Queensland billionaire Clive Palmer has just signed a deal with China to sell $69 billion worth of coal over the next 20 years. This is believed to be Australia’s largest ever export contract and will involve our largest ever coal mine. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/06/2812195.htm

Premier Anna Bligh is over the moon about it!

The state should reap up to $500 million a year in royalties. The project will create about 7000 jobs directly and ten times as many indirectly.

So it is all fantastic……isn’t it?

Well firstly, why don’t we just forget about CO2 emissions and climate change completely? If Bligh, or Rudd, were serious about it, they would certainly not let something like this proceed. The next time either of them mentions anything to do with anthropogenic global warming; they should just be condemned outright as being the most blatant hypocrites and disingenuous sophistic politicians.

Secondly, we are still obviously entrenched in the continuous-growth totally-unsustainable-society mindset.

Thirdly, this project will just dig us deeper into a huge hole, in more ways than one. The royalties will be spent in the same old way – on expanding infrastructure and services in a battle to keep up with the demands exerted by rapid population growth rather than on improving them for the current population.

This huge project could be excellent if the windfall was to be used to steer our society onto a sustainable footing, with greatly boosted efforts to develop renewable energy sources, reduce per-capita energy usage, stabilise our population and improve our whole agricultural efficiency. But it will be used to for exactly the opposite – to just prop up profligacy and promulgate rank disregard for our own future.

There is a large and rapidly growing amount of concern about this within the Australian populace. Tony Abbott needs to sit up and take notice. This presents him with a superb opportunity to convert the Libs into Australia’s desperately needed sustainability party and harness and foster this rising tide of discontent.

Ludwig,

My sentiments, exactly!

Sounds pretty good to me.

>>The state should reap up to $500 million a year in royalties. The project will create about 7000 jobs directly and ten times as many indirectly. So it is all fantastic……isn’t it?<<

While we are still living in the real world, where people have to go out and earn a living to feed their families, digging up coal and selling it seems to be a fairly sensible concept.

Right now, there is no clear and effective response to the problem that the world is hooked on non-renewable energy.

A growing chorus from self-appointed (and self-righteous) pundits has been the driving force behind our drift into a horrendously imperfect band-aid fix called "emissions trading", that does nothing at all to solve the underlying issue.

What it has achieved, spectacularly, is to open up massive opportunities for rat-with-a-gold-tooth spruikers to make heaps of money.

http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2254865/police-claim-eu-carbon-credit

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,675725,00.html

It also gives rise to stupid anomalies, as with camel-gas emissions. Only domesticated camels fart, according to the "protocols".

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/feral-camels-clear-in-penny-wongs-carbon-count/story-e6frg6nf-1225827641354

Apparently, there is "little point doing anything about Australia's feral camels as only the CO2 of the domesticated variety is counted under the Kyoto Protocol."

It's a Through the Looking Glass World, in AGW-land.

Until and unless someone is able to bring some common sense to bear, Ludwig, it is pointless - indeed, counterproductive - to whinge on about our country selling the raw materials for our, and other, key global economies.

You can rend your garments and thkweem and thkweem as much as you like. But simply restating the AGW mantra in ever-increasingly emotional terms is to confine you to the status of being part of the problem, not part of the solution.

<< Until and unless someone is able to bring some common sense to bear, Ludwig, it is pointless - indeed, counterproductive - to whinge on about our country selling the raw materials for our, and other, key global economies. >>

Pericles, what do you think I am trying to do? I’m trying to bring some ‘commonsense to bear’.

How is one supposed to do that without ‘whingeing’?

Your message here seems highly contradictory – you want a commonsense approach, presumably along the lines that I have outlined, but you are apparently being critical of me for even daring to raise the issue!

<< While we are still living in the real world, where people have to go out and earn a living to feed their families, digging up coal and selling it seems to be a fairly sensible concept. >>

Yes, but at a declining or at least a stable rate, not at a greatly boosted rate…surely!

Pericles, do you really just want us to continue on exploiting our non renewable resources at an ever-faster rate until they are exhausted?

Even if AGW does turn out to be false or insignificant, it is still completely crazy to further entrench our reliance on fossil fuels at this point in time instead of rapidly developing alternative energy sources and a paradigm of sustainability.

I must admit, I find your position curious.

