Wybong Action Group

Warkworth PAC November 2011

Camberwell PAC Sept 2011

Today we stand in footsteps millennia old.

May we acknowledge the traditional owners whose

cultures and customs have nurtured, and continue to

nurture, this land, since men and women awoke from the

great dream.

We honour the presence of these ancestors who reside

in the imagination of this land and whose irrepressible

spirituality flows through all creation.

Jonathan Hill is an Aboriginal poet living in New South Wales

Source: Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Change © British Crown Copyright 2005, the Met Office

Source: Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Change © British Crown Copyright 2005, the Met Office

VERIFIES CONSISTENCY OF TEMPERATURE CHANGE WITH GLOBAL WARMING THEORY AND PRINCIPLES

International Energy Agency • 9 rue de la Fédération, 75739 Paris Cedex 15, France • www.iea.org© O

ECD

/IEA

, 201

1

WORLD ENERGY OUTLOOK 2011 FACTSHEET

How will global energy markets evolve to 2035?

Major events of the last year have had an impact on short- and medium-term energy trends, but have done little to quench the world’s increasing thirst for energy in the long term. The level and pattern of energy use worldwide varies markedly across the three scenarios in this year’s World Energy Outlook (WEO-2011), which differ according to assumptions about government policies on energy and climate change. The New Policies Scenario is the central scenario of WEO-2011. It assumes that recent government policy commitments are implemented in a cautious manner.

On planned policies, rising fossil energy use will lead to irreversible and potentially catastrophic climate change. Global energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) – the principal greenhouse gas – jumped by 5.3% in 2010 to a record 30.4 gigatonnes (Gt). In the New Policies Scenario, our central scenario, emissions continue to rise, reaching 36.4 Gt in 2035 – an increase of 20%. This trajectory is consistent with a long-term global temperature increase of more than 3.5°C.

In the 450 Scenario, global energy-related CO2 emissions peak before 2020 and then decline to 21.6 Gt by 2035. This scenario assumes strong policy action to have a 50% probability of limiting temperature increase to 2⁰ Celsius – the globally agreed goal under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change – which would require the long-term atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to be limited to 450 parts per million of CO2 equivalent.

In the 450 Scenario, the primary energy mix is markedly different from that in the New Policies Scenario. The share of fossil fuels in the global energy mix falls from 81% in 2009 to 62% in 2035. Global demand for both coal and oil peak before 2020, and then decline by 30% and 8% respectively by 2035, relative to their 2009 levels. By contrast, natural gas demand grows by 26%, though it plateaus by around 2030. The 450 Scenario involves additional cumulative investment in and consumer spending on energy-related equipment on the demand and supply sides, totalling $15.2 trillion relative to the New Policies Scenario, but delivers lower fossil-fuel import bills, reduced pollution and improved health benefits.

The long economic lifetimes of much of the world’s energy-related capital stock mean that there is little scope for delaying action to move onto the 450 emissions trajectory without having to retire some stock early. We calculate that 80% of the cumulative CO2 emitted worldwide between 2009 and 2035 in the 450 Scenario is already “locked-in” by capital stock – including power stations, buildings and factories – that either exists now or is under construction and will still be operational by 2035, leaving little additional room for manoeuvre. If internationally co-ordinated action is not taken by 2017, we project that all permissible emissions in the 450 Scenario would come from the infrastructure then existing, so that all new infrastructure from then until 2035 would need to be zero-carbon, unless emitting infrastructure is retired before the end of its economic lifetime to make headroom for new investment. This would theoretically be possible at very high cost, but is probably not practicable politically.

The long lifetime of capital stock in the power sector means that the sector accounts for half of the emissions locked-in to 2035. If action were to be delayed until 2015, around 45% of the global fossil-fuel capacity installed by then would have to be retired early or refurbished by 2035. Delaying action is a false economy. For every $1 of investment in the power sector avoided before 2020, an additional $4.3 would need to be spent after 2020 to compensate for the higher emissions.

Genuine Denial or Criminal Negligence?

Global warming since the 1970s has been more rapid over land than over theoceans, as would be expected from an increasing human-caused greenhouseeffect.

The amount of warming observed varies considerably from place to place,because natural variability of climate can add to human-caused warming insome places, or subtract from it in others. Local factors (such as cooling fromaerosols of emitted fine particles in the atmosphere) may also come into play.

That the earth's surface has experienced a recent warming is also supported bythe widespread recession of mountain glaciers over the last few decades, andby measurements made at different depths in boreholes in sediments and icelayers that carry signatures of the climate at the time they were laid down,which can be used to estimate the historical rise in temperature.

Source: Climate change in Australia—observed changes and projections, CSIRO, October 2007.

GasChemical

formulaLifetime (years)

100-year Global

Warming Potential

Carbon dioxide CO2 50-200 1

Methane CH4 12 25

Nitrous oxide N2O 114 298

Chlorofluorocarbons CFCs 45 – 1700 4750 – 14,400

Hydrochloro-

fluorocarbonsHCFCs 1.3 – 17.9 77 – 2310

Hydrofluorocarbons HFCs 1.4 – 270 437 – 12,000

Sulphur hexafluoride SF6 3200 22,800

Perfluorocarbons PFCs 740 – 50,000 7390 – 17,700

Hydrofluoroethers HFEs 0.77 – 136 59 – 14,900

Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report, Climate change 2007—the physical

science basis, Chapter 2 Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing, Table 2.14, pp. 212–13.

