Things like this really annoy me.
http://www.noosanews.com.au/story/2009/09/18/headline-act-the-herd-bolts-from-festival-herd-bol/
Before I start, I do really like the music that The Herd produces, but this is just weak and really is showing that they are a sell-out. At least the name is accurate, in that they do just follow the crowd. The Herd were due to play at the Coal to Coast Concert in Mackay, but pulled out less than 24hrs before the show. This was due to anti-mining 'green' groups still trying to plug that coal mining is bad. Honestly, where do they think the steel that they use everyday comes from? The steel reinforcement in their houses, in the bridges they walk across, in the buildings they work, in the safety boots, in the cars they drive to work in or the buses they ride, in whitegoods and office furniture. This is all without mentioning the massive factor of where the majority of electricity comes from. I support the sustainable use of resources, but this childish, uniformed view that mining is bad really does annoy me. It can be made sustainable, and is heading in that direction already.
On a brighter note, congratulations to Spiderbait for standing up and taking the stage (I am hoping that they do), because the Concert should be a lot of fun despite the poor media attention.
About Me
- andy
- I'm like any other uni student. I like clubbing, parties with friends and surfing if I can get a chance. I grew up in Townsville and miss my great friends there, the strand and maggie, but I still get time to have fun in brissie. I'm studying Civil and Construction Engineering at QUT, and I'm finding it a lot more interesting than most people would think. I'm also doing a mining minor at UQ at the same time so that I can work in the mining industry. I hope to work on mine sites once I graduate, because I love the friendliness in small towns, and it's always more fun to brag about being involved in massive projects. Drop me an email at andrea.dale@connect.qut.edu.au if you want to know more :)
7 comments:
Hey Andy,
I acknowledge the fact that we all use steel and electricity (from coal) everyday, but do you think that this means that we should support the continuation and expansion of coal production?
I guess what I'm saying is that just because it's "the way it is" doesn't mean it's the way it should continue to be.
The Herd say that there is an urgent need to invest in alternative sources of energy, like renewables, and alternative ways of creating jobs. I'd add alternative ways of doing the things that you mentioned (getting across rivers for example) i.e. using more recycled steel, building fewer new bridges and cars, etc.
Why? Because coal production in Queensland is expanding really rapidly, and coal is the no.1 contributor to climate change.
I'm backing The Herd - it's not ok to dig up more and more coal, we need to find ways to dig up less and less.
cheers, Brad
PS check out six degrees. It's a campaign based in Brisbane that's about acknowledging the problems associated with coal expansion, and creating a measured transition to a more sustainable economy.
I do support the use of recycled steel, however there is nowhere near enough steel to fulfil the requirements of the global population. We do need to keep producing more steel if society wants the lifestyle that many currently have. I don’t think it is really all that wise to create fewer bridges, buildings or cars without alternatives already in place. Reducing the number of bridges will cause congestion beyond belief. The population is growing, so the number of bridges and buildings also needs to grow. Otherwise it might be a bit interesting without an office or a home.
I understand that you want to change the way that things are done, and I support that, but viable ‘alternatives’ are not really being put forward. Renewable power has a lot of problems associated with it, from noisy wind farms (which they are also currently investigating for causing much more serious health effects - http://www.windaction.org/news/5116), to many options that are unviable. There has already been a massive investment in alternative power sources, however there has been little change. I strongly support change for the better, and a sustainable future, but I think that the use of coal is largely misunderstood by society. There is a belief that it is dirty and bad, which is mostly caused from lack of knowledge.
As for coal being the number one contributor to climate change, wouldn’t it then make sense to investigate a little further, rather than just saying stop mining it? There are currently phenomenal advances being made in the sustainable mining of resources. If you want to stop mining coal, does that mean you want to stop mining metals as well? This would be completely unsustainable, as sustainability is not just about the environment, but incorporates economical and social aspects as well. If you look at all of these aspects, coal is one of the most sustainable sources for power and steel production.
