News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Power firm sued over carbon emissions 

Power firm sued over carbon emissions

28 Jul, 2009 06:18 AM
AUSTRALIA is about to see its first legal challenge to carbon emissions from a coal-fired power plant, after a Land and Environment Court case was initiated yesterday against Macquarie Generation, a NSW Government-owned utility.

An environmental group that opposed the development of the Anvil Hill coal mine in the Hunter Valley is now targeting Bayswater power station in the Upper Hunter, one of the largest single producers of greenhouse gases in the state.

Lawyers from the NSW Environmental Defender’s Office believe the case has the potential to toughen emissions laws across the country.

In the civil court proceedings it will be alleged that the company is "negligently disposing of waste at their Bayswater power station by emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in a manner that has harmed or is likely to harm the environment", which could be a contravention of the NSW Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

The court action will also seek to have the system of environmental protection licences modified. They now require that some companies monitor, but do not control, carbon emissions.

A Macquarie Generation spokesman said: "Bayswater is one of the most efficient and cleanest coal fired power stations in Australia, and it operates within its development approval and environmental operating licence."

The court case is being brought by Peter Gray and Naomi Hodgson, members of a group called Rising Tide.

Mr Gray said: "The reason we are doing this now is that the NSW Government is looking at expanding Bayswater as well as tripling coal exports from Newcastle coal port."

The matter is listed for a directions hearing on August 21.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
And who is going to sue the green groups for misleading the public over the fallacy of global warming?
Posted by Sam, 28/07/2009 4:07:13 PM
This should be very interesting, I would like to see what evidence they use to prove a plant food ( co2 ) is hurting anything.
Posted by Loc Hey, 28/07/2009 7:32:34 PM
Perhaps they Peter Gray and Naomi Hodgson could be sued on the same grounds for polluting the atmosphere with CO2 and other emissions from their car exhausts and waste products from their homes?
Posted by Trugger, 29/07/2009 4:59:04 AM
Where is the money coming from to pay the legal vultures in this process? I bet it is not from Peter Grey and Naomi Hidgson.
Posted by Bob, 29/07/2009 6:22:56 AM
I wonder who will be the first to sue a wind development company, for using misleading information in regards to reducing emissions from coal? The Waubra windfarm in Vic was said to stop the emissions of 650,000 tons of greenhouse gas, but we find not one coal generator shut down! I get the feeling there are more untruths from the green industries than anyone else.
Posted by mick, 29/07/2009 7:50:40 AM
This legal activism is what we can expect from a society who has little appreciation for being accountable for themselves and their own habits. This is the Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs) over again. Benchmarks are set in consultation with environment groups and absolutely ignored. The environment movement would be far better putting their efforts toward positive initiatives!!
Posted by FM, 29/07/2009 8:04:10 AM
Agree with all of the above. A waste of the court's time even allowing a case such as this to get to first base (if it does). Given human beings breath out increased amounts of CO2 with every breath, maybe some of these environmentalists should do their part by holding their breath.
Posted by Alternative View, 29/07/2009 8:22:23 AM
In answer to Bob, above, according to their web-site, the EDO receives financial assistance from the Public Purpose Fund of the Law Society of New South Wales, the Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales, the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the New South Wales Government through its Environmental Trust. Also they get assistance from DLA Phillips Fox and Environment and Planning Law Assoc NSW. Government funding a case against government!
Posted by Meg Parkinson, 29/07/2009 10:47:33 AM
For those of you still with their heads in the sand over the science of anthropogenic climate change, I suggest you watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boj9ccV9htk&feature=channel
Posted by Skeptic, 29/07/2009 11:22:10 AM
I believe there is a process in law and contrary to the hysterical indivduals on this blog I believe the law will exercise prudent judgement that reflects the values and laws of our country and the case will be dismissed. It is sad when a politically motivated group funded by the government is suing another arm of government over something the government is trying to fix. Loc Hey - seriously with that comment - if you're not going to even try anymore just stay out of it.
Posted by the lorax, 29/07/2009 3:08:29 PM
1 | 2  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
27 July, 2009
POLL
Q: Has the Federal Government got the balance right between water buybacks and investment in more efficient irrigation infrastructure in the Murray Darling?

Yes
(3.8%)

No - there should be more investment in infrastructure
(73.8%)

No - there should be more emphasis on water buybacks
(13.7%)

Undecided
(8.7%)

Total Votes: 416
Poll Date: 26 July, 2009
SPECIAL FEATURES

Most popular articles

Advertisement



Queensland Country Life







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...