I agree coal will outlast people.
I have had a scroll of the long winded post about the sanctity of coal mining, and how you take the stance of faux experts.
What life experiences or any other experiences have you had to justify your comment.
Neither corporates or politicians have any sensible answers to how long the human will survive, as they only live for the next election, or the next annual profit report.
I feel that you are frustrated reporters, and still wet behind the ears.

Sarah, you are probably right.
If we keep producing CO2 at the present accelerated rate we will have Armageddon upon us before we know it, and I am not talking about the Armageddon preached by the religious right. Sooner, rather than later, the earth is going to run out of resources, the most important of which is a clean atmosphere, not to overlook the importance of water, or the soil in which to grow food for the exponetially increasing population.

Twelve years ago, atmospheric polution in China was pretty awful. I am sure the visitors to Beijing next year will go home with an even better idea of what we should expect in the future. Hopefully some of the climate change sceptics will be amongst them.

The authors seem not to have read the Richard Heinberg article recently in OLO arguing that globally, coal production could peak by 2025 albeit with a slow decline thereafter. As with natural gas Australia's reserves may last longer than the rest of the world. However Australia with 0.3% of the world's population produces about half a billion tonnes annually of domestically used brown and black coal plus black coal exports. I think you'll find that contributes more like 6% of global fossil carbon emissions. Little Australia is punching well above its weight in transforming the global atmosphere.

Even if you don't think global warming is real you might think about what will replace coal when it eventually runs out or becomes uneconomic. If clean coal worked it would deplete the resource about twice as fast. Note that even clean coal enthusiasts are saying 'give us 20 years', code for 'try something else'.

The correct thing for Australia is to join efforts to slowly divert primary energy generation from coal by means of carbon caps or taxes. That could not only slow emissions but conserve coal reserves for centuries while building up clean generation. Otherwise we are speeding towards a dead end.

As I read your article I'm wondering if you tried this hard to save the asbestos industry too? I find it rather offensive that parents who care about the future for their children are lumped together with herds of alarmists, loudmouth greenies and green hysterics. Are you "peddling a myth" that blue collar workers aren't middle class - most of the people I know who work in the mines earn far more money than my family does or any of the people I've met who work for environment organisations ... many of whom are volunteers. Opening no new coalmines is different to closing coalmines and sacking people - opening no new coalmines gives us breathing space to lower emissions while still working on new technologies. You say that "the starting point of course is that domestic action will have no impact on global climate realities" - our emissions are the same as France and Italy combined ... should they be exempt from action ... as well as all other countries smaller than China?

Hilarious to read the neoliberal-dominated unions (who fund 'The New City' and this articles authors) posing as class warriors AND economic rationalists at the same time; Howard has set new standards in bend-and-spread-em contortions to please the powerful, but these fellow spinners are up to his standard for sure. Note the "its not my responsibility" defence on coal consumption and export, RightThinkers really are the Deadbeat Dads of Oz society.

Immature children sums it up really!
I do not think the coal mining industry needs a cheer squad! They have been doing very well on their own thank you buying influence in the circles of power at State and Federal levels.
While we can all argue the semantics of issues relating to more or less coal mining or burying the waste products to give a green ting the basic science and facts of our home seems to be little understood.
- Coal, for that matter oil and gas are finite
- Our planet today exists in its current state due to natural process which locked up large amounts of carbon in stable forms and geological formations. (Coal, oil and natural gas.)
- We are currently burning each day, fossil fuels that have taken the earth systems the equivalent of 400 years to form
- We as a race (and every other living thing) are all part of the earths biosphere dependant on it for life.
- Our planet is solar powered, without the sun and even having all fossil fuels at our disposal to burn the planet would last a matter of days before we all froze to death.

We as a species have the abilities to delude our thinking that the facts and the science of our planet do not apply to us where in fact they do. The discovery of these buried energy sources seems to have blinded out thinking and reasoning giving us the abilities to stretch the biospheres production of food to support our population increases to a level never seen before.
The talk of jobs, more or less coal or who will benefit from digging it out of the ground, I fear in just a matter of decades will be so immaterial.
This artile falls into the category of immature children playing with fire in a tinder dry eucalypt forest on a hot summer’s day. History will record what happened.

How much does the NSW Minerals Council pay you to write this tripe? May your children forgive you.

