A coal-free future

Why our reliance fossil fuels should be limited

Beyond the link between emissions from fossil fuel combustion and climate change, there are many other reasons why our reliance on fossil fuels (especially coal and oil) should be cut. These include environmental degradation, agricultural impacts, and health problems.

Fossil fuel extraction can lead to:

• Loss of biodiversity and agricultural land.

• Contaminated drinking water.

• Disasters such as the Shen Neng in the Barrier Reef, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the Exxon Vldez oil spill in Prince William Sound, and more.

Fossil fuel combustion can lead to:

• Acid rain.

• Ocean acidification.

• Decrease in the protein content and an increase in toxins in plants that may make many crops and plants, that we and wildlife depend, inedible.

Fossil fuel, and particularly coal, extraction, transportation and combustion have been shown to lead to;

• Adversely affected lung development

• Asthma

• Impacts on brain development and IQ.

• Damage to respiratory, cardiovascular and nervous systems.

• Contribution to four of the top five leading causes of death.

The Academy of Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (2009), suggest that the total health damage cost of coal-fired power station emissions in Australia is about $13/MWh, equivalent to an aggregated national health burden of around $A2.6 billion per annum.

The No New Coal campaign

NSW plan: Cut emissions by 5% by 2020: On August 9, the NSW Government announced its plan to cut emissions by at least 5 per cent by 2020, instead of just stabilising them by 2025. This brings NSW into line with the minimum national target. The NSW Department of Climate Change, Environment and Water says the plan is realistic even if there is no national emissions trading scheme by 2013. The Department will report back to cabinet with the new plan by the end of the year. The focus of the new plan will be on measures designed to compliment a national emissions trading scheme, such developing a host of new wind farms, a major push for better energy efficiency and cutting back carbon emissions from mining coal. This announcement comes as new national data from The Climate Group showed a shift away from coal-fired power towards gas as a source of energy. Coal power declined 6.3 per cent and gas rose 171 per cent in the last year, though the burning of coal still dominates power production across the state. The slower-than-predicted rise in energy use in NSW has undermined the case for building two coal-fired plants at Mount Piper near Lithgow and Bayswater in the Hunter Valley. But the Department believed these new stations would displace older plants with higher emissions. The NSW Greens MP John Kaye has stated that emissions of more than 22 million tonnes of CO2 each year from coal fired power stations being planned would swamp any savings that the new plan might make. "The NSW government cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, Treasurer Eric Roozendaal is peddling the myth that new baseload power plants are needed to keep the lights on. Now the Deputy Director of the Climate Change Department, Simon Smith, says the new generators would replace older plant and bring down emissions. Both statements cannot be true. In fact, neither statement is true. New baseload capacity is not needed and if they are built they will massively increase the state's emissions. If these plant are built, the state's emissions will climb by more than 17 percent and energy efficiency programs will be devastated. If the Premier were serious about achieving ambitious greenhouse gas targets, she would dump Treasurer Roozendaal's electricity privatisation scheme and the new fossil-fuel power stations it is designed to produce," Dr Kaye said.

Dirty Hazelwood's future grim (6/8/10): Victoria’s Premier John Brumby has proposed to save four million tonnes of pollution per year by shutting down one quarter of Hazelwood power station and he has proposed to pay up to $1 billion in compensation to do so. Of course, if a carbon price was introduced, then Hazelwood could no longer compete and would likely shut down at no cost to tax-payers. But the Australia Institute has done the maths on Brumby's plan and found it's cheaper than earlier Howard, Rudd and Gillard plans for rebates and subsidies: If you only saved one year’s worth of emissions then the cost per tonne of avoided pollution would be $250, but if for that $1 billion you avoid 10 years of emissions the cost falls to $25 per tonne, and if Hazelwood was going to last another 20 years then the long run cost of shutting part of it down early is just $12.50 per tonne. TAI concludes, though, that if closing one quarter of Australia’s dirtiest power station makes sense, shutting the whole thing down as quickly as possible makes even more! And this ideas doesn't just look fanciful: Gillard is apparently happy to talk with Brumby about retiring coal, the owner, International Power, wants to close the whole power station not just a quarter, their other major Australian power station, Loy Yang B, has just had its credit status reviewed and is one level above ‘junk bond’ status, and TRUenergy is interested in closing Yallourn. But in these exciting times we need to ensure that NEW coal fired power stations won't be built to replace the capacity lost from Hazelwood, so a ban on the construction of new coal fired power stations is still the best outcome.

A coal-free NSW future may be possible (6/8/10): The NSW ALP Government should develop a good energy policy as their positive legacy and effectively addressing coal fired power. We know that NSW does not need new baseload power stations- the AEMO and Transgrid data both identify a low reliance on coal in their future scenarios, and NSW energy supply is increasing faster than demand. The Institute for Sustainable Futures' report ''Meeting NSW Electricity Needs in a Carbon Constrained World' outlines that even without CCS, coal is still more expensive than clean energy options. Furthermore, new coal is unpopular, as we've seen by the overwhelming support for the petition introduced by Greens MLA John Kaye earlier this year, Greenpeace polling and other statements and citizen action. Some CANA member groups have proposed a range of policy options including adopting a "no new coal" policy, setting an emissions performance standard that excludes coal, adopting load based licensing, and/or introducing serious energy efficiency policies that could eliminate need for new baseload and close existing power stations.

