelly

    Anton (“TonyfromOz”) and “Robber”,
    The findings that you mention here that come from Anton’s excellent daily reports, (brilliant stuff, Anton, BTW), confirm the findings of a paper that I wrote “back-in-the-day”. That paper was published, after proper independent peer-review, in 2012. I showed there that, at least in calendar year 2010, there were some 100-plus occasions when total wind output on the Eastern Australian grid achieved less than 2 percent of installed wind capacity. I also showed (see the paper’s Figure 6), that wind can never, ever, to all intents and purposes, be relied upon.
    Your corollary, “Robber”, that if all wind generation were removed, then it would have no impact on the AEMO’s ability to meet demand equivalent to wind’s installed capacity, confirmed by “Tony”‘s conclusions from his examination of the current data, lines up exactly with my findings from all those years ago.
    The crucial difference is that, back then, at the end of 2010, there was an installed wind capacity of some 1855.65 MW. On the other side of the ledger, Northern, Playford, and of course Hazelwood, were still operating. Wind generation’s intermittency and variability had little impact on the grid’s stability back then. How things have changed. As I predicted in the conclusion in the paper, should wind generation installed capacity be permitted to increase, as has since occurred, leading to what we now have as the much greater installed wind capacity at present, (exacerbated by the closure of the above “real” generators, of course), then there would result a very significant loss of grid stability and reliability resulting from the much greater amplitude of what I like to call “the mood swings” of wind generation. That is precisely what has occurred.
    Those conclusions, as are Anton’s above, were the result of an analysis of actual operational data. They are not based on some sort of airily-expressed belief or idle speculation.

    For those who might be interested, the paper is still readily available at a number of sites. When I last checked, (a few minutes ago), it is still available free-of-charge from the Journal publisher. If interested, do a search on: “Wind Farms in Eastern Australia – Recent Lessons”.

    Re my earlier post above: unfortunately, I did not know where to find the operational data back in 2005-6 when we really needed it to place before the Chief Judge.

    Robert Rosicka: in fairness to the good judge, I think that any criticism of the Stern Report came much later than the judge’s considerations prior to handing down the Taralga Judgment. That said, I seem to recall that the ink had hardly dried on the paper of the Stern Report before the judge introduced it at the Taralga Proceedings.

    Peter Fitzroy (post #33.1.1.3), to what do your two questions relate? What do you want compared with what? Could you be more specific please. Also, might I suggest that you cite actual operational data in your dealings with other contributors to this post. “TonyfromOz” bases his statements and conclusions on his analyses of actual operational data. I suggest that you do him the courtesy of doing the same.

    Paul Miskelly

    80

    • #
      Peter Fitzroy

      I’m interested in the relative scale of the two plants (wind and coal), and the relative cost per megawatt hour. The problem is that coal has a lot of externalities which are not factored, which is why there is the levelised cost calculation. when I posted my questions, the time delay pushed it down the thread, which is why it was less than clear, for which I apologise

      29

      • #
        Dave

        Simple
        Even without the huge cost of construction Wind & Solar per generated MW
        It’s the subsidies that make them hugely expensive.
        Wind receives $74 per megawatt hour
        Solar receives $214 per megawatt hour
        Coal receives 40 CENTS per megawatt hour
        Renewables received $2.2 billion in 2017
        And will increase to $2.8 billion A YEAR till 2030!

        61

      • #

        Wondering how much energy it takes to build one of those giant wind turbines?

        # Energy to extract the materials and refine the materials.

        # Energy to transport to places of production. (What a breakthrough Watt’s steam
        engine, hey!)

        # Energy to manufacture same giant turbine’s parts…blades, nacelle as big as a bus,
        generator, tower,

        # Energy of maintenance, most of ‘em last no more than 15 years,don’t believe the hype!

        And most give out energy much less than yr 24/7 requirement.

        https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/windpower/10264185/The-wind-farms-that-generate-enough-power-to-make-a-few-cups-of-tea.html

        https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/windpower/10264185/The-wind-farms-that-generate-enough-power-to-make-a-few-cups-of-tea.html

        40

        • #

          Oo-oops,re link, expended extraneous energy there. Whereas …

          20

        • #

          A bloke called Andy had this to say on a site I can no longer access:

          Its carbon footprint is massive – try 241.85 tons of CO2.

