Updated 30 November 2009

The background.

Governments across Australia do pretty much whatever the fossil fuel industry wants, and the industry wants to keep burning coal... regardless of the environmental, economic and social consequences.

Energy derived from conventional coal-fired power plants, (especially Victoria's lignite, aka brown coal) is one of the world's biggest sources of human-caused greenhouse gas pollution. To put it mildly, this is a public relations headache for our governments and the fossil fuel sector.

The general public is often told that 'clean coal' is the stationary energy sector's contribution to solving global warming. By arguing that there will be a shift from conventional coal to 'clean coal', industry and governments hope to lull the general public into the belief that they needn't do anything themselves, other than install a few energy efficient light bulbs.

In doing this, the global coal industry hopes to not only continue, but expand, its highly polluting, heavily subsidised conventional coal power generation. This stalling tactic is reprehensible given the short timeframe we have in which to make the transition to a zero emissions stationary energy sector, and the fact that it undermines tried-and-true technologies such as solar thermal power and wind power in Australia.

'Clean coal', if it is ever realised, will consist of a range of convoluted processes including coal gasification, carbon capture and storage (CCS), oxyfiring and post combustion capture (PCC). People who state that 'clean coal' will be realised soon are either ignorant or attempting to deceive you, because there is little chance that we will have utility scale 'clean coal' for decades to come. Even if the technology is finally realised, it is highly unlikey that it will be 'clean', eg: zero emissions.

Despite 'clean coal' being hypothetical, Australian governments ensure that the coal industry remains the key beneficiary of energy policy. The coal industry traditionally receives massive public subsidies. With the introduction of the CPRS, (Australia's ETS) they will receive billions more in 'compensation'. Yet, even more perverse than this is that coal-fired power plants remain the key beneficiary in RENEWABLE energy policy! 2

How can hypothetical 'clean coal' receive greater funding under renewable energy schemes when technologies such as wind power and solar thermal power (the latter with enough storage to run through the night and capable of producing either dispatchable or baseload power) are tried-and-tested? How can baseload coal get most of the funding when, unlike dispatchable solar thermal power, it is incompatible with intermittent wind power? 3

The coal industry has been able to delude the general public for a long time. However, the general public is becoming increasingly aware of the superiority of renewable energy, and now even the last bastion of fossil fuel complacency is under threat; that of cost.

Advances in wind technology have driven down the cost of wind energy by 85 percent in the last 20 years to a point where today it is becoming competitive with many conventional power sources.4 The unit cost of solar thermal power also continues to fall as technological advances and the scale of solar thermal plant installations around the world continues to grow at a rapid pace. In fact the US Department of Energy predicts that by 2020 solar thermal power with storage will generate electricity in the United States at US3-6 cents per kilowatt hour, about the same as coal-fired power in 2009. 5

So, by 2020 renewable energy is predicted to be less expensive than conventional coal in many countries, and 'clean coal', with the extra costs associated with capturing, compressing, transporting and sequestering the carbon emissions will be more expensive still. Even if the coal industry's overly optimistic 2020 date for the commercialisation of 'clean coal' is correct, it will most likely be uncompetitive from day one.

The players.

In light of all this, the determination of governments in Australia to allow the continued burning of coal for electricity generation can only be understood if we realise just how much influence the coal industry has over them.

For the sake of simplicity, there are only two constituencies that we need consider on this subject. Constituency number one is composed of entrenched, highly-subsidised, wealthy corporate interests such as Rio Tinto, Alcoa, BHP-Billiton, Blue Scope Steel, etc. Constituency number two is the general public of Australia.

The game.

In order to remain in power, our governments are busy playing a complicated game of balancing the demands of these two constituencies. Given that on the one hand entrenched business interests have an army of highly paid, full-time lobbyists working on their behalf,6 and on the other hand a large percentage of the general public is too busy and too complacent to bother trying to counter the undue influence of big business, it follows that governments achieve their aforementioned balance by giving entrenched business interests what they want while placating the general public with subterfuge, cynical tax breaks and contradictory and confusing policy.

For example, in the case of the stationary energy sector, governments achieve 'balance' by protecting and bolstering the profit margins of the fossil fuel industry, while rendering the general public acquiescent by firstly bribing us with tax breaks and other government payouts, and secondly assuring us that 'solutions' such as 'clean coal' will allow us to both continue living our business-as-usual lifestyles and solve global warming.

The government's job in this respect is made easier by a general public that is anything but an innocent party. I believe that the general public is largely complicit in this ruse. They feign a belief in 'clean coal' so that they can abrogate their responsibilities and continue living their self-centred, irresponsible, high consumption lifestyles. As mentioned, 'clean coal' has little likelihood of being successful and cost-competitive, and I suspect the inadequacies of 'clean coal' are more widely understood by the general public than they would have us believe.

