From iPhones and TV to wind turbines and electric cars, rare earths are minerals essential to modern technology and 21st century society. Brigid Mullane spoke with experts on Australia’s nascent rare earth industry, its place in the international market and the environmental implications of mining.

Rare earth computer magnets. Image: Steven M

Out in Western Australia, an ancient volcano is stirring: it is called Mount Weld, and it’s near Laverton, about 700 kilometres northeast of Perth.

While it’s not actually going to erupt, with some help from heavy machinery, it will be releasing tonnes of minerals called rare earth elements, that are essential to modern life.

Dr Matthew James of Lynas Corporation Ltd, the mine’s developer, said he was enthusiastic about the many applications of these minerals, particularly in computers.

“That hard disk drive has two rare earth magnets, one to make the disk spin, the other that controls the arm that reads and writes data on that disk and that has allowed the miniaturisation of these hard disk drives . . . the phosphors behind the computer screen – the materials that create the colour and light – are a combination of rare earths.”

“Europium creates the colour red and terbium creates the colour green and there are no substitutes for those, so no rare earths – black and white world,” he said.

Rare earths in minute quantities are found in many of our modern electronic gadgets, but their crucial role today is in green energy technology, notably, hybrid electric cars.

“Rare earths create the world’s strongest magnets – neodymium rare earth magnets – and they’re used in the electrical generator of the car, also the electric motor of the hybrid vehicle,” James said.

A car like the Prius needs about one kilogram of neodymium for its generator and motor as well as 10 to 15 kilograms of lanthanum for its battery and one-kilowatt wind turbine’s generator requires more than 200 kilograms of neodymium.

So, in the renewable energy age, the market for rare earths will continue to expand, and Australia may be looking at a new mining boom.

In the mining boom, China will be a competitor, not a customer.

In recent years, China has virtually cornered the rare earths market, with an estimated 60% of the world’s reserves and 95% of production.

China wants to use its supply for its own technology industries, and has recently reduced exports – that could mean higher prices in the short term.

On the other hand, China could increase production and exports at any time and with cheap labour, poor environmental regulation and a large black market, it could price other suppliers out of the market, as it did in the late 1990′s.

Despite the uncertainty, Australian miners are forging ahead with exploration and development.

The Mount Weld site is likely to be the first to get its minerals processed to a factory-ready state, by the second half of 2011.

The processing starts at the concentration plant adjacent to the mine, where the ore is crushed and ground to liberate the fine grains of rare earths.

These are added to a soap-like solution where they cling to the bubbles and float to the surface, where the floatation process
produces a concentrate of various rare earths.

Click here to listen to this story.
[See post to listen to audio]

The concentrate is then shipped to the company’s processing plant at Kuantan on the east coast of Malaysia.

“Our plant uses quite a lot of water, natural gas and chemical reagents, and water in Western Australia is scarce; in Malaysia it’s plentiful. Also the chemical reagents we require we can find locally in the industrial estate in Malaysia”, James said, adding that natural gas is also available nearby from Petronas, Malaysia’s national oil and gas company.

At Kuantan, the concentrate gets severe treatment.

“We hit it with sulphuric acid at relatively high temperatures and this breaks down the minerals and releases the rare earths from the mineral structure,” says James.

The resulting sulphate solution is subjected to a technique called solvent extraction, to separate the individual rare earths and produce single oxides such as neodymium oxide, ready for industrial use.

The company expects to sell its output to manufacturers in Japan, Europe and the United States, with many supply contracts already signed.

One question remains: Will the environmental benefits of green technology be undermined by the environmental impact of mining and processing essential components like rare earths?

James believes that his company is dealing with the issue.

At the Australian mine site they retain the topsoil removed from the pit area to allow future rehabilitation.

The plant in Malaysia needs more complex procedures.

“We have a very good . . . waste gas system that cleans the gases before they’re released to the atmosphere. We have what will be the largest industrial wastewater plant on the east coast of Malaysia, again to ensure that any water we release is properly treated and cleaned and meets the environmental standards,” he said.

The company also makes use of the plant’s byproducts.

“The non-rare-earth solids that we produce are actually synthetic mineral products like gypsum . . . and these products can be used in cement products or plasterboard.”

Recycling is another goal of the industry.

James noted that it is difficult to recycle the very small quantities in many discarded electronic items, but recycling programs are being put in place in the automotive industry.

As well, magnet manufacturers make use of production off cuts, and so optimise resource use.

So, if Australian rare earth producers cannot compete with the Chinese on price, they may be able to trade on their environmental credentials, at least until China catches up.

And with Australia’s new government contemplating a revised mining tax and a carbon-pricing mechanism, this new mining boom could be a long one.

Brigid Mullane is a reporter for Diffusion. She is also a minor shareholder in Lynas Corporation Ltd.

Carbon capture storage is promoted by governments and the mining industry worldwide as a solution to climate change. But can it hold up to its promises? Lauren Kelleher reports.

Coal Power Station. Image: Greenstone Girl

In March this year, the New South Wales government announced the allocation of $28.3 million to develop the state’s first large scale commercial carbon capture and storage (CCS) facility.

Addressing the problem of climate change has been, and continues to be, a major concern of governments globally. CCS is one of the options at the foreground of providing a solution to this issue.

CCS involves capturing carbon dioxide that would otherwise be emitted into the atmosphere, compressing it, transporting it to a suitable site, and injecting it into deep geological formations where it will be trapped for thousands or millions of years.

Ralph Hillman, Executive Director of the Australian Coal Association, believes the NSW government’s announcement is a right step forward for the future of CCS in Australia.

“The close working commitment and relationship shown by the coal industry and Federal and State governments to CCS technology will ensure that Australia has a number of commercial scale CCS projects ready within the next ten years,” said Hillman.

The Australian Coal Association and both the federal and NSW governments equally fund the project, managed by Delta Electricity.

At the 2008 G8 Summit in Japan, all parties committed to the development and broad deployment of CCS by 2020. In conjunction with this promise came the 2008 Hokkaido Recommendation to launch 20 large-scale CCS demonstration projects by the end of 2020.

According to the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute (GCCSI), over 80 large-scale projects are at various stages of development around the world, including in the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia.

Australia, named by the International Energy Agency (IEA) as one of the major countries committed to CCS, has invested heavily in the clean coal scheme. In 2009 the Australian Federal Government created the Clean Energy Initiative (CEI), which includes spending $2.4 billion on CCS projects. The Rudd government also invested $100 million a year into the Global CCS Institute.