The dirty dozen: Australia's coal shame: Twelve new coal-fired power stations are on the books in Australia, with one already halfway through construction. If these plants are constructed, they will increase Australia's total annual greenhouse emissions by around 7 per cent. But we need to be reducing our emissions by 50 per cent! Read about these coal projects on the Greenpeace Australia website.

Legal challenge to massive NSW coal expansion: Court papers will be served today on Delta Energy Macquarie Generation and Minister of Planning Tony Kelly in relation to cases lodged in the NSW Land and Environment Court challenging the concept approval of the Mount Piper and Bayswater B power station expansions. Applicant Ned Haughton, an activist working with Rising Tide Newcastle (which was just awarded the 2010 ACF Peter Rawlinson Conservation Award for their tireless and brave efforts in 2009) will argue that the Minister’s approvals are invalid through a failure to consider ecologically sustainable development in the decision. If these NSW power stations are built to burn coal, they will add over 15% to the state’s greenhouse gas emissions - more than the entire NSW transport sector - every train, plane and car in the state. It will mean another 20 million tonnes of greenhouse pollution spewing into the atmosphere each year.

Replacing Australia's dirtiest power station with clean energy: Victoria's Hazelwood coal fired power station produces 15% of Victoria's greenhouse emissions, and 3% of Australia's total emissions, making it an obvious target for replacement with clean energy as soon as possible. A very energetic campaign is underway in Victoria, with community climate groups, Environment Victoria and the Victorian Climate Action Centre all playing key roles to achieve this by 2012. Check out the inspiring youtube story at www.replacehazelwood.org.au. This campaign was launched by 350.org's Bill McKibben and EV's well-publicised report outlining options for replacing Hazelwood. The Victorian Government and the Federal Opposition are both seriously considering the limited future of this power station. More climate groups are needed to add their voice and emphasis to this campaign. You can sign your groups' support to the campaign at www.replacehazelwood.org.au. When meeting with politicians around the country, include the election ask to replace Hazelwood with clean energy by 2012. On July 17, there will be a national day of action calling for 'no new coal', with community-based events around the country. One of the key asks will be to replace Hazelwood with clean energy. For more details, see www.replacehazelwood.org.au.

Chinese provinces decommission coal-fired power stations: Twenty-six Chinese provinces have agreed to close down outdated coal-fired power stations. The plan will cut CO2 emissions by 164 million tonnes annually, about 3.2 per cent of 2005 levels. China’s plan is to close 70 million kilowatts (=70,000 MW) of outdated thermal power station capacity over the 2006-2010 period, equal to the total capacity of British power stations. Until now, 64.17 million kilowatts have been taken offline (from http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.1446331 ). 70,000 MW is a massive reduction- in contrast, the campaign to replace Hazelwood (one of Australia's largest power stations) would remove 2000 MW. The article does not state what these small inefficient power plants are to be replaced with, and there is the possibility that it may be larger, more efficient coal. However, it's worth noting that even shutting down an old inefficient coal-fired power station and replacing it with a new one can halve the emissions from that facility, so either way it makes significant emissions reductions. By contrast, in Australia, we have no such plans to decommission our old inefficient plant, we just continue to run them...

Rising Tide wins major environmental award: Congratulations to Steve Phillips and the crew of Rising Tide, a long term CANA member, for their success in being awarded the 2010 ACF Peter Rawlinson Conservation Award. This annual Award is presented in recognition of outstanding voluntary contribution by a group or individual aiding Australia’s conservation efforts at a local or national level. Since their inception in 2004, Rising Tide Newcastle has been an action-focused organisation. They are a small, volunteer-run group with minimal assets but a lot of passion. They use non-violent direct action to highlight important issues, influence the public debate, inspire and mobilise people, and pressure key decision makers. CANA nominated Rising Tide for the award in recognition of their numerous actions during 2009 to progress the CPRS and Copenhagen campaigns. Their most successful examples last year include the inaugural national grassroots climate summit, the national “Step-In” actions at their local MP's office, a three -pronged protest at Federal Parliament during Treasurer Wayne Swan's budget delivery speech, the Tomago Aluminium Smelter blockade, a mass sit-in of Federal Parliament, and a coal rail blockade – and that's just 2009! The main lesson that Rising Tide members learned from 2009 was to pay careful attention to your message- the most well planned protest can easily be misrepresented and it is pivotal that your message is clear, concise, and well delivered.

Join the national discussion! To join the NSW No New Coal e-list, email your name and organisation to James at jsupple05[at]gmail.com.