High Court halts coal mine expansion over emissions

Questions about this coverage

How did the left and right cover High Court halts coal mine expansion over emissions?

Of the 25 outlets on this story carrying a published leaning rating, 56% are rated left, 28% are rated centre, 16% are rated right. Those percentages are shares of the rated outlets, not of every outlet that ran it, which was 36. The sections above set out what each side emphasised, in its own terms.

Is High Court halts coal mine expansion over emissions left or right?

Neither side dominates it. Of the 25 rated outlets on this story, 56% are rated left, 28% are rated centre, 16% are rated right, and no side holds the 70% this site would want before calling a field one-sided. A story is not left or right in any case; the outlets that carried it are what carry ratings.

Is the coverage of High Court halts coal mine expansion over emissions biased?

High Court halts coal mine expansion over emissions is one event reported by 36 outlets, and this page does not rate the story as biased or unbiased. What it publishes is the spread: which outlets ran it, where named rating organisations place each of them on the spectrum, and what each side chose to lead with. A leaning rating describes an outlet's record over time, not this article, and the two should not be run together.

Which side is not reporting High Court halts coal mine expansion over emissions?

When we first saw this story, outlets rated right had barely covered it. Coverage accretes for hours after an event, so that is where to look rather than a verdict — the split above is the current count, and it is the one to read.

Which outlets covered High Court halts coal mine expansion over emissions?

36 that we know of, every one of them listed further up this page with a link to its own report and to what we hold on the publisher. Nothing here is a summary of somebody else's summary: the outlets are named so the original reporting can be read.

What was the High Court's decision regarding the Mount Pleasant coal mine expansion?

The High Court of Australia struck down the approval for MACH Energy's Mount Pleasant coal mine expansion. The court ruled 3-2 that the Independent Planning Commission had failed to consider Scope 3 emissions, which are generated when coal is burned.

What are Scope 3 emissions and why were they important in this case?

Scope 3 emissions are indirect emissions caused when coal is eventually burnt, including when exported overseas. The NSW Court of Appeal ruled that planning authorities are legally required to consider the climate impact of these emissions on local communities, a finding upheld by the High Court.

What would the expansion of the Mount Pleasant coal mine have entailed?

The expansion would have doubled the mine's annual production from 10.5 million tonnes to 21 million tonnes. It also would have extended the mine's operational life by 22 years.