Coal campaign: Letters to the editor

Safe Climate Perth called for a flurry of letters to the editor of newspapers (and online forums) in WA in the week following the launch of our campaign against new coal developments in WA.

Here are some that have been written

Unintentional costs
Another angle on the debate about rising energy costs: Having access to energy and the appliances it powers is both a privilege and a responsibility, because of the visible and unseen polluting impacts of its generation and use. To not notice where we are using more energy than we really need to get something done, and to keep appliances running when we are not even using them, not only achieves nothing for us. It contributes unintentionally to raise power demand and household and environmental costs. The prevailing attitude whereby these wastes go unnoticed in homes as well as in business and industry etc is an important and, I believe, underrated part of the challenge of getting energy issues sorted.
Anne Pettit, East Victoria Park
[Unpublished, Wed 3 November 2010.]

Local government and climate change planning
I have got nothing against local government bodies considering future sea-level rises when making planning decisions (Perth Voice, October 16). But surely the priority now has got to be trying to limit the emission of greenhouse gases before "tipping points" are crossed that would make dangerous climate change inevitable.

No doubt there are some measures local governments can take to reduce emissions directly. However, the most important way that our councils can represent their constituents is to take state and federal governments to task for their wanton failure on this issue.

In WA, the state government has approved three new coal-fired power stations and is refurbishing another two. These, along with gas developments in the north west, are part of a package that would result in a 75% increase in WA emissions if implemented.

This comes at a time when Beyond Zero Emissions in Victoria have a costed, feasible plan for 100% renewable energy by 2020.

I want our local governments to press Colin Barnett and Julia Gillard to implement a plan like that.
Kamala Emanuel, Perth
[Published, Perth Voice, Sat 23 October 2010.]

Medical arguments against coal
As medical doctor and also a chronic asthmatic who finds the degree of air pollution currently experienced in Perth Metropolitan area much less than ideal, I am appalled to hear that permission has been given for more coal fired power stations to be built.

In addition the proposal to mine coal out of the Busselton-Margaret River area is a disastrous notion for the air quality and wider environment and will negatively impact agriculturally based industries and tourism in the region.
It is well known that coal fired power stations alone, account for at least 60,000 deaths a year in the United States of America. It must therefore be the case that a significant number of cardio-respiratory related illness and mortality in Australia may be accounted the same cause.
Given the very limited efforts made to date to employ solar, wind and geothermal energy it seems extremely shortsighted of the Barnett Government to commit any public monies to the mining or exploitation of coal at the expense of our right to breath (fresh air).
Dr Louise Sparrow, Nedlands
[Unpublished, Mon 18 October 2010.]

Wake up WA!
Hermann Scheer one of the pioneers of Germany’s position as world leader in the adoption of renewable energy to replace “foclear” (his word for fossil and nuclear) energy systems died unexpectedly last week. His successful efforts to bring about a renewable energy revolution in Germany should give as hope, even in this backward state, that a major shift is possible. (It is imperative too.)

While our government busily ramps up coal fired energy production in Collie and even in peaceful, rural Eneabba, Germany continues to make strides away from “foclear” dependency - and it is not as if Germany itself does not have its own coal resources, big energy companies and revolving door bribes available to politicians to encourage them to impede progress towards sustainable energy sources. It has all of these things but somehow even though, in the beginning most politicians were against the change and the population at large were not particularly convinced a change in direction was possible, they bit the bullet.

Today, most politicians there are behind the renewable energy drive, 90% of the population are against new coal-fired power stations, about 350 000 people are employed in the industry and Germany is the recognized world leader in renewable technology.

What do we have in WA? CO2 emissions set to skyrocket, more and more holes in the ground, no manufacturing industry to speak of, taxes on wages but not on pollution and many politicians who basically can’t see the problem.
Ian Rudd, Roleystone
[Unpublished, Mon 18 October 2010.]

