What is ideology and why does the MCA want us to remove it from debate about energy? Ideology is ‘ the body of doctrine … of a social movement, institution, class or large group … with reference to some political and cultural plan’ (Macquarie dictionary). The particular ideology the MCA would like us to ignore is the internationally agreed need to cease emitting climate-change-causing carbon dioxide to achieve the global ambition of maintaining a habitable planet (UNFCCC 2015), a topic that the MCA makes no mention of. But the fossil fuel industry has its own ideology – wealth creation and protection of the ability to continue to create wealth regardless of the impacts on the planet (Cook 2016). Hence, the MCA would like us to debate in purely economic terms so that we can focus on aspects such as subsidies and profits rather than be distracted by bushfires, human health, collapsing coral reef ecologies and the like.

The rules of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation do indeed prohibit investment in carbon capture and storage and nuclear technology, but not the use of fossil fuels, so long as any new fossil fuel technology can achieve ‘an emissions intensity of less than 50% of the existing generation system’ (CEFC 2015). So ‘super-efficient’ ‘clean coal’ could potentially qualify except that even the World Coal Association acknowledges that ‘high efficiency, low emission (HELE) coal-fired power plants’ can only ‘reduce greenhouse gas emissions … by around 20%’ (World Coal Association 2017) which still doesn’t get even close to solar PV or wind (World Nuclear Association 2011). The Clean Energy Finance Corporation could hardly be called ‘clean’ if it was only aiming for a 20% reduction in emissions.

Let’s look at nuclear. Pearson mentions Japan’s pragmatism, but not Fukushima’s fallout. He’d probably rather we looked at Europe’s record, but a third of France’s nuclear fleet is offline because of safety concerns (Buchsbaum 2016). Perhaps the risk of a nuclear disaster on the scale of Chernobyl is low but Australian society has decided that the potential consequences of it are unacceptable (Bird et al. 2014). Then there’s the eternal question of what to do with radioactive waste that lasts for centuries, and at double the new-build cost of renewables, new nuclear plants don’t even stack up economically (Vorrath & Parkinson 2015).

The article correctly quotes the International Energy Agency’s estimate that ‘over the last five years, close to $US410 billion in support was paid to renewables-based power plants’ (World Energy Outlook 2015) but fails to place that figure in the context of the subsidies paid to the fossil fuel industry. The same agency reports that in 2014 alone the value of fossil fuel subsidies was almost $500 billion (World Energy Outlook 2016). Over the same five-year period (2011–2015), the fossil fuel industry received approximately $US2500 billion – more than five times the amount that renewables received (International Energy Agency 2016) and equal to the combined GDP of the world’s poorest 130 countries (World Bank 2017). Sorry, did I hear you say ‘tilted playing field’? This selection of data without providing comparison or context is called ‘cherry picking’.

The article calls for the Finkel review to recommend technology-neutral and ideology-free energy policy, yet makes no mention of the potential economic tools that the current government has dismissed from consideration – a price on carbon, an emissions intensity scheme (Bickers 2016), and the setting of emissions reduction targets consistent with meeting the global agreement (Hamilton & Karoly 2016). Pearson also wants us to acknowledge the ‘distortions’ of renewable subsidies, but not the distortions of fossil fuel subsidises or any consideration of the externalities of the environmental damage, air pollution and climate change caused by the fossil fuel industry that they currently don’t have to pay a cent for (IRENA 2016).

As for living standards, the world’s ‘greenest’ economies, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland (GGEI 2016), also have the highest standard of living (OECD 2017). Renewables themselves are not to blame for our current energy ‘crisis’ – ‘the inability of Australian governments to define and articulate a coherent narrative around a low-carbon energy future has constrained Australia’s sustainable energy transition and led to contradictory and disjointed outcomes’ (Warren, Christoff & Green 2016).

Yes, Mr Pearson, the playing field is tilted … with the vast weight of the fossil fuel industry and coal-driven ideology weighing down this country like a millstone.

Let's say we do shut down coal-fired power and other greenhouse gas emitting activities and invest in renewable energy and other clean technologies. That's going to cost something: the Greens propose $250m to transition coal workers and $500m for a new energy authority to drive construction; the Labor Party proposes $300m to support the transition of emissions-intensive industries and $206.6m for concentrated solar thermal; the Liberal Party propose $2.55b to incentivise business to reduce their emissions (formerly known as "direct action") and $1b to encourage new technology (but with no intention to reduce coal mining or transition the coal-fired power industry) (compare policies).