But according to Greenpeace, CCS cannot deliver in time to avoid dangerous climate change. The environmental organisation believes that deployment of CCS at utility scale cannot be achieved before 2030, and to avoid the worst impacts of climate change gas emissions will have to start falling by 2015 at the very latest.

Time is not the only concern revolving around the use of CCS. Issues about the feasibility, costs, safety and liability of CCS all need to be addressed.

Journalist and environmental consultant for Greenpeace Australia Pacific Julie Macken said, “Carbon capture and storage is like the tooth fairy. It’s fantastic. But it’s totally delusional.”

According to Macken there is serious doubt whether the capture will work on such scale and that it will work commercially.

“At the moment we use coal because it is cheap. But using CCS will make fuel more expensive, the price of fuel will rise from $35 to around $120. The government and companies involved are saying that tax money will subsidise CCS to make it more commercially viable, and therefore cost will not become an issue.

But we say – why not subsidise on new green renewable technologies that are already available and will cost less?”

Macken argues that spending money on CCS is diverting urgent funding away from renewable energy solutions, such as wind power and many types of sustainable biomass.

According to the 2008 Greenpeace report, False Hope: Why Carbon Capture and storage won’t save the climate , funding for renewable technologies and efficiency has stagnated or declined. Australia has three research centres for fossil fuels, including one committed to CCS, but there is not one committed to renewable energy technology.

McKinsey & Company predict that by 2030, carbon capture and storage costs could be reduced to $45-$70 per tonne of CO2 abated, compared to a price of $90-$140 per tonne for current demonstration projects. This amounts to a 50% per cent cost reduction over the next 20 years.

Nevertheless, environmental concerns include catastrophic leakage, contamination of water and the escape of captured flue gasses. Such concerns highlight the unpredictable nature of CCS and demonstrate one of the key challenges it faces: the safe and permanent storage of captured carbon.

According to New Gen Coal, ‘there is no single technology available today that will enable greenhouse gas emissions from energy production to be stabilised and reduced to the levels scientists say are needed to avoid the worst effects of climate change. There are currently no facilities that capture CO2 emissions from a power plant at commercial scale’.

In 2006, a United States Geological Survey (USGS) field experiment demonstrated the unpredictable nature of carbon dioxide and the inexperience the world has when it comes to the long-term storage of CO2.

The 2008 Greenpeace report tells how the USGS scientists were testing deep geological disposal of carbon dioxide at a pilot project in Frio, Texas. The buried CO2 dissolved in large amounts of the surrounding minerals responsible for keeping it contained. Leading scientist of the field experiment, Yousif Kharaka, told Greenpeace that the results are a ‘cautionary tale’ for future detailed and careful studies of injection sites of CO2.

Macken also considers legal liability a major concern regarding CCS. Industry views liability as a barrier to wider deployment of CCS and is unwilling to fully invest in CCS without a framework that protects it from long-term liability.

“Who owns the Carbon once it is stored underground? Who owns it once it explodes, leaks, or causes an earthquake? The answer is no one. The fact is [CCS] is uninsurable. It is a risk that can’t be managed and therefore can’t be done,” said Macken.

The International Energy Agency claims significant progress has been made on the development of legal and regulatory frameworks. It will be producing a bi-annual review of CCS Legal and Regulatory Development and is working on a Model CCS Legal and Regulatory framework.

In 2005, the Regulatory Guiding Principals for Carbon Dioxide Capture and Geological Storage was established by the Ministerial Council on Mineral and Petroleum Resources of the Australian Federal Government. The frameworks outline liability responsibility to all parties involved whereby liability does not arise until the injury or damage occurs. Such frameworks display that not all liability costs will be faced by the public in relation to CCS.

Australian Coal Association Ralph Hillman said “Australia generates around 80% of its electricity from coal, and the coal industry directly and indirectly employs over 130,000 Australians and plays a major role in our national economy. With so much at stake, the deployment of CCS is crucial to our industry’s future and New South Wales is now firmly in the development picture.”

With planned CCS projects proceeding in Australia and worldwide, only time will tell whether the new scheme will be a success.

On 20 April a disastrous explosion on the BP-owned Deepwater Horizon rig killed 11 workers and subsequently caused the rig to sink. A damaged wellhead underwater was left leaking over 1 million litres of oil per day for a month. In the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in April, the world is left wondering how this could happen, whether or not it was preventable – and more importantly, will it happen again? Bjorn-Ruban Thomassen reports.

Rescue of a Brown Pelican from the Barataria Bay in Grand Isle, La., June 4, 2010. U.S. Coast Guard photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Ann Marie Gorden. Image: Deepwater Horizon Response

Deepwater Horizon is not the first major devastating oil spill in the world. A little closer to home, it was only last year that one of Australia’s worst oil disasters occurred.

On 21 August 2009, a blowout on a rig in the Montara oil field in the Timor Sea off the northern coast of Western Australia left a well leaking 64 tonnes of oil per day. The well did not stop leaking until 3 November when the blowout was capped.

The World Wide Fund for Nature reported that the oil leak had significant impact on marine life, occurring in a fragile conservation area. Consequently green groups have been calling for better emergency response plans at oil and gas sites, as well as improved safety measures.

In more ways than one, the Montara Wellhead spill foreshadowed what would be an even worse disaster.

While the official investigative report on the spill is yet to be made public, conservationists and experts claim that lessons clearly have to be learned in the field of security and safety measurements on oil rigs worldwide.

And while the public discussion on the safety over oil rigs continues, others question the severity of impact oil spills have on the environment.

In a report published on the University of Technology Sydney’s Newsroom website, professor and marine biologist Peter Ralph argues that the Montara Wellhead leak had little impact on marine life.

“This is not refined or processed oil leaking from the Montara Wellhead platform.

“It is the same natural oil that leaks from natural fissures in the sea floor.

“The highly toxic components of this oil evaporate far more readily than other oils such as the bunker oils. As the slick breaks down, components of the oil will dissolve in the water but the large volume of the surrounding water means the impact is quickly diluted.”

While Professor Ralph’s statements might indicate that oil spills of a major size like the Montara Wellhead are not as dangerous as they are made out to be, other experts say there is simply not enough knowledge of the subject.

Professor Ross Coleman is the director for the Centre for Research on Ecological Impacts of Coastal Cities at the University of Sydney. He says more research is needed before we can truly define the environmental impacts of oil spills.

