|
About us. Rising Tide Australia is a grassroots Newcastle group taking action against the causes of anthropogenic climate change and for equitable, just, effective, and sustainable solutions to the crisis. We are committed to the principals of Non-violent Direct Action. We are part of the global Rising Tide climate justice movement. We live in the biggest coal port in the cosmos.
Get involved...Want to get involved in grassroots climate action in Newcastle?
Upcoming events
NavigationUser loginGlobal Rising Tide links: Active forum topicsClimate IMC
|
Can we count the costs of coal?Coal trains have begun to creep slowly back into the port of Newcastle, after the Hunter Region's world-beating export coal chain was crippled by freak weather. It is a good time for us all to be asking some questions: did coal exports contribute to the storm in the first place, and if so, haven't they done enough damage?
We are now about as sure that human greenhouse pollution is destabilising the world's climate, as we are that the theory of evolution is correct. However, a climate scientist who wants to keep her credibility is unlikely to tell you that any one weather event has been caused by anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change. You will have trouble finding a scientist to tell you that Hurricane Katrina was caused be global warming, or that the chaotic weather that battered the east coast of NSW this June was due to the burning of coal and oil.
Here's what they will tell you though. Extreme weather events – such as floods, hurricanes, droughts, and storms – are increasing in frequency and severity around the world. The more greenhouse pollution that we pump into the atmosphere, the worse it will get. Not only that, but we are approaching a threshold point of global warming, beyond which climate change becomes self-reinforcing, and there may be nothing we can do to avoid catastrophe. If we want to avoid this threshold, we need to turn around global growth in greenhouse pollution as quickly as possible, and start making wholesale reductions.
Achieving wholesale reductions in greenhouse pollution can only be done by making equally wholesale reductions in fossil fuel consumption.
So as the Hunter Valley coal chain swings back into gear, let's all keep in mind that returning to business-as-usual will directly contribute to climate change, which will mean more freak weather events in the future.
But the problem is worse than that. Coal companies are not content simply to resume exporting coal at pre-storm levels. They, along with both major political parties and the coal miner's union, are campaigning to massively increase coal-mining in NSW and coal exports from Newcastle, further increasing our already grossly disproportionate contribution to global warming.
These plans are reckless at best, and at worst they show contempt for human and non-human life. We know that increasing coal exports will fuel further disruptions to the global climate. We know that it will mean more droughts, more floods, more heatwaves, more fires, and more lives lost to climate chaos.
On approving the 10.5 million tonne Anvil Hill coal mine near Denman a few weeks ago, the NSW Planning Minister Frank Sartor chose to ignore the “idealogical” climate change concerns of thousands of members of the public who made submission against the mine. Instead, he said that the mine would be worth $9 billion.
Leaving aside an obvious question – who gets the $9 billion – how logical is it to expand our coal industry because there is money to be made? To explore this question, I could quote figures from Nicholas Stern on the economic costs of climate change. I could find figures on how much damage the recent storm did, and countless other extreme weather events around the world, and we could try to tally up the costs and the benefits of coal mining to see who wins. But that is not the concern here. If the impacts of climate change were restricted to the economic, I would find another issue to campaign on. To compare the economic costs of climate change with the economic benefits of fossil fuel exploitation is callous and inhuman.
We can't put a monetary value on human life, or on the suffering endured by people who lose their homes, even their homelands, due to the effects of climate change. We can't put a price tag on the millions of species on earth that are under threat due to global warming. It is simply immoral.
We are faced with a choice: do we carry on with business-as-usual when we know it is costing lives? Or can we find the courage to kick the coal habit, and reinvent a future for ourselves that doesn't threaten us and every other living thing on the planet. |
I support your intentions to
I support your intentions to minimise polution, however your comment that:
"We are faced with a choice: do we carry on with business-as-usual when we know it is costing lives?"
is very peculiar, and guaranteed to not generate any significant support. People die every day on the roads and we easily accept that it is part of the trade-off in moving around the world to do our thing. Please rethink the arguement in terms of relative damage, rather than absolultes or it will be difficult to generate mainstream support. People will simply discount the preceding claim as patently ridiculous without some sort of idea what is at stake and what the benefit is.
An example may be:
cheap energy from fossil fuel is thought to cause weather events and additional disease which cause the deaths of an additional 100,000 people per year. This cheap energy saves the lives of an extra 50,000 people per year through a reduction in poverty. Thus there is a net cost of 50,000 lives per year.
That sort of arguement shows a reasoned and balanced arguement and will gain you many supporters from the general public and political players.
Cheers
Dean