Energy News Today

Phillip O’Neill writes: When has it been moral to argue that it’s OK to ignore the

comment, columnists, coal, NSW, barilaro, energy, transition, mining

Last month, NSW deputy premier, John Barilaro, visited the Mount Thorley/Warkworth open-cut near Singleton to release a strategic statement on coal exploration and mining in NSW. The statement, in its words, shows “how the NSW Government is taking a responsible approach to the global transition to a low carbon future, consistent with Australia’s ambition under the Paris Agreement, and is planning to manage the impact for coal-reliant communities”. Standing alongside Mr Barilaro was Upper Hunter MP Michael Johnsen. He is pleased with the cash splash that came with the announcement – $50 million for a round of Resources for Regions grants, the annual pittance that mining-affected communities get back from the $2 billion or so in royalties they gift to government every year. Also present was Stephen Galilee, chief executive of the NSW Minerals Council, the coal lobbyist. Mr Galilee was also smiling. He’s liking Mr Barilaro’s colourful maps that show the next frontiers for coal expansion across the Hunter, on land adjoining existing mines, and in new tracts stretching from Ulan to Rylstone, and from Wollombi to Broke. Mr Galilee is liking, too, Mr Barilaro’s commitment to legislative and administrative changes that will ‘improve certainty for proponents of major projects’. Coal marches on. Mr Barilaro’s strategic statement is a document of barely 2800 words, and is very thin on detail, given it purports to be the road map for NSW in a world-wide transition away from coal as an energy source. But at least NSW now accepts the inevitability of an end to thermal coal, and the need to manage the exit from mining for regions such as the Hunter that face economic, social and environmental trauma as a consequence. Unfortunately, the strategic statement not only fails to suggest even the bones of a transition plan, it argues that any transition is at least a generation away, something we can leave to our children and grandchildren. For the next two decades or more, according to the statement, the world is likely to continue to burn coal at current levels, at least, so it might as well be NSW coal that feeds the furnaces. It’s an argument that turns stomachs. When has it been moral to argue that it’s OK to ignore the damage of one’s actions because everyone else is carrying on regardless? But what if Mr Barilaro is wrong, what if enough of the world decides to exit coal-burning power stations well before the 2050s? For Mr Barilaro, it’s a scenario not worth planning for. In Mr Barilaro’s crystal ball, the future is clear. His is a world where the consumption of thermal coal continues for considerable time. Mr Barilaro states one source for his view, the projections of global market analyst, IHS Markit. But the public cannot see this analyst’s assumptions and calculations, hidden as they are behind expensive pay walls. But, following my inquiry, a spokesperson for Mr Barilaro tells me…

Read More: Phillip O’Neill writes: When has it been moral to argue that it’s OK to ignore the

2020-07-05 19:30:00

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More

Privacy & Cookies Policy
%d bloggers like this: