Steve Saunders' 16 October 2026 Macrobusiness essay "High Court goes troppo for net-zero" argues that the High Court of Australia's recent decision on the Mount Pleasant coal-mine extension in New South Wales will strengthen Labor–Green determination to pursue net-zero policies, despite what the author sees as their limited practical sense and high domestic costs.
The case concerned MACH Energy's proposal to extend the life of the Mount Pleasant mine and increase coal output. Scope 3 emissions, those generated when the exported coal is burned, mainly overseas, accounted for about 98 percent of the project's total greenhouse-gas emissions. The High Court (in a 3–2 split) held that the NSW Planning Commission had failed to give proper consideration to whether conditions should be imposed to minimise those emissions, as required under the relevant NSW State Environmental Planning Policy. All five judges accepted the underlying NSW climate-law premises; the disagreement was over whether the Commission had done enough. The majority's approach treated climate impacts as relevant "without geographic limit." Possible conditions floated in analysis of the judgment include washing coal before export, restricting sales to countries with emissions targets, requiring carbon-capture technology, or imposing offsets, measures the author regards as largely unrealistic and of little material effect on the bulk of the emissions.
The essay notes that this is the first High Court climate-change decision of its kind and will be treated as influential by activists seeking to challenge other coal or gas projects in NSW and potentially elsewhere.
Saunders contends that the global "carbon accounting / carbon neutrality / net-zero" framework (post-Paris Agreement) has not altered the basic energy reality: hydrocarbons still supply the large majority of final energy consumption worldwide, while absolute emissions, CO₂ concentrations and consumption continue to rise. Australian emissions trajectories look better only if land-use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) credits are included; without them, little progress is evident. He argues the UN approach effectively assigns historical responsibility and "loss and damage" costs to industrialised countries while placing few constraints on population growth or emissions trajectories in China, India and parts of Africa. Australian policy, in his view, compounds this by combining ambitious net-zero legislation and renewable targets with high net migration (the Intergenerational Report's 235,000 annual assumption is cited) and optimistic claims about bill reductions and AI-driven growth. The German experience of betting heavily on renewables for system reliability is presented as a cautionary precedent. AI data-centre demand, both in Australia and globally, is described as further undermining the feasibility of the targets.
The decision is expected to embolden further use of Scope 3 arguments against fossil-fuel projects and to reinforce existing federal net-zero machinery (including the Net Zero Economy Authority). Labor and the Greens are portrayed as prioritising the international climate project and "climate guilt" over domestic energy reliability, cost-of-living and voter preferences. The essay notes rising support for One Nation and shifts in Coalition positioning on both migration and net-zero as partial electoral responses. It concludes that the combination of high immigration-driven growth assumptions and net-zero puritanism leaves Australians worse off without materially improving outcomes in developing countries, while the United States and China continue expansion on fossil-heavy (gas- or coal-fired) bases.
In short, the piece treats the High Court's insistence on considering overseas combustion emissions as a judicial outcome that, given existing state and federal climate statutes, will give additional momentum to policies that are economically and scientifically flawed, and harm Australia.
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2026/10/high-court-goes-troppo-for-net-zero/