There will be some loss of revenue from all that precious black rock that we leave in the ground, currently earning Australia some $16b ("industry value added") (declining over the past few years due to falling prices).³ But there are likely to be some savings too, such as the nearly $6.5b the Coalition intend to keep paying to the mining industry in the form of a fuel tax credit (see the details).

We also need to reduce emissions from transport, agriculture, manufacturing and cities⁴ by improving energy efficiency, adopting new, clean technologies and investing in research and innovation. At the same time, there are a host of other activities that we need to be enacting to adapt to climate change that is already happening and will continue to happen even if we were to cut emissions to zero today, such as supporting the Great Barrier Reef (reasons for doing that), flood, fire and storm protection, coastal infrastructure protection, environmental conservation, sustaining agricultural production, public health support etc.

All of these activities represent both direct and indirect costs, and the economics of it all is mind-boggling to us non-accountants. But there's a lot more to it than just economics – there are also plenty of benefits and opportunities to be had if we just get past the obstacles and get on with it.

One of the most strident objections, including from our own Prime Minister, to Australia ceasing coal exports is that “the countries buying it would just buy it from somewhere else” and “it wouldn't reduce carbon emissions”⁵. Well, 195 countries agreed at the Paris climate conference (COP21) in December 2015 about the need to reduce emissions,⁶ which necessarily includes significant reduction in coal-burning. If all those “countries buying it” are to meet their COP21 commitments, they will be buying a whole lot less thermal coal (yes, even India and China),⁷ meaning that we won't be missing out by not selling ours. That's a sector of the economy that will become redundant whether we've proactively planned for it or not, so it's probably best that we do. If we act now, we can fill that gap with 28 000 jobs and growth in renewable energy industries⁸, international education (NSW's biggest services export is already worth $6.7b)⁹, tourism¹⁰ (increasing to about $17b in 2015) and other industries. If we wait, those gaps will be filled by other countries¹¹ and we'll find ourselves left behind or even importing the technologies and skills.¹²

Coal is the leading source of air pollution, “responsible for 430 000 tonnes of coarse particle pollution in 2013–14, … 47% of the national total.” “Air pollution kills more Australians than car accidents”¹³, contributing to diseases including stroke, heart disease, lung cancer and asthma.¹⁴ A previous article discussed the effect of heat on human health. These impacts both shorten our lifespan and place an unnecessary burden on our healthcare system. Imagine if we stopped digging up and burning coal – surely the improvement in our health alone would be worth it.

Climate change is causing the most rapid rate of species extinction in history.¹⁵ It's affecting the productivity of farming land; causing changes to rainfall patterns that affect our domestic water supply; causing stronger storms, bushfires and floods.¹⁶ All of these things have a cost to us personally or to the broader economy (and thus eventually to us personally!). We need to protect and conserve our natural systems before they collapse completely. Nothing is more critical than our food chain and water supply. This requires ongoing research¹⁷ and large-scale, hands-on action with cooperation between all types of land managers including foresters, farmers, conservationists, urban planners, land owners, environmental scientists, policy developers and so on. Any improvements in scientific understanding, agricultural efficiency, sustainability of forest management etc build the resilience of our natural resources into the future.

So, let's say, for argument's sake, that we've done all this stuff to stop burning coal and shift to renewable energy and sustainable living, then, sometime down the track, all the world's scientists turn out to be wrong and climate change is not happening (not that there's actually any doubt!¹⁸). What's the worst that can come out of that? That we've improved our air quality and reduced the incidence of related diseases, improved our natural resource and biodiversity management to ensure the quality and security of our food chain and other environmental resources, preserved the Great Barrier Reef for the enjoyment (and tourism income) of future generations, diversified and strengthened our manufacturing and education sectors, freed ourselves from the tyranny of electricity retailers by putting solar panels on our roofs, grown our food more efficiently, protected our houses from the environment, improved our energy and water efficiency, ensured a cheap supply of non-polluting energy forever, developed better public transport and more liveable cities, improved our recycling and reduced waste and consumption, and so on and on? What would be so bad about all that? I fail to see to down side.

Really, what have we honestly got to lose by ditching coal?

Vote for a sustainable planet.

Notes and sources

A previous article discussed how climate change is ruining your sex life. Well, that’s great if you just want something to blame for your flagging performance, but how can we turn it around?