Of course MIT will put a positive spin on coal sequestration. They are after funding. Unfortunately it’s a dicey idea and won’t be available for a long time if ever. Storing carbon dioxide underground is more difficult than storing radioactive materials.

The only sensible way is to (A) put our money on wind and solar and to cut down on energy dependence eg building windows orientation.

If we don’t do anything, then we can’t expect China and India to do anything. The alternative to A is catastrophe.

To be honest I am not surprised how narrow most people’s views are on OLO. They seem to think that if Australia stops mining coal tomorrow it will be some sort of silver bullet and that we won’t have to worry about climate change from then on.

But the majority of readers at OLO continually prove that they can’t grasp even the most simple of subject.

The article was overall quite acute in pointing out that if Australia changes its use from coal power to other sources of energy it will be mealy a drop in the ocean with regards to reducing global CO2 emissions.

Australia’s best form of attack when it comes to reducing the emissions from coal power are to work on “clean coal technology” and thus once a break through is made pass the new technology onto lesser developed countries, so that globally CO2 emissions can be reduced not just in Australia.

The Australian government holds a very logical view on this topic and should be congratulated for standing strong in the face of those who come up with ridiculously simple solutions to complex and difficult problems.

A common misunderstanding with the issue of climate change is that mankind actually has the ability to influence the situation. The fact is that mankind's contribution to the cause of climate change is insignificant compared to natural occurrences and any change that can be made my mankind in an attempt to influence outcomes can be cosmentic only. There are many references to this and all you need do is keep an eye on non-mainstram media. Open your eyes. Keep a clear mind.

At the outset, I am an environmentalist. I am definitely not a ‘green’. Being an environmentalist does not have to hold you to any particular political party.

I agree we should develop, utilise and export “clean coal technology,” but I tend to differ from EasyTimes perspective that this is “Australia’s best form of attack”.

We can develop and implement geothermal base-load power now.

The Australian government is not pursuing this technology as a measured response and strategy to curbing GHG emissions. Why not?

One; it appears our government would rather take us down the nuclear path, and two; there are powerful and well resourced vested interest groups that have the ear of the government to maintain the status quo.

"Scorcher, the dirty politics of climate change" – a disturbing read for us in OZ.

Throw in some R&D grant dollars and a few more for a tax-payer funded advertising campaign and everything is sweet, NOT.

Solutions to complex and difficult problems are there. However, they do require vision and leadership from the highest levels of society, specifically our business and political leaders.

I can vouch for the former, but where has the latter been these last 10 years in tackling the issues of climate change?

I must therefore disagree with EasyTimes – “The Australian government DOES NOT hold a very logical view on this topic and should NOT be congratulated for standing strong in the face of those who come up with ridiculously simple solutions to complex and difficult problems.”

Father of night is probably almost right when he says that "A common misunderstanding with the issue of climate change is that mankind actually has the ability to influence the situation."
The truth of the matter is more likely that mankind no longer has the ability to influence the situation because the degradation of the environment has actually gone past the point where it can be retrieved without the intervention of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse.

"There are many references to this and all you need do is keep an eye on non-mainstram media. Open your eyes. Keep a clear mind."
Mysteriously, none of these sources have been provided...lol I think thousands of scientists in agreement around the world who have exacting evidence, who all essentially agree based on that evidence are better informed on the subject than a mysterious, "I have an alternate theory for evolution. I read it on the internet. Btw, the founder of this theory is a Mormon and got sacked for taking money from creationist organisations" post.

http://www.ipcc.ch/index.html

I also find the authors' labelling of "green hysterics" offensive. Most people who are now witnessing the beginning of the effects of global warmimg are neither green nor hysterical, but prepared to be active to mitigate the effects on our planet, as a matter of inter-generational equity.

The authors' concern for the "working class" also strikes me as phony - and I certainly don't believe that any of them are actually horny-handed sons of the soil, or have ever been down a mine. Shift work in mines is somewhat akin to manual cotton-picking or child chimney sweeping in the 19th century, unsavoury jobs that were replaced in good time. We will need thousands of workers just to clean the mirrors in those solar systems that reflect the sun's heat, and that's just one example of the opening up of future employment.

