Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Analysis
  • Published:

Science sidelined in approval of Australia’s largest coal mine

Nature Sustainability volume 3, pages 644–649 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

State and federal governments in Australia recently approved water management plans for one of the largest coal mines ever proposed. This comes as the role of coal in the world’s future energy mix is being seriously questioned, and global concern over the climate and water implications of further fossil fuel development. Despite repeated advice from multiple independent scientists, governments did not compel the mining company to conduct the investigations required to determine its risks to important nearby groundwater-dependent ecosystems, leaving open the prospect of irreversible ecological and cultural damage. Here we show how scientific advice provided to decision makers was repeatedly ignored or dismissed, while scientists and agencies were subjected to political pressure. We argue that this echoes other examples of scientific evidence being ignored where findings clash with political or economic objectives, and warrants urgent review of decision-making processes for developments with major environmental consequences.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Map of the proposed Carmichael coal mine and nearby Doongmabulla Spring Complex.
Fig. 2: Timeline of the approval process of the Carmichael coal mine.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Figure 1 was created using openly available data, which is accessible from https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.11626296.v1. Further details on the documents used to produce Fig. 2 can be found in Supplementary Table 1. Three articles from ABC News (Australia) are cited here. To ensure that materials are permanently available, these articles are available at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.11845593.v1, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.11845590.v1 and https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.11845587.v1.

References

  1. GHD & Adani Mining Carmichael Coal Mine and Rail Project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (Queensland Government, 2013); https://go.nature.com/2x6fFsi

  2. Slattery, C. Canary in the coal mine: why the approval conditions for the Carmichael Mine reveal the need to amend the EPBC Act to incorporate adaptive management principles. Environ. Plan. Law J. 33, 421–442 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Jolley, C. & Rickards, L. Contesting coal and climate change using scale: emergent topologies in the Adani mine controversy. Geogr. Res. 58, 6–23 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Currell, M. J., Werner, A. D., McGrath, C., Webb, J. A. & Berkman, M. Problems with the application of hydrogeological science to regulation of Australian mining projects: Carmichael mine and Doongmabulla springs. J. Hydrol. 548, 674–682 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Carmichael Coal Mine—Advice on Groundwater Management and Monitoring and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem Management plans to the Department of the Environment and Energy (CSIRO & Geoscience Australia, 2019); https://go.nature.com/2xRMIk7

  6. Carmichael Coal Mine—Advice on Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem Management Plan v11b to the Queensland Department of Environment and Science (CSIRO & Geoscience Australia, 2019); https://go.nature.com/3eJTadE

  7. Werner, A. D. et al. Position Paper by Concerned Scientists: Deficiencies in the Scientific Assessment of the Carmichael Mine Impacts to the Doongmabulla Springs (Flinders Univ., 2019); https://doi.org/10.25957/5cf4adbc6f43c

  8. Walker, B. Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission Report (Government of South Australia, 2019).

  9. Grafton, R. Q. & Williams, J. Rent-seeking behavior and regulatory capture in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 36, 484–504 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Adashi, E. Y., Rajan, R. S. & Cohen, I. G. When science and politics collide: enhancing the FDA. Science 364, 628–631 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Goldman, G. T. & Dominici, F. Don’t abandon evidence and process on air pollution policy. Science 363, 1398–1400 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Slezak, M. Adani water plan ticked off within hours despite lack of detail, internal CSIRO emails reveal. ABC Online (14 May 2019); https://go.nature.com/2XY4Xiz

  13. Hogl, K., Kvarda, E., Nordbeck, R. & Pregernig, M. in Environmental Governance: The Challenge of Legitimacy and Effectiveness (eds Hogl, K.et al.) (Edward Elgar, 2012).

  14. Grafton, Q. R., Colloff, M. J., Marshall, V. & Williams, J. Confronting a ‘post-truth water world’ in the Murray-Darling basin, Australia. Water Altern. 13, 1–28 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Land Court of Queensland Adani Mining Pty Ltd v Land Services of Coast and Country Inc & Ors [2015] QLC 48 (CAC MacDonald, 2015).

  16. Fensham, R. J., Silcock, J. L., Laffineur, B. & MacDermott, H. J. Lake Eyre Basin Springs Assessment Project: Hydrogeology, Cultural History and Biological Values of Springs in the Barcaldine, Springvale and Flinders River Supergroups, Galilee Basin Springs and Tertiary Springs of Western Queensland (Office of Water Science, Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation, 2016).

  17. Submission to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Wangan and Jagalingou Family Council, 2015); https://go.nature.com/2RZ6bpK

  18. Taylor, K. S., Moggridge, B. J. & Poelina, A. Australian Indigenous water policy and the impacts of the ever-changing political cycle. Australas. J. Water Res. 20, 132–147 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Statement from Adani Mining (Adani Mining, 2019); https://go.nature.com/3cHqmR2

  20. Elliot, M. Environmental Impact Assessment in Australia. Theory and Practice 6th edn (The Federation Press, 2014).

  21. McGrath, C. Synopsis of the Queensland Environmental Legal System 7th edn (Environmental Law Australia, 2020).

  22. Advice to Decision Maker on Coal Mining Project. Carmichael Coal Mine and Rail Project, Queensland (EPBC 2010/5736) (IESC, 2013).