“The environmental impact of an oil spill is often actually not known because it’s an area we don’t have much knowledge of.

“People don’t necessarily define what they mean by environmental impact. For instance, conservation groups often use emotive imagery in their work. A bird covered in oil spill trying to take off from a rig is not a pleasant sight, but it is not necessarily indicative of environmental damage.”

After the Deepwater Horizon spills, birds were largely reported to be affected and Coleman agrees this is a problem.

“The effects of oil spills on sea birds are reasonably understood,” he says.

“Oil causes birds to lose the capacity to insulate themselves, so they often die of hypothermia. And while there is the option of cleaning the birds, it usually adds stress and the birds end up dispersing anyway.”

However, Coleman argues that it is very hard to know in detail how oil spills affect other marine life, as in general we know very little about the deep sea.

“We generally know more about the surface of the moon than we do about the deep sea. So understanding ecological impact on deep sea marine life, such as organisms living on the sea floor is simply something we need to do more research on. Better research on oil spills in these habitats would mean we would better know what would happen if they were contaminated,” Coleman says.

A greener future

Environmental groups worldwide argue that oil spills on the whole should be avoided no matter how much or little of an impact they have on marine life.

Alex Moore, spokesperson for Friends of the Earth US says all new oil drilling should be avoided.

“Offshore drilling is inherently dirty and dangerous. The only way to protect our coasts and our economy from oil spills is to ban any new offshore drilling,” he says.

The organisation also remains highly critical of the US government and BP in light of the recent disaster.

“For far too long the U.S. Government has allowed oil companies to set the rules for safety and environmental protection”, he says. “Do-nothing regulators have looked the other way as companies like BP drilled deeper and deeper, putting the coastal ecosystems and fisheries at unacceptable risk.

“President Obama needs to take over the spill response to ensure that people and the environment are put ahead of BP’s profits,” says Moore.

BP themselves have openly declared ultimate responsibility for what happened and are responsible for making things right.

While their response to the oil spill has been under extreme amounts of scrutiny, even President Obama acknowledged at a recent press conference that some of the criticism hurled at BP has been unfair or overly harsh. And as the company progresses with the clean-up, the very future for offshore drilling is looking bleak.

Green organisations warn of future environmental disasters caused by offshore drilling, and while President Obama has put a moratorium on drilling permits until November, experts are beginning to question whether our dependency on fossil fuels must come to an end once and for all.

Professor Coleman says there are resources that unlike fossil fuels, are not currently being used to their full potential.

“There is a fine supply of oil and coal on the planet, and the less there is the harder it is to get, and the pricier it will become. I think we will suffer stress long before the supplies run out,” he says.

He adds that Australia has a “shockingly bad” reputation in this respect.

“We have the possibility to provide solar power a lot more than we do. And yet successive governments have unsuccessfully done so, by failing to fund necessary research.

“For instance,” he adds, “the University of New South Wales did research on solar power but was cut back on funding.

“Another indicative of a poor attitude towards the issue is the lack of use of water power. In Sydney, it rains more than it does in London but still most of the rainwater goes out to sea so we suffer periodic droughts.”

Greenpeace International recently announced a new blueprint showing how governments investing in green energy jobs could save the climate and fossil fuel addiction.

“Our Energy Revolution scenario shows how to eliminate unpredictable fossil fuel costs, destructive mining and oil exploration and with it catastrophes such as the current BP Gulf oil spill,” said Sven Teske, Greenpeace International’s Senior Energy Expert in a statement.

“Investing in people, rather than dirty and dangerous fossil fuels not only boosts global economic development but stems catastrophic climate change,” he added. The report goes on to show that cutting our dependency on fossil fuels is not a matter of technology, but investment.

“The 2010 Energy Revolution report outlines pathways towards a 100% renewable energy supply for the world. It demonstrates that there is no technological barrier to achieving this vision and reaping its many benefits in terms of the environment and jobs,” said Christine Lins, Secretary General of the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC).

She added, “The barrier is political. All that is now needed to set sustainable energy future for our planet is the political will.”

The Lofoten Islands – potential disaster

This political will might see a rather significant boost after the Deepwater Horizon disaster, if environmentalists are to be believed.

In Norway, plans for test drilling were recently dropped.

With its 4.8 million inhabitants, it might seem rather insignificant in comparison to the bigger, more powerful European nations, but Norway is no small player on the European economic market.

With large resources of oil, natural gas and hydroelectric power, it is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, benefitting from its large coastal areas, strategically kept to itself by opting out of affiliation with the European Union.

Since the 1960’s, successful offshore test drilling for oil and gas has quickly sent the country to the top of the world’s list of financially wealthy countries, and Norway invests its Petroleum Fund, saving up capita for future generations.

While Norway has avoided any major damage from oil spills, there are still concerns about its offshore rigs.

As the government announced new plans for more test drilling close to potentially very fragile marine environments, green groups throughout the country panicked and quickly opposed the government’s plans.

However, it was not until the Deepwater Horizon disaster that plans were officially dropped.

The proposed new drilling was to take place in the Barents Sea, just off the coast of the Lofoten Islands. For the 25,000 inhabitants living on the islands, an environmental disaster such as an oil spill could have devastating consequences.

Frederic Hauge, of the Norwegian Environmental group Bellona, says the area is one of the world’s most important fishing grounds.

“The Lofoten Islands and the Barents Sea is one of the world’s cleanest sea areas, and is the natural habitat for over 150 different fish species,” he says.

“The areas are grounds for spawning for some of the world’s most important fish stocks. The Northern areas are regarded as internationally important sea bird areas, and are the homes to a lot of endangered species. These unique resources are vulnerable to pollution from oil spills.”

Bellona says the Norwegian government so far has insufficiently taken this into consideration, as well as failing to acknowledge how there is very little knowledge about the natural resources in the area.

“Accidents and spills in these vulnerable areas will generally have bigger consequences than other places in the world,” Hauge says.

With the government currently revising its plans for expanding offshore oil drilling, the vast fishing and sea bird grounds of the Lofoten Islands are momentarily safe, but for other areas of the world offshore oil drilling is the only option in the search for energy fuels.

Joshua Reichert of the Pew Charitable Trusts in the US says while offshore oil drilling probably will not come to an end anytime soon, environmentalists are happy with the focus that has been put on safety measures and risk assessment.

“All uses of the ocean should be considered through rigorous, scientifically valid assessments of the potential impacts and benefits,” he says. “If offshore oil and gas development continues to be a part of the picture it should not be at the expense of either safety or the other economic and environmental values our oceans provide.”