Mine workers deserve their high pay of around $100,000 p.a., because of the dangers and the nastiness of the job. Because o the extravagant pay packets, no wonder they resist any change, but a society that pays miners more than teachers and nurses is out of kilter. And, should we really be mortgaging the future of the planet to keep a tiny section of workers in rotten unsafe jobs ?

I'm with Kang.
Regular OLO commentators are good sensitive people who do not deserve this fact assault.

Well said, easy times. Most contributors to this blog are the last people you would look to for a workable solution. My advice to the bimboscenti is, go out and do all you could, personally, and then come back and tell us what you have actually done.

And me, well, my humble little regrowth forest absorbs about 750 tonnes of CO2 each year and every tree I cut down goes into long term stable carbon products and will not even begin to emit CO2 for another 60 years. In which time the remaining trees will have grown bigger and absorbed the same volume of CO2 again. So my family business absorbs the annual carbon emissions of 30 Australians, and have been doing so for each of the past 65 years. And so far that puts me about 1,950 years emissions in front of the lilliputan green bimbos adopting the high moral ground on this blog.

In fact, they are still emitting their 25 tonnes each year and absorbing nothing. And that puts me about 3,900 years in front and increasing. But just watch the bile and insult spring from their mouths the moment I question one of their gonzo climate assumptions.

Perseus cites his godlike knowledge of "most contributors", tedious how it provides yet another opportunity for him to spray cliched bile. If he is so sure and proud of his own carbon balance, how come he hates anyone else talking about it, enough to abuse other posters in nearly every thread on this topic?

I would not have a problem with anyone who actually does something to seriously curb their own emissions and then wants to talk about it. But the Liams of this world are all just talk. All their plans involve what they want other people to do. But at least we can confirm that Liam has self selected as a member of the bimboscenti.

As one of those many who disagree with Perseus and are then routinely abused, I had assumed thats where he'd place me. Yawn, its not just science that advances by funerals, wake me when the last fossil fool chokes on his spleen.

Whether coal mining will continue way in to the future or not and whether new mines will be allowed to be established is one issue.

I have a big problem with coal mines existing within a water catchment area.

All round the state I'm in (NSW) there are examples of rivers and creeks drying up, water becoming toxic and permanent or long term - and irreparable - damage being done, due to coal mining.

This has got to stop. We have got to get the wool out of our eyes and see what is really happening, and prevent such disasters happening again.

This is yet another instance where the promise of some coal royalties clouds the vision of those who make the decisions or sign off on the papers and allow such things to occur.

It’s great that Perseus’ family has a regrowth forest and maybe like me, he is an environmentalist after all (not tied to any political party).

But implicit in EasyTimes comments is the fact that Perseus offers only a simplistic solution to the problem of global warming.

Not everyone can have a forest in their own backyard or apartment block.

Perseus can argue he is doing something about GHG emissions, but can he offer some constructive solutions for Australia in general or for the ‘burbs’ in particular.

Global concentrations of GHG are rising faster than the terrestrial biosphere (even with Perseus “humble little regrowth forest") and oceans can absorb.

As individuals we can all do some things to reduce our carbon footprint, as are some businesses.

A major stumbling block has been our current political regime's pandering to the fossil fuel lobby - our Government's 'business as usual' approach to a global problem.

This attitude is not being realistic about climate change and is certainly not economically, let alone environmentally, responsible.

It’s government policy that can really influence the way Australia responds to the GW problem, and it’s government strategy that will influence the electorate. Let's hope it's not another 'wheat board' scandal or 'children overboard' type strategy.

Can Perseus offer some constructive advice to our political leaders and suggest some solutions to their (our) problems?

I would be interested to hear them.

Thanks, Davsab. Current IPCC accounting standards actively discourage the management of the biosphere to maximise carbon absorption. That is not planting more trees but better management of the ones we have.

At present, every pre-1990 forest is assumed to be in carbon balance, with as much carbon being released through decay as is being absorbed through tree growth. Often both processes are present in one tree, where the inside rots while the outside adds new growth.

IPCC accounting doesn't recognise that reducing emissions from decay is just as helpful as increasing carbon absorbtion through growth. So harvesting a tree just before it begins to decay, and converting it into a house frame that will keep that carbon stable for more than 100 years (no problem for our native hardwoods) is measured as a premature emission at the time the tree is cut.