Here are ten ways that taking action to stop climate change can bring more passion into your bedroom.

1. Stopping the rising temperatures outside will prevent melt-down in the bedroom by warding off heat stress and heatstroke.¹ Not being stinking-hot and sweaty or about to pass out from a pollution-induced asthma attack² is far more conducive to getting in the mood.
2. Not having to worry quite so much about extreme (human-induced, climate change-exacerbated) natural disasters will reduce your stress levels,^3,4 giving the more enjoyable hormones of love a chance.
3. You can enjoy the altruistic, self-esteem-raising pleasure of having done your bit for the planet⁵ – confident, happy people are more attractive.⁶
4. You’re more likely to dress seductively – and then strip it off – if you’re not being feasted on by disease-carrying mosquitos that have migrated south in the warmer climate.⁷
5. You can win some serious brownie points/deposits in the love bank of your significant other⁸ by demonstrating that you care about the future, either by doing something affirmative yourself or supporting their efforts – as someone I know says, “happy wife, happy life!”⁹
6. Not having to foot the bill for the massive cost of adaptation to out-of-control climate change¹⁰ means you can afford to spend on a little romance.
7. Put solar PV panels on your roof and add a battery then you can use your reverse-cycle air conditioner¹¹ to make the bedroom whatever temperature you like.
8. Plant a rubber tree – it will absorb CO₂ from the atmosphere and provide the raw material for having safe sex.¹²
9. Trade in your gas-guzzler for a hybrid-engine vehicle – what you save by buying a whole let less carbon-emitting petrol¹³ you can splurge on hot dates with your loved one.
10. Vote for a candidate who has strong climate change policies – they seem to coincide with positive policies on marriage equality^14,15 (or the conservative opposite is also true).^16,17

So what are you waiting for? Take action! And demand that our politicians do so also!

Notes and sources

There was a bit of hoo ha in the news in November last year (2015) about a National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) working paper titled Maybe next month? Temperature shocks, climate change, and dynamic adjustments in birth rates.¹ The paper is a pretty dry analysis of the relationship between “hot days” and birth rates over the past 80 years in the US and the economic implications of future projections, but essentially what they found is that birth rates drop significantly 8 to 10 months after the daily temperature gets over a mere 26.7°C.

I’m not afraid of a bit of data analysis so I looked at ABS monthly birth rates data for New South Wales 2004–14,² projected the monthly averages backwards by 9 months to the act of conception and compared this with BOM monthly mean maximum temperature data for Sydney.³ This is not a rigorous academic peer-reviewed analysis, and we’re using birth rates as a proxy for sex and fertility, but there is a correlation – January is one of the most successful months for making babies (we can probably attribute that largely to the party season) but then fewer babies are conceived in February and March (when temperatures average over 26°C) than at any other time of the year.

Things cool off in the bedroom when it’s hot outside.

Why? Is there more to it than simply it’s cosier to get between the sheets when it’s cold outside? There are some data that show that fertility in men is adversely affected by excess heat, causing alterations to sperm, thus lowering the likelihood of successful conception.⁴ Fewer babies means fewer young people paying taxes for governments to provide support services for an aging population, a decline in economic productivity and whatever other economic fallout comes from a shrinking population. ⁵

Beyond that, there’s a fair bit of reading between the sheets – I mean – lines and not a lot of actual evidence directly linking lack of desire to extreme heat. But you know yourself that when it’s stinking hot outside, you barely want to move, let alone hook up. Hot weather is great for getting your gear off, especially in Miami, according to condom manufacturer Trojan,⁶ but only up to the point where you start to dehydrate, get sunburnt, or start feeling the effects of heat stress and potentially fatal heatstroke⁷ – if you’re feeling that awful, you’re probably not really up for sex.

Heat stress and heat stroke are serious conditions. "It's not that well known, but heat stress kills more Australians than all of the other natural disasters put together,” said Dr Richard Kidd, chair of Australia Medical Association of Queensland Council of General Practice.⁸ More than 400 people died in Melbourne and Adelaide from the 2009 heatwave in southeast Australia.⁹ Climate change is bringing increasing temperatures and more very hot days and heatwaves, so this silent but deadly killer is set to increase.¹⁰ Without substantial action to tackle climate change and cope with a more extreme climate, heatwaves could cause hundreds of additional deaths annually in Australia by 2050, especially amongst the elderly or children.¹¹ This will have impacts for our health system which the Coalition has been defunding since it took office in 2013.¹² It’s interesting that the media rarely reports on this, seeming to prefer an isolated dramatic death by falling tree or sweeping flood water or shark attack.

