Heraldo de Madrid - Australia's High Court rules against coal mine in landmark climate case

Retired science teachers Wendy Wales and Tony Lonergan have fought for years to halt a planned mine expansion in Australia's rural coal-digging heartland.

The High Court ruled the expansion should be halted because planning bodies had not properly looked at the local impacts of planet-heating emissions from the coal.

Environmental campaigners said the decision set a "binding national precedent" that required climate damage to be considered when mulling fossil fuel projects.

"Today the high court has said what we have always known," said Wales.

"We cannot dig up coal, ship it overseas, watch it drive climate change, and then pretend the consequences have nothing to do with us and won't be felt by us."

Australia is one of the world's fossil fuel giants, ranking among the top exporters of both coal and liquefied natural gas.

Local mining firm Mach Energy had sought permission to extend the life of the open-cut Mount Pleasant coal mine by more than 20 years until 2048.

Mach Energy argued that coal shipped off and burned overseas could not be clearly linked to environmental impacts felt in the Hunter Valley, north of Sydney.

But environmental campaigners disagreed, saying every ounce of greenhouse gas released into the atmosphere made bushfires, floods and drought more likely.

"Today, the highest court in the country agreed that those decisions have to account for the damage they cause," said Lonergan.

"This isn't the end of coal overnight. But it is the end of coal mine approvals that look the other way on climate."

Wales and Lonergan first managed to halt the project in the lower courts of New South Wales state.

But Mach Energy appealed, eventually sending the case to the High Court of Australia.

- 'Historic' judgement -

The High Court dismissed Mach's appeal in a brief written judgement.

It found that the state's planning commission failed to consider imposing conditions on the mine that would limit emissions "to the greatest extent practicable".

Lawyer Anita O'Hart said it was a "historic" piece of environmental law.

"The implications extend well beyond Mount Pleasant," said O'Hart, one of the lead lawyers in the case.

"This ruling will be applied by courts and planning authorities across Australia, and it will be studied internationally as one of the most significant domestic climate law decisions in the world."

Mach Energy said it was "disappointed with the outcome" but accepted the court's decision.

"We will continue to actively pursue all available options to ensure the long-term continuity of the Mount Pleasant operation," the company said in a statement.

D.Prieto--HdM