Meanwhile, the gap in the forest is taken up by the remaining trees which take advantage of the extra sunlight, water and nutrients to re-absorb the same volume of carbon within a decade or two. This has always been the essence of sound forest stewardship but it is now also best practice carbon management.

By maximising the growth rates, minimising the decay rates, and maximising the storage life of the harvested carbon, we get three bites at the greenhouse cherry. But as mentioned earlier, IPCC and Kyoto rules currently discourage this option.

The potential contribution from these sources is far greater than the current level of anthropogenic carbon emissions. The annual seasonal variation in CO2 levels at Mauna Loa is from 7 to 9ppm or 36-47Gt, up and down each year. But this only reflects growth and decay in temperate forests. In the tropical forests this growth and decay takes place all year round and is likely to be as much again.

In contrast, current fossil fuel emissions are only 7Gt/year. So we only need to intercept a small portion of existing forest decay, or half of that if growth is also boosted, to completely absorb global fossil fuel emissions.

Good post, much better than ‘put-downs’, slanging matches and vitriol.

Must disagree with your IPCC comments though, it is left up to governments, policy makers and businesses on how to adapt to climate change and mitigate carbon emissions. The IPCC do recognise that the terrestrial biosphere and oceans are very important carbon sinks, both of which are in decline as you know.

You are right though; responsible and sustainable management of regrowth forests must play a part in any government strategy in solving the planet’s GW problems.

Is the following responsible? The US in its quest for more fuel oil is turning to biodiesel sourced from corn crops (very inefficient and dirty as an energy source). George is subsidising South American countries to slash and burn their rainforests for the US’s insatiable ‘need’ in fuelling their transport fleet - not to feed people.

Kyoto (only a 1st attempt) will change after 2012. It is crucial that our government play a part in this process – ratifying it now will show the world we are a responsible team player. APEC is fine, but we already have a system in place under the UNFCCC, we don’t need to reinvent the wheel as George W Bush wants to – much like taking the ball home if he doesn’t like how the others play the game. It happened with the war in Iraq, he is doing the same with the war on climate change. Our ‘dubya’ is wallowing in the mud now that the US are back-flipping better than Luganis (an American Olympic diver).

I am not a ‘tree man’ (excuse the pun) but what you say makes sense. Tell us why the government is not doing more for the ‘regrowth forest’ industry. What is the industry doing to get the message across?

On anther note, GW can be viewed as how the planet manages its energy resources in an environmentally (and ecologically and economically) sustainable way. Do you (anyone) think we should be putting more emphasis on Agenda 21, under the auspices of the UN’s Commission on Sustainable Development? China thinks so.

Thanks, Davsab. The government is not doing more for forest management because it is still locked into the notion that all native forest is untouched old growth in pristine condition. Try finding some of that after the 2003/2006 fires. And the entire policy community is still locked into the original IPCC/Kyoto concepts where every forest in existence prior to 1990 is assumed to be mature, or is likely to become old growth if left alone.

But this assumption ignores the very impact of the climate change they have been talking about. Here in Australia we will see major impacts of dryer climate even on the few bits of "pristine old growth". As one moves inland to lower and lower rainfal regimes we notice that the forests adjust to the dryer climate by having wider space between stems so each tree has a larger area to capture moisture, sunlight and nutrients.

And as our climate gets dryer then every one of our forests will need to make the same sort of adjustment to reduce the number of trees/ha. This is easily be done in partially harvested forests because the remaining trees simply stop growing when they have grown to the new equilibrium. But this is not the case in National Parks etc.

In neglected forests the trees can only make this adjustment through ruthless competition for resources that leaves all the trees in a weakened state, under water and heat stress and more vulnerable to disease and insect attack. And that lowers their wildlife stocking capacity and makes them much more combustible. It is lose, lose, lose.

See "Destocking Trees to Save Forests in Drought" and The Landholders Institute submission on carbon trading, at http://ianmott.blogspot.com/.

This article overlooks the obvious point that progressing to a low-carbon economy involves the replacement of one "blue-colar" industry (coal) with another (renewables). in fact, wind power is more labour intensive than coal power so it would result in a net increase of jobs - no one needs to become long term unemployed.

also, considering aust is the 10th largest emitter (out of 194 countries) we are significant and can make a significant contribution to global reductions.