A reality that greenhouse idealists choose to ignore -


If coal exports from the proposed Anvil Hill mine do not go ahead, not one molecule less carbon dioxide will be emitted to the atmosphere, because the overseas customers for the coal will simply buy it elsewhere. Their requirements will be willingly met by other coal-exporting countries such as Indonesia, South Africa, Russia or China. If anyone thinks that would be a better result for the environment, they are sadly misinformed.
Global consumption of coal is not limited by supply. Coal is found in more than 100 countries and reserves are sufficient for hundreds of years. Therefore global demand for coal is not determined by supplies from Australia.
The Australian mining industry is a major player in the seaborne coal trade not because customers have nowhere else to go but because we are efficient, reliable suppliers able to compete successfully on price and quality.
In these circumstances it is hard to imagine anything more quixotic than constraining exports of Australian coal on the basis that doing so might save greenhouse gas emissions in the countries that import coal. Those countries will not burn any less coal, just less of ours. In such a process, the investment, jobs, taxes and royalties that now benefit all Australians, especially the people of the Hunter and Illawarra regions and the coalmining areas of Queensland, will go elsewhere.
Ironically, many of those advocating this scenario also oppose developing clean coal technologies, including carbon capture and geological storage. This reveals an ideological opposition to fossil fuels that has little to do with practical solutions to climate change. They advocate a one-dimensional approach to the problem that excludes everything except renewable energy, regardless of cost or practicality.
Climate change is a complex problem that does not lend itself to one-dimensional solutions. It will certainly not be solved by energy exporters such as Australia withdrawing their resources from an energy-hungry world. If all countries with reserves of fossil fuels were to take this approach, the geopolitical consequences could only be imagined.
While such an approach is clearly untenable, reducing greenhouse gas emissions from our use of all fossil fuels is a legitimate objective. Emissions from coal are usually singled out for particular attention, yet the use of oil and related products is responsible for the same proportion of energy-related emissions. Emissions from gas are the fastest growing source.

Fortunately, it may be easier to reduce emissions from coal than from oil because coal is mainly used in large centralised plants that lend themselves to carbon capture and storage. This technology is being developed and Australia is a key player. The Australian coal industry is making a major contribution to this effort, contributing hundreds of millions of dollars in funding and technical and scientific expertise. This support is underwritten by our coal exports. Investment in this and other low emissions technologies is likely to prove the single most effective contribution a small country such as ours makes to protecting the global climate.
Despite concerns about greenhouse gas emissions, world demand for energy is increasing rapidly. The International Energy Agency forecasts that demand will increase by 50 per cent by 2030. It is inevitable that coal will be used to meet a substantial proportion of this demand. The result in terms of greenhouse gas emissions will be determined by the use of clean coal technologies. It will not be determined by whether Australia develops new mines.
The Australian coal industry competes successfully in the global market while having the best environmental and occupational safety standards in the world. As a result coal is easily our most important commodity export. Last year coal generated about $25 billion in export earnings, most of which boosts the national economy, with particular benefits in NSW and Queensland.
Anyone who thinks the environment would benefit by forcing importing nations to look elsewhere for their coal is mistaken. Anyone who believes that withholding energy resources from those who do not have sufficient resources is a good idea is downright dangerous.
Mark O'Neill is executive director of the Australian Coal Association.