There are three broad positions that one can take on the Adani coal mine – each implies a different view on how the permitting process should work (or not work).
For all those either supportive of the mine through to those mildly opposed (for whatever reason) the logical view on the permitting process is one of respecting due process. Australia, like most countries, has a formal and relatively robust environmental permitting process that allows a proposed development to be assessed in terms of its likely impact across a range of different environmental criteria. A view broadly in line with the Liberal/National position would be that a fair but robust overview should decide the fate of the Adani proposal. Queensland Nationals would be more focussed on the “fair” and inner city Liberals more on the “robust” but in general both see that there is a process and this should be followed.
The Greens, one the other hand, represent the view of those who are totally opposed to the project on the basis that new thermal coal mines (especially if they open up the Galilee basin) can not be allowed to occur and any and all mechanisms available should be used to achieve this goal. While this hopefully excludes the illegal it does include permitting obfuscation and delay. The preferred outcome, however, would be for a legislative solution that simply bans Adani potentially along with other new thermal coal mines. A legislative ban based on commodity, technology or location is an established mechanism to define what developments are allowed and which aren’t, uranium mining and onshore gas extraction are, for example, both banned in Victoria.
The third position, which many within the ALP adopted, stops short of a retrospective ban while actively hoping the permitting process delivers the “right” outcome so that the mine does not proceed. This unfortunately evolves almost inevitably into a cynical need to distort the permitting process. The cynicism comes when the permitting process is fudged, extended and delayed in an attempt to either find a technicality on which to deny the permit or force the project sponsors to surrender as costs pile up. While the Greens favour an outright ban they are certainly not opposed to the ALP preferred process that Adani supporters neatly refer to as shifting the permitting goalposts.
Adani was always going to be a tough issue for the ALP which got tougher as the permitting dragged on without the company folding. Would an earlier and clearer opposition have helped? It would almost certainly have cost them state government in Queensland. Could a message that called for a fair, robust and timely permit process while acknowledging that thermal coal is doomed been workable? Queensland miners hate the Greens but at least they know what they stand for. The ALP looked shifty because that was an accurate description.
So why does Adani matter? It matters in the same way that the Keystone Pipeline mattered in the US (1). Both are large fossil fuel projects that required an extensive list of permits and some degree of Federal approval. While each has a not insignificant carbon footprint (mostly based on the final consumption of the resource) the opposition was really based on a symbolic line in the sand drawn by environmental groups. Some will claim that this equates to a simple PR play while others will accept that the decarbonisation process will inevitably result in some accidental sacrificial lambs if CO2 emissions are to start trending down. For those persuaded by the latter, the election result shows that the Queensland coal miners are not lambs who will go quietly to the slaughter. This should be the lesson for the next Adani…and there sure will be another Adani.
