nam 22 uu 4500 10.59704/0da8219ffd4dcc64 DE-Verfassungsblog cr||||| 261009s2026||||xx#|||||o|||| ||| 0|eng|| 10.59704/0da8219ffd4dcc64 doi eng 342 23 Hilson, Chris Author aut A New Frontier for Project-Based Climate Litigation - Scope 3 Accounting, Responsibility, and Control in the MACH Energy v Denman Decision Hilson, Chris Verfassungsblog 2026-10-09 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier On 7 October 2026, the High Court of Australia held, by three judges to two, that a New South Wales (NSW) planning authority must consider conditions to limit a coal mine’s scope 3 emissions. This meant the authority could not simply say they had considered those emissions, representing 98% of the project's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions – they had to show they had considered planning conditions that would minimise them. Although much of the Australian apex High Court ruling turns on the interpretation of very specific NSW statutory language, it nevertheless has important implications for climate litigation elsewhere in the world, including in Europe. CC BY-SA 4.0 Climate Crisis climate litigation GHG High Court of Australia Scope 3 Max Steinbeis Verfassungsblog gGmbH Verfassungsblog 2366-7044 https://verfassungsblog.de/scope-3-accounting-responsibility-and-control-in-the-mach-energy-v-denman-decision/ raw object