Ludwig, you seem to struggle with the “duplicity and contradiction” of Bligh/Rudd. As true believers, how can they support what whey do not purport to believe in? The answer is because they are lying.

The Donation of Constantine (Latin, Donatio Constantini) is a forged Roman imperial decree in which the emperor Constantine I transfers authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire to the pope. It was devised probably between 750 and 775.

The Donation grants Pope Sylvester I and his successors, as inheritors of St. Peter, dominion over lands in Judea, Greece, Asia, Thrace, Africa, as well as the city of Rome, with Italy and the entire Western Roman Empire

Caesar Baronius in his "Annales Ecclesiastici" (published 1588-1607) admitted that the
Donatio was a forgery, and eventually the church conceded its illegitimacy.

In the meantime of course, various Popes “Taxed” European Heads of State and the public to fund military action through the Crusades, to defend these “false” Christian claims to the “Holy land”.

This continued through many Crusades resulting in horrendous loss of life and destruction of civilizations, until the emergence of Lutherans in Germany. At which point many European Heads of State and the general population switched allegiances to avoid the heavy tax burdens imposed by the Vatican.

The Vatican responded by “cranking up” the Jesuits and launching them throughout Europe upon those who strayed from the “correct” theological path.

Since the time of Caesar Baronius, we have seen some 26 instances of “impending catastrophes”, all analogous with, and based upon “the great lie”.

All one has to do is substitute The UN for the Vatican and AGW for the Donation of Constantine and the analogy is complete.

All that is left is the post Copenhagen reaction of the Jesuits. These will be represented by Academics protecting grant revenue and institutional brand value, scientists protecting recognition in their field, politicians protecting votes, legacy and personal credibility, the intelligencia/elites protecting vanity and sections of the MSM protecting the colors they have nailed to the mast.

Don’t fret, It’s all happened before and will again

I tend to agree with Ludwig, except that I think that the ALP government is no more profligate nor hypocritical than a LNP government would be when it comes to coal exports.

When it comes to coal, Queensland is like an addicted junkie who deals in dope in order to finance their habit. Ditto with Australia generally, which is why Ludwig's comment about the hypocrisy of both the Rudd and Bligh governments with respect to AGW is apposite.

Dear Ludwig,
I can see that you have a problem.
I too have a problem looking at the image of the IPCC now. I think swiss cheese is an apt description.
Please stop living in the twentieth century and join us in the twenty first.

HAHA yeah, let's turn down $10 BILLION on principle. With all the promises of jobs by Bligh and the massive debt Qld is in you REALLY think novelty causes are going to come into play?.

NO ONE is taking global warming seriously, surely this was obvious from Copenhagen?. No one cares about anything other than how they are going to feed their family and pay the bills.

This is a wet dream for Bligh.

Seriously, how much closer are we to changing how we function as a species compared to say, 20 years ago?.

Pericles: "horrendously imperfect band-aid fix called "emissions trading", that does nothing at all to solve the underlying issue."

Conceptually the ETS is wonderfully simple. Just decide on a total amount of CO2 emissions for the year and them sell to the highest bidders. Then ratchet down allowed CO2 emissions each year until the final targets are met. Contrary to what you say, part of the beauty of this scheme is the direct way it does attack the underlying issue.

The European experience is an excellent illustration of just how well it will work, if it is allowed to bite. In order to get the ETS laws passed, they deliberately set the targets too high for the major emitters. Naturally energy companies lobbied hard to get their share of the spoils, as naturally the day after they got these emission permits they said they could not do business without they sold excess off. Democracy + Capitalism can be an ugly process.

But apparently because emissions now had a price on them they tweaked their business to reduce them so they could sell off even more emission permits. The net result was, even though Europe handed out more emission permits than there were emissions, they reduced their total emissions in the 00 decade in a time of high growth and when every other place on the planet increased theirs.

This did nothing to reduce the planets overall emissions, as some other place on the planet bought these credits and used them. But in 2010 decade the European ETS is scheduled to get some real bite - the emissions permits available for sale will drop significantly below total emissions. And if the 00 decade is anything to go by, there is every reason to expect it will work as intended.

You are right in saying the broad definition of emissions means we have fights over who pays for camels farting. I find the thought of highly paid lawyers and bewigged barristers arguing over camel farts highly amusing, but of little import beyond that.

