CLIMATE CHANGE BALMAIN-ROZELLE
Position Statement - November 2006

Coal
Nuclear
Renewables
Demand Management


COAL
Climate Change Balmain-Rozelle (CCBR) has built its campaign around coal on the basis that it’s the worst of greenhouse offenders. Our predilection for coal has to be addressed, at a government, community and personal level. This includes informing people about the dangers of coal, and its role in climate change, as well as lobbying governments.

Coal is one of - if not the - dirtiest of energy sources, which produces far more CO2 than other fossil fuels such as oil or gas. In Australia coal supplies 88% of our electricity, which in turn produces 35% of our greenhouse gas emissions. It is clear that if we reduce our reliance on coal-fired electricity, and turn instead towards safe, renewable forms of energy, then we also reduce the pollution that causes climate change.

CCBR abhors the fact that Australia’s coal industry – the source of so much global warming – is heavily supported and subsidised by state and federal governments.

Coal Mining
There are more than 100 mines producing black coal in Australia, with at least 45 more in various stages of planning and development. The highest concentration of coal industry is in NSW’s Hunter Valley, where 220 square kilometres – roughly 20% of the valley – have been given over to coal mining. This activity is now spreading into the Mudgee district, an area known as the western coal fields. Here, 3 coal mines have either been approved, or have applied for consent, in the past year (2 of which have coal fired power stations attached to the DA). Together, these 3 mines – Moolarben, Wilpinjong and Ulan – are capable of producing some 25 million tonnes of coal every year for the next three or four decades.

Coal mining amounts to environmental rape. The ground is torn open, the big machines move in, and as a result air quality is degraded, local waterways are sullied, natural habitats are lost and biodiversity is threatened. There’s a human cost too; people are displaced, communities pulled apart and livelihoods destroyed.

CCBR believes the income derived from coal mining is far outweighed by its environmental and social costs. And that’s before you even begin to consider the price of burning the coal that the mines produce.

Coal-fired Power Stations
Coal-fired power stations burn coal to generate electricity. Every tonne of coal burnt emits at least 2.4 tonnes of carbon dioxide. That carbon dioxide blankets the earth, trapping heat and raising temperatures. We’ve known for a long time of the environmental havoc that causes, but thanks to the Stern Report released in Britain in late October, we now understand how much greenhouse pollution costs us in actual dollars (through its impact on health, industry, agriculture and ecology). In setting out to put an economic price on climate change, the Stern Report calculated that every tonne of CO2 emitted wreaks $110 worth of damage to the economy. This compares with the approximate $55 per tonne that coal sells for on the market.

Coal fired power stations may produce ‘cheap’ energy but the true costs of that energy can no longer be ignored.

Coal Exports
In 2005, Australia exported 233 million tonnes of coal, about a third of all coal shipped around the world. Going by the Stern Report calculations, this amounts to something like $61.5 billion worth of climate change damage in one year. Newcastle is the world’s largest coal exporter, shipping out some 80 million tonnes of coal every year, and therefore the greatest single source of climate change, with that 80 million tonnes creating $27 billion dollars worth of damage. That’s a lot more than the coal is worth on the market. It’s widely believed that coal exports are vital to Australia’s economy – and indeed, coal is Australia’s largest export. However, the $220 million earned by the NSW government in coal mining royalties each year , is less than 1% (according to Stern’s formula) of the cost of that coals potential damage. The fact that Australian coal ends up in 35 countries, many of them in Asia, raises a moral issue which cannot be ignored.

In exporting coal, Australia is also exporting climate change. We must find ways to decrease our dependence on coal dollars because at present our financial gain is the planet’s environmental pain.

Geosequestration
In Australia, geosequestration or carbon capture and storage (CCS) is being promoted as one answer to the problems caused by fossil fuel emissions. Geosequestration involves capturing carbon dioxide (for example at a power station) and then injecting it into underground geological reservoirs for the purposes of long term storage. The federal government, along with several state governments (Victoria and WA), are investing in R & D into geosequestration technology and a number of places around the country have been identified as potential carbon storage sites. A pilot project is proposed for the Otway Basin in western Victoria and a conglomerate of multinational oil companies have also proposed sequestering CO2 deep beneath Barrow Island in the remote northwest of Western Australia.

