6 ms·

After a quick scan of the judgement, it doesn't seem to consider the impact of stopping the mine on the rights of workers, energy consumers or the economy. I'm

After a quick scan of the judgement, it doesn't seem to consider the impact of stopping the mine on the rights of workers, energy consumers or the economy. I'm not suggesting the result is bad, but I'd prefer balance in these decisions. Of course we don't want to see coal being burnt, but if these mechanisms to stop fossil fuels are used indiscriminantly, the transition to renewables will cause needless suffering. We need to at least consider the downsides. I think of the famines exacerbated by biofuel policies that did almost nothing to improve global warming. Or how Victoria de facto banned gas production without a good plan to replace consumption. Now we have a gas crisis in a country with massive gas reserves.

joxel 4y ago
Sorry, the time for a pain-free decarbonization came and went, you can blame the oil and coal companies for that. They deserve this, and the pain of the people on the margins now is on their hands. Humanity will not survive 4 C of warming, it must be stopped.
- brutusborn 4y ago
  I disagree, some decarbonization pain is unnecessary and unhelpful, like the biofuels example I gave. What makes you think we won't survive 4C? I'm not saying you're wrong but the last IPCC report I read suggested global collapse was more on the order of 6 - 8 degrees.
  - froggychairs 4y ago
    Re: 4C It is true that technically a 4C world is survivable, but it will be an immensely hot world (land warms faster than oceans. So that 4C is the average of the two) and we won’t be able to sustain our current population. Vast swathes of the planet will be not fit for farming. Especially already arid regions today. So entertaining this world means entertaining the death and suffering of billions. We are long past the need for “balance”. We need to decarbonize yesterday and it is unfortunate that workers in fossil fuel industries might lose their job along the way. We could do what most climate policy think tanks suggest and provide compensated job training & a guaranteed position for fossil fuel workers transitioning to a cleaner energy field.
  - Jedd 4y ago
    > What makes you think we won't survive 4C? I'm not saying you're wrong but the last IPCC report I read suggested global collapse was more on the order of 6 - 8 degrees. Could you cite that one please? Every IPCC reference I can find just now is citing 1.5C as the maximum temperature jump we could expect to cope with and not be guaranteed to have a cascade of catastrophic events. The sentiment of 'we can survive 4C' feels weirdly phrased. Some people will survive, but it certainly won't be pretty for most people.
    - brutusborn 4y ago
      https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/ https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/ I looked at A.3.1 and figure Figure SPM.2 to try and find cutoffs for cascading effects. As far as I can tell, the basis for 1.5C / 2.0C is local system collapse, like warm-water corals and arctic ecosystems. I can't find the reference for feedback mechanisms cutoffs right now, but for things like methane hydrate melting the limits are much higher. I'm not saying 2.0C warming is desirable, but the existential "hard limits" on the globe are much higher. I think this distinction is important, because it changes how we look at framing this as an emergency. If we are near existential limits, we can consider more harmful policies (e.g. population reduction, energy rationing), but if not we can plan our response longer-term.
      - Jedd 4y ago
        I've looked at SPM.2 - and the two charts in that graphic top out at 2.5C - which obviously sets the mental alarm bells ringing. I can't see anything that reflects your earlier claim of: > ... the last IPCC report I read suggested global collapse was more on the order of 6 - 8 degrees.
        brutusborn 4y ago
