Double-speak on Coal
The Turnbull government’s support for the
coal industry relies on twisted logic.
As world leaders gathered in Paris for the long-anticipated
climate change talks, the Australian government appeared
frozen into embarrassing inaction by the deal done to secure the
prime ministership for Malcolm Turnbull.
To reassure the nervous members of the lunar right, who
conspired to remove Turnbull from the leadership in 2009
because he supported action on climate change, it seems clear
that Turnbull agreed to stick to the Abbott government’s
discredited “direct action” approach.
He and his ministers have also continued to support expan-
sion of the export coal industry, using a twisted logic that Tony
Abbott himself would have been proud of. As Richard Denniss
of the Australia Institute has pointed out, Turnbull defended
the export coal industry with two arguments that cannot possibly
both be true. He said that it would not reduce greenhouse gas
emissions if Australia did not export coal, as other producers
would fill the gap. He also said that Australia’s coal was lifting
some of the poorest people in the world out of “energy poverty”.
As Denniss said, if our coal is helping those without electricity
by adding extra energy, it is therefore increasing greenhouse
gas emissions. If it is not adding to the climate change problem,
then it is not providing extra energy and alleviating “energy
poverty”.
It is now clear that the government’s approach is not just
out of step with the electorate; it is even out of step with its
own supporters. An Essential poll released in November asked
if world leaders need to be acting now on climate change. Of
the respondents, 49% said they should be acting now while a
further 11% said they should act within the next year, so 60%
support a rapid and concerted response. Only 9% still think
there is no need for action. Not surprisingly, the level of support
for immediate action was higher among those who vote for the
Greens (83%) and the ALP (60%). But even among Coalition
voters, 36% support action now and a further 13% within a
year, giving almost exactly half supporting a response within
the term of this parliament. Only 15% of Coalition voters
support inaction.
A similar picture emerged from a question about coal mines.
Asked whether they support or oppose a ban on new coal mines
and expansion of existing mines, 47% supported a ban with
only 25% opposed. Again, Green voters and ALP supporters
were much more likely to favour a ban (80% and 60%, respec-
tively), although there are intriguing
variations. Even among Green voters,
11% oppose a ban and 9% don’t
know!
The most interesting figures,
however, were those for Coalition
voters. Of Turnbull’s hard-core
supporters, 36% favour a ban on new
coal mines or expanding existing
mines, with 33% opposed and 31%
uncertain.
When even his party’s dedicated
voters want to see the coal industry’s
expansion plans halted and a
concerted response to climate change,
Turnbull really has a problem.T
he Australian government has announced a short list of six
possible sites for the long-promised national radioactive
waste storage site. The media release understandably concen-
trated on the plan to store low-level waste, most of which is
relatively benign, with only one brief reference to the possi-
bility that it will also handle intermediate level waste that will
be returned from France (see LoweTech, December 2015).
While the sites being considered are all well away from major
settlements, I have not seen any evidence that relevant traditional
owners have been consulted and have expressed their support for
the proposals. The hostility of traditional owners has been a funda-
mental obstacle to previous attempts to resolve this problem.
The basic idea of a centralised site is that the extra security
of the waste justifies the risks of transporting it from the 100
or so places where it now rests. That seems superficially reason-
able, but I still have not seen convincing – or even unconvincing- risk calculations to substantiate this plan.
I look forward to an era where policy is based on evidence
rather than intuition.
Ian Lowe is Emeritus Professor of science, technology and society at Griffith University.
JAN/FEB 2016| | 49LOWE TECH Ian Lowe
Peabody Energy, Inc.