I still believe that The Herd acted unprofessionally (granted that the are muso’s), and quite rudely by leaving it until the last minute to cancel (29hrs before they were due on stage). Whatever their own opinions (although it seems more like they were influenced rather than actually thinking for themselves), they should still be respectful of people that made plans for them, as you would expect from anyone. Their excuses are pathetic, to say that they didn’t realise it was a coal industry supported event. It was called Coal to Coast!!! How is that not obvious? Then to blame the festival and everyone involved in organising it for ‘keeping them in the dark’ is rude and blatant lies. I used to love The Herd and their music, but I’ve lost all respect for them now.
To answer your question, I do strongly support the continuation and expansion of coal mining. The advances that are occurring are incredible, but most people unfortunately are not aware of these as the media chooses to portray coal in a negative light, neglecting to mention the many positive facts about coal mining. There are the facts of how many people are employed in the industry, how the economy is strongly supported by mining, how we need it for everything we use. There are so many aspects that are conveniently ‘forgotten’ by the media.
There are heaps of websites and information, mostly on the emissions tax that targets mining, which you might find interesting:
http://www.cutemissionsnotjobs.com.au/see-the-ads.aspx
http://www.qrc.org.au/01_cms/details.asp?ID=1969
http://www.qrc.org.au/01_cms/details.asp?ID=1950
http://www.qrc.org.au/01_cms/details.asp?ID=1930
http://www.qrc.org.au/01_cms/details.asp?ID=1916
Hey,
Thanks for the reply. Good points, interesting discussion.
I want to challenge your definition of sustainability a little bit. The "triple bottom line" one that you gave applies to the sustainability of a corporation, who must make a profit to survive.
But by this definition almost all conservation efforts are "unsustainable", as they hurt profits (in the short term).
For me, sustainability is much broader. I just want to live in a society that leaves the planet in as good or better condition for the next generation.
That's kind of an ideology of mine, to strive to always leave things in a better way than I found them, so I understand that people may have opposing value systems.
At the moment our society is taking a lot more from the environment than it is giving back - species are becoming extinct, fisheries exhausted, forested areas shrinking, and the climate destabilised. It's time for our society to evolve to sustainability, to progress beyond coal.
Even though there may be short-term economic benefits from increased extraction, if we are going to leave the world in a better way than we found it we simply can't continue to expand the industry.
I also reckon that viable alternatives absolutely exist.
As for wind, the article you linked to said: " But the report, commissioned by the UK Noise Association, is not opposed to wind farms, instead recommending that they should not be sited within a mile of residential areas." Sounds sensible to me.
I'm also confused as to why coal's dirty image isn't justified? At places like Gladstone, coal dust is a constant annoyance for people in some suburbs, coal is by far the most CO2 intensive fossil fuel and is responsible for environmental disasters like the TVA ash spill and the Fitzroy River pollution from Ensham near Emerald.
Finally, the 'cut emissions not jobs' campaign by QRC and ACA seems to be based purely on spin and fear. The independent studies that Roche refers to in your links actually say that the number of coal jobs will increase under the ETS, but without the ETS the number of coal jobs would increase by several thousand more. I.e. the job losses that the ACA are complaining about are potential jobs, not current jobs.
Sorry for the long reply!
PS I'm also an engineering student, just over at UQ.
The long reply is good, after all I wouldn’t describe mine as short. So what type of engineering do you do, and what year?
Personally, I think that the triple bottom line definition of sustainability can be applied to everything. For me, economical doesn’t have to be the cheapest option, however it does have to be feasible. I think all three factors have to be taken into account. I do agree with your ideology of leaving the world in the same, or better condition, however I don’t believe it is always possible. I also agree that the environment is currently changing for the worse, but society is recognising this and slowly starting the change to be more thoughtful about the environment. I really don’t think that many of the problems you have listed have anything to do with coal.
