Caught Between the Green House and a Coal Seam

Governments love industries like coal mining. They're low tech and profitable. They don't need an educated work force, (at the blunt end, at least), sophisticated infrastructure or investment in R & D. You simply dig the stuff up and load it onto a ship, then sit back and watch the royalties roll in.

The public's concern regarding climate change is a headache for governments of both persuasions. How do they mitigate the environmental damage, while protecting the vested interests?

The latest setback for those vested interests (government, mining companies and unions) is the recent court decision that stipulates that Environmental Impact Studies for new mines must take into account the environmental damage from the burnt coal's emissions.

The argument that it's the importing country's problem obviously doesn't wash as the CO2 won't stay within national boundaries.

So we have the federal government pushing the hope of viable carbon capture technology to argue that mining should go on unabated ...

"The solution to greenhouse gases is to stop carbon going into the atmosphere from burning coal, not stopping coal mines.

"What we need to do as a world is keep mining coal.

Pity that the technology is decades away, can't be easily bolted on to old power stations, will severely effect the station's generating efficiency and that carbon capture can only be done in certain geological areas, which doesn't include the NSW Hunter Valley.

In the mean time, scientists are warning that the rise in CO2 concentration is accelerating.

The situation reminds me of tobacco companies that knew of the health risks of smoking when marketing their product, and asbestos miners who likewise put their workers at risk well after the link between breathing asbestos fibres and cancer was established.

Unfortunately, I won't be alive in 40 years to see the victims of climate change take the energy companies to court.