The vital topic that's not being discussed this election

For a long time I've been trying to get my head around something that seems completely illogical and so far, I'm simply not getting there. Maybe you can show me where my logic is out of whack?

The role humans play in climate change is accepted in 97% of the world's peer reviewed climate papers, the burning of fossil fuels is a known factor in climate change. The scientists conducting the studies are experts in their field and have devoted their careers to the study of climate, and I accept and respect their expertise.

Health impacts
What is routinely overlooked are the health impacts from the extraction and burning of coal - coal dust makes people ill. Not just an itchy throat kind of ill, but debilitating, health destroying cancers, strokes and lung diseases - extremely unpleasant illnesses to have and all because of exposure to coal dust (also here).

At the moment those health costs are borne by the individual and community while our government subsidises the companies to extract the coal. Seriously, our government pays foreign owned companies to remove part of our country which can never be replaced to sell it overseas. And that's good because some jobs have been created. And any job is a good job. Even if it's slowly poisoning you. So they say.

But if the cost of personal and environmental ill health was factored in, and the generous subsidies removed, how viable would fossil fuels really be? 

"A major Chinese power company is in line to win millions of dollars in federal and state government grant money to develop Victorian brown coal." The Age

Development? How is it development? That implies to improve. I've tried to see where this is good and how we benefit, but try as I might, I'm at a loss. Not only are we paying a foreign company to rip out our coal and poison our communities, but it's also directly contributing to climate issues. That's not particularly smart is it? Or else I've got it all wrong. And so have the doctors, the scientists and every other trustworthy person involved.

We are only ever told that coal mining is good for the country. How is this good? Our taxes are at work to subsidise foreign companies to dig up our coal (which can never be replaced) and ship it away to other countries. We're not stockpiling it for future use, to use within a mix of sustainable technologies. It's gone. Forever. And we're left with the clean up bill. And we're told we don't want these companies to be taxed for polluting our land, our water, our sky, our communities. Really? Why not?

Some people have jobs with the fossil fuel companies. Some people get very ill. So more of our taxes are used to assist them with doctor and hospital visits, medications, nursing, maybe even palliative care. And funding is pulled from hospitals, there are cuts to nursing and beds are closed. What a lucky country!

We're left with the costs of pollution of land and waterways. With the loss of drinkable water. Loss of environment. With the ongoing expensive health impacts, not only for the people who made a conscious decision to work in coal dust, but for the innocent families and children living nearby. And this is good. So they say. But I'm not convinced.

Alternative energy
Then, in Victoria, we have the vilification of alternative energy, and in particular wind power. On health grounds. Some people report getting headaches and not being able to sleep. Really? And in its wisdom, the Victorian Government makes the wind industry jump over all sorts of hurdles that aren't applied with the same enthusiasm when it comes to coal and CSG.

The government listens to a cashed up, vocal minority who are repeatedly discredited and yet NEVER comment on the very real and negative aspects of reliance on coal. It's hard not to be cynical. The vocal minority who don't like wind power and with spurious claims have more clout than those suffering with real, genuine and identifiable diseases. It's as if the people living in and around coal mines and coal fired power stations are expendable. Their lives are of less importance. That seems to be the unspoken message from the government. And this is good. So they say. But it doesn't seem right to me.

Doctors warn of "the costly legacy unfolding for Australia from under-regulation of the pollution caused by many [coal and CSG] resource projects" (link). Yet simultaneously we have over-regulation and rejection of studies in the case of wind power. Who benefits from this inconsistency? ...

"It is clear that State government approvals of coal and coal seam gas projects are often influenced by potential economic gain without thorough assessment of potential harms," said DEA spokesperson, Dr David Shearman.  

"Permitting dangerous pollution is creating a costly legacy for Australia that is being picked up in the healthcare and other sectors."  

"The social and financial costs of this pollution are not being measured or factored in when projects are given the go ahead." (here) 

But 'no worries' says the government, and gives the green light to more and more coal and CSG operations - and people who live along roads and train-lines where the coal is transported continue to get ill. But this is good for the country. So they say.

My apologies. I don't have the source for this graphic.

The end of coal?
And while all this is happening (or not in the case of wind farms) ...

"Goldman Sachs this month produced an explosive report, titled "The window for thermal coal investment is closing." In it, the bank revealed that "thermal coal's current position atop the fuel mix for global power generation will be gradually eroded by the following structural trends:
1) environmental regulations that discourage coal-fired generation
2) strong competition from gas and renewable energy and
3) improvements in energy efficiency." 

and of a statement that should be of great concern to everyone:
"there is little evidence Australian Governments are acting to adjust our economic and social structure to the reality that coal is over: despite knowing this must be the case if we are to avoid dangerous levels of global warming and if emerging economies are to act on the health and water crises precipitated by their too-fast growth of coal power." (here) (my bold)

And so we come to an election where none of this is mentioned. Not climate change. Not our role in it. Nothing about building a resilient country. Nothing at all from the major parties about plans for the inevitable impacts of rising seas, changing and erratic weather patterns and the effect this will have on food production or communities and cities. Nothing about the clash of water requirements for people, farming, agriculture, mining. Nothing to do with the incredible heating of our country. Nothing. Not a hint that with climate change, we are currently facing what has been described as "one of the greatest threats posed to the future of human-kind and the world"- Stephen Hawking.

In the minds of Australian politicians feted by our embarrassingly mediocre media, these issues don't rate a mention, and in the case of Tony Abbott they're shunned. And I'm appalled because our changing climate affects us all whether we like it or not.

To date, glib politicians are showing a marked lack of understanding, wisdom, courage and leadership on climate change. Hiding their heads and continuing to support coal so generously doesn't appear to benefit Australia or the world. (For an Indian perspective on Australian coal being shipped there this is an interesting article.)

And if I'm wrong, could you please explain how. Nicely of course!

Or if you happen to also be uncomfortable about our reliance on fossil fuels, and the dreadful associated health impacts you can do something and encourage your super fund to divest from fossil fuels. (Are you the Vital Few) Because fossil fuel investments are seen as being increasingly risky and you wouldn't want to see your super go down the gurgler would you. (Forbes)

.......

On the importance of voting thoughtfully: Why vote? Because if you don't vote, someone will speak for you.

........
Some of the articles used in the above spray:
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/not-much-climate-change-doubt-science-says-20130515-2jmup.html

https://theconversation.com/our-carbon-black-hole-the-real-budget-shortfall-17282

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/leadership-us-insurance-companies-climate-change

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/24/arctic-methane-climate-change_n_3643917.html

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/living-in-the-dusty-shadow-of-coal-mining/story-e6frg6z6-1226255705308

http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/01/08/get-fact-has-rupert-got-it-right-on-climate-change/?wpmp_switcher=mobile

http://dea.org.au/images/general/DEAtheHealthFactorV2_2013.pdf

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/note-to-australia-thermal-coal-is-over-65519

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/15/tony-abbott-climate-plan-maths

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-14/doctors-fear-coal-dust-health-impacts-going/4572022

http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/article/2013/02/04/558676_latest-news.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalworker's_pneumoconiosis

http://climatecommission.gov.au/report/the-critical-decade-2013/

Australia’s legendarily irresponsible mining industry has a new plan: while the planet faces catastrophic climate change, build the world’s largest coal mining complex, and then build a shipping lane to that port straight through the greatest ecological treasure we have - the Great Barrier Reef! 
http://www.avaaz.org/en/australian_coal_disaster_global_rb/?pv=43&rc=fb

http://aweablog.org/blog/post/wind-turbine-syndrome-farm-hosts-tell-very-different-story
.
Blogged by Sue Travers

The illusion of stability

Call me a bit of an old fashioned, stick in the mud, grumpy pants if you will. That's fine. Maybe last night's earthquake (measured at 5.2 near the epicentre) was going to happen anyway, after all there are fault lines looking a bit like scattered pick-up-stix throughout Victoria. Earthquakes happen here and we expect a tremor occasionally.

Fault lines in Victoria. The area to the East of Melbourne is Gippsland.

But what is different from when I was a child growing up atop Selwyn's Fault, is that exploration for, and extraction of, oil and gas didn't use a technique known as fracking, which isn't as benign as it's somewhat amusing name would suggest.

A local exploration company is quoted as saying that "the fracking process presented minimal risk to the area" (around Gippsland) and "There's been hundreds and hundreds of fracks in Australia for over 25 years without environmental harm from one incidence of fracking", (link) however, the process is acknowledge to have set off earth tremors in other parts of the world (link). This statement about safety is at odds with other reports. (See Quit Coal).

There is evidence that "fracking can trigger earthquakes, [yet in Britain] experts said there was a "very low" chance that it could spark one large enough to cause any significant damage". I sound like a nit picking old fusspot, but that comment doesn't fill me with confidence either. Not at all. The word "significant" is telling. It implies that if someone deems damage from a human induced earth tremor is "insignificant" that's perfectly normal and acceptable. (my emphasis)

Last night, I wasn't on top of the epicentre. The son of a close friend was, and apparently there was damage to his home. I guess that will be deemed insignificant, and assumed to be from natural causes. After all it's hard to prove cause and effect. Particularly as "Australia is not as geologically stable as many think. Despite popular belief, Australia is a geologically active continent with moving fault-lines, regular seismic activity, and a long history of mountain making" (link) The area around Korumburra in Gippsland where last night's epicenter occurred is active.

