6 ms·

Australia needs to exit the export coal business. We should go dig some other rocks up out of the ground, we have a lot of them... We are responsible for 37% o

Australia needs to exit the export coal business. We should go dig some other rocks up out of the ground, we have a lot of them... We are responsible for 37% of global coal exports. That's massive. If we halt coal exports it would put a squeeze on the coal supply and that raise prices; probably significantly. Coal power plants are already on thin margins. If cost of coal increased for a sustained period (a few years) coal would be considered unviable as a fuel source. We should see a lot of the plants close down. Australia always talks about its self as being insignificant and anything we could do to help prevent climate change would have no measurable impact. This incorrect relatively and absolutely, we are one of the largest per capita emitters. But we are also the third largest exporter of fossil fuels. This is Australia's opportunity to actually do something significant to help address climate change. [1] http://www.worldstopexports.com/coal-exports-country/ http://www.worldstopexports.com/coal-exports-country/ [2] https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-08-19/australia-co2-exports-third-highest-worldwide/11420654 https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-08-19/australia-co2...

flukus 7y ago
Imagine what we could do with just a 1% export tariff and funneling that money into renewable energy sources. At 10% we could invest in renewable energy projects in other parts of the world.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  Don't let your imagination run wild, just do the math. Coal exports are on the order of $50 billion[1], 1% of that is $500 million. Meanwhile, the money already going into renewables is on the order of $15 billion per year (for the past two years)[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_Australia#Production,_exports_and_reserves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_Australia#Production,_... [2] https://www.news.com.au/national/federal-election/almost-30-billion-invested-in-renewable-energy-in-past-two-years/news-story/5401643d4ff96e20082bdc767c26cdf8 https://www.news.com.au/national/federal-election/almost-30-...
grecy 7y ago
I personally agree with you 100%, but of course the economy is more important that addressing climate change. It's so blatantly obvious the current political leadership in Australia is in bed with the coal industry, but like all the other democracies that have been bought by mega corps - what are you going to do?
- Polylactic_acid 7y ago
  The government hasn't addressed the economy or the environment. They have shouted the same crap on repeat so many times that we have forgotten that coal is not a good investment and only serves to funnel government money in to a few corporations.
azinman2 7y ago
"In 2014–15 mineral extraction in Australia was valued at 212 billion Australian dollars. Of this, Coal represented 45,869 million, oil and natural gas 40,369 million, Iron ore 69,486 million, Gold ore 13,685 million, and other metals 7,903 million." [1] 45B is still a lot of money to remove from the economy. It's less than I would have predicted (mining is only 5.8% of economy), but it's still a non-trivial amount. And 45B gets you a lot of lobbyists. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Australia
- throwaway2048 7y ago
  How much money do you think climate change is going to take out of the economy? Its going to be a lot more than 45 billion.
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    $45 billion in 1913 would be $1,179 billion today purely through inflation. Money that's available right now can be invested to make life better in the long run. That's why governments usually borrow money. I think it's not that straightforward of a situation.
    - Retric 7y ago
      Inflation does not represent an increase in value. Otherwise Zimbabwe would have turned into the world’s richest country. Further there is a weak link between resource extraction an long term economic growth. It requires a huge investment in resources and education that becomes worthless after the resource runs out. Just look at West Virginia to see the long term boons from coal mining.
      - Mirioron 7y ago
        >Just look at West Virginia to see the long term boons from coal mining I don't understand what you're getting at. Compare the life of an average person in West Virginia today to the average person in West Virginia before coal mining and the person today is immensely better off. Technological improvements are the payoffs from investment.
rb808 7y ago
Sure but it has a huge financial impact. Its the second largest source of export earnings and the main source of electric power. The Australian economy has been hugely successful thanks due to coal, there is no way voters will take a big cut to their standard of living, especially with most of them overleveraged into property.
justincormack 7y ago
Which means Japan needs to exit the coal import business, they are the largest importer of Australian coal.
roenxi 7y ago
Australia produces ~6% of the worlds coal [0]. That is the only thing nature could care about; figures like % exports and per capita numbers are meaningless. 6% is a big enough slice of the pie for everyone to argue about. The 34% figure specifically is a bit meaningless because it is by value and there is big price (about x4?) difference between met coal (Queensland) vs. thermal coal (NSW). It doesn't make sense to try and compare Australian met coal exports to, say, Indonesian thermal. Also as a counter argument, attempting to pressure China economically by choking their imports would probably end badly for us. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_coal_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_coal_prod...
- coenhyde 7y ago
  The reason i was referencing export % vs production % is that a change in the availability of coal for import would change the market price differently than if we assumed that all coal produced is available on the international market (which is false). But yes 6% in absolute terms is worth caring about.
  - kikoreis 7y ago
    Your comment was insightful; I think the GP missed your main point, which is one of economic pressure through constrained supply.
h9n 7y ago
I've been wondering lately how and whether Australia could use its position as the biggest exporter to deliberately wreck the global thermal coal market, and consequently, coal usage. I'm definitely not an economist, but would it be feasible, if coal production could be co-ordinated nationally, to manipulate the market through (I'm guessing) either or alternately dumping coal on it or suddenly cutting it off, possibly in an unpredictable manner? Does Australia have enough weight to make a difference? And would this have any effect greater than cutting off production entirely?
pyuser583 7y ago
Coal prices are currently slumping. I’m sure all the coal companies would love it if Australia increase their revenue by driving up price. If Australia was able to double the price of coal, it would be what it was back in 2011.
samstave 7y ago
This is a really cool mining-cost-model site: https://costs.infomine.com/costdatacenter/miningcostmodel.aspx https://costs.infomine.com/costdatacenter/miningcostmodel.as...
tonyedgecombe 7y ago
Australia needs to take a more enlightened attitude to the environment at home first. Just as Norway still exports a lot of oil but has the largest density of electric vehicles.
loufe 7y ago
It is important to keep in mind the two categories of coal in terms of their final use. Most people think coal is only thermal coal, which is predominantly used in power plants to generate energy. A non-negligible 20% of Australian coal is the other sort, metallurgical. This type is used predominantly in steel production (think carbon in steel) and is, at the present, very unlikely to be replaced for a long time. Roughly half of coal produced in Canada is metallurgical, for instance, and that production is unlikely to end unless steel production does.