According to the Australia Greenhouse Office the potential risks of geosequestration to human health, safety and the environment are low. The Australia Institute, however, has produced a report which expresses serious concerns about the technology. The report notes that geosequestration is a very expensive way to deal with greenhouse gas emissions (better not to make them in the first place), but, more than that, there are many questions about its safety, it’s impact on the environment and its permanence that still need to be answered. And even if it is shown to be technically and commercially viable, it will be a very long time (around 2030) before geosequestration could make any significant impact on greenhouse pollution.

CCBR believes that, even if all those questions are resolved, geosequestration is not a silver bullet – it is simply not a big enough solution. The Barrow Island project, for example, can only contain thousands of tonnes of CO2 compared to the millions that Australian coal releases when combusted. Even large CCS projects such as one in the North Sea can only deal with a fraction of the CO2 currently released into the atmosphere. For the United States to capture and store its emissions from fossil fuel power generation it would require 200 projects, each 10 times larger than the North Sea storage. Likewise, other “clean coal” technologies such as coal gasification are not yet viable on a large scale.

CCBR believes that geosequestration, quite literally, buries the problem. It does not address the perils of using coal – a dirty, 19th century, finite commodity – in the first place. We are also concerned that focusing on geosequestration – along with other “clean coal” technologies – will divert time, energy, research and funds from being invested in the true solutions; that is, renewable energy technologies that can be accessed immediately.



NUCLEAR
Australia currently has no nuclear power generation, but it is being touted as a long term alternative to coal-fired electricity. ‘Long-term’ is the key word here. A report to the Federal Government (November 06) has suggested that 25 nuclear power stations could be built by 2050. At a cost of between two and three billion dollars each, this is an expensive proposition, especially considering that those 25 reactors would only be supplying about one-third of Australia’s electricity. Furthermore, none of these plants are likely to be in operation before 2020.

Nuclear power generation raises many very serious issues. The major hurdles include a lack of local expertise, the vast amounts of money time and energy required to construct the plants, the massive costs of decommissioning and, of course, the transport and disposal of hazardous waste materials. But even if all those obstacles are overcome, the impact that nuclear power would have on reducing greenhouse gas emissions would be slower than any carbon-free energy source. And for all that money spent, neither is it a broad enough solution. According to the report to the Federal Government, 25 nuclear power stations would reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by between 8 and 18% by 2050. And yet we know that we need to reduce those emissions by 60% if we are to avert the worst impacts of climate change.

CCBR believes that the problem of greenhouse gas emissions is at a crisis point and the investment into nuclear power funnels financial and technical investment away from the carbon-free and renewable resources which will more rapidly have a mitigating consequence on our greenhouse gas emissions.




RENEWABLES
Commercial and residential buildings, including houses, are responsible for more global warming pollution than cars and trucks. If we can cut household and commercial emissions by shifting our reliance on fossil fuels, then we can all make a significant impact on the problem of climate change. CCBR believes the best way to do this is by taking up renewable forms of energy, which are cleaner, safer and more sustainable.

More and more Australians seem to be agreeing with this approach. In a poll taken by the Sydney Morning Herald and AC Nielsen in the first week of November, 2006:
• 91% of Australians now recognize global warming as a problem
• 2/3rds (63%) said they would be prepared to pay more (in taxes/services) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
• 53% of 18-24 year olds and 57% of 40-54 year olds (with other age groups not far behind) are in favour of solar power
• At the same time, only 16% (18-24yo) and 13% (40-54yo) support nuclear power as an alternative energy source

What is not quite as heartening is John Howard’s insistence that renewable forms of energy such as solar and wind power will never provide the electricity Australia needs. And yet the picture looks different in other countries. For example:

• In 10 years from 1995 to 2005 electricity production from PV cells increased from 88.6 MW to 1400 MW, globally.
• Wind power is already competitive with coal-fired power in Germany.
• 23% of Denmark’s power is from wind generation.
• It has been predicted that 16% of global power could be provided by wind power alone

In fact, renewables are now the fastest growing of all energy technologies and have created employment and wealth in many countries including the United States, Germany, Denmark, South Korea and China. Worldwide, renewable energy industries employ 1.7 million people. Australia too has great potential to make significant power from the wind, sun and other renewable technologies but at present only 9% of our electricity comes from renewable sources (principally hydroelectric power). Just 30 windfarms could supply 10% of NSW’s energy needs and one solar hot water system on every home would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 25%.

