When Sandy and I moved to Newcastle 25 years ago we discovered a city and region with layers of beauty familiar to communities located along Australia’s eastern coastline, yet pockmarked by industrialised sites that possessed the bleak and foreboding feel of a post-apocalyptic world. Alongside glorious beaches, beautiful open spaces, a spectacular lake, and the vineyards and horse studs of the Hunter Valley, Newcastle has the industrial remnants of its steel city past and its coal city present. Incredibly long trains carrying mounds of the black rock snake through the countryside, transporting their cargo to the world’s largest thermal coal export port. Giant machines effortlessly scoop coal into their buckets and dump it onto oversize conveyor belts. Ships dot the coastline waiting to take on their load and conquer raging seas to carry coal across the world. Even Nobby’s headland bears the marks of coal, for its distinctive flat top was created after it’s hilltop was dynamited off to make the harbour accessible to the sailing ships that carried our coal in a century past.
These industrial elements might be regarded as ugly scars, but over the years I have come to appreciate that many are in their own way formidable and awe-inspiring. It is quite an experience to sense the power of one of those coal trains that seem to reach on forever as the rail station platform rumbles from its passing, or to sit at a Harbourside cafe and watch the massive bulk of a coal ship guided in by tugs pass almost close enough to reach out and touch it.
The city – it’s nature, the character of its culture, and it’s beauty – was forged in mines and smelters and the working harbour as much as the beaches and cafes and vineyards. Our working class industrial heritage gave rise to a hard-working, practical, straight-spoken culture; a thriving arts community, in which writing, music, painting, dance and drama are so often anchored in industrial settings; and a sense of pride that leaves so many of us convinced that there’s nowhere else you’d rather live.
This is why the imminent end of the coal industry is not only an ecological issue for us. Nor is it only economic. It is about the very character and shape of the place in which we live.
Yet end it must and it will. The era of coal, gas and oil is coming to an end.
The burning of coal is one of the chief sources of greenhouse gas emissions that are driving global warming. The global mean temperature is already 1 degree higher than pre-industrial times and our current trajectory is toward a world where warming exceeds 3 degrees. To have a reasonable chance of holding it to 1.5 degrees, coal-fired power is one of the things that must go by 2050 at the latest ((IPCC, 2018, Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5. Figures apply to modelled pathways involving no or limited overshoot)). Should the world fail to do so, the demand for Newcastle’s coal may endure a little longer, but as communities experience the intensifying and dangerous impacts of a changing climate the pressure to reduce emissions will only become more intense and the end of coal will remain inevitable.
Australia’s Domestic Coal Market
Australia produces two types of coal: thermal coal, which is used to produce electricity; and metallurgical coal , which used to make steel. We export around 70 percent of our thermal coal and almost 100 percent of our metallurgical coal. The thermal coal we keep is used to generate electricity and was historically our cheapest way of doing so. This has left us with 18 operational coal fired power stations. The newest of these is 12 years old and the oldest is 47 years. Only four are less than 25 years old. Coal-fired power stations are designed for a life of around 40-50 years (although the average is 29 years) meaning that in the next two decades almost all are due to be retired.
Regardless of any environmental imperative, simple economics mean that retiring plants will not be replaced with new coal-fired power stations. In recent years the costs of producing electricity using renewable sources such as wind and solar have fallen faster than anyone expected, so that it is cheaper to use these for our energy needs than to build new coal-fired power stations. Moreover, the ability to store energy in batteries and hydro mean that with a properly enabled transmission and grid system electricity can be reliably supplied at all times (with smaller gas fired power generators possibly used as an interim back up/balancing measure). It is factors like these that saw PWC Australia conclude that:
A power generation mix dominated by renewables by 2040 can deliver reliable and affordable electricity, as well as drive an increase in Australia’s economic welfare. Conversely, replacing retired coal-fuelled thermal plant with new High-Efficiency Low-Emissions (HELE) coal plants would result in a comparatively poorer economic outcome.
PWC, 2019, The Future of Energy p5
Short of governments providing subsidies or legislation that favour coal-fired electricity (and in so doing making electricity more expensive and increasing our emissions), there is no future for thermal coal fired power-stations in Australia beyond 2030-2040.
Australia’s Export Market
Nor will there be a future for exporting coal. In a world in which action on climate change means renewables are growing as a proportion of global energy supply, demand for Australia’s thermal and metallurgical coal will decline. For example, in 2018 the International Energy Agency projected the future of thermal coal under current policies of governments across the world, policies announced but not yet implemented, and a sustainable development scenario that limits warming to around 1.8 degrees. The sustainable development scenario sees coal fall to almost zero by 2040.
Whether it is in 2040, 2050 or some time thereafter that coal is jettisoned, it is only a matter of time. As China and the other buyers of Australian coal move to a renewables dominant energy system there will eventually be no-one left to buy our coal.
Back to Newcastle
Which brings me back to Newcastle. It is easy to imagine coal communities are filled with red-neck-climate-change-denialists willing to trade away the future of humanity for their short-term gain. Nothing could be further from the truth, at least in my experience of living in Newcastle. We have passionate anti-coal activists, vocal climate sceptics, and a wider population growing increasingly disturbed at the reality of climate change and the failure of the international community to address it. Newcastle Council has declared a climate emergency, is investing in clean energy systems, and will be using 100% renewable sources of energy from January 1, 2020. Lake Macquarie Council has been implementing adaptation plans for over a decade and has the most sophisticated waste disposal collection system in the nation. The Hunter Valley Research Association, CSIRO and the University all conduct research dedicated to building a sustainable future for Newcastle.
Ours is not a city with a culture set in stone but one that has experienced significant change. Soon after Sandy & I moved to Newcastle, BHP announced it was shutting down its steel operations. This was almost incomprehensible. BHP and the steelworks had a cherished place in the formation and life of the city. The announcement was met with a sense of impending doom. Yet as the future unfolded, the community soon realised that this company and industry was not the whole of our story. It was but one of many pieces that were in a constant state of flux. There was pain and displacement, but it was not the end. We survived the end of steel and flourished.
We will do the same with the end of coal. Urged on by politicians either too simple to recognise coal has no long-term future or so cynical they gladly pour oil onto an already toxic fossil fuel fire, some cling to the futile hope that we can go on mining and exporting Australia’s vast reserves of coal forever. Most of us know this is a fantasy. We want a world in which our grandchildren can work, play and love without the ravages of catastrophic climate change and we know that means we must get ready for a post-coal future.
In a recent book((Superpower. Australia’s Low Carbon Opportunity, Black Inc, 2019)) eminent economist Ross Garnaut laid out a future for Australia as a green energy superpower, including a role for cities such as Newcastle to play. He shows that it not only possible for us to survive the end of coal but that we can thrive. Whether it is Garnaut’s or another net-zero emissions future that prevails, for coal cities like Newcastle it will mean changes to our economy, our jobs, our lived environment, and our culture.
We stand a much better chance of building a post-coal future if we have visionary leadership, bold entrepreneurship, support for those emotionally, socially and economically dislocated, and a united approach to a way forward. These things are taking place at a local level in Newcastle, but they would benefit from strong national leadership. The transformations required in Newcastle and across Australia will grow locally but will be achieved with the least amount of pain and the greatest amount of benefit if they occur within the framework of a strong national policy.
It therefore frustrates and angers me that while Novocastrians, our local councils and even our State Government are getting behind a transition to a net-zero emissions future, the Prime Minister and the Government of Australia are bereft of the capacity to imagine this future with us and are failing miserably in providing the national leadership we need. We need to be making and implementing the transition plans now. Instead we have a government that is doing as little as possible to make the structural and systemic changes required. It offers feeble assurances we will reach our “Paris targets” yet manifestly fails to understand the intention of those targets.
Mr Morisson, we’re ready to create a post-coal future and we’re on our way, but “where the bloody hell are you.”
Well reasoned and eloquently stated as always, Scott.
Thanks Natalie
As someone who has lived in a coal mining area most of my adult life, I can see coal miners’ fear of losing their livelihood. I think the change must made, but with sensitive handling, and good re-training of coal miners and other displaced workers, not just token courses which don’t really fit the bill. As a mother and a grandmother, I want a clean environment for my family’s future; a clean environment which we as a nation should have been working towards many years ago. I agree, Scott. We need the strong, committed leadership we are not receiving. Our P.M. is missing in action.
Thanks Helen. Yes, a good and sufficient transition system will be important.
I wish I could use such simplistic propositions that you advance.They are all about your world and not the whole world which I find a very selfish approach as is typical of so many in this debate
Hi John, it’s difficult to respond to claims of “simplistic propositions” and selfishness when you make the accusation without any elaboration. I am more than happy to dialogue if you make clear what you mean.
You only talk of Newcastle not the billions elsewhere in the world and how we should address the world not just our little corner. Doing it in Newcastle will do nothing for the world. I think we should have a world view not one in our backyard which seems selfish as it refuses to take into account all.
Hi John, I agree that we need to address the world and not only our own patch. But addressing the global question also means addressing how this applies to the communities in which we live. I don’t think it’s a mater of either-or.
I think you expressed it without proper consideration of all at the same time something that most do not do. It reads very selfish
I didn’t think Scott’s article was simplistic not selfish. I thought he was showing from his lived experience that a city could transition successfully after a major industry and employer closes down. Expert scientists tell us we need to stop burning fossil fuels urgently if the earth is going to be liveable fir our grandchildren. Germany, a large manufacturing country, has shown us it can be done if the transition is well planned. Sadly we don’t have the political leaders to enable such a smooth transition in Australia.
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/how-germany-closed-its-coal-industry-without-sacking-a-single-miner-20190711-p526ez.html?fbclid=IwAR368he9agZbfD8vTVn30wKiR2Gq1EINlmWpwZJs4ThmmxCxDdEMXbr1YRs
Kelli, Your expert scientists have not shown how we should do it without killing millions of persons if we adopt your view . Remember Germany regards the burning of timber as a renewable resource It does not really address the issues completely. Should they ban nuclear? Can you answer that ?
Where is there a clear and coherent plan to do this in Australia ? Can you find it ?
John, how will a move to renewable sources of energy and net zero emissions kill millions of people?
Scott , you are not addressing what happened when Newcastle closed it steel works . It merely transferred the production to other countries with weaker health and emmisson standards there3by increasing deaths.
Western governments, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank have all said that to avoid increasing emissions they are no longer willing to grant aid for the building of fossil-fuel plants in the poorest countries. They prefer to spend the money on renewables instead, where it goes less than half as far. The result is that the death toll of those who die as a result of cooking over open wood and dung res for lack of electricity – currently about three million people a year – will not fall as fast as it should, while millions more are missing out on the benefits of electricity, including refrigeration and education.
The Center for Global Development has estimated that US$10 billion invested in gas-fired generation in sub-Saharan Africa would meet the needs of 90 million people. The same sum spent on renewable energy technology would help just 27 million people (Moss & Leo 2014). The overall conclusion from this study was that more than 60 million additional people in poor nations could gain access to electricity if investment were allowed in natural gas projects, not just renewables.
The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change — the organisation in charge of the Paris meeting — estimates that if every country makes every single promised carbon cut between 2016 and 2030 to the fullest extent possible and there is no carbon leakage, it will be equivalent to cutting carbon dioxide by 60 gigatonnes by 2030. It is widely acknowledged that to keep temperature rises below 2C, we must reduce CO2 equivalent emissions by nearly 6000Gt.
The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change — the organisation in charge of the Paris meeting — estimates that if every country makes every single promised carbon cut between 2016 and 2030 to the fullest extent possible and there is no carbon leakage, it will be equivalent to cutting carbon dioxide by 60 gigatonnes by 2030. It is widely acknowledged that to keep temperature rises below 2C, we must reduce CO2 equivalent emissions by nearly 6000Gt.
It’s not very complicated: We must end wasteful subsidies for both fossil fuels and inefficient solar and wind. And we should focus on investment in innovation to improve green energy but virtue claiming is wrong
Hi John, thanks for replying. I have a few observations to make:
First, my argument in this blog piece is about how Australia, and Newcastle in particular, will respond to the inevitable decline in demand for Australian coal. Australia exports almost all its coal to Japan, China, South Korea, Taiwan and India, and as these countries pursue their chosen path to sustainable economies the demand for Australian coal is almost certain to fall to almost zero over the coming decades. I’m unclear in what way the arguments you raise have any bearing on this.