Bushfire danger
Your report about the bushfire danger this summer (Sunday Times, October 10) should be a wake-up call to the state government.

It is time to abandon plans for new coal-fired power stations and other fossil-fuel developments and move towards renewable energy and a safe climate future.
Alex Bainbridge, Perth
[Published, The Sunday Times, Sun 17 October 2010.]

Things change, especially energy markets
In 1979, 78 per cent of WA’s grid electricity came from coal. Today, coal supplies 30–35 per cent of WA’s grid electricity, with gas the dominant fuel.

Now, there is a new energy competitor: for the past two years, global investment in renewable energy (not counting hydro) equalled investment in fossil fuels and nuclear.

Even in laggardly WA, Premier Barnett has promised that our share of the national '20 per cent renewable energy by 2020' target will be met by local, rather than interstate, generation.

Meanwhile a clearance sale of gas from our north-west fields is being run by Chevron, Shell, Exxon Mobile, Woodside et al.

These companies aim to sell our gas before countries such as China manage their mass-scale shift to renewable energy (give them 10-15 years) and while there is still gas here left to exploit.

Where this leaves WA's electricity supply in 2025 is uncertain.

By then, our total greenhouse gas emissions will be more than double what they are now, based on new coal (made viable only because gas prices are high) and emissions caused in processing gas from CO2-rich fields such as Gorgon, Browse, Wheatstone, Pluto and Prelude (this is the dirty secret 'clean gas’ proponents don't talk about).

By 2025, smart countries will have managed their transformation to free, low-emissions renewable energy. Will WA be amongst them?
Eloise Dortch, Mt Hawthorn
[Unpublished, Thurs 14 October 2010.]

Why should Australia act?
Paul Murray (12/10/10) seems anxious that Australia should not commit to reducing greenhouse pollution until our major trading partners do likewise since we only [!] produce 1.5 per cent of global emissions.

It is worth pointing out that this 1.5 per cent is [five times] more than our fair share [since Australians are only .3 per cent of the world's population]. Moreover, governments have had credible warnings about global warming and the need to reduce emissions for more than 20 years but have refused to take anything like appropriate action. Now that the warnings are more acute, governments are still dragging their feet.

Witness the circus in Canberra, which even now, has not progressed beyond establishing a committee to consider over the next year and a half which out of several inadequate market mechanisms will get a chance to be watered down before the public notice that not much has changed.

The conclusion is obvious: pressure on governments from their own population is required if we are to avert a climate disaster.

Reducing global emissions by 1.5 per cent would actually be a good start (so far global emissions are still going up). However, the most tangible benefits of Australia adopting serious efforts to eliminate greenhouse pollution (such as the Beyond Zero Emissions plan for 100 per cent renewable energy by 2020) would be the power of a good example.

This would dramatically increase pressure on governments around the world and might give us a chance of winning a safe climate future.

Cleaner air, less depletion of fresh water resources, cheaper electricity (after an initial outlay) would merely be beneficial side-effects.

Alex Bainbridge, Perth
[Published, The West Australian, Thurs 14 October 2010 and Green Left Weekly, Sat 16 October 2010.]

Why we should all care
Colin Barnett has underestimated public outrage over plans for coal mines in WA. His government's actions will increase WA's carbon pollution by 75 per cent. This is at a time when scientists warn us to reduce our carbon pollution from 392 parts per million to 350 parts per million to avert a climate crisis.

Strolling through Perth on Sunday I met a group of passionate and intelligent individuals who are doing something about this issue by collecting 10,000 signatures in the next 10 weeks to present to Mr Barnett. While many signed the petition, I overheard one elderly lady say climate change was of no concern to her, it was her children's problem. Another gentleman said: "Dig up the whole South-West, see if I care!"

So I started researching why we should care. A new report by the Australian Council of Trade Unions shows that investing in renewable energy, such as solar, could create 80,000 jobs in WA by 2030.
Paul Mason, Alfred Cove
[Published, The West Australian, Thurs 14 October 2010.]