The Australian Maritime Safety Authority and BP Global declined to issue any comments, and directed information requests on to their respective websites.

Bjorn-Ruban Thomassen was on an Global Environmental Journalism Education Initiative exchange at UTS is now back at City University where he is completing a Bachelor in Journalism.

By Julie Kofoed

Councils in Sydney say more funding needs to be given for bicycle infrastructure. Image: Tai_yi

Improvements in Sydney transport infrastructure mean more people are choosing to travel by bicycle. The NSW Roads and Traffic Authority NSW estimate that one per cent of all trips in Sydney are now made on bicycle.

While from an environmental point of view, this is an improvement, what this statistic does not show is that most of these trips are made in the small inner city. When it comes to bicycles, the vast suburbs of Sydney are being left behind.

According to the new NSW Bike Plan, Sydney will spend 158 million dollars on filling the missing links in major cycle ways between 2010 and 2020.

“There is a huge increase in the number of cyclists in the inner city where the infrastructure is getting better, but in the suburbs it seems like people are driving faster and the cyclists feel less welcomed,” says Elaena Gardner, president of the volunteer group BikeSydney.

“New riders are daunted. I think the cars in the inner city have got used to the cyclists as there are becoming more riders.”

One of the reasons why people in the outer councils do not have as many riders as the inner city has, might be because of the lack of cycle ways according to Liverpool Council.

“At present there is no continuous cycle connection between Liverpool and Sydney, it is only on-and-off road, so the cyclists have to share the general route with the cars where they do not have much protection,” says strategic and transport planner at Liverpool Council, James Semple.

Sutherland Council and Blacktown Council report the same problem.

“We have some fragmentation in our cycle ways network. It is tough somewhere if you want to ride into the inner city, because there is on-and-off cycle ways the whole way, which means that the cyclists have to share the road with the cars or the pedestrians,” says Ingo Koericke, senior environmental scientist in Sutherland Council.

Blacktown Council has made an extension in their cycle ways network during the last 10 years, but there is still only on-and-off cycle ways into the city.

According to the councils, money is the problem.

Steven Bryant, senior traffic management officer for Blacktown Council says, “We have been waiting for a completion of the network for a long time, but there is not enough funding for the building of cycle ways.”

Funding is uncertain and limited

To invest in infrastructure in Sydney the councils have to apply for funding.

The funding comes from different Governmental departments, for example Infrastructure Australia, which provides some funding for transport and other infrastructure. According to the several councils in Sydney, funding is strongly needed.

“As it is right now, the money for construction of cycle ways is limited, so we need more opportunities for funding. It is difficult because the need for cycle ways is competing with other kinds of needs,” says Semple.

He would like to see more planning of major commuter routes from the State Government and especially more funding for the infrastructure in the outer councils. Steven Bryant agrees.

“It seems like most of the money has been spent on the inner city.”

The NSW Government has spent nearly 300 million dollars over the past 10 years on cycle ways throughout Sydney and regional NSW, building an average of 200 kilometres of cycling facilities per year.

Vice president of the volunteer group Bicycle NSW, Richard Birdsey, would like to see more money spent on cycling, but says that there is a big pressure on the State budget.

“We have to be realistic and I think that a lot of things are already being done. Things are getting a lot better.”

Koericke echoes this sentiment saying, “It is improving, but compared to funding for roads, it is a minimum of money which is spent on cycle ways. And without money, it is hard to complete cycle ways.

“I would like to see more focus on cycling, because it needs a stronger push to make it sustainable… Unfortunately there is no certainty if funding, because it is politically driven and funding for cycling will only be possible if cycling considers to be worth it.”

Economic, environmental and healthy benefits of cycling

According to a report launched in May, made by the independent institute AECOM, there is an economic reason to invest in cycling. The study, which was commissioned by City of Sydney Council of a proposed Inner Sydney Regional Bike Network shows that Sydney can save millions of dollars by investing in cycling. 


According to this study, an investment in cycling would deliver at least 506 million dollars in net economic benefits over 30 years, and reduce Sydney’s traffic congestion by 4.3 million car trips a year.


The report also suggests that it will bring better health and environmental improvements such as reduced greenhouse gas emissions as well as improved air quality and lower noise pollution in Sydney. 



BikeSydney welcomes the AECOM-report.

“It is really good news. The report looks on the economic benefits for the first time, and we are excited about the result. It shows that it is worth spending money on better infrastructure for the cyclists. I hope the Government will look at the research,” says president of BikeSydney, Elaena Gardner.

“The Government is traditionally more focused on the economic benefits more than other kinds of benefits, so I hope this will give the Government a motivation to invest more money on infrastructure”.

Completion of cycle network

The report might be the starting gun for councils on the outskirts of Sydney.



“This report makes a very important difference for Sydney. To invest in infrastructure in Australia, councils have to apply for funding. And to do this, they need to prove that there is an economic benefit for the plans”, says Fiona Campbell, Transport Planner for City of Sydney (CoS) council. 



She explains that the CoS Council, which spends 76 million dollars a year on infrastructure, prepares the funding applications on behalf of all the areas in the CoS Council.

“The inner city does not need the money for the infrastructure, but we want to help the suburbs to get the same good infrastructure. With this report they have a very strong case,” says Campbell. 



According to Roads and Traffic Authority NSW, an average of 233 kilometres have been built each year in the State between 1999 and 2009. 430 kilometres of cycle ways had been built out of a possible 480 kilometres of major cycle ways that the NSW Bike Plan had promised would be in place by that year.

Matt Faber, acting sustainable transport manager for the Roads and Traffic Authority NSW says, “Where cycle ways had not been completed as promised, this was for reasons including changes to the timing of other transport projects of which the cycle ways were an integral component, delays to property access or acquisition, and overall changes to transport investment priorities.”

According to the new NSW Bike Plan, Sydney will spend 158 million dollars in specifically on major cycle ways missing links between 2010 and 2020.

“When developing cycle ways, the NSW Government will continue to focus on completing links in a high-quality network that connects Sydney’s major centres, while local councils will be mainly responsible for local routes that fill in the spaces between major cycle ways,” says Faber.

Julie Koefed is studying Journalism at the Danish School of Media and Journalism. She was on exchange at the UTS on a GEJI scholarship.