Second, the great challenge before the global community is to promote sustainable development. Without this, the cost to life, health and wellbeing of human populations in all countries, but especially among those who are poorest and least capable of adaptation, will dwarf the numbers of those who today lack access to electricity.
Third, the conclusion I reach is not that the wellbeing of those living in poverty should be considered an acceptable cost of sustainable development, but an added cost on the international community of ensuring sustainable development for all. The rapid advance in clean technology over the last few years means that the investment comparison figures you cite are way out of date, but even where clean development is more costly this means richer nations have a responsibility to help fund adaptation and mitigation efforts in poorer countries.
Fourth, sustainable development does not mean there is no place for fossil fuels in the development pathways that countries adopt, but it does mean that where used they will be transitional forms of energy production.
Fifth, I am more than happy to eliminate wasteful subsidies on energy production as long as it includes a cost placed on the externalities of each form of energy production and as long as they take into account subsidies already received in the sunk costs of coal fired power plants.
Scott .
My naïve understanding is that coal from most of Australia is better than any other large supplier . Do you think we should deny people that to satisfy your choice for Newcastle and close your coal mines ?
I do not think there is any science that proves conclusively coal does not have a future . I also believe we have a responsibility for all and not your narrow Australian centric view .
You talk about a view of sustainable development yet do not define it I would believe it is the view of all that all development should be sustainable perhaps well expressed by
“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs “
The electricity comment was answering your question about the millions who will die. Yet you do not talk about achieving any of the following which I think should be a prime over closing Newcastle coal mines as you suggest .
reducing salt intake and providing low cost blood pressure medicine will cost $9bn and save 5m lives per year
Avoid 1.1 million HIV infections through circumcision Circumcising 90% of Lower chronic child malnutrition by 40%.
Providing nutritional supplements, deworming, and improving the balance of diet for 0-2 year olds will cost $11bn and prevent 68m children from being malnourished every year
Halve malaria infection Distributing long lasting insecticide treated bed-nets and delaying resistance to the malaria drug artemisinin will cost $0.6bn, prevent 100m cases of malaria and save 440,000 lives per year
Reduce tuberculosis deaths by 90% Massively scaling up detection and treatment of tuberculosis will cost $8bn and save up to an additional 1.3m lives per year
Cut early death from chronic disease by 1/3 Raising the price of tobacco, administering aspirin and preventative therapy for heart diseaseHIV-negative men in the 5 worst affected countries will cost $35m annually and avert 1.1m infections by 2030 with the preventive benefit increasing over time
Reduce newborn mortality by 70% Protecting expecting mothers from disease, having skilled medical staff support their deliveries, and ensuring high quality postnatal care will cost $14bn and prevent 2m newborn deaths per year Increase immunization to reduce child deaths by 25%
Expanding immunization coverage to include protection from forms of influenza, pneumonia and diarrheal disease will cost $1bn and save 1m children per year Make family planning available to everyone Allowing women to decide if, when, and how often they become pregnant will cost $3.6bn per year, cut maternal deaths by 150,000, while providing a demographic dividend
Eliminate violence against women and girls Right now, every year 305 million women are domestically abused, costing the world $4.4 trillion in damages
These are relevant to your comments . No doubt you will claim them as not being upto date but can you supply ones that are?
Why do you only want to take into account subsidies already received on coal and not other power sources to be fair and consistent you should do both .
I would suggest you consider look at https://energy.stanford.edu/news/cheap-renewables-won-t-stop-global-warming-says-bill-gates
Also
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-yALPEpV4w
They provide challenges to your and my thinking
Hi John, thanks for your comments. Some thoughts:
1. My blog piece was not about global sustainable development but about how changing patterns of coal demand are affecting and will likely effect my hometown, Newcastle.