Trends in the main greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere in the last 1000 years

Source: Bureau of Meteorology, The greenhouse effect and climate change, Bureau of Meteorology, 2003,

http://www.bom.gov.au/info/GreenhouseEffectAndClimateChange.pdf

Gas Principal anthropogenic sources Lifetime

Proportional contribution to

the enhanced greenhouse

effect

Carbon dioxide (CO2)

Fossil fuel burning, biomass burning,

gas flaring, cement production, land

use and land use change

50–200 years 56 %

Methane (CH4)

Disturbance of wetlands, rice paddies,

ruminant livestock, venting from

natural gas wells, biomass burning and

decomposition, coal mining, rubbish

tips

12 years 16 %

Nitrous oxide (N2O)Fossil fuel combustion, fertiliser

production, biomass burning114 years 5 %

Halocarbons (combined)

Industrial production, consumer goods

(aerosol can propellants, refrigerants,

foam-blowing agents, solvents, fire

retardants)

2 to 50,000 years (e.g.

CFC-11 is 45 years, CF4

is 50,000 years)

11 %

Tropospheric ozone (O3)

Emissions of precursors (carbon

monoxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile

organic compounds) from fossil fuel

combustion and biomass burning

Short-lived 12 %

Sources: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report,Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 2, Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiativeforcing, Table 2.12, p. 204; Bureau of Meteorology, The greenhouse effect and climate change, 2003, Table 2, p. 18.

Main Greenhouse Gases Contributions

Coalfield Production (Mt) Employment(2008)

Gloucester 1.89 152

Gunnedah 4.03 325

Hunter 80.44 8384

Newcastle 16.11 1984

Southern 10.44 2636

Western 22.24 1865

Total 135.15 15346

•Mining companies made $67,402 million profit in 2008-09, an increase of $27,218 million from 2007-08.

•Net mining royalties in NSW in 2008-09 were $1,280 million, an increase of $706 million from 2007-08.

•Black coal is NSW‘s biggest export. In 2008-09, coal exports were worth $12,898 million.

•Coal exports were worth $8,185 million in 2007-08.

•77% of the coal produced in 2008-09 was exported.

•Of the remaining 23%, 21% was used to produce electricity.

•The Hunter coalfield is by far the largest producer of coal. 80.44 Mt of saleable coal was produced in 2007-08 in the Hunter coalfield whereas the next largest production area was the Western coalfield, which produced 22.24 Mt of saleable coal.

Mining & The Economy, e-brief 18, L Montoya, NSW Parliamentary Library Research Service

Coal production (saleable) and employment in NSW in 2007-08

Inequitable Distribution of Revenue from Community Asset

EXTERNAL COSTS OF COAL – LIFECYCLE ACCOUNTING

Each stage in the life cycle of coal—extraction, transport, processing, and combustion— generate a waste stream and carry‘s multiple hazards for health and the environment. These costs are external

to the coal industry and are thus often considered ―externalities.‖

It is estimated that the life cycle effects of coal and the waste stream generated are costing the U.S. public a third to over one-half of a trillion dollars annually. Many of these so-called externalities are, moreover, cumulative.

Accounting for the damages conservatively doubles to triples the price of electricity from coal per kWh generated, making wind, solar, and other forms of non-fossil fuel power generation, along with investments in efficiency and electricity conservation methods, economically competitive

Paul R. Epstein, Jonathan J. Buonocore, Kevin Eckerle, Michael Hendryx, Benjamin M. Stout III, Richard Heinberg, Richard W. Clapp, Beverly May, Nancy L. Reinhart, Melissa M. Ahern, Samir K. Doshi, and Leslie Glustrom. 17 Feb 2011. Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal in ―Ecological Economics Reviews.‖ Robert Costanza, Karin Limburg & Ida Kubiszewski, Eds. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1219: 73–98.

THE HIDDEN COSTS OF ELECTRICITY: Externalities of Power Generation in Australia, The Australian Academy of

Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE) March 2009, p73

J

Typewritten Text

The Hidden Costs of Electricity: Externalities of Power Generation in Australia, The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE) March 2009, p46

© OECD/IEA 2011

Fossil-fuel subsidies can have unintended effects

Fossil-fuel subsidies result in an economically inefficient allocation of resources and market distortions, while often failing to meet their intended objectives

© OECD/IEA 2011

Cutting fossil-fuel subsidies would bring economic, energy & environmental benefits

Without further reform, spending on fossil-fuel consumption subsidies is set to reach $660 billion in 2020, or 0.7% of global GDP

Phasing-out fossil-fuel consumptions subsidies by 2020 would:

slash growth in energy demand by 4.1%

reduce growth in oil demand by 3.7 mb/d

cut growth in CO2 emissions by 1.7 Gt

Many countries have started or planned reforms since early-2010

key driver has been fiscal pressure on government budgets

G20 & APEC commitments have also underpinned many reform efforts

much more remains to be done to realise full extent of benefits

International Energy Agency • 9 rue de la Fédération, 75739 Paris Cedex 15, France • www.iea.org© O

ECD

/IEA

, 201

1

WORLD ENERGY OUTLOOK 2011 FACTSHEET

How big are energy subsidies and which fuels benefit?

