Environment minister improperly rejected advice from an expert committee recommending that large-scale coal mining proposal in a forest area not proceed. Although the committee’s advice is not binding on the Minister, it nevertheless cannot be ignored without credible scientific basis.
Upholding Land and Environment Court decision declaring that an open-cut coal mine should not be allowed to expand because the economic benefits of continued mining do not outweigh the impacts to nearby residents and loss of biodiversity.
Decision by Secretary of the Interior to withdraw large parcels of land near Grand Canyon National Park to entry for uranium exploration and mining projects was not arbitrary or an abuse of discretion. Court approved the agency’s “cautious and careful approach” because of the risk of severe groundwater contamination from mining activities and threats to sacred and traditional places of tribal people.
The government of Colombia has a constitutional duty to protect high elevation wetlands that are an important source of fresh water to communities and provide other valuable environmental services.
Zambian community members are permitted to pursue claims in English court against a UK mining company and its Zambian subsidiary for environmental harm arising out of copper mining operations in Zambia.
A U.S. court blocked the proposed expansion of an underground coal mine because the environmental assessment (EA) lacked sufficient analysis of the indirect and cumulative impacts of coal transportation and coal combustion. The EA also improperly emphasized the benefits of additional coal mining to the local economy while ignoring the costs of anticipated greenhouse gas emissions from burning the coal.