2. Many of the development initiatives you identify sound like sensible proposals. I’m just not sure what relevance they have to this discussion. I don’t understand why you see climate mitigation and the proposals you suggest as mutually exclusive.
3. Re the links you sent. Gates and Golden both believe we must act to mitigate climate change. I gather your point is about the capacity of renewables v other technologies such as nuclear to deliver cost effective mitigation. My reading suggests that Australia can generate its electricity in an economically efficient way from renewables, but I don’t have any particular insistence that they must be preferred. If nuclear and carbon capture and storage technologies are able to safely get us to a net zero emissions energy system at cheaper cost than other technologies then I have no objection to their being in the mix.
4. I didn’t intend to indicate that in advanced economies subsidies should be applied to renewables but no other energy sources. As with all technological development and innovation I believe there is a role for public investment in R&D. My main point is that the pricing of energy products must include the cost of externalities such as environmental impacts. Without this coal, oil and gas are in effect provided with massive subsidies.
I see no basis in what you have written here for claims about millions of deaths from reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The global avoided damages (in net present values) from mitigating climate change exceed the costs (in net present values) of reducing emissions (there are plenty of studies showing this, of which the Stern and Garnaut reviews are the best known). Therefore, by reducing emissions we increase the resources available to deal with problems like lack of access to electricity. Failure to allocate sufficient resources to development challenges such as those you have mentioned is not the result of policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
John I am no expert on these issues but I think there are many people dying today because they do not have access to electricity so I assume you Stern and Garnaut accept that something I can not\.
John. It’s not appropriate for you to attribute views to others. You are wrong in my case. I don’t know the views of Stern or Garnaut but would be very surprised if they held the one you have suggested. It’s quite possible to want to do something about climate change and also want to do something about poverty.
You quoted Stern and Garnaut as authorities so I wrongly assumed you concur with them. To me poverty and saving lives should be our first priority not advocating propositions that do not address them.
Kellie, don’t let John draw you into the labryinth of climate change denialism, with its endless echo chambers of alternative truths. Be confident too, that you will not be complicit in the deaths of millions of unidentified people who, for all you know might well include the entire population of Newcastle.
All ScottJ is proposing is what is termed a ‘just transition’ from coal (a fossil fuel) toward renewables. Though I am a strong advocate of renewables myself I completely support his approach. We should be generous in the compensations to employees affected by such transitions,
To get distracted from that, and diverted into endless discussion about other ‘alternatives’ ends up going nowhere, Allowing ourselves to get further ensnared into debating the myriad minutiae, means nothing of real significance ever gets done.
I am not a climate denialist in spite of your comment
Hi John,
After reading your various comments in more detail and thinking them over, I believe I’ve now got a more informed view of where you’re coming from. It was wrong of me to suggest you were a climate change denialist. Please accept my apologies for that.
However I will stand by my comment that climate change denialism is indeed a labyrinth with endless echo chambers of alternative truths. One of the newer delaying tactics is to argue that we should wait until renewable technology advances further, on the grounds that it doesn’t fully meet our current needs.
That line of argument in turn implies sticking with the ‘status quo’ while we have yet another round of lengthy debate (instead of actually doing something) in which no doubt ‘nuclear’ and ‘hydrogen’ will feature prominently. Thus, needed transitions will continue to occur at a rates equivalent to that of a 150 year old dying sea-turtle trudging up the beach to its final resting place.
Des, Thanks . I do believe we are not investing sufficiently in renewables whilst subsidising all other forms of energy to a questionable future . Are the subsidies sensible ? They are deifinitely not sensible in economic terms but emoytional ones maybe.
Great article. Very thoughtful and well reasoned. Thanks so much.
Thanks Kelli
Climate change mitigation raises complicated public policy questions for everyone, not just Australia and certainly not just any one person – including Scott Morrison, Australia’s current democratically elected leader. The proportion of world population in extreme poverty was reduced from 34% in 1993 to 11% in 2013 (https://www.gapminder.org/ignorance/ignorance-test/results/question-3/), but at an environmental cost that has gradually become more apparent.