Energy subsidies – government measures that artificially lower the price of energy paid by consumers, raise the price received by producers or lower the cost of production – are large and pervasive. When they are well-designed, subsidies to renewables and low-carbon energy technologies can bring long-term economic and environmental benefits. However, when they are directed at fossil fuels, the costs generally outweigh the benefits.

Fossil-fuel consumption subsidies worldwide amounted to $409 billion in 2010, with subsidies to oil products representing almost half of the total. Persistently high oil prices have made the cost of subsidies unsustainable in many countries and prompted some governments to try to reduce them. In a global survey covering 37 countries where subsidies exist, at least 15 have taken steps to phase them out since the start of 2010. Without further reform, the cost of fossil-fuel consumption subsidies is set to reach $660 billion in 2020, or 0.7% of global GDP (at market exchange rates).

Fossil-fuel subsidies carry large costs. They encourage wasteful consumption, exacerbate energy-price volatility by blurring market signals, incentivise fuel adulteration and smuggling, and undermine the competitiveness of renewables and other low-emission energy technologies. For importing countries, they often impose a significant fiscal burden on state budgets, while for producers they quicken the depletion of resources and can reduce export earnings over the long term. Furthermore, they are an inefficient means of assisting the poor: only 8% of fossil-fuel subsidies in 2010 were distributed to the poorest 20% of the population.

Eliminating fossil-fuel subsidies could bring important economic and environmental benefits. Relative to a baseline in which rates of subsidy remain unchanged, phasing out those subsidies completely by 2020 would result in savings in oil demand in 2035 of 4.4 mb/d. Global primary energy demand would be cut by nearly 5% and CO2 emissions by 5.8%.

By encouraging deployment, renewable-energy subsidies can help cut greenhouse-gas

emissions. By 2035, the increased use of renewables reduces energy-related CO2 emissions by 3.4 Gt in the New Policies Scenario (compared with the fuel mix in 2009). The benefits in the 450 Scenario relative to the New Policies Scenario are even greater: additional CO2 emissions savings of 3.5 Gt and fossil-fuel import-bill savings of $350 billion. However, such subsidies can impose a large financial burden on public finances and on consumers, and may not be the most economically efficient way of reducing emissions.

•The aggregate health cost burden in Australia of power station emissions from coal-fired power stations, with the mid-range estimate of $13.2/MWh and an annual coal-fired output of 197TWh, is therefore approximately $2.6 billion.

•The health cost burden[1][2] [3] [4] [5] [6]from coal-fired power stations in NSW for 2007-08 was $947.5 million.

•The total externality cost from coal-fired power stations in NSW for 2007-08 was approximately $3 billion.

•The total externality cost from coal-fired power stations[7] in Australia for 2007-08 was approximately $8.3 billion.

[1] Hunter high in child asthma, Matthew Kelly Health Reporter, Newcastle Herald, 7 May 2010[2] Health fears for Lithgow residents amid coal boom, Matthew Benns, SMH, June 6 2010[3] Coal & Autism Study Link, Matthew Kelly Health Reporter, Newcastle Herald, 12 June 2010[4] Half state's dust comes from Hunter centres, Matthew Kelly Health Reporter, Newcastle Herald, 28 Sept 2010[5] Muswellbrook is Hunter's sickest town, Donna Page, Newcastle Herald, 4 Oct 2010[6] Upper Hunter asthma persists, Michelle Harris, Newcastle Herald, 6 Nov 2010[7] Death, Disease & Dirty Power - Mortality and Health Damage Due to Air Pollution from Power Plants, Clean Air Task Force, Boston, Oct 2000

EXTERNAL COSTS OF COAL – AUSTRALIAN LIFECYCLE ACCOUNTING

The Australian Coal Industry is highly successful in privatising the profits while socialising the costs of its operation and product such that cost to the community far exceed the return to the community from mining, via royalty and taxation.

External costs include health and environment but NOT the cost of subsidies paid directly or indirectly through local or other programs such as infrastructure provision etc.

Mining & The Economy, e-brief 18, Daniel Montoya, NSW Parliamentary Library Research Service Net mining royalties in NSW in 2008-09 were $1,280 million. The health cost burden from coal-fired power stations in NSW for 2007-08 was $947.5 million.34 The total externality cost from coal-fired power stations in NSW for 2007-08 was approximately $3 billion.35 The aggregate health cost burden in Australia of power station emissions from coal-fired power stations … is .. approximately $2.6 billion.33 The total externality cost from coal-fired power stations in Australia for 2007-08 was approximately $8.3 billion.36

33

Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, n27, March 2009. 34

NSW generated 71,783.6 GWh from coal in 2007-2008 (Energy Supply Association of Australia, Electricity Gas Australia 2009, 2009). This figure was multiplied by $A13.2/MWh to calculate the health cost burden in NSW from coal-fired power stations. 35

This figure was calculated by multiplying the total energy produced by coal-fired power stations in 2007-2008 (71,783.6 GWh) by the total externality cost per MWh ($42). 36

This figure was calculated by multiplying the total energy produced by black coal (129,418.8 GWh) by the total externality cost per MWh ($42) and adding it to the total energy produced by brown coal (55,315.5 GWh) multiplied by the total externality cost per MWh for brown coal ($52). Figures for total energy produced by black and brown coal were obtained from: Energy Supply Association of Australia, Electricity Gas Australia 2009, 2009.

 

Invisible Poisons From Coal Health Effects

Arsenic Cancer, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abnormal heart rhythm

Beryllium Inflammation of lungs, pneumonia, cancer

Boron Headaches, lethargy, convulsions, children more susceptible to fluid in lungs

Cadmium Lung scarring, kidney damage, chest pains

Carbon Monoxide Headache, fatigue, vision problems, heart disease

Chromium 111 Asthma attacks, skin allergy, eczema rashes

Cobalt Respiratory irritation, possible cancer, kidney and lung damage

Copper Liver damage, kidney damage, diarrhea, cramps, nausea

Fluoride Possible cancer, possible birth defects

Lead Brain damage, kidney damage, dangerous to children

Manganese Possible cancer or birth defects

Mercury Chest pain, shortness of breath, fluid in lungs

Nickel Asthma, blood and kidney disorder, lung cancer

Nitrogen Oxide Fluid in lungs, can be fatal

Sulphur Dioxide Burning eyes, headaches, lung damage

Zinc Cancer, birth defects

Xylenes Cancer, birth defects

Volatile Organic Compounds Eye/nose/throat irritation, headache, liver and kidney damage, cancer.

Coal Mining titles in the Upper Hunter (grey) Mbk > 50% rateable land mass

Muswellbrookk

Singleton

Upper Hunter

Mid Western

Gloucester

Cessnock

Dungog

Greater Eastern Ranges Focus Area in Upper Hunter showing NSW Government issued

Coal & Petroleum titles taking precedence over Australia’s global commitment

Clearly the intention of the Global, NSW and Australian Governments to

maintain the economic reliance of the Australian Community on

production of electricity from and to dramatically increase the mining

and export of Coal and Coal Seam Gas and failure to develop definitive

or significant goals for reduction of carbon emissions or adoption of

alternative renewable low-carbon emission electricity generation

technologies identifies that Australia is not serious in its response to

Climate Change.

COAL IN ANY FORM IS COSTING US THE EARTH

Globally, fossil fuels currently receive USD $312 billion (2009) inconsumption subsidies, versus USD $57 billion (2009) for renewableenergy (IEA, 2010g). In Australia the fossil fuel subsidy base is reported tobe AUD $12 billion .

Clean Energy Progress Report, IEA, April 2011Billions spent on fossil fuel incentives, Adam Morton, SMH, 1 March 2011Australia spending billions more encouraging pollution than cutting it, Climate Spectator, 1 March 2011

Mining and the Environment Briefing paper 6/09 by Stewart Smith New South Wales Parliamentary Library Research Service The Centre for Social Sustainability in Mining monitors the impact of mining on communities. In 2004 it conducted a case study of Muswellbrook, and found the following:

• It is clear that most people in the community accept that the mining industry is a key driver of the local economy and that the fortunes of Muswellbrook are, to a considerable extent, tied to the future of the industry.

• The environmental impacts of mining – both on ‘near neighbours’ and the wider

area – are an important issue for the Muswellbrook community. ‘Near neighbours’ have a range of specific issues that demand attention, although not all of these are amenable to resolution. The community more generally has concerns about dust, noise, visual impacts, water quality and the loss of farming land to mining. Most of these concerns relate not to the impact of any one operation, but to the overall – or ‘cumulative’ – impact that mining is having on the area.

• It is apparent that in Muswellbrook, as elsewhere, trust – or, rather, the lack of it -

remains an issue for the industry. While most stakeholders acknowledged that the environmental and social performance of the local mining industry had generally improved in recent years, this was often attributed to stricter regulatory controls rather than to the industry’s own efforts.

 

ANALYSIS OF THE SURVEY DATA

Analysis of the data gathered in the survey can be found in the ACCSR Report. Below are some of the important pieces of data that led to the key findings above.

WHAT ISSUES MATTER THE lvIOST?

Participants were asked questions to understand the issues of most importance to them in relation to coal mining in the Upper Hunter . .. INDUSTRY'S SO CIAL LICEN CE TO OPERATE

A social license to operate is an overall measure of the community's sentiment towards a project, company or industry. It is an intangible measure of acceptance that can change over time. Figure 2 below ranks the social licence to operate of the mining industry in the Upper Hunter in four categories. It shows which groups of stakeholders provide which level of social licence to operate.

Individual stakeholders have been grouped into broader stakeholder categories. You can see which stakeholders are in each category on the last page of this document.

Most groups continue to provide the industry with a social licence to operate, but it is at a low level.

Figure 2: Social licence to operate

Figure 1: Issues in order of importance

100,-----------------------------------­

~~-----------------------------:

20

~~ ~ i; c ~ ~ ~ ~j;j ~ ~ e Ep l;

~ ~ .s .s o.B E E 0.

.Il ~'ai~.c Eaf ~ :> ~ 0 g

co

t ~ ~ ~~ 1 U"I~ iii ~ ill " lii '§

Cl~ h a. ~ ~"l 1'! ~ 21.. 1l .~ <l $2 J o~ .Q~ .§ ~ ~ ~ If 8.) .. U i" i 0~ 3 0 a.J ~~

0.

a.~ J .s JJ

(Source: Upper HlRlter Mining £YaIogue: Report on the Stakeholder SurvEIl! ACCSR)

eo-ownership

Approval

Acceptance

Withheld/

4.5-5.0 The community has very high trust in the industry. At this level of social licence the community will advocate for industry to others.

3.5-4.5 The community approves of the industry and will be supportive of the development of new projects.

2.5-3.5 At the acceptance level the community listens to the industry and considers its proposals. At the higher end of the acceptance level of social licence the community may request more information and take a 'wait and see' approach.

At the lower end of the acceptance scale the community sees that the industry respects the community's right to know and local norms.

1.0-2.5 When social licence is withdrawn the community wants to stop

<Governments, industry, eee. indigenous

<Individual opinion leaders, media, community groups

<Environment and resident's action groups

withdrawn progress on projects. Blockades and protests can result.

NSWMe Upper Hunter Mining Dialogue: Report on the Stakeholder Survey 05

Giles Parkinson

Much of big business, particularly the fossil fuel industry and its cheer-squad in the mainstreammedia, likes to dismiss the ambitions and the policy proposals of the green movement as somesort of unrealistic, utopian dream. But the bombshell dropped by the deeply conservativeInternational Energy Agency in its World Energy Outlook, released overnight, should shake themout of their socks: It is not the environmentalists and clean energy developers that are kiddingthemselves about the world’s energy future needs, it’s Big Oil and Big Coal.

The IEA said overnight that the world is effectively heading for disaster. If it continues withbusiness as usual, then the world is hurtling towards a 6°C global warming scenario, and therunaway impacts of climate change. But even under the “new policies” scenario, which includesthe pledges made at the last UN climate talks in Cancun, and national initiatives such asAustralia’s newly passed carbon pricing legislation, the world only gets one third down the trackto where it has said it wants to be – limiting greenhouse gas emissions to 450 parts per million.

The World Energy Outlook is an annual publication keenly watched by the energy industries thatit serves. Under its “new policies” scenario, coal, gas and oil have a rosy future. But the IEA saysthis is not good enough. “We cannot continue to rely on insecure and environmentallyunsustainable uses of energy,” it says. “Governments need to introduce stronger measures todrive investment in efficient and low-carbon technologies. If fossil fuel infrastructure is not rapidlychanged, the world will lose forever the chance to avoid dangerous climate change."

So the IEA also paints its 450 scenario – which it says gives the world an even bet at limitingglobal warming to 2°C – and it requires a dramatic and immediate change in policies andinvestment, effectively a halt to new coal fired power plants, increased deployment of gas (butonly as a transitional fuel), massive investment in renewables, and a significant deployment innuclear, particularly in developing economies (to replace their coal-fired plans). It also turns theassumptions made by Australian Treasury, and possibly the business plans of the oil, coal andgas industries, on their head.

The critical leap made by the IEA – often described as a bland, conservative organisation over its40-year existence – is that it has now firmly embraced the concept that the world has a finitecarbon budget. And it gives the energy industry, particularly those who seek to prevent earlypolicy action, a clarion call about the implications.

The IEA calculates that 80 per cent of that carbon budget is already locked in by plants that havealready been built. This “lock-in” leaves little room for manoeuvre. But delaying serious actionuntil 2015, just three years away, would lift that lock-in to 95 per cent of the carbon budget, ascenario that that would mean that half of the world’s coal- and gas-fired energy plants wouldneed to be shut early – by 2035.

If action was delayed until 2017, then the “lock-in” of existing plants would exceed the world’scarbon budget. In this case, the IEA says, if the world wants to meet that 450 target, then no newcoal- or gas-fired generation could be built after that time, without forcing the immediate closureof another dirtier plant. Effectively, the only option after 2017 is to build emissions-freegeneration – renewables and nuclear. And not just that; the IEA says any investment inappliances, buildings and passenger and commercial vehicles after 2017 will also have to beemissions free, or require the early retirement of some existing plant or facility to createheadroom for the new investment.

So what does the 450 scenario look like? According to the IEA, both our means of transport andour energy grids are completely transformed. Improved fuel efficiency plays the biggest role intransport, but by 2035, electric vehicles or plug-in hybrids will account for one third of all vehiclesales. Biofuels also are a major contributor.

The energy grid is dominated by renewables and the share of fossil fuels falls dramatically. Coalgoes from 32 per cent of capacity (and 41 per cent of generation) to just 13 per cent (and 15 percent), with a net loss of 300GW of capacity to 1,268GW. To understand the implications of that,around 330GW-worth of plants are now under construction, so more than 600GW of coal firedplants will have to be retired – much of it early. That’s not much of a growth scenario.

Gas nearly doubles its capacity, to 2,10GW, but its market share falls from 24 per cent to 22 percent; nuclear’s share increases slightly to 9 per cent from 8 per cent, but its capacity alsodoubles (to 865GW), mostly in developing countries such as China, India and Korea. The shareof hydro falls slightly, to 19 per cent from 20 per cent, although its capacity also nearly doubles to1,803GW.

The most dramatic change is in non-hydro renewables, whose share increases phenomenally –from just 4 per cent in 2009, to 34 per cent of global electricity capacity in 2035. Wind capacitygrows 10-fold to 1,685GW, sending Landscape Guardians across the globe completely barmy.Solar PV rises 40-fold to 901GW from 22GW in 2009; solar thermal leaps from just 1GW to226GW; geothermal from 11GW to 60GW; marine from zero to 23GW, and biomass grows six-fold to 329GW. In terms of generation, non-hydro renewables soar to 28 per cent from just 2 percent in 2009, nuclear and hydro have a 20 per cent share each, while coal drops from 41 percent to 15 per cent, and gas from 21 per cent to 17 per cent.

There couldn’t be a clearer picture about where the investment and business and jobopportunities lie in the future. According to the IEA scenario, solar thermal has a compoundannual growth rate in investment of 35 per cent from 2011 to 2035, little wonder that the world’sbiggest energy groups are falling over each other trying to get hold of the best technology. SolarPV, even after its spectacular growth in recent years, delivers 15 per cent compound annualgrowth for the next two and a half decades, wind grows at 10 per cent per annum and marine at18 per cent.

The renewables sector will attract a total of $20 trillion in new investment. The other growthindustries in this scenario are clean transport – fuel efficiency and EVs - which attract around$6.3 trillion. The building sector attracts an extra $4.1 trillion, “smart” energy technology attracts$2 trillion. The losers? Coal capacity slumps by 0.5 per cent per year out to 2035, a net reductionin investment of $6 trillion, and investment in poles and wries would be reduced by $900 billion –even after the investment needed to accommodate intermittent renewables. There is a lot atstake for vested interests.

And if all this sounds like it is horrendously expensive and should be put off for as long aspossible – echoing those old chestnuts trotted out by business lobbies hand-wringing about pooreconomic conditions, and it not being the right time – then the IEA is dismissive. “Delaying actionis a false economy,” it says. “For every $1 of avoided investment between 2011 and 2020, eitherthrough reduced low-carbon investment or adoption of cheaper fossil-fuel investment options, anadditional $4.30 would need to be spent between 2021 and 2035 to compensate for theincreased emissions."

But there is another surprise. The aggressive investment in the 450 scenario, which includes thedismantling of fossil fuel subsidies, and the diversion of some of that to renewables, will meanconsumers around the world actually pay $669 billion less in energy costs than they otherwisewould. And, says the IEA, there are other benefits: less pollution; more countries that are energyself reliant (less chance of conflict); healthier people who live longer; and a much greater chanceof preventing runaway global warming, with far lower adaptation costs. It seems like a policy no-brainer.

But contrast the 450 scenario to the direction we are now headed. Australian miners arerelatively happy for the world’s politicians to continue to say they want to limit global warming to2°C, but not actually implement the policies to do it. In the IEA's “New Policies” scenario,Australia is actually the only major OECD country to increase coal production out to 2035 and,along with Indonesia, to dominate regional trade, which is why so many coal companies are pilinginto NSW and Queensland to dig the ore up.

But in the 450 scenario, should politicians get their act together, the outlook is turned on its head.China is no longer Australia’s biggest customer, it actually ceases to become an importer of coal.Output in the US and Europe declines dramatically, India becomes the biggest customer. Thesego completely against the scenarios outlined by Australian Treasury.

The IEA says gas may well be facing a “golden” age, but it is not inevitable. It carries severalcaveats. Like renewables, it will require the policy intervention of governments to displace coal –this could be mandated closures, or a high enough carbon price. This is particularly so in China,where the IEA says gas would have little impact on the power mix if market economics becamethe absolute priority for deployment in power generation in that country. In certain scenarios –

such as the delayed response to 450, and the delayed deployment of CCS – the golden age isbrought to an abrupt halt, possibly as early as 2030, when it begins to decline. In all scenarios,renewables account for a far greater level of abatement of either gas or nuclear, second only toreduced consumption, or energy efficiency.

But if these scenarios look like hell on earth for Big Coal and Big Oil, the IEA paints an evenmore radical scenario – the one that happens if policies are delayed, but the world finally decidesthat it wants to get to 450 in a big hurry. In other words, what does it do if OECD countries do notlock in, by 2013, CO2 pricing and support for low-carbon technologies at levels which are strongenough to steer the energy sector onto a steep decarbonisation path? This, after all, given thestate of international negotiations and individual country commitments, is the most likely scenario.

Essentially it means the early retirement of fossil fuel plants – well ahead of their economic life.Anyone building a new coal-fired power station, or even a gas-fired power station, cannot rely onit surviving until the end of its normal economic life, unless stringent policies are implementedwithin two years, or there is a great leap ahead in CCS.

But of particular concern to the IEA is that the rollout of CCS is delayed. This will require an evengreater shift to renewables, and particularly solar PV in buildings. Wind would have to grow at90GW a year; sales of hybrids, plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles would need to be threequarters of passenger and commercial vehicle sales in 2035, requiring a significanttransformation of the infrastructure used to fuel/recharge the cars. There would also need to be amore rapid roll-out of nuclear.

But therein lies a problem. The IEA says the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi power station hasled to a re-evaluation of the risks associated with nuclear power, and to greater uncertainty aboutthe future role of nuclear power in the energy mix. It paints varying scenarios, including a “lownuclear case” in which it plays a smaller role in global energy supply, and more is required ofrenewables to compensate – 20 per cent more than in the base-case 450 scenario. And CCSwould need to deliver 30 per cent more.

But what would happen if both CCS failed to deliver in time, and governments were reluctant topush the button on nuclear? The IEA doesn’t cover that scenario; it’s not quite ready to go there.Maybe next year.

