On Monday morning, Australia’s environment ministry cleared a controversial $15.5 billion coal mining project proposed by Adani Mining. Some of the coal mined there will be exported to India to fire our thermal power plants; an expensive way to generate electricity when we have vast untapped coal reserves here.

What stands out in the way Australia dealt with Adani’s proposal is the transparency in the decision making process and adherence to a self-imposed deadline to take a final decision. Adani’s Carmichael coal and rail project in Queensland, Australia, could eventually be the country’s largest mine with 60 million tons of coal extracted annually. One similarity with India: this proposal too has been controversial as it was opposed by environmentalists, including Greenpeace.

Environmental opposition to mining projects is not new or unique to India. All over the world there will be disagreements over the extent of trade-off that should be allowed between any project with economic returns and the impact it will have on the environment.

But then comes the difference with India. Details of Adani’s proposal and conclusions of experts on it were placed on the Australian government’s website. Subsequently the Australian environment minister, Greg Hunt, promised to adhere to a deadline and actually delivered his verdict ahead of it.

We have not heard the last of this issue. Environment groups will continue to protest the decision. However, what is important is that there was a fair bit of transparency in the way a decision was taken and the government process worked to meet a deadline. The absence of a deadline to any process just adds to uncertainty that accompanies any large project.

From an Indian standpoint, there is something to be learnt in the way Australian government approached the issue. Also, the Adani proposal begs questions of us. What is the additional cost that we pay by being unable to mine coal at home?