Jenny Jägerhorn | Melbourne editor

Hazelwood Power station in Victoria. Image: Jenny Jägerhorn

The air is crisp and the clouds over Latrobe Valley are as grey and thick as the smoke spewing out of the pipes of Australia’s most polluting power stations. The mining of the oldest brown coal reserves started in the 1950’s and even the younger power stations, built in the 80s, look like icons from the former Soviet Union, with their toxic green façades.

The brown-coal-fired generation plants in the valley account for 85 per cent of Victoria’s greenhouse contributions. Hazelwood power station produces up to 16 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year, which is almost 15 percent of Victoria’s annual greenhouse gas emissions, and 3 percent of Australia’s total carbon emissions.

Environmentalists are calling for the closure of Hazelwood by 2012 to be followed by Gippsland’s other brown coal stations.

“Environmentalists have to make a large decision on how they’re going on about it. It’s not just the power stations they’re going to shut down, it’s three major towns [Morwell, Moe and Churchill] within the region and all the people that support the power stations as in workshops and industries that rely on it,” says Phil Bramstedt, who works as a belt technician at the Yallourn mine.

He has been working in the power industry for 25 years and has seen all the commotion around the industry during the past decades.

“There’s nothing they’ve really thought on the community side. Basically, Latrobe Valley has been built over the 70 years as a coal industry,” says Bramstedt.

Once owned by the state

All six power stations, Yallourn Power Station, Hazelwood Power Station, Energy Brix Power Station, Loy Yang Power Stations A & B and Jeeralang Power Station (gas), were once run by the government owned State Electricity Commission (SEC). The height of power production was in 1974, when the SEC employed 26, 000 workers in Latrobe Valley.

The privatisation of the state’s electricity in the 1990’s was commenced by the Kirner Labor government and continued by the Kennett Liberal government, delivering $23 billion dollars to the state coffers.

Hazelwood Power Station and the associated mine were privatised in 1996 and sold for $2.35 billion.

However, the privatisation came as a bombshell in the Latrobe Valley and led to mass layoffs. Jobs went down from 11, 000 in 1989 to only 2, 500 people working in the power industry in Latrobe Valley today, and many never returned. The SEC trained around 500 apprentices a year, but nowadays, the apprenticeships are a fond memory. The Government’s withdrawal wounded both the economy and the psyche of the community. Thriving families spiralled into despair as employment opportunities went up in smoke and social infrastructure failed.

Social problems

Gippsland Trades and Labour Council secretary John Parker says there are two to three generations of families that have lived but haven’t worked in the Latrobe Valley since the privatisation, which has led to major social problems with a lot of drug and alcohol abuse.

In the 15 years to 2005, the population of Latrobe municipality dropped from 75, 000 to 70, 000. More would have left the valley but were unable to because of the plummeting property prices.

“The biggest problem is that we have a market driven economy, but what we need is planning and leadership that work together with the community and the unions,” says Parker.

He sees the Government’s recent decision to postpone the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which aimed at cutting Australia’s greenhouse gases by making the industry pay for the right to pollute, as unfortunate.

PHOTO GALLERY – Click to enlarge
[miniflickr photoset_id="72157624279102815" ]

“It would have given a certainty to the workers. Companies want to wait until the last minute and then just close everything and give redundancy packages. The rest of Gippsland will collapse around them without the support form the government,” says Parker.

The effects of what happened after the privatisation can still be seen. Many of the small businesses never recovered. Walking down the streets empty shops can be seen all over Morwell.

Bramstedt says the government backing in the Latrobe Valley is virtually zero.

“Every time we set up some sort of scheme to do anything here it’s always moved up to Melbourne or some consultant overseas. We put up the ideas and the next minute they’re moved out. Politicians don’t listen to anybody here,” he says.

One-fifth of local jobs in the valley remain directly related to electricity. Phil Bramstedt believes that closing down the coal business would mean the end for Latrobe Valley.

“This will just be like an American ghost town. I’ve already told my children not to rely on the Latrobe Valley as an employer in the future. My 21-year-old daughter is living and studying in Melbourne and my sons have made plans to move there. It is a very large part of Victoria’s economy that the government has to look at,” he says.

Australian Manufacturing Worker’s Union (AMWU) organizer in the La Trobe Valley, Steve Dodd, has a more positive vision about the future of coal but stresses that there needs to be a just transition to new industries.

He sees a future in coal and believes the power stations need to be retrofitted to make a more pollution-controlled zone, whether it will be in power stations or to put coal in to some other use, such as coaled oil or coal fertilisers.

“There’s got to be a change in the short term, there’s got to be a change in the long term, but it has to be a just transition with all parties involved. That includes not only the business groups but also the union and the community groups. They shouldn’t only be done on the basis on the next election in sight,” Dodd says.

“Heard promises before”

On the opposite side of the street from Loy Yang lies a big hole with a massive amount of the black gold. From here the coal strip goes up to a building that crushes the coal. Conveyer belts then move it further and dump it into the ominous, curved brown boilers. The 150-meter high chimney pumps out 14 million tonnes of greenhouse gases each year. The endless, overpowering, signature smell envelops you through the sticky air.

In March 2010, it was announced that the operators of Loy Yang A (Loy Yang Power) signed a contract with Alcoa World Alumina and Chemicals Australia for the supply of electricity to power aluminium smelters at Portland and Point Henry until 2036.

Loy Lang workers Neville Darragh, 53, and Toby Thornton, 50 have both worked in the power industry for more than 25 years and recognize that there has to be a change.

“There will have to be a move away from coal, but the biggest problem is where are we going to take the electricity from,” says Darragh.

They have heard promises by the Government before, assuring that new industries would come into the area, but without seeing it carried through. They fear that the past could be repeated.

“I think there’s a lot of pressure, Hazelwood was due to close 2005 but they’ve extended it to 2031. There isn’t really anything else,“ says Thornton.

“And Morwell power station [Energy Brix Power station] was supposed to shut down in 1996, all the money was set aside to close it down and it’s still running,” says Darragh.

“They’ve known that the plants here are getting old. They’ve had at least 20 years where they could have started looking around building new things.”

Redundancy packages a solution?

The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) says that a move away from coal is inevitable, but it believes the transition time would have to be minimum seven years.

Greg Hardy, Victorian secretary of the CFMEU’s mining and energy division says that the average age of the members is 53 years. So a natural or early retirement could be a solution, requiring that the Government supports them. If the power stations were closed gradually the younger employees could be moved to the newer power stations, Hardy suggests.

But the two Loy Lang workers aren’t convinced.