        I'll correct my claim: "the last IPCC report I read suggested that the 1.5C limit is based on local tipping points. From other papers I have read, tipping points for global collapse are more on the order of 6 - 8 degrees." I couldn't find the 6-8C paper, but from memory the dictating factor was hydrate melting. I found this website which provides good summaries of the local tipping points. https://climatetippingpoints.info/2022/09/09/climate-tipping-points-reassessment-explainer/ https://climatetippingpoints.info/2022/09/09/climate-tipping... Do you know any references to global tipping points? When I first went looking for them it blew my mind that they were not easier to find in IPCC materials.
  - yazaddaruvala 4y ago
    lol, “don’t worry, I hear people survive just fine without their arms or legs. We can endure a little more frostbite just fine” This shouldn’t be the bar. The bar is avoiding a “global catastrophe” ie mass migration and the start of resource scarcity. All of which will occur significantly sooner than “global collapse”. It definitely requires more aggressive action early. Obviously keep using oil and gas so we don’t shut off anyone’s heat or food supply tho. Otherwise, everything else including higher costs (ie total shit for many many people) should be utilized to avoid catastrophe.
    - brutusborn 4y ago
      I think a better analogy for my view is: "the world has frostbite on its toes. If we make rash policy changes we can stop the frostbite now, but we need to cut our legs off. If we relax the constraint of stopping the frostbite immediately, it will continue to get worse in the short term but we will only lose a foot." This ignores the fact that we cannot stop climate change immediately even if we had perfect global coordination. It's not about redefining the bar, it's about avoiding rash policies like biofuel subsisies which cause large harm for minimal gain.
JusticeJuice 4y ago
> the rights of workers What do you mean by this? It's a proposed mine, no workers are employed yet.
- brutusborn 4y ago
  Cancelling a proposed project causes lower employment in that region, thus affecting workers. Economic prosperity might not be an explicit human right, but lower employment causes suffering regardless. As I stated before, in this case eliminating coal is more important than these considerations, but that doesn't mean we should ignore them entirely.
tomlockwood 4y ago
> After a quick scan of the judgement, it doesn't seem to consider the impact of stopping the mine on the rights of workers, energy consumers or the economy. The rights of the economy (who?) are often at odds with the rights of workers - who in mining communities are often shafted when mine companies decide to shut down mines due to lower than optimal commodity prices. The landscape of Australia is strewn with abandoned mining communities, which once thrived, and who's wealth has been sent offshore due to a friendly tax regime which exists in service of the mythically important personage of the "economy". Mines are not worker's friends, and mining companies certainly aren't. I grew up in a mining community, I've lived in communities around Mackay and Moranbah. I salute this judgement.
- brutusborn 4y ago
  I'm interested in the tax regime you mentioned, how does local wealth get sent offshore? In my experience mines opening tend to be good for local economies and provide good jobs. Unfortunately state governments don't have much incentive to care about rural communities, so FIFO has replaced many mining towns. If it was easier to make new towns, mining companies would do it, since FIFO is so expensive.
  - tomlockwood 4y ago
    Companies do make new towns - a series of demountables that's moved offsite when the mine starts to wrap up. If companies cared enough they'd build sustainable towns in those areas - but they don't care about communities, they care about profit. Australia's mining is 86% overseas owned. The rights over the mining "economy" are by vast majority held by overseas companies.
  - mrfreed 4y ago
    You have a lot to say today.
  - sofixa 4y ago
    > In my experience mines opening tend to be good for local economies and provide good jobs I have never heard anyone describe mining as a "good job". It's a terrible, physically intensive, extremely unhealthy and highly risky job. What's the life expectancy for coal miners like?
richardjam73 4y ago
These are just fossil fuel industry talking points. None of these things really matter in the end if we end up with a climate that kills us. The human race needs to grow a backbone and fix this problem instead of chickening out because it might hurt rich people.