Climate change is also causing more extreme events – bushfires, floods, storms, cyclones and droughts. ¹³ Extreme events cause stress – worrying about them approaching or dealing with the aftermath – which lowers libido,^14,15 and increases mental health issues which, if not addressed, can lead to domestic violence. The Black Saturday bushfires in 2009 are not to be trivialised in any way. 173 people died, hundreds were injured, 2000 homes were destroyed and 7000 people were forced to relocate. You probably know someone who was affected. Communities were devastated and, at a personal level, men’s suffering after such massive trauma manifested itself within relationships as violence against women and children, accompanied by increased alcohol and drug use.¹⁶ If you thought climate change was something you could dismiss as fanaticism by tree-hugging, soy-decaf-chai-latte-sipping hippies, perhaps those figures might sober you up.

The Coalition’s refusal to get out of bed with the coal industry means that you’ll see less and less action in yours. If you want to keep the heat in your sex life, we need to keep it cool outside. This election, vote for candidates with strong climate change policies.

To deliberately misquote Robin Williams’ character in Good morning, Vietnam, "It's gonna be hot! That's bad if you're in the jungle, and it ain't no good if you're with a lady."¹⁷

Notes and sources

This used to be true – a decade or so ago. A Wikipedia page titled ‘Cost of electricity by source’² contains a table of levelised costs³ showing coal at $28–38/MWh, wind at $63/MWh, solar thermal at $85/MWh and photovoltaics (ie rooftop-style solar PV panels) at $120/MWh. That table is dated 2006 – yes, 10 years old. Wikipedia even acknowledges that this information is old with a boxed note “This section is outdated” (Wikipedia’s bold).

So let’s update.

A 2013 study by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) modelled the cost of generating electricity in Australia from different sources and showed that “electricity can be supplied from a new wind farm at a cost of $80/MWh, compared to $143/MWh from a new coal plant … including the cost of emissions under the Gillard government’s carbon pricing scheme. Even without a carbon price (the most efficient way to reduce economy-wide emissions) wind energy is 14% cheaper than new coal.”⁴

Beyond Zero Emissions’ summary of the BNEF study notes that “older coal-fired power plants from the 1970s and 80s still compete at lower prices than renewables — but only because their construction costs have depreciated. For the deployment of any new power generation in Australia, renewables now appear to be the way to go.”⁵ They also note that Australia’s big four banks consider new coal projects to be a financial risk.

The BNEF study expects the cost of coal to rise, especially if a carbon price is reintroduced, and that large-scale solar PV and thermal will become cheaper than coal by 2020 and 2030 respectively.

A 2014 CSIRO report projects similar relative figures of $74.5/MWh for black coal without a carbon price (or $96.5/MWh with a carbon price) and $58.4/MWh for wind in 2020.⁶

A report by the Electric Power Research Institute ranked supercritical pulverised coal⁷ cheapest at about $78/MWh followed by wind at about $105/MWh, integrated gasification combined cycle coal at about $125/MWh and large-scale solar PV at about $140/MWh in 2015⁸, without a carbon price. Wind would be competitive with supercritical coal with a carbon price of about $30/tCO₂-e. “All new low- and zero-emissions technologies are projected to reduce in cost by 2030” so that solar PV is comparable to coal and wind comes out cheapest.

A more recent BNEF study⁹ found that the global average cost for wind fell to $83/MWh in 2015 while coal increased to about $70/MWh in Asia–Pacific. When a carbon price is applied, wind is clearly cheaper in countries such as the UK ($85/MWh for wind vs $115/MWh for coal) and Germany ($80/MWh for wind vs $106/MWh for coal).

So while there is much variation in the crystal ball gazing, it is definitely no longer universally true that “coal is cheaper by a mile” and in many situations, not cheaper at all. All of the sources referenced in this article project that the cost of renewables will continue to fall whereas the cost of coal is more likely to increase. Bloomberg describe a “virtuous cycle” where as more renewables are installed, coal plants are used less causing the cost of coal-fired generation to go up, making renewables even more cost-effective so more renewables will be installed, bringing production costs of renewables down further.¹⁰ The various sources also project that this cycle happens faster when emissions reduction policies are in place, such as reduction targets, caps on pollution, carbon pricing.