So what do you believe are viable alternatives to coal?
The problem with putting the wind farms (and any power source for that matter) away from where it is being used is that power is lost through the distance of the wires. Obviously no one wants a wind farm in their backyard, but it could be more efficient. This applies to all power sources that I can think of though.
Coal really isn’t allowed to be dirty anyway. There are so many restrictions on dust, not just coal dust, but also the dust from overburden, or dirt. These are so strict that watercarts have to go up and down the haul roads making sure that the trucks and vehicles don’t stir up too much dust. Compare this to the dirt roads, where vehicles can flick up so much dust that it is impossible to see.
The TVA coal ash spill was a disaster, and even if we do assume that the lower water quality is wholly contributed to Ensham Mine, it was caused by nature. If it hadn’t rained so much, so suddenly, the situation could have been avoided. This is definitely not a normal occurrence for coal mines. Disasters happen with everything, look at nuclear, hydro, or any other source of power and I’m sure there would have been, or will be disasters related to them.
Finally, they might be potential jobs, but we will also have a definite population growth, meaning we will desperately need those extra jobs. Don’t forget that mining is one of the biggest employers in Queensland, and also pays a good chunk of the money used through the government to build roads, bridges, hospitals, etc. Very little of this is ever used to benefit the mining industry. Coal is also Queensland’s most valuable export - http://203.210.126.185/dsdweb/v4/apps/web/secure/docs/2993.pdf
I think that coal mining can be sustainable, and although it is not there yet, no source of power is. Environmental consideration is not the only requirement.
I’d like to ask you one thing though. Do you personally pay the tiny bit extra on the electricity bill for the 10% renewable power option?
First your questions:
I studied Elec, graduated in 2005 and am now doing a PhD in biomed engineering. so nothin related to coal or sustainablility.
I just moved into a sharehouse and I dont know if we use green power, so probably not. Do you sign up to green power?
At my previous house we did, and we even convinced the landlord to install solar panels. On the other hand I'm not convinced that either of those actions actually resulted in a net reduction of GHG, since the renewable energy credits all seem to be counted into the Federal Renewable Energy Target anyway.
While I take lots of personal lifestyle actions to reduce my own impact (ride my bike everywhere, switch off lights, short showers, eat less meat, buy local etc.) I think that my personal actions are only significant if I also advocate for broader change, like stabilizing and eventually reducing coal production.
If your question was about teasing out people's general willingness to accept a reduced material standard of living to live more sustainably, then I probably agree with you, not everyone is willing to. But the huge public support for an ETS (the Australian showed 88% in favour) perhaps shows that people are ok with doing their bit, as long as they can see that it is part of a cohesive, effective strategy (I believe the ETS anything but effective, but that's another story).
It's good to hear that we agree on leaving things in as good nick as we found them but I'm intrigued by your exception: that it isn't always possible. When does difficult become impossible?
Does the difficulty of finding low emissions jobs and revenue growth mean that it is impossible for Queensland to slow the expansion of our coal industry? Or perhaps the risk of increasing the inevitable 1 m sea level rise already locked in by 2100 to 7 m (if Greenland melts for example) makes further coal production impossible?
I think that since our economy (and health, and food, etc.) relies on the environment, we should be willing to shoulder an economic burden to ensure that we dont destroy it. Any unsustainable activities are just putting the work onto future generations. Also, the longer we are unsustainable the more costly and painful the transition (or collapse if it is really bad).
From memory, about 18000 people in Australia are employed (directly) in the coal industry. This is less than the number of people employed by Target, or Bunnings Warehouses.
Of course the indirect numbers become more significant, and if we are suggesting scaling back the coal industry, we need to be researching ways to transition our economy in a measured and just way. No government in Australia is doing this research. I find that negligent.
Ensham is a good case to demonstrate the influence that the coal industry have on the government because it demonstrates willingness the Qld govt have to risk the envrionment for the sake of mining. This influence is probably largely due to the $~1.5 bn royalies that you mentioned.