joxel 4y ago

Sorry, the time for a pain-free decarbonization came and went, you can blame the oil and coal companies for that. They deserve this, and the pain of the people on the margins now is on their hands. Humanity will not survive 4 C of warming, it must be stopped.

brutusborn 4y ago
I disagree, some decarbonization pain is unnecessary and unhelpful, like the biofuels example I gave. What makes you think we won't survive 4C? I'm not saying you're wrong but the last IPCC report I read suggested global collapse was more on the order of 6 - 8 degrees.
- froggychairs 4y ago
  Re: 4C It is true that technically a 4C world is survivable, but it will be an immensely hot world (land warms faster than oceans. So that 4C is the average of the two) and we won’t be able to sustain our current population. Vast swathes of the planet will be not fit for farming. Especially already arid regions today. So entertaining this world means entertaining the death and suffering of billions. We are long past the need for “balance”. We need to decarbonize yesterday and it is unfortunate that workers in fossil fuel industries might lose their job along the way. We could do what most climate policy think tanks suggest and provide compensated job training & a guaranteed position for fossil fuel workers transitioning to a cleaner energy field.
- Jedd 4y ago
  > What makes you think we won't survive 4C? I'm not saying you're wrong but the last IPCC report I read suggested global collapse was more on the order of 6 - 8 degrees. Could you cite that one please? Every IPCC reference I can find just now is citing 1.5C as the maximum temperature jump we could expect to cope with and not be guaranteed to have a cascade of catastrophic events. The sentiment of 'we can survive 4C' feels weirdly phrased. Some people will survive, but it certainly won't be pretty for most people.
  - brutusborn 4y ago
    https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/ https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/ I looked at A.3.1 and figure Figure SPM.2 to try and find cutoffs for cascading effects. As far as I can tell, the basis for 1.5C / 2.0C is local system collapse, like warm-water corals and arctic ecosystems. I can't find the reference for feedback mechanisms cutoffs right now, but for things like methane hydrate melting the limits are much higher. I'm not saying 2.0C warming is desirable, but the existential "hard limits" on the globe are much higher. I think this distinction is important, because it changes how we look at framing this as an emergency. If we are near existential limits, we can consider more harmful policies (e.g. population reduction, energy rationing), but if not we can plan our response longer-term.
    - Jedd 4y ago
      I've looked at SPM.2 - and the two charts in that graphic top out at 2.5C - which obviously sets the mental alarm bells ringing. I can't see anything that reflects your earlier claim of: > ... the last IPCC report I read suggested global collapse was more on the order of 6 - 8 degrees.
      - brutusborn 4y ago
        I'll correct my claim: "the last IPCC report I read suggested that the 1.5C limit is based on local tipping points. From other papers I have read, tipping points for global collapse are more on the order of 6 - 8 degrees." I couldn't find the 6-8C paper, but from memory the dictating factor was hydrate melting. I found this website which provides good summaries of the local tipping points. https://climatetippingpoints.info/2022/09/09/climate-tipping-points-reassessment-explainer/ https://climatetippingpoints.info/2022/09/09/climate-tipping... Do you know any references to global tipping points? When I first went looking for them it blew my mind that they were not easier to find in IPCC materials.
- yazaddaruvala 4y ago
  lol, “don’t worry, I hear people survive just fine without their arms or legs. We can endure a little more frostbite just fine” This shouldn’t be the bar. The bar is avoiding a “global catastrophe” ie mass migration and the start of resource scarcity. All of which will occur significantly sooner than “global collapse”. It definitely requires more aggressive action early. Obviously keep using oil and gas so we don’t shut off anyone’s heat or food supply tho. Otherwise, everything else including higher costs (ie total shit for many many people) should be utilized to avoid catastrophe.
  - brutusborn 4y ago
    I think a better analogy for my view is: "the world has frostbite on its toes. If we make rash policy changes we can stop the frostbite now, but we need to cut our legs off. If we relax the constraint of stopping the frostbite immediately, it will continue to get worse in the short term but we will only lose a foot." This ignores the fact that we cannot stop climate change immediately even if we had perfect global coordination. It's not about redefining the bar, it's about avoiding rash policies like biofuel subsisies which cause large harm for minimal gain.

JusticeJuice 4y ago

> the rights of workers What do you mean by this? It's a proposed mine, no workers are employed yet.

brutusborn 4y ago
Cancelling a proposed project causes lower employment in that region, thus affecting workers. Economic prosperity might not be an explicit human right, but lower employment causes suffering regardless. As I stated before, in this case eliminating coal is more important than these considerations, but that doesn't mean we should ignore them entirely.

tomlockwood 4y ago

> After a quick scan of the judgement, it doesn't seem to consider the impact of stopping the mine on the rights of workers, energy consumers or the economy. The rights of the economy (who?) are often at odds with the rights of workers - who in mining communities are often shafted when mine companies decide to shut down mines due to lower than optimal commodity prices. The landscape of Australia is strewn with abandoned mining communities, which once thrived, and who's wealth has been sent offshore due to a friendly tax regime which exists in service of the mythically important personage of the "economy". Mines are not worker's friends, and mining companies certainly aren't. I grew up in a mining community, I've lived in communities around Mackay and Moranbah. I salute this judgement.

brutusborn 4y ago
I'm interested in the tax regime you mentioned, how does local wealth get sent offshore? In my experience mines opening tend to be good for local economies and provide good jobs. Unfortunately state governments don't have much incentive to care about rural communities, so FIFO has replaced many mining towns. If it was easier to make new towns, mining companies would do it, since FIFO is so expensive.
- tomlockwood 4y ago
  Companies do make new towns - a series of demountables that's moved offsite when the mine starts to wrap up. If companies cared enough they'd build sustainable towns in those areas - but they don't care about communities, they care about profit. Australia's mining is 86% overseas owned. The rights over the mining "economy" are by vast majority held by overseas companies.
- mrfreed 4y ago
  You have a lot to say today.
- sofixa 4y ago
  > In my experience mines opening tend to be good for local economies and provide good jobs I have never heard anyone describe mining as a "good job". It's a terrible, physically intensive, extremely unhealthy and highly risky job. What's the life expectancy for coal miners like?

richardjam73 4y ago

These are just fossil fuel industry talking points. None of these things really matter in the end if we end up with a climate that kills us. The human race needs to grow a backbone and fix this problem instead of chickening out because it might hurt rich people.