Matt Kean, the chair of Australia's Climate Change Authority and a former New South Wales treasurer and energy minister, has publicly challenged the state's approval of the largest coalmining development in New South Wales history, arguing that «climate change isn't someone else's problem.»
The project in question, the Hunter Valley Operations mine extension, has been given the green light to operate until 2045. Kean questioned why the state's Independent Planning Commission did not weigh the economic cost of climate change caused by burning the coal extracted from the mine before granting approval.
The intervention places a senior climate adviser to the Albanese government in direct tension with a state planning decision, raising questions about how the economic consequences of greenhouse gas emissions are factored into major resource approvals. Kean's central argument is that the commission's assessment failed to account for climate-related economic damage — a cost that would be borne not by the mine operator alone but by the broader public.
The Hunter Valley Operations mine is a significant development in Australia's coal sector, and its approval until 2045 locks in decades of continued fossil fuel extraction from one of the country's most productive coal regions. The decision has drawn scrutiny because of the scale of the project and the length of its operational horizon, which extends well beyond the timelines many countries have set for reducing emissions.
Kean's criticism focuses on the planning process itself rather than on the mine's technical merits. By asking why the Independent Planning Commission did not consider the economic cost of climate change, he highlights a gap between environmental and economic accounting in major infrastructure decisions. The burning of coal from the mine would produce emissions that contribute to global warming, and those emissions carry economic consequences — from extreme weather damage to health costs and agricultural losses — that are not typically included in the balance sheet of a mining approval.
The approval also raises broader questions about how state-level planning authorities assess projects with national and global climate implications. The Independent Planning Commission operates at the state level, but the emissions from a mine approved in New South Wales enter the global atmosphere, meaning the economic damage they cause is not confined to the state or even the country.
Kean, who previously served as New South Wales treasurer and energy minister, brings both fiscal and energy policy experience to his critique. His position as chair of the Climate Change Authority gives his comments institutional weight, even as the authority itself does not hold direct planning powers over state resource approvals.
The decision to approve the Hunter Valley Operations extension until 2045 means the project will continue producing coal for nearly two more decades. For critics, that timeline is incompatible with the emissions reductions needed to limit global warming. For supporters of the project, the approval likely represents economic investment and job preservation in a region long dependent on coal.
What remains unresolved is how the economic costs of climate change will be incorporated into future planning decisions. Kean's challenge suggests that the current framework allows major emissions-producing projects to proceed without a full accounting of their climate-related economic impact. Whether his intervention prompts a review of the approval process or remains a public criticism without procedural consequence is not yet clear.
The approval of the largest coal project in New South Wales history, combined with a senior climate adviser's public objection, illustrates the persistent friction between resource development and climate policy in Australia. The project will operate until 2045, and the debate over how its climate costs should have been weighed is likely to continue.
7
