Coal gas seams good...until you measure the methane

The [Mineral Resources Rent Tax](http://theconversation.edu.au/pages/mining-tax) passed through the House of Representatives a few days ago, but not without negotiations with the Greens and independent MPs. Perhaps the most significant outcome of negotiations was the announcement of an [Independent Expert Scientific Committee](http://www.pm.gov.au/press-office/new-focus-scientific-evidence-build-confidence-coal-seam-gas-and-coal-mining) to advise state and federal governments about the impacts of large coal and coal seam gas (CSG) projects. The decision is a very welcome one. Until now, government approvals for CSG projects have been granted on the basis of environmental impact statements (EISs) generated by proponents of the development they are assessing. As a result, and given the large tax revenues forthcoming from the projects, such assessments are hardly likely to have been free of bias. The problem of bias in the assessment and approvals process is inherent in all resource developments, not just coal seam gas (CSG) and large coal projects. While there will now be greater scrutiny of new projects, the horse has bolted in Queensland, where four large projects — to mine gas in the hinterland and ship liquified natural gas (LNG) [out of Gladstone](http://theconversation.edu.au/what-is-gladstones-lng-development-really-doing-to-the-environment-3885) — have already received state and commonwealth approvals. With these Queensland CSG projects already going ahead, more accurate assessment of their greenhouse gas emissions by the Australian and state governments is a high priority. The environmental impacts of our big mining and gas projects go to the very core of national and international efforts to tackle climate change