Follow @gilesparkinson on Twitter

Reuters

By Nina Chestney

LONDON (Reuters) - The world may not be able to limit global temperature rise to safe levels ifnew international climate action is not taken by 2017, as so many fossil fuel power plants andfactories are being built, the International Energy Agency said on Wednesday.

If the world is to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius -- thought to be the minimum safetylevel before devastating effects of climate change set in -- emission volumes must not have morethan 450 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide.

With emissions already at 390 ppm of CO2, time is running out for action.

Around 80 percent of total energy-related carbon emissions permissible by 2035 to limit warmingare already accounted for by existing power plants, buildings and factories, the IEA said in itsWorld Energy Outlook.

"As each year passes without clear signals to drive investment in clean energy, the 'lock-in' ofhigh-carbon infrastructure is making it harder and more expensive to meet our energy securityand climate goals," said Fatih Birol, IEA's chief economist.

The warning comes just a few weeks before international negotiators gather in South Africa to tryand work on a new global pact to fight global warming.

Expectations are low to deliver a binding deal this year. The European Union is pushing for adeal by 2015 but some other countries have been accused of delaying a pact until 2018 or 2020.

"If stringent new action is not forthcoming by 2017, the energy-related infrastructure then in placewill generate all the CO2 emissions allowed (...) up to 2035, leaving no room for additional powerplants, factories and other infrastructure unless they are zero-carbon, which would be extremelycostly."

Additional low-carbon technology and energy efficiency investment to 2035 would need to total$15.2 trillion to limit warming to two degrees -- out of a total energy supply investment of $36.5trillion, the report said.

'DANGEROUS TRACK'

"Delaying action is a false economy: for every $1 of investment avoided in the power sectorbefore 2020 an additional $4.3 would need to be spent after 2020 to compensate for theincreased emissions," the report added.

In 2010, global CO2 emissions rose 5.3 percent from a year earlier to 30.4 gigatonnes. If new

climate policies are implemented cautiously, CO2 emissions will rise by 20 percent to 36.4gigatonnes in 2035, it added.

This would lead to a long-term average temperature rise of 3.5 degrees Celsius. If new policiesare not implemented, the world is on a "dangerous track" to a 6 degree rise.

The U.N.'s aim of giving everyone in the world access to modern energy by 2030 would require$48 billion of investment -- or 3 percent of total energy investment to 2030 -- compared to $9billion in 2009, the IEA said.

The IEA also forecast that the share of renewables from non-hydro sources in power generationwill increase to 15 percent in 2035 from 3 percent in 2009, mainly supported by subsidies whichshould rise nearly five times to $180 billion.

This compares to fossil fuel subsidies which could rise to $660 billion in 2020 without furtherreform, from $409 billion in 2010.

"By simply redirecting all the fossil fuel subsidies to renewable energy programs the 2 billion poorpeople would have access to energy not only by 2030, but within this decade," says Sven Teske,senior energy expert Greenpeace International.

The agency sees carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a key technology which could account for18 percent of emissions savings under the 2 degree limit scenario.

However, if commercial scale CCS is delayed by ten years to 2030, it would add $1.1 trillion tothe cost of limiting global temperatures to safe levels, the report said.

(Editing by Keiron Henderson)

Reiteration Presentations by

Carol – voids Tony – inadequate species impact assessment & monitoring criteria, Warkworth

Sands CEEC - Key Threatening Processes Bird woman – high risk local species extinction – diminished genetic pool &

fragmented habitat Social Impact – neighbor v neighbor / community v community Deed of agreement – intent of participants – Rio > bargaining in poor faith Ian Moore - Wallaby Scrub Rd – vital link

Newcastle University - Tom Farrell Foundation for the Environment – Ironically

titled “Best Practice Ecological Rehabilitation of Mined Lands”, Singleton Diggers

RSC, York Street Singleton. Friday 16 September 2011

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 No 203 Part 1

5 Objects The objects of this Act are: (a) to encourage: (i) the proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources, including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment, (ii) the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land, (vi) the protection of the environment, including the protection and conservation of native animals and plants, including threatened species, populations and ecological communities, and their habitats, and (vii) ecologically sustainable development, and (b) to promote the sharing of the responsibility for environmental planning between the different levels of government in the State, and (c) to provide increased opportunity for public involvement and participation in environmental planning and assessment

5A Significant effect on threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats

(1) For the purposes of this Act and, in particular, in the administration of sections 78A, 79B, 79C, 111 and 112, the following must be taken into account in deciding whether there is likely to be a significant effect on threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats: (a) each of the factors listed in subsection (2), (b) any assessment guidelines. (2) The following factors must be taken into account in making a determination under this section: (a) in the case of a threatened species, whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction, (b) in the case of an endangered population, whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species that constitutes the endangered population such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction, (c) in the case of an endangered ecological community or critically endangered ecological community, whether the action proposed: (i) is likely to have an adverse effect on the extent of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction, or (ii) is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction, (d) in relation to the habitat of a threatened species, population or ecological community: (i) the extent to which habitat is likely to be removed or modified as a result of the action proposed, and

(ii) whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other areas of habitat as a result of the proposed action, and (iii) the importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or isolated to the long-term survival of the species, population or ecological community in the locality, (e) whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly), (f) whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan, (g) whether the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process or is likely to result in the operation of, or increase the impact of, a key threatening process. (3) In this section: assessment guidelines means assessment guidelines issued and in force under section 94A of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 or, subject to section 5C, section 220ZZA of the Fisheries Management Act 1994. key threatening process has the same meaning as in the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 or, subject to section 5C, Part 7A of the Fisheries Management Act 1994.

