{"query_echo":{"q":"","filters":{"climate_tags":["climate change impact"]},"warnings":[{"code":"facet_value_not_in_vocabulary","message":"Value 'climate change impact' for facet 'climate_tags' is not in the controlled vocabulary."}]},"total":{"value":1,"relation":"eq"},"page":1,"page_size":20,"self":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/api/v1/search?climate_tags=climate+change+impact","stability":"beta","ai_marking":{"digital_source_type":{"uri":"http://cv.iptc.org/newscodes/digitalsourcetype/trainedAlgorithmicMedia","name":"Created using Generative AI"},"notice":"Summary and key insights are generated using artificial intelligence."},"results":[{"id":"cer-000030","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/cer-000030","title":"Gloucester Resources Limited v Minister of Planning","publisher":{"name":"Centre for Environmental Rights","organization":"centre-for-environmental-rights"},"document_type":"case study","language":"en","date_published":"2019-02-08","source_url":"https://cer.org.za/virtual-library/judgments/foreign-and-international-courts/gloucester-resources-limited-v-minister-of-planning","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","climate_tags","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"The New South Wales Court of Appeal upheld the Minister of Planning's decision to refuse the Rocky Hill Coal Project proposed by Gloucester Resources Limited, citing significant negative impacts on land use, society, and the climate.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-000030#summary","date_modified":"2026-08-17"},"key_insights":[{"text":"The New South Wales Court of Appeal affirmed the refusal of the Rocky Hill Coal Project based on its incompatibility with land uses, visual impact, and social and cultural impacts, as well as its contribution to climate change.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-000030#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-08-17"},{"text":"The court determined that decision-makers must account for both direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from mining operations and indirect emissions resulting from the transportation and combustion of the coal.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-000030#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-08-17"},{"text":"The Court dismissed Gloucester Resources Limited's arguments regarding carbon storage, 'carbon leakage', 'market substitution', and the necessity of coking coal for smelting, while finding that the project's projected economic benefits were overstated and uncertain.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-000030#insight-3","date_modified":"2026-08-17"},{"text":"The Court concluded that the project was inappropriate for its location and timing, stating that the GHG emissions from the mine and its product would increase global concentrations at a time when rapid decreases are required to meet climate targets.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cer-000030#insight-4","date_modified":"2026-08-17"}],"climate_tags":["greenhouse gas emissions","coal mining","climate change impact","climate targets"],"geography_discussed":[],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["legal judgment"]}]}