“How are we going to enjoy the life quality, if we don’t have the power? I think the government wouldn’t allow that. Where would they find money for that, when they they’re struggling with building new hospitals and roads,” says Thornton.

Both agree that people would probably look at redundancy packages if they were given enough to sustain their quality of life. But another aspect is that they feel that one needs a sense of wellbeing in the community as a contributor.

“You can’t just sit in the house and do nothing. We’re hands on people. When the SEC sold it off and downsized and gave away packages, people sat at home and the whole society here changed,” Darragh says.

The question remains, even if most of the workers retired earlier what else is there for the Valley?

“Even if they’re going to have these power stations closed, and if new technology would come along, who are they going to get to build it? These people pass on worthwhile skills to the younger generation,” says Thornton.

The Government recognises that the older and dirtier Hazelwood and Yallourn power stations are likely to close over the next ten years although compensation to the generators will slow that process. To combat devastating job losses alternatives need to be found.

Steve Dodd, from the AMWU, believes in developing manufacturing in Latrobe Valley.

“It could be solar hot water heaters or making parts for wind turbines, there could be a whole range of different, manufacturing of things in this region. It needs a bit of backing up from the government and the power stations and business groups.”

“We believe that there are more opportunities in new technology and in new ways of doing things than in the old power stations that haven’t been upgraded. If it would still be in government hands there would be two new power stations more up to date,” he says.

A recent report by Green Energy Markets for Environment Victoria has found that the closure and replacement of Hazelwood power station could be achieved by the end of 2012 for $320 million a year. The report also points out that an early closure of the power station would cut the state’s greenhouse gas emissions by 12 per cent.

Consultants Green Energy Markets found that Hazelwood could be replaced in one of two scenarios.

Firstly, a combination of large-scale gas-fired power of 1800 megawatts and an expanded renewable energy program of 1500 megawatts, mainly from wind.

Secondly, install less gas and introduce a residential and commercial energy efficiency program, wiping out the need for a quarter of Hazelwood’s electricity.

Environment Victoria expects between 1900 to 2500 construction jobs will be created in building the clean energy replacements for Hazelwood.

Another part of the jigsaw of the future may lie in hot rocks.

Professors Rachel Webster and Edwin Van Leeuwen of Melbourne University have discovered that the best site for geothermal power is in the Latrobe Valley. An operational test plant could be running within four years for $100 million.

John Parker questions the capacity of it. The existing coal-fired power plants in Latrobe Valley generate more than 6000 megawatts. Loy Yang A alone has four generating units with a combined capacity of 2200 megawatts.

“That’s a lot of power to replace within a few years. The problem with all of the thermal, carbon capture and solar test plants so far is that all are based on give us some money and we’ll try,” says Parker.

Nuclear power, popular in many countries in the European Union, where it provides around a third of the electricity, has had significant societal barriers to overcome in Australia. But perhaps attitudes will change?

“Nuclear power will come to Australia, we can’t get away from that, because people still want their lives to go on. If a nuclear power station is to be built it needs to be built here because the infrastructure is here. So I believe there will be a mix of energy,” says Darragh.

“Even if we decided to go on nuclear power, there would be another 10-15 years before we would have anything on tap,” says Thornton.

Despite the unhappy past they still have hope for the future.

“It’s got to be positive, there’s a lot of pressure everywhere, so I reckon pressure usually brings good,” says Darragh.

Both find it disappointing that the Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong hasn’t been to Latrobe Valley although there were promises to do so. Perhaps if she did, she would see how devastating bad planning could be to a community.

Jenny Jägerhorn is a GEJI exchange student currently at Monash University in Melbourne.

Related articles
Hundreds protest over Rudd’s backflip
Climate protesters planning new protests

Could whales and oil platforms be neighbours? Federal Resources Minister Martin Ferguson seems to think they can. He has just released new offshore oil leases, and some of them lie in areas that are flagged as potential marine sanctuaries. Pia Volk reports.

Oil leases compete with marine sanctuary proposals for Government approval. Image: Mike L. Baird.

Nearly 80 oil and gas approvals were made in Australian waters throughout the last 18 months, but not one marine reserve has been declared. Now federal Resources Minister Martin Ferguson has announced new drill and leases in South Australia and the area of Kangaroo Island – the same area that was flagged by Environment Minister Peter Garret for potential marine sanctuaries.

“What you’ve essentially seen is the Resources Minister Martin Ferguson jumping the gun and deliberately trying to get in before these marine sanctuaries have actually legally been declared,” says Peter Owen, campaign manager of the Wilderness Society in South Australia.

“They’ve been flagged and they’re currently being discussed, and now suddenly we’ve got oil acreage released right over the top of one of the more significant marine sanctuary propositions for the whole of southern Australia- the Kangaroo Island Canyons.”

The Kangaroo Island Canyons are very nutrient-rich areas and several species of whales feed there, a fact that has regional manager of the Whale and Dolphins Society Mike Bosseley concerned for their wellbeing.

“Whales and dolphins are vulnerable to being impacted by oil spills in several ways,” Bosseley says.

“One way is by eating the oil either directly in the water or if it gets onto fish. Another way is by absorbing it through their skins and another way is when the oil vaporises it just lies above the surface of the water and the whales and dolphins can breathe it in.”

Listen to this story on the Wire:
[See post to listen to audio]

A similar case of conflicting interests between oil drilling and environmental protection occurred in Western Australia. There, a spokesperson of Mr Ferguson’s told The West Australian newspaper that the areas would continue to be evaluated as a marine reserve by the federal Environment Department, but within the framework of existing oil and gas leases.

“You can’t have a marine sanctuary with oil drilling in the middle of it… that completely defeats the purpose of having a marine sanctuary,” says Peter Owen. “What we’re basically calling on with the Rudd government is to make a decision here.”

Owen warns that the risk of accidents is very real.

“If you were to have an oil accident out where this is being proposed in the Kangaroo Islands Canyon area, you would decimate much of Kangaroo Island, which is South Australia’s tourism Mecca,” he says.

“You would then potentially also decimate much of the gulf areas and see oil washed up on some metropolitan beaches in Adelaide… We really can’t afford to take this type of risk.”

Pia Volk is a producer for The Wire .

By Jenny Jägerhorn | Melbourne Editor

Described as the 'dirtiest power station in Australia,' protesters are fighting for its closure. Image: Courtesy of Greenpeace/Hunt

With state and federal elections looming, the campaign by environmental activists to close Hazelwood, Australia’s dirtiest power station, is set to intensify with a demonstration planned for Thursday.