Nothing to do with global warming?
James Doogue (letters, 13/10/10) claims that "climate scientists know Russian fires and the Australian drought were the result of weather phenomenon and had nothing to do with global warming".

This is somewhat at odds with the recent statement by James Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute on the same topic. Hansen wrote: "Was global warming the cause of the 2010 heat wave in Moscow, the 2003 heat wave in Europe, the all-time record high temperatures reached in many Asian nations in 2010, the incredible Pakistan flood in 2010? The standard scientist answer is 'you cannot blame a specific weather/climate event on global warming'...

"However, if the question were posed as 'would these events have occurred if atmospheric carbon dioxide had remained at its pre-industrial level of 280 ppm?', an appropriate answer in that case is 'almost certainly not'."

The WA government should act now to ensure that we have no new fossil fuel developments in this state.
Alex Salmon, Murdoch
[Unpublished, Wed 13 October 2010.]

To Paul Murray
Science is never "settled", there is and always will be debate. However the question of probability is the key issue here.

The Royal Society document that you refer to concludes; "There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last half century.

So, when you make the statement; "What is not settled .... those parts of the science open for debate and those still uncertain - is the extent to which humans are responsible,... "

It does not represent that the probability is in fact very high.

Both the RSC , IPCC and every other peak science body are in no doubt that greenhouse gas emissions have not just " played a part" but are the dominant forcing, that forcing is cumulative and increasing.

The IPCC attach numbers to this probability:

Warming is "unequivocal" ie there is no doubt that it is occurring.

Warming caused by our activities is "very likely", which means > 90% probability.

So your title "plain speaking" is actually not plain speaking at all, it is opinion and it is contrary to the current science.
George Crisp
[Unpublished, Wed 13 October 2010.]

Climate Change
I didn't bother responding when Paul Murray waded in again on climate change (7/10/10) but I must make my small contribution after his follow-up piece (Plain speaking needed in the climate debate, 11/10/10).

Even if Australia cut its emissions to zero it would have no effect on climate change, he says. Yes, the direct effect of strong Australian action would be small. But the indirect effect is the key here, as it is in perhaps most, if not all, situations where international action is required in response to a problem of great international significance.

How can Australia help ush the US and China into deep cuts to their emissions without heading down the same path ourselves?

The key problem I have with most who run these types of arguments is that those same people often do not apply them in other areas. Why did we bother going into battle at Anzac Cove when our numerical contribution to World War I was so small compared to the balance of the Commonwealth forces? Why do we give foreign aid to countries where the problems are so great that we alone cannot fix them?

Not being the biggest player on the team is no reason not to play hard. And sometimes small players can be great on-field leaders. Australia must move forward on establishing a price on carbon.
Cameron Poustie, Mt Hawthorn
[Published, The West Australian, Wed 13 October 2010.]

Climate Change
In a word, Anne Kirkwood (Arrogant climate committee, 12/10) is wrong. The climategate scandal did not expose anthropogenic global warming as fraud. The scientists involved were all cleared of any wrong-doing by three independent enquiries. If anything these scientists were vindicated, but of course the naysayers had already moved on by then, no doubt to start another smear campaign. If Ms Kirkwood can with a clear conscience equate modern climate scientists with the Nazis who carried out the holocaust then that is fine, opinions will always vary. But we should not continue the business of misrepresenting fact.
Tamara Lindsey, Nedlands
[Published, The West Australian, Wed 13 October 2010.]

Climate change uncertainties
In his recent piece in The West “Climate debate hijacked again” Paul Murray scatters facts and assertions about the science and the role of the NGOs in dealing with the potentially civilization-ending problem of climate change. He does this entirely without regard to context or justification of his own assertions about the science or about the role of those trying to explain the societal causes of, or to bring about meaningful action to address the causes of climate changes, both physical and behavioural.

