The Australian Minister for the Environment has a duty to take reasonable care, in the exercise of her powers to approve or reject a proposed coal mining project, to avoid causing personal injury or death to Australian children arising from emissions of carbon dioxide into the Earth’s atmosphere.
The National Green Tribunal ordered coal mining and energy companies to implement a series of measures to reduce environmental pollution and health impacts associated with their facilities operating in the Tamnar and Charghoda coal blocks in the state of Chhattisgarh. The Tribunal declared that no expansion of mining or industrial activities in the area could be approved until a thorough environmental carrying capacity study is completed.
The High Court of Kenya remanded the environmental license issued for a port project for reconsideration and directed the project proponent to pay Kshs. 1.7 billion in compensation to affected fishing communities who will be impacted by the project. During the reconsideration process, decisionmakers must evaluate the external costs of the port project on the environment and local communities.
An environmental organization has constitutional right to intervene in public utility proceeding concerning a power purchase agreement. The right to a clean and healthful environment guaranteed by the Hawaiian constitution is a property right that is protected by due process and the utility commission must consider impacts to that right in determining whether to approve a power purchase agreement.
In the context of reviewing a planning decision allowing expansion of Dublin’s airport, the High Court of Ireland declared that Ireland’s constitution protects the personal right to an environment that is consistent with the human dignity and well-being of citizens at large.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario set aside an order directing Ecuadorian plaintiffs to provide substantial security for costs on appeal, recognizing “the unique factual circumstances of this case compel the conclusion that the interests of justice require that no order for security for costs be made.”
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.
A utility company violated the Clean Water Act when it disposed of coal ash into unlined ponds, which leaked contaminants via groundwater to an adjacent river. The court directed the utility company to excavate the coal ash and move it to a dry lined disposal location.
A court summarily dismissed a defamation action brought against a community member who posted concerns on Facebook about potential contamination from a nearby gravel pit. The community member’s statements were valid expressions related to a matter of public interest.
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.
The National Green Tribunal fined a pulp and paper mill for discharging pollution into a tributary of the Gola River. Although there are other facilities that contribute to the pollution problem, the pulp and paper mill was still held liable.