As for those remaining members of the general public who refuse to accept this ruse and therefore remain committed to their responsibilities to society and to the natural environment, governments have another trick up their sleeve…they get us to worry about the issue of climate change at a micro level. Examples of this include encouraging the general public to reduce their carbon footprint by replacing incandescent light globes with compact fluorescent globes, to purchase GreenPower, install a solar hot water system, buy items with less packagaing, etc.

Don't misunderstand me, these measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are laudable, but must also be accompanied by efforts to change society on a macro-scale; namely a critical mass of public opinion that demands government implement policy that drives decisive and timely systemic change. In short, we can't solve global warming one house at a time.

As eco-socialist Ben Courtice says, "We have a government that is happy to support small-scale home solar panel installation, which obviously plays to a soft-green sentiment in the electorate but does little to actually de-carbonise our economy. At the same time, large scale renewable energy projects are dying."7

For quite some time, and to this very day, governments have been happily pandering to the demands of entrenched business interests at the expense of both human society and the natural environment. With this in mind, the general public would be unwise to sit back and wait for respective federal and state governments to take the lead and realistically appraise, plan and act to avoid dangerous climate change. It is the general public that must initiate the changes required. They must act on a macro-scale and they must do it soon. To date, those that are taking the initiative and demanding that governments implement global warming mitigation policies are in the minority.

I guess it's what people are referring to when they talk about the tragedy of the commons. People care very much about their own car, their own house, their own back yard, but abrogate their responsibilities when it comes to creating a better future for society as a whole. It's hypocritical that many of us leave that task to our politicians, despite the fact that politicians consistently poll as untrustworthy.8 Furthermore, we consider our democratic rights to be sacrosanct, but rarely do we protect those rights by exercising our democratic responsibilities. (How often have you heard Australians mention their democratic responsibilities? Very rarely I’ll bet, but they go on and on about their rights!)

What can we do?

Becoming demoralised and disengaged from the political process is not an option. It's precisely what the business interests comprising the fossil fuel sector want you to do, and we do it at our peril. In democracies we elect politicians as our representatives. They are charged with a duty to work for the betterment of society. If politicians fail in that endeavour then the responsibility reverts once again to the general public. It is our duty to hold politicians to account, and there is ample room within our albeit imperfect policital system to do just that.

Thankfully, in Australia there is a genuine groundswell of concern for climate change that has resulted in the birth of a vibrant community that has accepted the responsibility that so many within government, business and the wider public have refused.

At the forefront of this groundswell of concern are several hundred local climate action groups. These groups form the core of a movement aimed at, amongst other things, motivating as much of the general public as possible to demand that government mandate change in order to address human-induced global warming; a problem that scientists tell us is already well underway.

It is unlikely that we can motivate the majority of the population within a meaningful timeframe. The general public's inertia is fuelled by selfishness, denial and ignorance, and trying to overcome this is no small task. We should also realise that most people are followers. We should instead concentrate on motivating a critical mass of people. If we can do that, the rest will follow.

The critical mass is that point in time at which there are enough people such that the influence of the general public is great enough to ensure that our respective governments are no longer able to fob us off with half-measures, subterfuge, and tax breaks, etc. At this point, the government and the general public together will be able to both expose and resist the undue influence of certain entrenched business interests. Just what percentage of the population constitutes a critical mass, I do not know.

So, at this point in time, when anyone asks me 'what can I do?', I tell them to join a climate action group. It's the quickest way to get clued up on the issues, to find like-minded individuals, to find out about events and actions, and so much more. The climate change movement is building momentum. Every day it is becoming stronger and more effective. This momentum is essential, because motivating a critical mass of people is just the start. Within a matter of years society must begin the process of reforming not only the global stationary energy sector, but also transport, forestry, agriculture, housing and construction, etc.

References:

1. Federal Labor's $500 Million National Clean Coal Initiative.
Media Statement - 25th February 2007
http://www.alp.org.au/media/0207/ms250.php

2. $4.5 Billion clean energy initiative.

- $2.425 billion over nine years for the Carbon Capture and Storage Flagships program.
- $1.6 billion over six years for the Solar Flagships program.
- $465 million to establish Renewables Australia.

http://www.aph.gov.au/LIBRARY/pubs/rp/BudgetReview2009-10/Climate_Energy.htm#_Clean_energy_measures_1

3. Why CSP Should Not Try to be Coal.
http://www.bestwaytoinvest.com/stories/why-csp-should-not-try-be-coal

4. Wind, Solar and Biomass Energy Today
http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/renewables/wind.asp

5. 'Solar power faces early sunset in Australia'
Paddy Manning June 27, 2009 http://business.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/solar-power-faces-early-sunset-in-australia-20090626-czu5.html?page=-1

6. The Climate Change Lobby
http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/climate_change/

7. Rudd's policy not delivering renewables
Ben Courtice November 29, 2009 http://bccwords.blogspot.com/2009/11/rudds-policy-not-delivering-renewables.html

8. The annual Australian Reader's Digest Trust Survey
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,,25648541-5006301,00.html