          Here’s the breakdown of the CO2 numbers.

          To create a 1,000 Kg of pig iron, you start with 1,800 Kg of iron ore, 900 Kg of coking coal 450 Kg of limestone. The blast furnace consumes 4,500 Kg of air. The temperature at the core of the blast furnace reaches nearly 1,600 degrees C (about 3,000 degrees F).

          The pig iron is then transferred to the basic oxygen furnace to make steel.

          1,350 Kg of CO2 is emitted per 1,000 Kg pig iron produced.

          A further 1,460 Kg CO2 is emitted per 1,000 Kg of Steel produced so all up 2,810 Kg CO2 is emitted.

          45 tons of rebar (steel) are required so that equals 126.45 tons of CO2 are emitted.

          To create a 1,000 Kg of Portland cement, calcium carbonate (60%), silicon (20%), aluminium (10%), iron (10%) and very small amounts of other ingredients are heated in a large kiln to over 1,500 degrees C to convert the raw materials into clinker. The clinker is then interground with other ingredients to produce the final cement product. When cement is mixed with water, sand and gravel forms the rock-like mass know as concrete.

          An average of 927 Kg of CO2 is emitted per 1,000 Kg of Portland cement. On average, concrete has 10% cement, with the balance being gravel (41%), sand (25%), water (18%) and air (6%). One cubic metre of concrete weighs approx. 2,400 Kg so approx. 240 Kg of CO2 is emitted for every cubic metre.

          481m3 of concrete are required so that equals 115.4 tons of CO2 are emitted.

          Now I have not included the emissions of the mining of the raw materials or the transportation of the fabricated materials to the turbine site so the emission calculation above would be on the low end at best.

          He goes on to discuss the mining side a bit…

          Each turbine has three blades so there’s 21,000 Kgs of GRP and each blade can be as long as 50 metres.

          A typical wind farm of 20 turbines can extend over 101 hectares of land (1.01 Km2).

          Each and every wind turbine has a magnet made of a metal called neodymium. There are 2,500 Kg of it in each of the behemoths that have just gone up around Australia.

          The mining and refining of neodymium is so dirty and toxic – involving repeated boiling in acid, with radioactive thorium as a waste product – that only one country does it – China. (See our posts here and here).

          All this for an intermittent highly unreliable energy source.

          And I haven’t even considered the manufacture of the thousands of pylons and tens of thousands of kilometres of transmission wire needed to get the power to the grid.

          I’ve quoted him from this frankly activist site. https://stopthesethings.com/2014/08/16/how-much-co2-gets-emitted-to-build-a-wind-turbine/

          71

          • #
            theRealUniverse

            Good the more CO2 the better. Out poor vegetation is living in a CO2STARVED planet! We need 7& CO2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            00

      • #
        AndyG55

        “that coal has a lot of externalities which are not factored”

        What would they be, pfutz. (use empirical data, not assumption driven models)

        And of course we should also factor in the POSITIVE externalities, shouldn’t we.

        Beneficial increased plant growth.

        Supply of solid reliable dependable electricity.

        Steel and the myriad of other products that are made using coal.

        Many bi-products that are essential for modern civilisation.

        The absolute dependency of society on coal gas and oil.

        The fact that a large proportion of everything we rely on in the modern world is there BECAUSE of coal gas, and oil.

        The contribution to modern society of fossil fuel is almost incalculable.

        For wind and solar we should also factor in a LARGE percentage of the coal and gas which is needed to fill in the times that wind and solar go AWOL.

        What is the cost of wind and solar when it has to deliver base load 24/365.25?

        That is the question that should be answered.

        92

  • #
  • #
    TdeF

    What sort of mugs are we, stopping a coal mine.

    Consider China in a document I just received

    “China is currently the number one producer in the world of wind and solar power, but don’t use it themselves.

    While they manufacture 80% of the world’s solar panels, they install less than 5% and build a new coal fired power station every week.

    In one year they turn on more new coal powered electricity than Australia’s total output.”

    but Australian virtue signalers stop coal mines because of Global Warming caused if at all by China.

    Also

    “China has 19% of the world’s population, but consumes [2011 figures]:

    53% of the world’s cement
    48% of the world’s iron ore
    47% of the world’s coal

    And the majority of just about every other major commodity.
    In 2010, China produced 11 times more steel than the United States .

    New World Record: China made and sold 18 million vehicles in 2010.

    There are more pigs in China than in the next 43 pork producing nations combined.

    China currently has the world’s fastest train and the world’s largest high-speed rail network.”

    So while we agonize over our biggest export, China ignores alleged coal caused Global Warming and we buy their solar panels and German windmills (even the ones made in China)

    At what point is the clever country Australia being really idiotic? It’s fine. The Greens will save us. We will serve imported coffee.

    80

    • #
      toorightmate

      And we have the temerity to ridicule the Chinese because they choose to have the lowest cost power AND the CO2 those coal-fired power stations emit is good for the planet.
      The CO2 horsesh*t has to stop.
      CO2 increase from human activities is NEGLIGIBLE.
      CO2 benefit to crops and greening is SIGNIFICANT.

      62

      • #
        TdeF

        CO2 benefit? Without CO2 we have no crops and without crops, we have no people. All life on earth comes from CO2, every plant, every tree, every insect and every animal. To vilify CO2 is to deny reality.

        40

      • #
        TdeF

        CO2 benefit? Without CO2 we have no crops and without crops, we have no people. All life on earth comes from CO2, every plant, every tree, every insect and every animal. To vilify CO2 is to deny reality.

        00

    • #
      Bill in Oz

      TdeF, do you have a link for that information.
      looks good to me
      Bill

      20

      • #
        TdeF

        Sorry, it was just sent to me. However from what I know, it is all reasonable. 50% of steel production is not news. 48% of the world’s iron ore is the same thing. Much the same as 47% of the coal, as coal is needed to make steel and electricity. I have no data on the pigs however but in the year of the pig, it seems reasonable.

        30

  • #
    cedarhill

    A Teaching Moment:

    Example of the word “oligarch”.

    Look it up.

    10

  • #
    dp

    In the US that is called “legislating from the bench” and is not well thought of. When sitting for judgement a citizen can feel very intimidated tknowing the judge is willing to invent a law that can be applied to your case. How does one prepare a defense against such a moving offense? Judge as adversary was never considered in the great scheme of things. Justice may be blind but as often it is stupid.

    30

  • #
    gbees

    I thought judges were supposed to consider the ‘evidence’ and not be swayed by personal opinions or views?

    20

  • #
    Lord Kek

    The ‘liberal’ government having signed us up to Paris, it is completely unsurprising that courts rely on it as a consideration.

    20

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘Two of Australia’s largest mining producers have raised concerns over a court ruling linking coal mines to climate change.’ Oz

    10

  • #
    Maptram

    The South Australia business that was mentioned in the ABC Landline program a couple of days ago, the one using the power plant that burns rubbish and wood chips to produce electricity and hot water, has solved the problem of burning coal and producing carbon dioxide.

    The managing director said “The exhaust from that boiler is very clean — it’s a rich source of CO2, carbon dioxide.”

    “That will go into the glasshouse to enrich the CO2 levels in the glasshouse, which is a way that glasshouse operators lift the yield of their plants.”

    Coal burning for electricity generation is also a rich source of carbon dioxide, so all the coal burning electricity generators need is a way to capture the carbon dioxide and feed it into greenhouses, and the problem of coal being used to produce electricity is solved

    10

  • #
    Ian MacCulloch

    World’s best ever post

    00

  • #
    Geoffrey Williams

    Coming in a little late on this blog; I have to say that I cannot agree with the sentiment of those of you above who are critical of the decision not to allow this project at Rocky Hill to go ahead. Open cast coal mining is very invasive and especially so in this case. The site at/near Gloucester NSW would be right in the middle of prime farming land and as such I cannot support it. The judge’s sentiment was only half correct in in his summing up when he said that this project was in the ‘wrong place’, but his view that this was the ‘wrong time’ I do not agree with. On this latter point he was playing climate warming politics and we on this site should know and the understand the difference. However we do ourselves no favours to advocate mining in the ‘wrong place’ as I believe this case to be. We would never win public support in such cases.
    Regards GeoffW

    00

  • #
    Wayne Thomas

    Surely upon appeal, the Courts would have to show evidence that humans are indeed responsible for global warming, otherwise the judges position, to reject, is invalid.

    00

  • #