13 Further, the provisions of s 33B(2) as a whole indicate very strongly that intellectual, philosophical or emotional concerns about the protection of the environment cannot constitute "interests" for the purposes of s 33B(2)(a). In my view, Parliament has made exhaustive provision in paragraph (b) of s 33B(2) as to the grounds able to be relied upon by a party with no personal stake in the outcome. Such a party[15] is entitled to assert, and to seek to satisfy VCAT, that the use of the approved works will result in one or more of the circumstances specified in s 33B(2)(b). Those circumstances are defined in part by reference to inconsistency with any relevant Order declared under sections 16, 16A or 17A for the area, or, if no relevant orders have been declared under any of those sections for that area, by reference to the causing of "pollution" or an "environmental hazard". Orders under sections 16, 16A and 17A declare "State environment protection policies" (as defined) "waste management policies" (as defined), and "national environment protection measures" (as defined), respectively. "Pollution"[16] and "environmental hazard" are also defined terms. Objectively ascertainable standards of environment protection are thereby set. In my view, Parliament did not intend that those standards could be replaced or raised or otherwise modified by the environmental standards of any person or entity who or which might choose to become an applicant for review. But that very thing would be the effect of accepting Coast Watch's submissions on this aspect of the case. Counsel for Coast Watch acknowledged as much. In relation to an environmental organisation such as her client, she did not shrink from submitting that VCAT's task would be to assess the level of risk to the environment that the proposed development involved, taking into account the "interests" of the organisation, which in turn might be set at a higher or stricter standard than the laws of the State of Victoria.[17] The objectives of the organisation would, she submitted, be at least a relevant consideration in determining whether the proposed development posed an unreasonable risk. I note from Coast Watch's mission statement that it has a "vision" that includes "To stop the Sewage Sludge Factory that is to [be] built at Black Rock". If counsel's submissions were correct, that aspect of Coast Watch's "vision" would be a relevant consideration in determining whether the use of the proposed works will "unreasonably and adversely affect [its] interests", regardless of whether the use of the works in accordance with the relevant approval would comply with the standards set by the laws of Victoria. In my opinion, that simply cannot be right. It is no answer to say, as counsel sought to do, that the problem can be avoided by focussing on whether the (adverse) effect on the applicant's interests would be unreasonable. The basic parameters (or, in the vernacular, the "goal posts") would have shifted. They would have moved away from the standards set by the laws of the State, in favour of the idiosyncratic standards set by the individual or corporate body who or which happens to be applying for review of the decision.