And of course, there is just no argument about which power source produces the least CO₂ – wind is lower by a mile!

Notes and sources

Let’s start by doing a quick fact check. The Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is the largest living organism on earth, stretching 2300 km along the coast of Queensland and can be seen from space. The GBR Marine Park covers 344 400 km², bigger than Tasmania and Victoria combined. It is home to over 5000 species of coral, fish, dugongs, turtles, dolphins, whales, rays and other creatures. But maybe you’re just not interested in its World Heritage value and natural beauty.

Since the 1890s, the Reef has become a major tourist destination,¹ now contributing over $5 billion to the Australian economy, employing 64 000 (full-time-equivalent) people.² That’s a lot of families depending on the Reef for their livelihoods. What happens to them if the Reef continues to deteriorate and no longer attract visitors? The government has no plan to find them alternative jobs. Still, not your job at risk, is it?

Coral reefs protect coastlines from the damaging effects of wave action and tropical storms,³ helping to prevent shoreline erosion and damage to coastal infrastructure, that is, buildings, roads and other structures, saving on reconstruction costs. This natural barrier is keeping your home insurance premiums down.⁴ Starting to have some impact on your hip pocket?

The GBR is a massive ecosystem. One-third of all marine life spends at least part of its life cycle on a reef.⁵ This includes commercial species of fish that end up on our dinner plates. An ecosystem is as delicate and precariously balanced⁶ as a house of cards: take a couple of small species off the top and perhaps it won’t make much difference, but if you knock out too many supporting species from the bottom of the pyramid (the corals that offer food and shelter to so many other species), the whole structure is likely to collapse, taking with it the valuable food species, and you’re left with just the predatory survivors such as the crown-of-thorns starfish⁷ – not very appetising in your Christmas seafood buffet.

The Reef is of great cultural, spiritual, economic, social and physical value to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who can demonstrate thousands of years of connection to the Reef.⁸ Modern development and agricultural activities by European settlers (or invaders, but let’s not get into that here) have put great pressure on the resilience of the Reef. Is that another thing we ought to say sorry for?

Perhaps you still don’t see the relevance to you. Well, the GBR is the proverbial canary down the coal mine: if damage to the Reef is so clearly visible, we need to take it as a serious warning about the scale of the threat that climate change poses to all of us. Are the heat waves, heavy storms and extreme bushfires of recent years not enough to convince you that we need to take action? Then, surely, the potential loss of the world’s largest living organism should be. If it is deteriorating, then so too are other ecosystems that we depend on for food and water⁹ – and that will affect you and your family, even if you haven’t noticed that yet.

The health of the Reef is affected by many factors including sediment run-off and pollution from agricultural land and urban development, over-fishing, shipping and tourist traffic¹⁰, but the most significant threat is climate change: the water is becoming warmer and more acidic, evident particularly in the far north where other factors are not present. Even a single degree of temperature increase above normal maximum temperatures over several weeks such as occurred over summer 2015–16 can cause stress to corals, resulting in bleaching.¹¹ Prolonged high temperatures can kill corals. None of these facts are in dispute. Despite some apparent controversy about the extent of current damage to the GBR,¹²¹³ no one disputes that there is damage or that the long-term outlook for the Reef from runaway climate change would be bleak. There is evidence from previous bleaching events that corals and their reef ecosystem can recover if conditions return to more favourable levels.¹⁴ But the trend in sea temperature over the past century has been relentlessly upward¹⁵ (see graph) and unless we, the human race, take serious and rapid action to halt climate change, it will be too late for coral reefs – they will simply be unable to tolerate the heat. If Sir David Attenborough says the Reef is “in grave danger”¹⁶, is there another kind?

Sea surface temperature in the Australian region has risen fairly steadily over the past century. (Source: Bureau of Meteorology¹⁵)

Labor, Liberal and the Greens have all pledged funds to preserving the Great Barrier Reef. But as Bill Shorten rightly said on ABC TV’s Q&A on Monday 13 June¹⁷, “pledging money, that’s good, but if you’ve got climate change policies which do nothing about climate change, it’s just a billion dollar bandaid of neglect”. “The reef and … climate change … are inextricably linked.” “People somehow think that dealing with climate change is a debate between environmentalists and business: it’s not. Not dealing with climate change will have an impact on the bottom line of family budgets. Not dealing with climate change will have an impact on future generations who will have to do more to fix it up.”