Environment Victoria, the state’s peak non-government environment organization, has been lobbying for closure since a demonstration last September in which 22 people were arrested amid ugly scenes.

Replace Hazelwood campaigners say Victoria must change the way it gets its energy supplies and the number one priority is to replace Hazelwood power station.

“It’s old, it’s inefficient and it’s time for it to be replaced. We have got this opportunity now because the owners have signalled that they will be willing to shut down, so there is a big opportunity for the government to step in and close Hazelwood and subsidize clean energy,” Environment Victoria climate change campaigner Victoria McKenzie-McHarg said.

Environment Victoria says the demonstration, scheduled to take place on May 6 on the steps of Parliament House in Melbourne, is for those wanting “real action to slash Victoria’s greenhouse pollution.”

The organisations behind the campaign to close Hazelwood power station are pressing the state and federal governments to negotiate with owners International Power to close it by 2012.

Environment Victoria feels optimistic it can negotiate closure.

In interviews with Reportage-Enviro, the union agrees that closure is inevitable, although it believes several years will be required, and the operator says it may agree to close the plant so long as compensation is paid.

Meanwhile, the Victorian government prolonged Hazelwood power station’s contract. It was scheduled to close down in 2005, but the Labor Government extended its contract until 2030.

Hazelwood burns brown coal, which is one of the dirtiest energy forms and is, according to Environment Victoria, responsible for 15 per cent of Victoria’s annual greenhouse gas emissions. According to a report commissioned by Environment Victoria – Victoria’s Energy Mix 2000-2009, Victoria’s reliance on coal fired electricity has increased in the last decade with both electricity generation and greenhouse pollution from coal increasing by nine percent since 2000.

Ms McKenzie-McHarg said that the Victorian government was under real pressure with an election looming and that seats could go to the Greens.

“People… will be watching very closely to see what the government decides to do on this issue,” she said.

“No plans to close within years”

Hazelwood’s owner International Power says the company itself decides when to close and has no plans to do it for years.

“It won’t be any union’s, it won’t be any environmental group’s, neither the state or federal Government’s decision. We will decide when it closes,” said Mr Neil Lawson, Public Affairs Manager at International Power Hazelwood.

He said that if governments were “wanting to phase out all the coal-fired power stations then there is a process to go through it, it is not a statement of closing down Hazelwood within a certain period of time.”

“We are not prepared to do anything until we see some certainty in the carbon policy direction of the Federal government,“ said Mr Lawson.

The Australian Government has claimed it is strongly committed to reducing carbon pollution with a goal of reducing emissions by 25 percent below 2000 levels by 2020.

But last week Prime Minster Kevin Rudd delayed plans until the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.

International power shares a vision with the both state and federal governments that coal will form the majority of the energy-mix in Australia for “some time to come.” The power station claims there is no replacement for efficient based coal power in this country at this point of time.

Minimum seven years transition

The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union recognises that moving away from coal is inevitable but believes that the transition time needs to be at least seven years. The average age of its members is 53 years, so it believes a natural or early retirement could be a solution.

“Our members want security in the employment for the duration of their working life. The government will obviously have to play a significant role, because they will need to mandate that companies that are closing down will shift their younger employees across to power companies that are going to hang around for a while, because you can only close them down at a certain phase,” said Greg Hardy, Victorian secretary of the CFMEU’s mining and energy division.

After the privatisation of Hazelwood Power station in 1996, there were a lot of job losses in La Trobe Valley and, according to Mr Hardy, the workers got little help from the government. There is still a lot of mistrust in the Government.

“Both sides of politics in Victoria have been the enemy in La Trobe Valley for quite some time and I can’t see that suddenly changing. The Government does not talk to our union. They treat us like second-class citizens, but they seem to have lunches with the power industry bosses on a regular basis. Whether or not that will change, who knows,” said Mr Hardy.

In terms of the elections, Mr Hardy does not see much choice for the public because the major parties implement similar politics; they are both pro-coal.

“It’s the companies they look after and obviously for companies who aren’t presently set up in our industry that makes it very difficult for them, because it’s the big existing companies that get listened to, when their setting policy, not the future companies,” said Mr Hardy.

“In terms of the future of coal I think the future lays in alternate usage for it. But that is along way off,” said Mr Hardy.

Options to coal

Environment Victoria’s wants to reduce electricity demand in Victoria through energy efficiency measures.

It also supports new gas-fired power stations in Western Victoria as part of a transition, while building up renewable energy sources.

“La Trobe Valley is a manufacturing heart and we could be renewable energy and green technology there, but we need the Governments support for that,” said Ms McKenzie-McHarg.

Mr Hardy from CFMEU agrees that demand management is needed and believes it is possible through government regulation.

“You need base load renewable energy and the only one that seems to have the runs on the board at this stage is the solar thermal, with large scale storage. We would probably also need to have some sort of interim period where a bit more gas was used, but either way it would take a while to replace our older stations so that you progressively shut down an older station and whilst you’re doing that you’re commissioning new cleaner plants,” said Mr Hardy.

Professors Rachel Webster and Edwin Van Leeuwen of Melbourne University are working on a project called the Victorian Geothermal Assessment Report, on Geothermal power. They have discovered that the best site on earth for this is the Latrobe Valley, a prospective geothermal site with a vast amount of brown-coal needed for the process. An operational test plant could be running within four years for $100 million.

The next report will be published later this year.

Jenny Jägerhorn is a GEJI exchange student currently at Monash University in Melbourne.

By Dominic Geiger

Environmentalists say coal mines are no longer practical. Image: Iain Thompson.

A new coal mine planned for north of Maryborough in Queensland has recently received significant financial backing from a Chinese company, frustrating environmentalists in their struggle to prevent the operation going ahead.

Executive Director of the Queensland Conservation Council, Toby Hutcheon, says the coal mines will have a large negative environmental impact.

“The major issue obviously with coal mines is that the use of the coal is very emission intense. Any expansion of a coal mine- any increase in the export and use of that coal- will actually increase global greenhouse gas emissions.”

Roger Curry of the White Bay Burnett Conservation Council says the mine might not be exactly what it seems.

“We are particularly concerned about this proposal. Even though Northern Energy Corporation (NEC) is currently looking into a very small footprint pre-emptive project of 500 000 tonnes a year, it actually sits within a large coke and coal deposit called the Borough syncline which is approximately 50 000 hectares in size,” he says.