C J Morgan, "the ALP government is no more profligate nor hypocritical than a LNP government would be when it comes to coal exports."

Of course CJ's Watermelon Party wants to stop all coal exports immediately and close down coal fired energy production - while at the same time supporting massive immigration.

The difference between the Greens and the two large mainstream parties is that the Greens will never form a government nor ever have enough members in the House of Representatives to be the minor party in a coalition. The opportunist Greens don't have to have policies for all of Australia, or even policies that are workable, it is enough to propose preposterous, sensationalist bumpf that will score a headline and cop a few percent of (usually youthful) militant votes to put a few time wasters into the Senate, to stuff around with social policy.

If the major mainstream parties show some hypocrisy in protecting Australian jobs are they any worse than a party that claims to be focussed on the environment but has yet to do anything at all about sustainability than claim it is all for it. At least Labor State Governments have taken practical steps through concrete action plans which are being implemented to make some attack on sustainability. CJ's hated Queensland government has done a lot of work on sustainability and they have the published material to prove it (just Google).

I have long been concerned about the environment and sustainability and would be among the first to call the two mainstream parties to account, however it is less than honest and damned silly to pretend that the Greens would do any better. When will the Greens put some numbers on population? What does sustainability mean to the Greens apart from being a red flag to attract protest votes?

We know you hate the Greens Cornflower, but this thread isn't about them. It's about the environmental lunacy of Queensland's dependence on coal exports and enthusiasm for population growth. You may be unaware that the OP holds the Greens in almost as much disdain as you do.

Perhaps you could tell us, as someone who claims to have "long been concerned about the environment and sustainability", exactly how this massive expansion in coal mining and exports will be environmentally sustainable? Also, how is the ALP's enthusiasm for rapid population growth environmentally sustainable?

Don't worry about the CO2 Ludwig, everybody else is in the process of
forgetting about it.
The real problem is actually selling it no doubt for a fixed
price for 20 years to China.
This looks like a repeat of the natural gas fiasco of Western Mining.

In 2025 the world will arrive at peak coal and the price will soar, but
we will be stuck with whatever price the contract has set.
I have not seen the details but I'll bet quids it will be for a song.

It will take a very long time to change to alternative energy for everything.
The best we can do is husband those resources we have because as oil
depletes we will need electricity in greatly increased amounts and
our coal and gas will be our only fuel. To sell the family silver
before we absolutely need to is just plain stupid.

We would never have been in this predicament if we still had the same population we had at the beginning of the last century. We might not have had the so called high standard of living that we enjoy and all the medical break-throughs etc., but at least the planet would be sustainable which it isn't now. We are still on that downward path totally unable to stabilise the number of people that are causing all the problems that we experience, including climate change. Every country in the world is committed to expansion. It is all madness and probably all too late, yet it was obvious 100 years ago that caution was advisable. religion again is partly to blame with their "go forth and multiply" philosophy

CJMorgan

So Labor and LNP are fair game for you but not your Greens? Good one!

You cannot dispel the argument that the Greens have even less credibility in environmental issues than Labor and LNP because the facts are there for all to see. The Greens' impossible, lunar 'solution' to coal shipments is to ban them forthwith AND switch off coal fired power generation.

Here is Bob Brown on coal shipments:

http://www.crikey.com.au/2007/02/09/bob-browns-coal-stance-sends-politicians-into-a-panic/

All care and no responsibility.

You know, somewhere, at some point you lot have to realise that there is simply no way we, as a nation, can continue to live the lives we are accustomed to and, turn our backs to opportunities like these.

Just think for a moment what your/our lives would be like if we didn't have coal?

Now on the other hand, switch off your lights, power, hot water, stop turning your computer on, don't drive anywhere, in fact, scrap your car so no one else can drive it and grow your food as to buy it from a retailer/wholesaler requires the use of power.

Now if all of you do this it will at least ease some of the HUGE 1% OF CO2 we as a nation ommitt and, the rest of us can continue to live in the 'real world' knowing that you lot are taking one for the team, which, by all accounts, should make you all feel warm and fuzzy knowing you are not contributing to the HUGE 1% of world wide CO2 emmissions.

