If we don't mine coal, someone else will: debunking the market substitution assumption in Queensland climate change litigation

The market substitution assumption (MSA) has been widely used in both courts and policy circles as a justification for approving a coal mine. The MSA is the assertion that, if a particular mine is rejected, another mine will be developed elsewhere in its stead – therefore approving the mine has no consequences for the environment. In this article, we systematically address and analyse the problems with the MSA, using climate change litigation in Queensland as a case example. These problems include the economic theory on which it is based, the role of changing market conditions, the uncertainty associated with it and the resulting implications for the standard of proof and precautionary principle, and finally its moral and ethical issues. We conclude that there are ample grounds upon which courts can reject the MSA