Queensland’s coal expansion
Queensland is set to become a clear leader in greenhouse-gas emissions by massively increasing the state's coal exports. This follows Premier Anna Bligh's recent announcement of a possible 40 per cent increase in exports.
"The Queensland government sees a long-term future for coal, as long as we can ensure that it becomes a low-emissions technology," she said in Brisbane recently.
This is despite a recent Essential Research poll which found 82 per cent of Australians want coal exports capped or reduced. Yet Queensland plans to almost double its export coal capacity by 2030, resulting in greenhouse gas emissions, reportedly equivalent to 80 per cent of Australia's current national total.
Following the Federal Environment Minister Peter Garret's approval of the $1.3 billion Gladstone coal port expansion, in May this year the Federal Government promised $20 billion for infrastructure” most to be spent on increasing coal rail and port capacity.
Federal Resources and Energy Minister Martin Ferguson said the export revenue from coal is predicted to increase by around $20 billion to $43 billion in 2008/9. This increase is expected to greatly jeopardise the government's reduced emissions requirements.
Dr Chris Reidy, from the University of Technology Sydney, Institute for Sustainable Futures said responding to climate change was urgent and suggested the government should look at other cost-efficient alternatives.
Dr Reidy believes public subsidies for the production and consumption of fossil fuels discourage investments in energy efficiency improvement and the development of alternative, low-greenhouse energy supplies.
"There is lots of sunlight and wind that can be potentially developed and could rival the export of coal," he said.
University of the Sunshine Coast Research Coordinator of Science, Health and Education and Director for Regional Sustainability Research Group, Dr Tim Smith said Australia was not positioning its economy for the future.
"Focus on economical growth is unsustainable," he said.
Dr Smith said the question of how important coal is to the economy should be reversed and instead posed as: "What are the implications to the natural environment".
Despite other alternatives such as wind, solar and geothermal the Government is continuing to invest large amounts of money into the coal industry. Dr Reidy attributed this to the lobbying by Australia"s entrenched coal industry. "They can afford to pay people," he said.
Premier Bligh said expanding coal exports was an economical multiplier for both the region and the state, estimating that another 500 jobs would be created in the construction stage and a further 130 jobs at the terminal when fully operational. However Dr Reidy disagreed and said the same argument could be used for renewable energy.
"Equally a solar thermal power station would build jobs. There are more jobs in renewable energy," he said.
Dr Reidy said unfortunately there was not enough support in Australia for renewable energies, which is why people such as Australia's leading solar-power innovator David Mills, are heading overseas to places like California.
"Every time solar gets government support it is taken away," he said. Referring to the federal Government's introduction of solar rebate means test. Dr Smith said we should be aiming to transform society towards sustainability and conserving power, instead of promoting power industries.
"Australia has a potential market niche (solar and wind). But of course we are putting our heads in the sand," he said.
"We should explore new technologies but we are exporting technologies overseas rather then looking at it commercially.
"The whole focus is on centralised provisions centralised power feasibility of things is a flawed approach," he said.
Dr Smith, formally a senior research scientist with the Resource Futures Program of CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, is currently focused on a systems approach to regional climate change and adaptation strategies and new teaching programs to transform society towards sustainability.
Dr Smith said the questions that should be asked when it comes to coal include: "Does the (coal) subsidy result in significant social and environmental gains?"
"Are we representing democracy and our ability to represent these issues? He would like people to ask, "Why do we need extra power?" and "Why can't we conserve power?"
Related articles:
- And the winner is … clean coal
- Has the environment been sacrificed on the economic alter?
- Remove solar hot water from renewable energy target
- Omissions trading scheme
- A complex clock of acronyms
Leave a Response
Entries(RSS)