  23. Carmichael Coal Project Groundwater Flow Model Independent Review (Re: Approval Conditions 22 & 23) (Hydrogeologic, 2014); https://go.nature.com/2VuhwQQ

  24. Approval: Carmichael Coal Mine and Rail Infrastructure Project, Queensland (EPBC/5736) (Department of the Environment, 2015).

  25. Lewis, S. et al. Impact and Risk Analysis for the Galilee Subregion. Product 3-4 for the Galilee Subregion from the Lake Eyre Basin Bioregional Assessment (Department of the Environment and Energy, Bureau of Meteorology, CSIRO and Geoscience Australia, 2018).

  26. Evans, T. et al. Assessing Impacts of Coal Resource Development on Water Resources of the Galilee Subregion: Key Findings. Product 5: Outcome Synthesis from the Lake Eyre Basin Bioregional Assessment (Department of the Environment and Energy, Bureau of Meteorology, CSIRO and Geoscience Australia, 2018).

  27. Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem Management Plan: Carmichael Coal Mine Project (Ecological Australia, 2019).

  28. Groundwater Management and Monitoring Program: Carmichael Coal Project (AECOM Services, 2019).

  29. Long, S. & Slezak, M. Inside Melissa Price’s decision to approve Adani’s groundwater plan. ABC Online (11 April 2019); https://go.nature.com/3au1c6T

  30. Bavas, J. Adani delays lead Annastacia Palaszczuk to ask Coordinator-General to intervene. ABC Online (22 May 2019); https://go.nature.com/2VtpeL4

  31. Carmichael Project - Key Outstanding Approvals Needed, Target Dates & Milestones Reached (State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning, 2019); https://go.nature.com/2xRLvJD

  32. GDEMP Approved (Department of Environment and Science, 2019); https://go.nature.com/2S0bHbW

  33. Cashmore, M. The role of science in environmental impact assessment: process and procedure versus purpose in the development of theory. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 24, 403–426 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hickey, G. M., Forest, P., Sandall, J. L., Lalor, B. M. & Keenan, R. J. Managing the environmental science-policy nexus in government: perspectives from public servants in Canada and Australia. Sci. Public Pol. 40, 529–543 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. De Fine Licht, J., Naurin, D., Esaiasson, P. & Gilljam, M. When does transparency generate legitimacy? Experimenting on a context-bound relationship. Governance 27, 111–134 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kirchner, J. W. Science, politics and rationality in a partisan era. Water Resour. 53, 3545–3549 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index 2019 https://go.nature.com/2VwOu3i (2020).

  38. Alexandra, J. Losing the authority—what institutional architecture for cooperative governance in the Murray-Darling Basin? Austral. J. Water Resour. 23, 99–115 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Investigation of the causes of mass fish kills in the Menindee region of NSW over the summer of 2018–19 (Australian Academy of Science, 2019).

  40. Nelson, R. Water data and the legitimacy deficit: a regulatory review and nationwide survey or challenges considering cumulative environmental effects of coal and coal seam gas developments. Austral J. Water Resour. 23, 24–34 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Blueprint for the Next Generation of Australian Environmental Law (Australian Panel of Experts on Environmental Law, 2017); https://go.nature.com/2VtTTIm

  42. Marshall, V. Overturning Aqua Nullius (Aboriginal Studies Press, 2017).

  43. Halpern, M. Bipartisan outrage as EPA, White House try to cover up chemical health assessment. Union of Concerned Scientists https://go.nature.com/34WuVEA (16 May 2018).

  44. Hiar, C. In battle over pesticide ban, Trump’s EPA aims to undermine the science. Science https://go.nature.com/3byK5lZ (23 August 2018).

  45. Lamberts, R. The Australian Beliefs and Attitudes Towards Science Survey (The Australian Natl Univ., 2017).

  46. Nisbet, E. C., Cooper, K. E. & Garrett, K. The partisan brain: how dissonant science messages lead conservatives and liberals to (dis)trust science. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci. 658, 36–65 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Trust in government, policy effectiveness and the governance agenda. In Government at a Glance, 2013 (OECD, 2013).

  48. Evans, M., Stoker, G. & Halupka, M. Australians’ trust in politicians and democracy hits an all-time low: new research. The Conversation (5 December 2018); https://go.nature.com/2x6YCX6

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    M. J. Currell

  2. College of Science and Engineering and National Centre for Groundwater Research and Training, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

    D. J. Irvine & A. D. Werner

  3. School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia

    C. McGrath

Authors
  1. M. J. Currell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. J. Irvine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. D. Werner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C. McGrath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

M.J.C., D.J.I., A.D.W. and C.M. were involved in conceptualisation, writing, reviewing and editing. In addition, A.D.W. initiated the project, M.J.C. wrote the original draft and D.J.I. created data visualizations and coordinated the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. J. Irvine.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

C.M. acted as a lawyer in court cases against Adani Mining. A.D.W. acted as an expert witness in the 2014–2015 Queensland Land Court case.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Table 1 and minor introductory text.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Currell, M.J., Irvine, D.J., Werner, A.D. et al. Science sidelined in approval of Australia’s largest coal mine. Nat Sustain 3, 644–649 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0527-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0527-4

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Anthropocene