Unfortunately I think even as coal's problems become more clear people will tend to look the other way. The alternatives are expensive and may not offer the convenience of flicking on a switch any time we want. Even if the carbon price is kept artificially low for the first years of the emissions trading scheme, power bills could rise dramatically, say 50% in brown coal States. It's difficult to see what kind of compensation could help immediately; for example a subsidised hot water service is still expensive and will take years to recoup its outlay. Wind and solar don't currently offer the baseload electrical power which underpins the economy yet Greenpeace insist low carbon nuclear is unacceptable. It will take many years to build up renewable energy to major status and the investment returns may be mediocre even with carbon caps. Meanwhile desalination and electrified transport will increase demand for power. China and India will ask Australia for increased coal exports. So when it comes down to it I'm not sure we will cut coal use that much even if we want to.

Hi Taswegian

I appreciate your concerns about the transition ahead of us. The fact is, it is inevitable if we want to avoid catastrophic climate change. So-called 'clean coal' won't be ready in time, if at all, and nuclear is not only an enormous liability for future generations but is prohibitively expensive as well (currently all renewable tehcnologies except solar PV are cheaper than nuclear). We've had so little policy support for renewables in Australia over the past decade that I think Australians don't realise that renewables are in fact proven technologies which are currently delivering reliable, affordable power in many parts of the world. They certainly can meet baseload demand, and with the introduction of energy efficiency regulations our power consumption can actually drop over the next several decades, even while population and GDP continue to grow. Just today the G8 and outreach countries are meeting to discuss climate change and have a chance to affirm the need for renewable technology transfer to countries like China and India so that they don't have to rely on coal into the future. There are achievable technical fixes to all of these problems: the real obstacle is a lack of political will.

I encourage you to have a look at recent modelling which shows that we could in fact phase out coal-fired power in Australia by 2030: http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/news-and-events/news/Climate-change/blueprint-energy-rev

Hi Greenpeace
If it is just so easy why don't you lead the way?
That is actually start financing and building alternative power plants? Then there is no need for your demo's or web pages and studies.
There could be no argument. Greenpeace are selling us cheap, clean electricity so the rest of the world would rush to you/us and everything would be hunky-dorey.
My question is whatever happened to the hole in the ozone layer? That was going to destroy our country wasn't it? An Australian scientist explained that ruse but now there is nothing comming from Greanpeace. Are you ignoring that previous "problem" or is this an embarrassed silence?

Thank you, Emma P. for covering this employment question so fully and clearly.
It's interesting that you mention "Greepeace's tactics".
I've always thought that Greenpeace's colourful and adventurous tactics were such a valuable, indeed, essential part of raising community awareness and education about the environment.

I think that it was, long ago, Florence Nightingale, who pointed out that a thousand study reports could gather dust on the shelf, and that direct action is essential, for change to be brought about.

However, nowdays, the interesting thing is that it seems that those "tree-hugging extremists", like FOE and Greenpeace, as well as highlighting issues by direct action, are taking the lead in researching and producing credible reports. They are explaining the economic, employment and other social aspects of environmental issues.

And, it seems that people world-wide are waking up to this. The fossil fuel and nuclear lobbyists have now got their work cut out, to begin to sound credible to a now better-informed and more sceptical public.
Christina Macpherson www.antinuclear.net

It all sounds very interesting and positive Emma. Thankyou for putting up this article.

But I’ve got to say that the omission of population growth or the continuous rapid growth in energy demand from both your article and the report; ‘A just transition to a Renewable Energy Economy in the Hunter Region, Australia’ (as judged from a quick perusal of the executive summary) is most unfortunate.

It immediately makes me suspect the veracity of the report, which otherwise appears to be quite comprehensive and well written.

It could well be that rapid population growth in the greater Sydney - Newcastle area will cancel out and perhaps overwhelm all efforts to reduce coal-fired energy use, and that all alternative sources will be needed in addition to existing coal-fired stations.

Whatever the true magnitude of the impact of continuous population growth, will certainly make it a lot harder to wean ourselves off coal…and to achieve sustainability, which is another thing that we hear scant little about from Greenpeace.

I’ve been a member of Greenpeace for umpteen years. But I’ve always been critical of them for this blind spot.

Greenpeace needs to ‘lock down’ the PM’s office or a session of Federal parliament and demand that immigration be greatly reduced and our population be stabilised, as a fundamental part of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and converting our energy regime to a renewable basis….and in relation to all manner of other environmental concerns.

Just read the report referred to in this article. I’m all for renewable energy but this report has some significant flaws - most notably it does not address the impact on electricity users of the inevitable rise in electricity prices that would be necessary if coal was to be replaced by renewables. For sure there would be a significant employment boost in renewable energy sector as renewables are more labour intensive than coal fired plants. But what about the countervailing negative impact of higher electricity prices on employment in electricity dependent heavy industry and on the incomes of electricity users in the rest of NSW. For balance, the debate needs to look at both sides of the equation rather than just focusing on jobs growth in the renewable energy sector.