Any brief glimmer of satisfaction at the Queensland government announcing the environmentally and economically sensible decision to scrap the state’s eight cents a litre petrol subsidy was immediately countered by the statement that the planned sale of Queensland Rail’s coal assets “will maximise the amount of coal that Queensland can export to the world.”
If only the climate crisis was being taken as seriously and urgently as the economic crisis.
It continues to baffle me that governments can continually assert they are taking the danger of major climate change seriously, while repeatedly using public funds to lock in major infrastructure designed specifically to assist greenhouse intensive activities.
4 Comments
I don’t see why there is a problem. If we have energy resources and people want them, we shouldn’t stand in between the supplier and customer.
If a nation wishes to purchase coking or thermal coal from us and are unable to due to capacity issues they will simply purchase from another supplier which has a good chance of having poorer mining practices than we do which on a world stage are well regulated, environmentally friendly and ethical.
If Queensland wishes not to increase capacity, there are many other ports which are increasing capacity to do so in its place.
In most other contexts I would agree with you wayne, but in this instance I can’t see how it is possible to credibly claim to be serious about reducing greenhouse emissions (as the Qld government claims to be) whilst locking in large costs in infrastructure aimed at maximising coal exports.
Even if you believe we can credibly meet any meaningful emissions reduction targets without dramatically reducing the amount of coal used, we clearly still need to invest in infrastruture to make the transition to a lower-coal economy. Why spend money faciliating coal use (or mandate the spending of it as part of an asset sale) when we are needing to shift significantly away from coal?
“I can’t see how it is possible to credibly claim to be serious about reducing greenhouse emissions (as the Qld government claims to be) whilst locking in large costs in infrastructure aimed at maximising coal exports.”
I think it is called doublethink.
“Even if you believe we can credibly meet any meaningful emissions reduction targets without dramatically reducing the amount of coal used, we clearly still need to invest in infrastruture to make the transition to a lower-coal economy. Why spend money faciliating coal use (or mandate the spending of it as part of an asset sale) when we are needing to shift significantly away from coal?”
Well, it isn’t us using the coal. We are in a bit of a bind in that regard.
I would say the best thing we can do is slowly displace our coal energy exports with uranium energy exports.
There is some sort of accounting hand-waving that goes on when determining when an emission occurs and who is responsible. China argues that it shouldn’t not be responsible for the emissions created in the export goods it produces.
By exporting coal we are an accomplice to the “crime”. If we didn’t export coal, the global price would be higher and consumption would be reduced.
Or coal would still be ready to be dug up and used if clean coal technology is commercialised.
One Trackback