in

Science sidelined in approval of Australia’s largest coal mine

  • 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).

  • 11.

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

  • 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


  • Source: Resources - nature.com

    Kerry Emanuel, David Sabatini, and Peter Shor receive BBVA Frontiers of Knowledge awards

    3 Questions: Harnessing wave power to rebuild islands