Call me a kill-joy if you will, but wouldn't it therefore be really, really sensible NOT to poke and prod at the fault lines near Korumburra by forcing all sorts of chemicals and liquids deep into the earth at high velocity to explode the rock? (Information on fracking here and more on Human Induced Earthquakes here) 

There's evidence of contaminated water supplies, unusable pastures and farmland and other negatives after fracking has occurred; all of which have been deemed acceptable to the powers that be.  But it seems that we're way out of our depth (excuse the pun). We simply don't really know what we're unleashing when we allow fracking to occur. 

To me it's like prodding and poking at a sleeping giant just to see how much irritation it will tolerate before retaliating, possible in a manner way beyond our widest imagination.

FFS, last night was scary - un-nerving and unsettling. My mud-brick home groaned and shuddered, the windows, paintings, glassware and china rattled as the ground shook with a deep, low grumbling sound. I now understand (in a very small way) the description I've heard of feeling motion sick during an earthquake. It was over in about 10 or so seconds. They were an unnaturally   l   o   o   o   o   n   g    10 seconds. My hands were shaking for some time afterwards as I watched the standard lamp sway to a graceful, thankfully upright, stop.

We could put an end to this kind of exploration. We could invest in a variety of safe, clean, sustainable renewables with known positives and negatives. We should be cautious about waking our sleeping giant.

Fracking image from QuitCoal

We have a choice, but will we choose wisely and responsibly?

.

Climate Matters. F is for Fracking and Fossil Fuels

This is the post for F in the A-Z Blogging Challenge 2012. Link in the sidebar.

Fracking is when gas trapped deep underground is released. Superficially is sounds simple, but it involves drilling deep into the earth for up to two miles (a bit over 3km). Millions of litres of water is pumped from natural aquifers, mixed with highly toxic chemicals which is then forcefully injected into the rock to explode it, and release the gas to enable it to be extracted.

The process of blasting rock in this manner is called fracturing or fracking, and can be conducted underneath farmland, water reservoirs, rivers or homes. The sludge is then pumped up and includes a mix of water, chemicals, the gas and other debris from deep underground. Obviously this mixture needs to be filtered and the toxic materials removed so that the water is able to be released back into the environment safely.

There is acknowledgement that this process can trigger earth tremors and earthquakes which is greeted with alarm by those living nearby. The suggestion by one company that communities could implement a seismic early warning system wasn't reassuring. People living in areas where fracking is taking place have reported increased pollution including contaminated drinking water either from the filtering not being rigorous enough or leaks at the drill site. (Here's a post about a recent earthquake in Melbourne. Fracking is carried out in Gippsland which is riddled with fault lines. Edited in 22 June 2012.)

Although the industry claims to have become more efficient and safe, they appear to accept that there will be accidents. Apparently in the US, the industry isn’t well regulated, having gained exemptions from a number of Federal environmental safety laws and requirements that other industries have to follow. Many groups are concerned that while we continue to invest so heavy in dwindling fossil fuel reserves, there will be no real incentive to build long term sustainable energy industries.

Fossil fuels are deposits of ancient material such as plants and minute ocean organisms which have been exposed to heat and pressure under the earth over millions of years and contain high levels of carbon. As the ancient material is used, it releases carbon dioxide which would in the past have been absorbed naturally.

Because we’re consuming fossil fuels so quickly, the natural processes that would in the past have absorbed the carbon-dioxide are only managing to remove about half of the amount we need, so there is a excess in the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide is one of the greenhouse gases that is known to contribute to global warming which in turn contributes to climate change. Coal, oil and natural gas, are all fossil fuels - they account for around 86% of primary energy consumption in the world. Because they take millions of years to form they’re referred to as non-renewable resources, because once we’ve used them up, they're gone forever.

South Australia. Photos D. Abbott

Demand for fossil fuels is increasing worldwide, in fact, faster than we are funding alternatives. Even with the race to extract the last vestiges of these substances from previously uneconomic parts of the globe (eg deep underground or far under the sea) the best industry experts estimate they will come to an end in the not too distant future.

Last year I wrote about the importance of Friends for F in my theme on workplace bullying. Here. 
.