CCBR believes that creating power from wind, solar, biomass, geothermal and other carbon-free, renewable sources is the best scenario for Australia. Such technologies can go a long way towards meeting our energy needs very quickly – if the will is there. We are very concerned about the lack of support and funding these industries have traditionally received in Australia. If governments were as committed to renewables as they are to coal, our future would look very different.


INCREASING MANADATORY TARGETS
In 2000 the federal government legislated to set a mandatory renewable energy target (MRET), requiring that power companies supply a certain amount of electricity from renewable sources. That target was set at 2%. Considering that the International Climate Change Taskforce recommends a cut to carbon pollution of 60% (of 1990 levels), that is shamefully low and falls way short of targets set in other countries. The European Union has set a renewable energy target of 21% by 2010, Sweden, 60% by 2010 and China, 10% by 2020. And yet despite reviews of the MRET, the Australian government has said it will not reconsider its target until 2010.

Climate Action Newcastle has calculated that if the NSW government made it mandatory that 25% of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2020, this would create 4000 new jobs and $9 billion worth of new investment in NSW. Some state governments have done what their federal counterpart will not, and set more realistic targets for clean energy. But at a state level these are voluntary not mandatory.

If Australia is to do its bit in reducing greenhouse pollution, it is vital that the federal government legislate to increase its mandatory renewable energy target to at least 10% by 2010, in line with other countries.

DEMAND MANAGEMENT
The final prong in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and tackling climate change is demand management - that is, looking at how we use our electricity. CCBR strongly believes that raising awareness of our energy consumption and adopting daily practices to reduce and use electricity more efficiently is the most effective way for every household to tackle global warming. The choices that households make should be based on the sound premise that their appliances, lighting and heating can all come from carbon-free sources or a combination of low-carbon and carbon–free. Similarly the way individuals use transport, recycle their waste and consume goods has a large impact on their total emissions and therefore global warming. Demand management strategies that we can all employ, include:

• use of compact fluorescent light globes,
• switching to green power accredited suppliers,
• choosing 5 star energy rating appliances,
• switching off all appliances when not in use including stand-by switches


CCBR believes that all householders are able to actively participate in mitigating their personal greenhouse gas emissions. As a group, we actively work towards informing the community about their choices and responsibilities when it comes to using – and managing – power.



references:
Greenpeace Factsheet “A Way Forward for Coal Communities”
According to the Australian Greenhouse Office. The Stern Reports calculates 2.6 tonnes of carbon dioxide for each tonne of coal burnt
“The coal exports costing us billions”, Sydney Morning Herald, 2/11/06
Climate Action Newcastle Media Release, 2 November, 2006
According to the Australian Coal Association, coal represents about 13% of Australia’s total commodity exports and is worth $13.5 billion dollars. (2004 figures; sourced from The Greens Coal Fact Sheet, October 2005)
The Greens Coal Fact Sheet, October 2005
see www.greenhouse.gov.au/ccs/index.html
see www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/australia/resources/reports/climate-change/geosequestration-what-is-it-a.pdf
www.greenpeace.org/australia/news-and-events/news/Climate-change/howard-s-climate-policy-buried
Sally M Benson, The 10-50 Solution: Technologies and Policies for a Low Carbon Future (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory)
Sydney Morning Herald, November 22, 2006
Monica Richter, Sustainability Programs Manager, Australian Conservation Foundation
Speech by Al Gore, published by Think Progress on September 18, 2006. Available at www.energybulletin.net/20624.html
Sydney Morning Herald, Tuesday November 7, 2006, p.1, 4
Sydney Morning Herald, Wednesday November 8, 2006, p.6
Sven Teska, Greenpeace: from an address on sustainability, UTS, September 06
Australian Conservation Foundation policy brief, May 2005
Greenpeace Fact Sheet, Time for clean energy leaders.
See sites.greenpeace.org.au/climate/government/targets.html
sites.greenpeace.org.au/climate/government/targets.html
Climate Action Newcastle Media Release, 2 November, 2006.