Space limits my critique of Murray’s disingenuous attempt to deny the science and undermine the attempts of those striving to effect change that meaningfully addresses the issue. I comment only on the issue of uncertainty.

Murray states “The Royal Society concedes there is major areas of uncertainty in the scientific understanding of what is happening”. The fact is the Society “concedes” nothing. All creditable scientists know and have always known that there are areas of uncertainty in the science. No one, not even economists, can predict with certainty what will happen in the future.

Yes there are uncertainties particularly about when and how much climate change will affect us and the other species that have evolved to occupy the planet as it is. But there are certainties and here are some: - 1. CO2 allows light to pass through the atmosphere but absorbs heat waves reflected back out. 2. Humans are emitting CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, deforestation and other activities. 3. The concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased by about 40% since the beginnings of the industrial revolution some 160 years ago and 4. Average global temperatures have been increasing since first measured in 1880 and at an escalating rate.

Draw your own conclusions.

There is more to criticize in Paul Murray’s article, hopefully others will… blaming China for one thing when the US, which emits four times as much CO2 per capita as does China, is clearly the number one bad guy.
Ian Rudd, Roleystone
[Unpublished, Tues 12 October 2010.]

Clean Air
I was shocked to learn that WA has approved five new coal-fired power stations. Isn't coal contributing to asthma? Isn't coal polluting the environment and contributing to global warming? Shouldn't we be encouraging and supporting clean renewable power? We all have the right to clean air. All West Australians should be outraged that our government doesn't care about our health and our future. I vote for 100 per cent renewables by 2020.
Gilda Davies, Como
[Published, The West Australian, Tues 12 October 2010.]

No More Coal
Thank goodness someone is talking sense (Time to stop dithering and dump fossil fuels, Scott Ludlam, 11/10). Here's an idea for WA. The state government could stop hiding behind the mantra "it's a job for the Australian parliament" and directly stop the expansion of coal-fired power it has approved for the next few years, mandating that all new power projects be based on renewable energy instead.

The Muja A&B, Bluewaters 3&4 and Coolimba power plants will cost nearly $2 billion and emit more than 8 million tonnes of CO₂ annually if they are allowed to proceed.

As Senator Ludlam indicated, we'd be better off to get the electricity from renewable sources.
Kamala Emanuel, Perth
[Published, The West Australian, Tues 12 October 2010.]

Autism link?
While many thousands of West Australians realise that new coal-fired power plants are a grave mistake and that old ones should be phased out because coal is an extremely dirty fuel, harming the Earth's atmosphere and hastening global warming, Colin Barnett and his coalition just haven't got it.

This generation must think and act with the rights of our grandchildren in mind if they are to inherit a sustainable world in a safe climate. If the imperative to mitigate global warming does not move our decision-makers in the right direction on coal, then perhaps a more immediate threat might.

Two years ago, a University of Texas study found a statistically significant link between the amount of emitted mercury from industrial sources like coal-fired power stations and increased autism rates and that the prevalence of autism in the community reduced by one to two per cent every 16km of distance from the pollution source.

Before Australia builds one more coal-fired power station, we must carry out more research to determine the strength of this link between burning coal and autism.

One researcher in NSW, David Austin, has already found elevated levels of porphyrins, a marker for mercury damage, in the urine of Austalian autistic children. As director of Swinburne Autism Bio-Research Initiative, he is seeking access to Centrelink post-coded records which would enable the comparison of areas exposed to or not exposed to coal emissions - and hence to the incidence of autism.

However, the federal government is frustrating this strategy. Since the number of children presenting with autism in NSW government schools grew by 165 per cent over the six-year period to 2009, it is appalling that this research is being stalled. Here in WA we urgently need to know too.

Until the coal-autism link is conclusively determined, we should take the cautionary approach and leave coal in the ground.
Judy Blyth, Daglish
[Published, The West Australian, Tues 12 October 2010.]

Please send your letters to info@safeclimate.org.au as well as to the newspaper of your choice.