GHG emissions from the Project will contribute to climate change, with 98% of these emissions occurring in overseas jurisdictions where the product coal is consumed.

the Commission has imposed conditions intended to limit coal exports to jurisdictions that have policies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement.

The Project’s domestic emissions have also been conditioned, including requirements for minimisation and offsets

So it’s an extension on an existing mine that is only allowed to sell to consumers that have agreed to reduce emissions? And the emissions that Australia will be responsible for is 2% of the project?

With renewables becoming a no brainer outside of steel production I’m surprised that they bothered applying. As long as they also pay their fair share of taxes and are paying their workers appropriately, this feels more like a Good luck kind of thing rather than betrayal per se.

https://www.ipcn.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2026-09/Statement of Reasons for Decision HVO Continued Operations Project (SSD 11826681 %26 SSD 11826621).pdf.pdf