NSW EMISSIONS BILL 'RETROGRADE' AND 'PURE POLITICS'

ENVIRONMENTAL  DEFENDERS  OFFICE  NSW

Media Release

The New South Wales Government has introduced legislation to prevent the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from Australian coal burned overseas. The move came just days after the Government launched a review of the Independent Planning Commission, following a sustained advertising and lobbying campaign by the NSW Minerals Council.

25 October 2019: The Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Territorial Limits) Bill 2019 was introduced into Parliament on Thursday.

EDO CEO David Morris greeted Wednesday’s announcement of the legislative package as indicating “an unwillingness to grapple with the serious local impacts from Australian coal burned overseas.”

“A day after the Minerals Council gave evidence to ICAC that they were lobbying privately and publicly for changes to the law, the Government has capitulated, without regard for current or future generations.

“It doesn’t matter where Australian coal is burned, it’s Australian communities that are and will increasingly feel the brunt of a changing climate. The Government’s decision artificially carves out climate impacts from Australian coal on local communities – that is an absurd decision.

“In 2019, as the rest of the world rapidly phases out fossil fuels, we should be urgently planning for a just transition for coal and gas communities and a safe climate for our children. Instead, the NSW Government wants to make it law to ignore Australia’s most significant contribution to the problem - emissions from exports. It would appear that this Government’s only plan for addressing the climate crisis is to turn a blind eye.

“The most significant climate judgment in this nation’s history was based on scientific evidence. The Rocky Hill decision made it clear – emissions from Australian coal are not something that happen ‘over there’, they have a deep and lasting impact here at home. That’s why we have to take responsibility for those emissions, and it’s appropriate our laws reflect that. A decision to remove that requirement would be a retrograde step and inconsistent with a science-based response to managing climate change.

“The greatest trick the Minerals Council has played is to hoodwink us into thinking that our export of fossil fuels has no effect locally. That is wrong. It is not based in science.

“As Professor Will Steffen said in the Rocky Hill case, “it is one climate system”. Because of that, burning NSW coal overseas impacts communities here at home. It defies logic that in a time of severe drought and bushfires, a political party claiming to be for and from the bush would legislate against consideration of climate impacts from Australian coal on our communities. Perhaps they don’t think the impacts of climate change on NSW communities matter. Perhaps they don’t accept the science. In either case, it is an indictment on the Government.

“The beauty of the Rocky Hill decision was its basis in science and fact. The appalling thing about the Government’s decision is that it’s based on pure politics and self interest.”

NSW PLANNING DECISIONS REFLECTING CLIMATE REALITY

Over the last year or two an increasing number of people have realised that climate change is not something that will affect us in twenty or more years.  It’s affecting us now. The continuing severe drought as well as the unprecedented fires in this country and elsewhere are some of the signs that time is running out for effective action to prevent the onset of more catastrophic impacts .

This realisation about the present reality and mounting threat of climate change has been reflected in two significant decisions against coal projects in NSW this year.

In late 2017 Gloucester Resources had its application for the Rocky Hill Coal Project near Gloucester on the Mid North Coast rejected by the Independent Planning Commission. The company appealed this decision in the Land and Environment Court. 

Early in 2019 this Court refused the appeal on a range of grounds, but what was significant was what was said about climate change. The chief judge stated that emissions from the mine and its coal product would increase total global greenhouse concentrations at a time when a rapid and deep decrease in emissions was needed.

Last week the Independent Planning Commission announced it had refused approval to Kepco’s even larger coal mine in the Bylong Valley, 55km from Mudgee.  In a statement the Commission said, “The project is not in the public interest because it is contrary to the principles of ESD [ecologically sustainable development] - namely intergenerational equity because the predicted economic benefits would accrue to the present generation but the long-term environmental, heritage and agricultural costs will be borne by the future generations.” 

In referring to the greenhouse gas implications of the mine, the Commission cited the comments made by the Land and Environment Court Chief Judge in the Rocky Hill mine judgement earlier this year.

These decisions have set a precedent in NSW which may serve as an example to other states. In addition it has been welcomed by those concerned about climate change who oppose the opening of new coal mines.

            -Leonie Blain

 This article was originally published in the VOICES FOR THE EARTH column in The Daily Examiner on September 23,  2019

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENTS AND THE ADANI COAL MINE

Adani’s proposed Carmichael coal mine in Queensland’s Galilee Basin is frequently in the news for the very good reason that it is a very controversial development.

The Federal and Queensland Governments are both in favour of it because they claim it will have enormous economic benefits. 

Despite this governmental enthusiasm, community opposition continues to grow for a variety of reasons. Firstly there is the environmental impact that this mine will have both in its immediate area as well as globally.  

With a proposed annual extraction of 60 million tonnes per year it will be the largest coal mine in the world. So the carbon emissions generated from the coal’s extraction and combustion will have a very significant impact on the world’s climate. Those concerned about the accelerating rate of climate change argue that this mine will have an unacceptable impact on the world’s climate. They believe new coal mines should not be opened and that existing mines need to be systematically closed down unless they are essential for specific industries such as steel production.