I was in Blackwater a while after the flood, and believe me, the reason that no-one could drink the water was because of Ensham. First, the mine is built across a river. A flood of that size was very conceivable when the mining permit was approved. They pumped the water out of the mine and into the river, after receiving approval from the EPA, making the water undrinkable and according to some locals I chatted to, killing fish and trees downstream.
whew. could go on, but maybe it's your turn :P
In relation to the green power, every electricity supplier I know of has an option to use a certain percentage ‘green power’. It usually costs slightly more.
That is an impressive effort making the landlord install solar panels. Did you actually contribute anything towards that? Just wondering, because the investor would see no economical benefit in that, putting out a massive outlay and an increase in maintenance costs. I know that the economics of it were clearly not the motivating factor, but it’s important to keep in mind that it is after all, an investment property, and that is it’s sole purpose to the landlord. The only other benefits would be that the property may have a slightly higher chance at renting quickly, however this is almost negligible when the majority of potential tenants take into account the other aspects of a property. Sorry for the spiel, I used to work as a Property Manager, and go off on tangents easily.
Does it matter to you that it is contributing to the RET or not? Shouldn’t it be more of a personal issue? I do understand that it might be annoying that they take credit for it, but I guess I am just used to political decisions and actions that I disagree with. There is not a lot one person can do, and it seems that many protests (in Australia at least) have little effect anyway. They just usually inconvenience people who have nothing to do with the protest.
To put it simply, I believe an increase in coal production is necessary. Even if everyone limits their use, developing countries in particular are growing at an incredible rate. Who are we to say that they cannot have access to power like you and me? Add to that a growing global population, and the simple fact is that a massive increase in power will be required. I honestly don’t think it will be possible to provide for this increase without an increase in coal. Combine and maximise the use of all the other possible power sources, and you will still be looking at a required increase in coal. There are a lot of people in the world, all with the right to power.
Having grown up in a coastal town, I really don’t support the theory of the sea level rise. I honestly don’t believe it is as much of a problem as people are making out. Scare tactics just seem to work far too easily. But, I am not about to argue with that one, as there is little point and it would get nowhere.
I think that you may find this one fairly informative on the progress of coal mining: http://www.qrc.org.au/01_cms/details.asp?ID=1276
Also, if you notice that coal represents 60% of exports, the flow on jobs, even if we only consider jobs that are created solely from coal are phenomenal. Target and Bunnings do not have anywhere near the amount of flow on jobs, not to mention that they usually only pay the pathetic amount of pocket money to a 14yr and 9month year old school kid. I am not by any means discounting the place for these chain stores in society, however there is a massive difference in paying pocket money, and supporting families through one employee. They are really not comparable.
I don’t think it’s fair to say that the government is influenced by mining. The royalties are not paid by choice, rather enforced by the government. Mining companies are not bribing the government in any way by paying these royalties, simply abiding the law. If you look at the ETS, along with much of what the government enforces, mining is heavily targeted in an attempt to please the voters who largely hold an inaccurate view of mining. The main focus of the government is to return to power, not to increase or maintain royalties. If one mine had been forced to let the water out more slowly, and therefore take longer to start up again, this would have a negligible effect on the overall royalties paid to the government.
I am intrigued to know whether you support farming or not. Considering that it is a major GHG emitter, but also provides the very essential food for society to survive. I see it in a similar position to coal mining, which is necessary, but could be improved to minimise environmental impact. In these instances, I think it is essential not to simply take the easy option and attack everyone in the coal mining or farming industries, but to support the improvement and optimisation of the production and use of the materials.
Although we agree on a few things, it might be best to agree to disagree on the views of coal mining.
Finally, another interesting one:
http://thegovmonitor.com/energy_and_environment/speech-by-the-hon-martin-ferguson-am-mp-fuel-sources-for-power-8464.html
Post a Comment