A new International Energy Agency report finds that methane emissions from Australian coalmines are more than double official government estimates.

This policy benefits the coal operators and the government officials who prefer comfortable statistics by a modest amount of professional ease and political stability. It harms the global population, and particularly the vulnerable communities most exposed to climate instability, by a significant and growing magnitude of physical suffering, economic disruption, and existential dread. The arithmetic is uncomfortable, but the arithmetic is the argument.

Let us count.

The International Energy Agency has provided us with a new datum: methane emissions from Australian coalmines are more than double the official government estimates. This is not merely a discrepancy in accounting; it is a failure of the legislative sensorium. The government, in its capacity as the steward of public welfare, has been operating with a blindfold. It has reported a pain level of one, when the actual pain level is two. In the felicific calculus, such an error is not trivial. It is a structural defect that distorts every subsequent calculation of right and wrong.

Consider the dimensions of this error. First, intensity. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas. Its capacity to trap heat is far greater than that of carbon dioxide over the short term. By under-reporting emissions, the government has effectively diluted the perceived intensity of the harm. The public, the markets, and the international community have been led to believe that the suffering caused by these mines is less severe than it truly is. This is a deception of magnitude.

Second, duration. Climate change is not a fleeting inconvenience; it is a long-term alteration of the conditions of human life. The under-reporting extends the duration of the problem by delaying the implementation of effective mitigation strategies. Every year that passes with inaccurate data is a year in which the aggregate suffering increases, unmeasured and unaddressed. The government’s silence is not neutral; it is an active contributor to the prolongation of harm.

Third, certainty. The IEA report provides a higher degree of certainty regarding the scale of the emissions. The previous estimates were uncertain, not because the data was lacking, but because it was suppressed or ignored. The new data reduces uncertainty, allowing for more precise policy responses. To ignore this data is to choose uncertainty over clarity, and in doing so, to choose suffering over relief.

Fourth, propinquity. The effects of climate change are already being felt. They are not distant abstractions. The heatwaves, the floods, the fires - these are present realities. The under-reporting of methane emissions has delayed the recognition of this propinquity. The government has treated the harm as if it were far away, when it is already here. This is a failure of temporal awareness.

Fifth, fecundity. The under-reporting has a fecund effect. It encourages further under-reporting. It creates a precedent for ignoring inconvenient data. It undermines the credibility of the government’s future climate commitments. The harm is not isolated; it multiplies.

Sixth, purity. The pleasure derived by the coal operators from continued production is impure. It is mixed with the pain of environmental degradation and the anxiety of those who fear the consequences. The government’s pleasure in maintaining political stability is also impure. It is mixed with the guilt of knowing the truth and the risk of future scandal.

Seventh, extent. The extent of the harm is global. Methane does not respect borders. The under-reporting in Australia affects the welfare of people in every corner of the world. The government’s failure to account for this extent is a failure of cosmopolitan responsibility.

The net welfare is negative. The status quo, in which the government continues to under-report emissions, produces more suffering than happiness. The reform is clear: the government must adopt the IEA’s estimates and adjust its policies accordingly. This means committing to more rapid emissions cuts. It means investing in technologies to capture and reduce methane. It means being honest with the public about the scale of the problem.

Some will object that this is too costly. They will argue that the economic benefits of coal outweigh the environmental costs. But this is a false calculation. It fails to account for the full cost of the harm. It treats the suffering of future generations as if it were less real than the profits of the present. It treats the lives of those most affected by climate change as if they were less valuable than the comfort of the wealthy. This is not utilitarianism; it is a perversion of it.

The rational legislator, aiming only at the greatest happiness, would not hesitate. He would recognize that the cost of inaction is far greater than the cost of action. He would see that the pleasure of continued coal production is fleeting, while the pain of climate change is enduring. He would choose the path that minimizes suffering and maximizes well-being.

The skeleton in the cabinet at University College London that even in death, we can serve a useful purpose. We can be a witness to the truth. We can be a symbol of the importance of accurate measurement. Let us not be like the government, which hides behind false numbers. Let us be like the IEA, which seeks to illuminate the reality. Let us count the pleasures and the pains, and let us choose the path that leads to the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

The reform implication is straightforward. The government must acknowledge the true scale of methane emissions. It must revise its climate targets to reflect this reality. It must implement policies that reduce emissions rapidly and effectively. It must be transparent in its reporting and accountable for its actions. Anything less is a betrayal of the public trust and a failure of the legislative duty.

The calculus is clear. The numbers do not lie. The suffering is real. The time for action is now.