flukus 7y ago

Imagine what we could do with just a 1% export tariff and funneling that money into renewable energy sources. At 10% we could invest in renewable energy projects in other parts of the world.

gridlockd 7y ago
Don't let your imagination run wild, just do the math. Coal exports are on the order of $50 billion[1], 1% of that is $500 million. Meanwhile, the money already going into renewables is on the order of $15 billion per year (for the past two years)[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_Australia#Production,_exports_and_reserves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_Australia#Production,_... [2] https://www.news.com.au/national/federal-election/almost-30-billion-invested-in-renewable-energy-in-past-two-years/news-story/5401643d4ff96e20082bdc767c26cdf8 https://www.news.com.au/national/federal-election/almost-30-...

grecy 7y ago

I personally agree with you 100%, but of course the economy is more important that addressing climate change. It's so blatantly obvious the current political leadership in Australia is in bed with the coal industry, but like all the other democracies that have been bought by mega corps - what are you going to do?

Polylactic_acid 7y ago
The government hasn't addressed the economy or the environment. They have shouted the same crap on repeat so many times that we have forgotten that coal is not a good investment and only serves to funnel government money in to a few corporations.

azinman2 7y ago

"In 2014–15 mineral extraction in Australia was valued at 212 billion Australian dollars. Of this, Coal represented 45,869 million, oil and natural gas 40,369 million, Iron ore 69,486 million, Gold ore 13,685 million, and other metals 7,903 million." [1] 45B is still a lot of money to remove from the economy. It's less than I would have predicted (mining is only 5.8% of economy), but it's still a non-trivial amount. And 45B gets you a lot of lobbyists. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Australia

throwaway2048 7y ago
How much money do you think climate change is going to take out of the economy? Its going to be a lot more than 45 billion.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  $45 billion in 1913 would be $1,179 billion today purely through inflation. Money that's available right now can be invested to make life better in the long run. That's why governments usually borrow money. I think it's not that straightforward of a situation.
  - Retric 7y ago
    Inflation does not represent an increase in value. Otherwise Zimbabwe would have turned into the world’s richest country. Further there is a weak link between resource extraction an long term economic growth. It requires a huge investment in resources and education that becomes worthless after the resource runs out. Just look at West Virginia to see the long term boons from coal mining.
    - Mirioron 7y ago
      >Just look at West Virginia to see the long term boons from coal mining I don't understand what you're getting at. Compare the life of an average person in West Virginia today to the average person in West Virginia before coal mining and the person today is immensely better off. Technological improvements are the payoffs from investment.

rb808 7y ago

Sure but it has a huge financial impact. Its the second largest source of export earnings and the main source of electric power. The Australian economy has been hugely successful thanks due to coal, there is no way voters will take a big cut to their standard of living, especially with most of them overleveraged into property.

justincormack 7y ago

Which means Japan needs to exit the coal import business, they are the largest importer of Australian coal.

roenxi 7y ago

Australia produces ~6% of the worlds coal [0]. That is the only thing nature could care about; figures like % exports and per capita numbers are meaningless. 6% is a big enough slice of the pie for everyone to argue about. The 34% figure specifically is a bit meaningless because it is by value and there is big price (about x4?) difference between met coal (Queensland) vs. thermal coal (NSW). It doesn't make sense to try and compare Australian met coal exports to, say, Indonesian thermal. Also as a counter argument, attempting to pressure China economically by choking their imports would probably end badly for us. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_coal_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_coal_prod...

coenhyde 7y ago
The reason i was referencing export % vs production % is that a change in the availability of coal for import would change the market price differently than if we assumed that all coal produced is available on the international market (which is false). But yes 6% in absolute terms is worth caring about.
- kikoreis 7y ago
  Your comment was insightful; I think the GP missed your main point, which is one of economic pressure through constrained supply.

h9n 7y ago

I've been wondering lately how and whether Australia could use its position as the biggest exporter to deliberately wreck the global thermal coal market, and consequently, coal usage. I'm definitely not an economist, but would it be feasible, if coal production could be co-ordinated nationally, to manipulate the market through (I'm guessing) either or alternately dumping coal on it or suddenly cutting it off, possibly in an unpredictable manner? Does Australia have enough weight to make a difference? And would this have any effect greater than cutting off production entirely?

pyuser583 7y ago

Coal prices are currently slumping. I’m sure all the coal companies would love it if Australia increase their revenue by driving up price. If Australia was able to double the price of coal, it would be what it was back in 2011.

samstave 7y ago

This is a really cool mining-cost-model site: https://costs.infomine.com/costdatacenter/miningcostmodel.aspx https://costs.infomine.com/costdatacenter/miningcostmodel.as...

tonyedgecombe 7y ago

Australia needs to take a more enlightened attitude to the environment at home first. Just as Norway still exports a lot of oil but has the largest density of electric vehicles.

loufe 7y ago

It is important to keep in mind the two categories of coal in terms of their final use. Most people think coal is only thermal coal, which is predominantly used in power plants to generate energy. A non-negligible 20% of Australian coal is the other sort, metallurgical. This type is used predominantly in steel production (think carbon in steel) and is, at the present, very unlikely to be replaced for a long time. Roughly half of coal produced in Canada is metallurgical, for instance, and that production is unlikely to end unless steel production does.