“[NEC] believes that there is 100 million tonnes of potential resource there, so we are concerned that this current proposal could be simply a small approval process to try and then have the ability to move into a large scale extraction of the 100 million tonnes.”

Keith Barker, managing director of NEC , says this isn’t the case.

“We’re looking at, on the scale of coal mining, a very small mine. The assessments of the environmental impacts are that they will not impact on anywhere apart from within the mining leash area. Part of our approval process is to do our environmental management plan.

Barker says the mine will have considerable benefits for both the local community and the state as a whole.

“There’ll be benefits through Queensland; the direct impact on the Maryborough region in terms of wages and direct services within the mine region is about 20 million dollars. In addition there will be export revenue from the sale of the coal, which will be from the order of $100 plus million a year, [and] royalties to the state government through things like rail and other services.”

Listen to this story on the Wire:
[See post to listen to audio]

But according to Curry, the mine could cause significant harm to the local environment.

He says that the project is located close to the Great Sand Ramsar which could potentially create federal and state debate about biodiversity in the area.

There is also concern for the community as the mine is fairly close to the township.

“Given that the Queensland Government is pretty keen on coal as the way to save Queensland’s economy, we’re really up against it, but we will definitely put our biggest effort into ensuring that the biodiversity issues are well discussed.”

Hutcheon, however, says the building of new coal mines is altogether no longer feasible in a world affected by global warming.

“We are essentially living in an age where we have to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That essentially means for the coal industry that we have to start to use less coal and use more of the alternatives particularly renewable energies,” he says.

“That is the reality of the times that we live in, so any expansion of coal mine [and] any increase in exports of coal will increase greenhouse gas emissions. That, we do not support.”

Dominic Geiger is a producer for The Wire.

By Joel Philp and Tara Egan

The Shen Neng 1, grounded on the Great Barrier Reef. Image: AMSA

Marine experts say damage from the Chinese oil tanker running aground on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef could be far worse that first thought.

The physical impact of the ship, the Shen Neng 1, ploughing into the reef on April 4 has caused extensive coral damage that may take 20 years to repair, according to Capricorn Conservation Council spokesman, Ian Herbert.

He said the vessel was going at full speed and travelled several kilometres along the sea bed before it came to rest.

“Those first video vision shots that people saw last East Sunday and Monday of that big slick of white floating on the surface, that was not oil, that was shredded coral,” Mr Herbert said.

“That really shows the extent to which the ship has crunched the coral and its formed a white powder and its floating on the sea.”

Listen to this story on the Wire:
[See post to listen to audio]

The Shen Neng 1 came to rest in Douglas Shoal, just east of Great Keppel Island, leaking a small amount of oil that authorities are still monitoring.

Queensland reporter Marlina Whop said the Australian Institute of Marine Science will closely examine the World Heritage site.

“It will send its team of divers who are specialised in to looking at the reef, and who have been studying this for a number of years,” Ms Whop said.

“So those experts have been called in and this is really day by day turning into a large operation.”

It is still unclear as to whether the shipping company, Shenzhen Energy Transportation, will pay the full cost of the clean up.

Ian Herbert said that from past incidents, chances of the Queensland government receiving full payment from the shipping company are unlikely.

“We had a much bigger oil spill bigger that this a year ago off the east coast of Brisbane where a large quantity of oil washed up on the shores of Moreton Island and the state government is still out off pocket,” Mr Herbert said.

“There’s some gentleman’s agreement with these insurance companies that their viability is capped to $20 million and they don’t pay any more than that which I think that’s a very sad state of affairs.”

The Capricorn Conservation Council is pushing the federal government for policy reforms regarding shipping surveillance in Australian Shores.

Mr Herbert added that laws are not always sufficient in preventing these types of incidents.

“It’s all very well and good for the premier to say ‘look, if only they obeyed the rules this wouldn’t happen’, but if only all road users obeyed the rules, we would have no road toll, would we.”

By Matthew Knott

Activists get ready to go out on the water for the day. Image: Matthew Knott

Ship movements in Newcastle, home to the world’s biggest coal port, came to a halt yesterday as environmental activists opposed to the expansion of the coal industry staged a harbour blockade.

Coal exports from Newcastle are set to almost double from 93 million tonnes to 174 million tonnes by 2020, equivalent to a 40 per cent increase in Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions*.

Around 400 people from across NSW attended the protest – with half taking to the water in boats, kayaks and homemade rafts – according to Rising Tide , the local environmental group that organised the event.

“No coal ships moved into the harbour today, where there would normally be several,” Steve Phillips, spokesperson for Rising Tide, said. “They cancelled them because of our protest.”

Newcastle Port Corporation denied its services had been disrupted. A spokesperson said that several ships were due to enter and leave the port after the protest had been completed.

Six police boats, including the 32m ocean patrol vessel Nemesis, the largest police boat in the Southern Hemisphere, were on the harbour. No arrests were made.

In a bid to reduce logjams at Newcastle Port, where vessels wait up to 16 days to load, last year the NSW Government made it obligatory for coal terminal operators to provide extra capacity should a coal mining company open or expand a mine.

A new coal loader, the city’s third, began operations last week and a fourth terminal is already in the planning stages.

Newcastle state government MP Jodi McKay said the new export terminal has given a boost to the local economy.

“Up to 800 people have been working…each day thanks to the recent expansion.

“These jobs are great news for families in the Hunter and the flow-on effect they have to the region’s economy is very welcome.”

But green groups say the massive increase in coal exports will fuel dangerous climate change.

“Effectively you double our carbon footprint if you include our exports,” said Naomi Hodgson, a Newcastle environmentalist. “For Australia the most effective thing we can do is stop the expansion of the coal industry here.”

Ms Hodgson said coal mining was also having “devastating” effects on mining communities in the upper Hunter area.

“People are suffering quite severe impacts from increased dust and noise; people are suffering psychological impacts from the noise and health impacts such as asthma.”

Peter Kennedy, who has worked for 32 years as a coal miner in Muswellbrook, in the upper Hunter, travelled to the protest to demand a transition from coal to renewable energy.

“I would be one of the first people knocking on the door of a company making solar panels or thermal energy,” he said.

*Author’s note: Figures based on the US Energy Information Administration´s calculation that 1 tonne of combusted coal produces 2.89 tonnes of carbon dioxide. In 2007, Australia´s total greenhouse gas emissions were 597 tonnes, according to the Department of Climate Change.