Oh! did I mention the 60+% population growth our fearless leader has planned for us!

Don't try and change the subject, Cornflower. Of course the Greens favour phasing out coal exports, because they are environmentally unsustainable. Unlike the ALP and the LNP they are not hypocritical on this issue.

Back on topic, you didn't answer my question about coal exports and sustainability, so I'll repeat it:

Perhaps you could tell us, as someone who claims to have "long been concerned about the environment and sustainability", exactly how this massive expansion in coal mining and exports will be environmentally sustainable?

No need for the doom and gloom just yet, Ludwig. The deal hasn't been done.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/business/2010-02/08/c_13168542.htm

But I would still like to ask you which is the more likely.

We manage to find efficient sources of renewable energy i) with or ii) without the benefit of revenues from coal exports.

And hey, it's not even as if we're using the stuff. They are.

Pericles;
They use it but it goes on our account.
Makes anything we do to be meaningless.

Just shut up shop aND GO HOME !

C J Morgan

I query your original assertion and that is changing the subject? Good one.

CJM, "Of course the Greens favour phasing out coal exports, because they are environmentally unsustainable."

Phasing out? That is not what Greens leader Bob Brown says unless he is doing a back flip, because his period of notice has run out. He did say, 'ban..within the period of a government':

'BROWN: To suddenly ban coal exports would be massively dislocating [KELLY: Absolutely]… but we have to do it.. and we have to do it within a period of a government… [KELLY: within a period of one government?] …that should be the sort of aim we’re looking at…'

http://www.crikey.com.au/2007/02/09/bob-browns-coal-stance-sends-politicians-into-a-panic/

Since you asked, on balance I do not oppose the Palmer deal because:

- China will source coal from poorer quality fields if not from Qld;

- we are not our brother's keeper and in all conscience cannot refuse China unreasonably or outright (as proposed by the Greens); and

- with the state of Qld's economy, the jobs and income are needed (of no interest to the Greens though).

International co-operation on global warming and on environmental matters generally can only be achieved through respectful relations and empathy for the problems being faced domestically and internationally by other countries.

Progress will never be achieved by flipping other countries like China the bird as favoured by the Greens. As the Crikey article implied, the Greens get votes out of appearing militant and they are never accountable for the result as the government would be.

My views on Labor's Big Australia? Opposed and for the reasons I have elaborated on in other threads.

As Pericles said, it now looks like all the backslapping was somewhat premature. Good.

For Cornflower's benefit, the current relevant Qld Greens policy is:

<< The Queensland Greens want to:

Plan a managed reduction and ultimately a cessation of Queensland's dependence on fossil fuels in the transition to a low carbon economy based on new and job-rich sustainable industries that draw upon renewable energy resources, including solar, wind and geothermal. This will include a transition from reliance on coal for a substantial part of state revenues. >>

http://qld.greens.org.au/policies/climate-change-and-energy

Also, while the media like to portray Bob Brown as the "leader" of the Australian Greens, he isn't. Unlike the other major political parties, the Greens don't have a leader as such. Bob is very influential and is authorised to speak on behalf of the Greens, but he can't impose his personal views on the Party, unlike e.g. the ALP or the LNP.

While I'm correcting Cornflower's disinformation, the Greens certainly do not favour "massive immigration" as she dishonestly claims. It's the ALP and the Coalition that want a bigger population for Australia, while the Greens want such immigration that does occur to be based on humanitarian grounds.

I further note that Cornflower's various reasons for supporting the coal industry make no reference whatsoever to the environmental sustainability with which she claims to have long been concerned.

<< Don't worry about the CO2 Ludwig, everybody else is in the process of forgetting about it. The real problem is actually selling it no doubt for a fixed price for 20 years to China. >>

Bazz, setting aside the issue of CO2 emissions and AGW for the moment, there are indeed still huge problems with this deal.

Yes we are selling our primary non-renewable resources far too cheaply. But surely the price won’t remain fixed for 20 years, which would mean a steadily declining price in real terms. And surely it is not geared to inflation either. It is got to be at least somewhat flexible, doesn’t it? I guess none of us plebs are privy to that sort of information (:>|

But by far the biggest problem is the dual issue of us still being stuck in the non-renewable energy era and of constantly making it harder for ourselves to get out of it by delaying action on alternative energy sources and by constantly and rapidly increasing the scale of our dependency.