This mine will also have an impact on the Great Barrier Reef.

The Great Barrier Reef (GBR), which runs for 2,300 km along the Queensland coast and covers an area of approximately 344,400 sq. km, is under threat from climate change and a variety of other impacts including port development and coal spills. As well as being an incredible natural wonder, the Reef is a major tourist attraction.  So it is a very significant earner for the Queensland and Australian economies as  more than two million people visit it each year generating earnings of more than $2 billion. .  Moreover, it is a major employer with more than 60,000 people employed in Reef tourism.

Last year there was a major bleaching event on the Reef.  This year there has been another.  Two such major events in consecutive years was formerly unprecedented. These events have highlighted how vulnerable coral reefs are to the warming seas produced by climate change. So concern about the Reef is another very strong reason for opposition to this mine and to the other mega-mines that are on the drawing board for the Galilee Basin.

Although some supporters claim up to 10,000 jobs would be generated by the mine, Adani’s consultants put the figure at less than 1,500 full time jobs. 

While the Queensland and Federal Governments talk up the job prospects from the Carmichael mine, they ignore the importance of the many thousands of tourist jobs reliant on a healthy Great Barrier Reef, a Reef that is currently under threat from the impacts of climate change.

Other claimed economic benefits are also questionable.  Given the world-wide move away from coal to renewables there is a strong likelihood (actually a certainty according to many analysts) that this project, which theoretically would have a life of 60 years, will become a stranded asset. That is one of the reasons Adani is having difficulty in sourcing investment capital.

What is really astounding is, given the likelihood that this will become a stranded asset, the Federal Government is considering giving Adani a loan of almost $1 billion of taxpayers’ money to build a rail line from the Galilee Basin to the coal port at Abbot Point 25 km north of Bowen.  The loan would be obtained from the $5 billion Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund (NAIF) a fund which has recently been criticised in relation to governance issues. 

QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT PUSHING FOR ADANI'S CARMICHAEL COAL MINE IN THE GALILEE BASIN

The proposed Carmichael coal mine in central Queensland’s Galilee Basin has recently been given a boost by the Queensland Government which has declared it ‘critical infrastructure’.  This designation means fast tracking the remaining project approvals and removing  the power of the community to challenge it in court as well as enabling the company to forcibly acquire land.

The last time this designation was given to a development in Queensland was in 2008 when parts of the South East Queensland Water Grid were declared critical infrastructure because water supplies in this heavily populated area were at critically low levels because of drought. There’s a great deal of difference between the critical infrastructure of a water supply grid and a massive coal mine!

The mine, proposed by Indian company Adani, gained most of the necessary state and federal approvals in 2014.  However, the project is controversial and has been subject to a number of court challenges.

Two concerns encouraging opponents to undertake court challenges are the threat the mine and its associated port developments (at Abbot Point, 25 km north of Bowen) pose to the Great Barrier Reef and to groundwater in the Basin. 

Another major concern is the carbon emissions this project will see released into the atmosphere at a time when the world should be drastically cutting its emissions. When peak production is reached, Adani expects to mine 60 million tonnes of coal per year.  Over its estimated 60 year life it expects 2.3 billion tonnes to be extracted. Whether the mine, if it goes ahead, will have a life of 60 years is problematic, given moves around the world to limit coal production, moves which are likely to become more influential in future years as concern rises about the necessity of limiting emissions to combat climate change.

There are other concerns in relation to Adani. These involve corruption, illegal activity, human rights abuses, tax evasion and environmental destruction

 (1. The Sydney Morning Herald 3 October 2015 -   Adani faces questions over conduct at home 

  2.  Times of India 13 September 2016  - Adani, Essar get DRI notice for overvaluing imports

  3.  The Sydney Morning Herald 5 September 2014 - Concerns at Barrier Reef contractor's humanitarian, environment record  )

While the unsuccessful court challenges may have slowed Adani’s start, another major problem has been its inability to obtain project funding - the result of a very successful lobbying campaign targeting major banks and other financial sources.

The Queensland Government’s recent encouragement stems from concerns about job losses in central Queensland following the general mining downturn in the last year or so.  The Government appears to believe the original company spiel of 10,000 jobs - even though Adani’s own economic expert recently put the job number at 1464.

The Queensland Mines Minister Anthony Lynham sees the project starting construction in mid  to late 2017.

The Queensland Government should be looking at the big picture.  This is not a time when governments should be encouraging the development of new coal mines - particularly  one as large as this.  Those opposing the mine are concerned that if all the coal from Carmichael was burned, it would register on a global scale - amounting to about 0.5% of the "budget" of carbon dioxide that can be emitted before the world tips past global warming of 2 degrees celsius.

As well as the climate change scenario, the  Government - anxious as it apparently is about jobs - should be considering  the 69,000 Barrier Reef tourism jobs that will be put at risk by this mine.