So, now that you do give a $#@! about protecting the Reef, what can you do about it? Vote for a candidate who has policies to cease coal mining and coal-fired power generation because “opening the [Adani Carmichael] coalmine is incompatible with limiting global warming to 2°C, … goals considered necessary for the future of the reef.” (biologist Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, professor and director of the Global Change Institute, University of Queensland)¹⁸

That candidate is not Liberal–National party who have no intention of withdrawing support for coal mining. Nor is it Labor: despite Labor’s emissions targets and policies to transition away from the coal industry, Bill Shorten says “a Labor government is not going to ban coal mining in this country – coal is going to be part of the energy mix for the foreseeable future”. His concession is that “a government I form will not spend a dollar of taxpayer money on the [Adani Carmichael] mine. It has to stand up under it’s own commercial propositions and its own scientific and environmental propositions”.¹⁹

And to wrap up this discussion about the Reef and party policies, the Coalition claim on their website that “our work to protect the Great Barrier Reef resulted in the World Heritage Committee declaring last July that Australia was a global role model for the management of World Heritage properties”.²⁰ That’s a mis-quote. What German Minister of State Maria Böhmer, Chairperson of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, actually said to Australian Minister for the Environment Greg Hunt was “the Great Barrier Reef is a unique treasure which we must preserve for future generations. It is important that we have a sustainable, properly funded and long-term strategy. I have the impression that the international community expects Australia to be a role model for other countries. If Australia lives up to these expectations it will send an important signal” and “that it was now important to implement the measures which have been announced.”²¹  In May 2016 it was revealed that the Australian Government Department of the Environment requested that UNESCO and UNEP remove all reference to Australian World Heritage sites from the report World Heritage and Tourism in a Changing Climate because of concerns about the impact of the report on tourism.²² Do you smell a rat?

Notes and sources

The big black hole in the Coalition's policies is a clear indication of their addiction to coal. They have no plan and no intention to reduce Australia's use of coal or other fossil fuels. No plan to shut down or modernise coal-fired power plants. No plan to stop mining coal. No plan to reduce exports of coal. No plan to scale back the industry. No plan to transition mine, port or power plant workers and communities to other industries. No plan to reduce Australia's economic dependence on coal. No plan to cover the cost of decommissioning and rehabilitating abandoned coal mines.

In fact, quite the opposite. The Coalition doesn't mention the nearly $6.5 billion they will continue to give to the mining industry each year in the form of an exemption from paying the 39 cents per litre tax that the rest of us pay for vehicle fuel, because that will just quietly continue, itemised in table 3.1 of Statement 5 of the 2016 federal budget as 'Fuel tax credits scheme'.¹ They don't mention that Environment Minister Greg Hunt approved (for the second time) the Indian-owned Adani Mining Company Carmichael Coal Mine in Queensland's Galilee Basin in October 2015, just weeks before the COP21 Paris climate talks. The Carmichael mine will be one of the largest coal mines in the world, and the mining and burning of coal from it will generate an estimated 4.7 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.²

What's the problem with this? Nothing, if you believe, as does Greg Evans, Executive Director of Coal, Minerals Council of Australia, that "this massive apparent environmental degradation ... is just a giant con job" against the Australian coal industry and that "all the pointers are strong for coal".³

However, according to Tim Buckley, Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, "the world export thermal coal markets are in structural decline. The price of our exports is down 60 per cent in the last five years. Demand for our product is declining. And the idea that Australia should be building new coal mines to supply a declining market really will just flood the market, push the price down further and bring about even more pain for an industry that's already beleaguered."³

So, if you, like 97 per cent of the world's scientists and a good proportion of non-coal-industry citizens of the world, accept that climate change is being caused by burning fossil fuels, then the Coalition's screaming lack of policies around fossil fuels is a huge problem. Even if you leave aside the need for Australia to reduce emissions as agreed at the COP21 Paris climate talks in November 2015, by handcuffing his policies to the fossil fuel industries, Malcolm Turnbull is sentencing this country to an economic black hole. What happens when the bottom does continue to fall out of the coal industry and coal prices continue to fall?⁴ What happens when China and India reduce and eventually stop importing our coal?⁵ Our coal industry workers, their families and communities will be jobless, left high and dry (or perhaps flooded by torrential climate-change-driven rain storms), the gaping mines left as environmental disaster zones by an unprepared Turnbull government, and our economy suffering the consequences of being coupled to a dying industry.

Notes and sources