Our governments, state and federal, just couldn’t be worse in this regard.

<< But I would still like to ask you which is the more likely. We manage to find efficient sources of renewable energy i) with or ii) without the benefit of revenues from coal exports. >>

Pericles, we can’t just stop exporting or using coal. We’ve got to wind it down. We can then continue utilising it at a much lower rate. So it is not a matter of doing away with the benefit or revenues earned from coal, it is a matter of finding a good combination of its usage and renewable energy sources.

The increased revenue from this huge coal deal could and should be largely put into the development of alternative energy sources, improved efficiencies and the development of a sustainable society.

As I said earlier, this deal could be a very good thing, if we could just get our collective psyche off of the continuous expansion spiral and come to embrace the notions of a stable population, steady-state economy and sustainable society.

<< And hey, it's not even as if we're using the stuff. They are. >>

Yes but we are using the export income, and becoming dependent on it. So when it disappears or is reduced, we’ll all be in a pickle… especially given that income earned from coal exports is going predominantly into propping up the same standard of living for ever-more people in this country instead of improving quality of life for established residents.

We have left it too late to have time to develop alternate sources of
energy. Even if geothermal turns out to be very successful it will
take years and years to get prototype plants sorted out.
They are on a steep learning curve in Sth Aus with their wells and
controlling the steam. They have significant difficulties, so before
they have say several big plants running it will probably be 20 years.

Anyone who thinks that we will be shutting down coal fired power
stations any time in the next ten years, or perhaps even 20 years is
fooling themselves as well as you. Some will be converted to gas, but
gas will be too valuable to burn like that.
The above is the main reason the greens will never get anywhere, they
are prepared to put us all in the dark for almost no measurable
difference to the earths temperature.

It is now time to be selfish and think of our own grandchildren abd
let others think of theirs.

I am amazed at the number of people who want to spend tax payer funds on publicly funded research, into energy.

OK, there has been a little usefull stuff came out of the CSIRO, in years gone by, [long gone now], & it works for basic medical research, but nothing to do with basic energy has ever come from it. In fact very little has ever come out of it.

It was private enterprise that discovered the energy in wood, harnessed the energy in coal, petroleum, liquid & gas, & even developed the energy in falling water. Government only got in the way with regulations, [to enable taxes to be gathered], or by tilting the playing field, to favour friends.

Nuclear is one prime example where government interference pushed development the wrong way, at least where he consumers benefit is concerned.

So, if we want alternative energy to ever happen we must get governments, & their bl00dy bureaucrats out of the way. All their interference does is muddy the waters, & make it harder for viable, economic technologies to come through.

Right now we have proof that ex rock stars government ministers, don't make good decisions, in the public interest, but then, neither do ex bureaucrats make good prime ministers, so he's not alone in his green fiasco. If we could just get the rock star to spend as much time overseas as the PM, we'd get less stuff-ups. The less time either of them have to plan things, & make silly decisions, the less stupp-ups we'll have.

At least CJ admits to knowing little about economics. Luckily
he and the Greens have nothing to do with the Federal treasury,
or we would soon be back to grass skirts and banana leaves for
clothing :)

Fact is that Australia is still running a huge current account
deficit and to pay our bills, we need mining, or its back to
banana republic status for us.

Yes, digging holes in the ground is not so good for the
immediate environment, but CJ and the Greens all want internet
access and the other mod cons that go along with modern living.
I have yet to see Bob Brown cycling back to Tassie each weekend.

The thing is, how many actual % of the continent are in a state
of being dug up? I gather its actually a very tiny fraction.

I guess the Qld Govt could always cut back on staff. How essential
are botanists to their budget? :)

Energy research is now global, so I can't see that pouring taxpayers
funds into it, is going to solve anything. Just recently a small
US company developed a new technique for releasing shale gas,
the financial world is in hot debate, for it means that the US
suddenly will have an abundance of gas and not need to import.

Ausra, which is a US based thermal energy company based on Australian
technology, has just been sold to the French.

Venture capital is alive and well in the energy business, so I can't
see how peeing taxpayers money against the proverbial wall, will
do better.

Best that they keep a few pennies in the kitty, so that they can still
afford to pay Ludwig :)