Twelve years ago, in New South Wales, a landmark court case over a new coalmine called Anvil Hill found that downstream emissions – or “scope 3” – are relevant to the assessment of a mine’s environmental impact.

So, when a state planning policy for mining was created six months later, these emissions were explicitly included in the matters to be considered when weighing up new coalmines.

This court case and that planning policy were instrumental in the inclusion of climate change and downstream emissions among the reasons given by the chief justice of the land and environment court, Brian Preston, in February when he upheld the NSW government’s refusal of the Rocky Hill coalmine next to Gloucester, north of the Hunter Valley.

Don't blame Australia for coal burned offshore – blame us for burning it here | Pat Conroy Read more

Many other less successful attempts have been made to include climate change in the decision-making process for new coalmines.

But the Rocky Hill judgment marks a turning point, which is why the NSW Minerals Council and its members have been lobbying the NSW government to neuter its legal force by changing NSW’s mining planning policy to remove scope 3 emissions.

As part of the argy-bargy there has been plenty of obfuscation from many parties, including a number of federal politicians, suggesting that considering scope 3 emissions somehow completely undermines the system of global accounting of climate emissions.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The Rocky Hill judgment did not suggest that countries should start accounting for their downstream emissions. Instead, it concluded that the impacts of downstream emissions are a relevant consideration when making decisions on whether or not to approve coalmining proposals.

So, the accounting rules for the UN framework convention on climate change, under which Australia only has to account for scope 1 and 2 emissions, remain undisturbed.

This is because Australia cannot control the actions of other countries, and because counting emissions is complicated and must be rigorous and consistent. The parties to the treaty need to be able to understand and have confidence in their global progress towards the treaty’s goal of preventing dangerous interference with the climate.

The Rocky Hill mine decision and the longstanding policy to properly consider scope 3 emissions as part of the environmental impacts of a mine, are an entirely separate matter which do not interfere in any way with global climate accounts.

The scare campaign from the mining industry has even less merit the more closely you look at the Rocky Hill judgment. The chief justice made it clear that the primary reason for refusal of the proposed coalmine was its unacceptable social impacts. He found those impacts alone warranted refusal of the project and the greenhouse gas emissions, including downstream emissions, was a “further reason for refusal”.

No wonder the mining industry isn’t keen to look into this too closely. It’s a reminder that the direct impacts, right here, of coalmining are often severe and harmful.

Take for example the proposed Bylong coalmine – a greenfield mine on some of the best farmland in NSW; the first coalmine in a magnificent heritage valley. The direct impacts of that mine on NSW are severe and unacceptable – and the 197m tonnes of downstream carbon emissions that it will produce add a solid “further reason for refusal”.

The most disappointing thing about the games being played by the mining lobby is that the longer they prevent consideration of the global context, the more difficult it will be for our regional communities to prepare for the global changes that are under way.

We won’t be prepared for downturns in thermal coal exports as our customers shift to renewable energy; we won’t be prepared to adapt to the practical realities of living in a rapidly warming world.

At 2C of warming, Australians can expect significant water shortages, reduced agricultural production, more frequent heatwaves, and more security challenges from tens of millions of people in our region of the globe threatened by coastal flooding.

Korean company planning Bylong Valley mine dismisses climate threat Read more

Farmers in our movement right across Australia are already living with the reality of a changing climate – and it is daunting. They are faced with having to reassess how they farm and how they live. The personal impacts are real and far-reaching.

We can’t let the mining lobby turn us around again, pitching us back into a world that pretends these changes are not happening. There’s too much at stake.

There’s a sharp divide between the hysteria being whipped up by mining giants about the very modest policy consequences of the Rocky Hill decision and the extraordinary stoicism with which regional communities are facing up to severe drought and extreme weather.

It’s time to move past confected outrage and focus on the big job of supporting regional communities to diversify their economies and map out the new jobs and opportunities that are available, if we get on and start preparing for them now.

• Georgina Woods is Lock the Gate Alliance’s NSW coordinator