We in the rich Western countries can’t really blame developing countries for still tending to priortise the lives and livelihoods of poor citizens, even China (generating 30% of global carbon emissions annually) which ramped up coal-fired power plant output last year to maintain economic growth (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/20/china-appetite-for-coal-power-stations-returns-despite-climate-pledge-capacity), let alone countries like India still struggling with even more widespread poverty. This tension is one reason why more concerted and deeper commitments have been difficult to reach by negotiating international treaties (for this and others see eg https://theconversation.com/the-madrid-climate-conferences-real-failure-was-not-getting-a-broad-deal-on-global-carbon-markets-129001). Yet binding legal commitments are usually necessary to overcome collective action problems and the “tragedy of the commons”, where countries (or individuals) act in their own short-term interests at a long-term overall cost. At least Australia (with 1% of global emissions) hasn’t withdrawn from the Paris Agreement, like the US (the second-largest emitter after China), which probably makes a future treaties even harder to achieve.
Australia’s take-up of renewables has been faster than expected in recent years but we still have most power plants running off coal because that is where the country has long had a clear comparative advantage (and eg nuclear power became curiously taboo in energy policy debates). The government could subsidise accelerated phase-outs (including substitution for cleaner gas-fired plants, although there would be backlash by purists opposed also eg to coal seam gas as potentially useful resource at least in the short term) and/or subsidise renewables in other ways (although it’s hard to get that right, eg after we installed solar panels almost a decade ago on a NSW govt plan for homeowners it had to scale back the subsidies due to unexpectedly high uptake and therefore cost blowout). But this summer is probably a good time to put a price on this and see if taxpayers and voters will wear such costs (and those of other mitigation strategies eg re more sustainable agriculture). I think enough Australians now might do so, if the arguments are presented transparently and realistically (in contrast to the general election last May, when Labor – let alone the Greens – thought voters should just decide on blind faith without considering costs of different policies).
After that election I dropped off Lee Strobel’s book on “Miracles” to PM Scott Morrison, but with a letter suggesting that his new mandate should provide confidence to cost Labor or other policies, as climate change mitigation remained a concern for myself and many others in Australia. I reminded him that when his party elected him PM I had given him a copy of Scott Higgins “A Beautiful World” (http://www.micahaustralia.org/bible_studies), which our family has tried to apply in everyday life (along with his https://baptistworldaid.org.au/resources/the-end-of-greed/). But I also reminded Scott Morrison that I had dropped off to his office a copy of Tim Keller, Generous Justice, when Morrison was Immigration Minister. That reinforces how God has a special concern for the poor, the foreigner and those without parents or spouses (https://timothykeller.com/books/generous-justice), within the beautiful world created for us all to care for as well.
I believe it is better to appeal to people’s better nature and common values, including leaders across all sorts of fields, and to engage with them with empathy and constructively rather than just always critically. Recently this was reinforced by watching a fascinating movie about Republican president Lyndon Johnson, who was gradually brought around to supporting civil rights law reform in the US after JFK’s assassination, through constructive engagement by Rev Martin Luther King and others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LBJ_(film). Cursing the current Australian PM at the end of your thought-provoking posting, even presumably in jest (“where the bloody hell are you?”), doesn’t strike me as the most effective way to encourage a political leader or appeal to a wide audience of diverse political persuasions and potential worldviews.
Hi Luke,
Thanks for your extensive reply, the many good points you make, and for your efforts to constructively engage with Scott Morrisson over many years.
Sadly public debate in Australia often consists little more than shouting at each other, and a willingness to believe the worst about each other. This polarises but as you point out, rarely resolves anything. I have always tried to avoid this in my blog posts, to the point that in earlier posts I have been criticised for being far too generous in my expectations of the PM.
I redrafted the final paragraphs of this post quite a number of times because I didn’t want them to be a PM bash but an affirmation that Newcastle is in fact taking steps toward a post-coal future, that serious national leadership, which is currently lacking, will make it much easier for all Australia to get there.
The concluding line was as an appropriation of the “where the bloody hell are you?” tourism campaign that was put together under Mr Morrisson’s leadership in his pre-parliamentary life.. I am not clear how you can read it as “cursing the current PM”, but I accept that my reappropriation can be read in a variety of ways, not all of them constructive.