5B Planning authorities to have regard to register of critical habitat (1) Each planning authority must have regard to the register of critical habitat kept by the Director-General of the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 when exercising its functions under this Act. (2) In this section, planning authority in relation to a function under this Act means: (a) in the case of a function relating to a development application—the consent authority (or a person or body taken to be a consent authority), and (b) in the case of any other function—the public authority or other person responsible for exercising the function.

5C Application of Act with respect to threatened species conservation—fish and marine vegetation

(1) A reference in this Act to the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, in connection with critical habitat, or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats, is to be construed in accordance with this section. (2) To the extent that the matter concerns critical habitat of fish or marine vegetation, or threatened species, populations or ecological communities of fish or marine vegetation, or their habitats: (a) a reference to the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 is taken to be a reference to Part 7A of the Fisheries Management Act 1994, and (b) a reference to the Minister administering the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 is taken to be a reference to the Minister administering the Fisheries Management Act 1994, and (c) a reference to the Director-General of the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water is taken to be a reference to the Director-General of the Department of Industry and Investment. (3) In this section: fish has the same meaning as in Part 7A of the Fisheries Management Act 1994.

marine vegetation has the same meaning as in Part 7A of the Fisheries Management Act 1994. Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 No 156

Chapter 1 Section 3 Objects of Act

The objects of this Act are as follows: (a) to protect, restore and enhance the quality of the environment in New South Wales, having regard to the need to maintain ecologically sustainable development, (b) to provide increased opportunities for public involvement and participation in environment protection, (c) to ensure that the community has access to relevant and meaningful information about pollution, (d) to reduce risks to human health and prevent the degradation of the environment by the use of mechanisms that promote the following: (i) pollution prevention and cleaner production, (ii) the reduction to harmless levels of the discharge of substances likely to cause harm to the environment, (iia) the elimination of harmful wastes, (iii) the reduction in the use of materials and the re-use, recovery or recycling of materials, (iv) the making of progressive environmental improvements, including the reduction of pollution at source, (v) the monitoring and reporting of environmental quality on a regular basis, (e) to rationalise, simplify and strengthen the regulatory framework for environment protection, (f) to improve the efficiency of administration of the environment protection legislation, Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991 No 60 Part 3 Section 6

6 Objectives of the Authority (1) The objectives of the Authority are: (a) to protect, restore and enhance the quality of the environment in New South Wales, having regard to the need to maintain ecologically sustainable development, and (b) to reduce the risks to human health and prevent the degradation of the environment, by means such as the following: • promoting pollution prevention, • adopting the principle of reducing to harmless levels the discharge into the air, water or land of substances likely to cause harm to the environment, • minimising the creation of waste by the use of appropriate technology, • regulating the transportation, collection, treatment, storage and disposal of waste, • encouraging the reduction of the use of materials, encouraging the re-use and recycling of materials and encouraging material recovery, • adopting minimum environmental standards prescribed by complementary Commonwealth and State legislation and advising the Government to prescribe more stringent standards where appropriate, • setting mandatory targets for environmental improvement,

• promoting community involvement in decisions about environmental matters, • ensuring the community has access to relevant information about hazardous substances arising from, or stored, used or sold by, any industry or public authority, • conducting public education and awareness programs about environmental matters. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) (a), ecologically sustainable development requires the effective integration of economic and environmental considerations in decision-making processes. Ecologically sustainable development can be achieved through the implementation of the following principles and programs: (a) the precautionary principle—namely, that if there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. In the application of the precautionary principle, public and private decisions should be guided by: (i) careful evaluation to avoid, wherever practicable, serious or irreversible damage to the environment, and (ii) an assessment of the risk-weighted consequences of various options, (b) inter-generational equity—namely, that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment are maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations, (c) conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity—namely, that conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a fundamental consideration, (d) improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms—namely, that environmental factors should be included in the valuation of assets and services, such as: (i) polluter pays—that is, those who generate pollution and waste should bear the cost of containment, avoidance or abatement, (ii) the users of goods and services should pay prices based on the full life cycle of costs of providing goods and services, including the use of natural resources and assets and the ultimate disposal of any waste, (iii) environmental goals, having been established, should be pursued in the most cost effective way, by establishing incentive structures, including market mechanisms, that enable those best placed to maximise benefits or minimise costs to develop their own solutions and responses to environmental problems.  

Sustainable Development Globally Defined

Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability offuture generations to meet their own needs. (World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future. 1987 )

Sustainable Development defined in NSW

Ecologically sustainable development can be achieved through the implementation of the following principles andprograms:(a) the precautionary principle -namely, that if there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lackof full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmentaldegradation. In the application of the precautionary principle, public and private decisions should be guided by:

(i) careful evaluation to avoid, wherever practicable, serious or irreversible damage to the environment, and(ii) an assessment of the risk-weighted consequences of various options,

(b) inter-generational equity -namely, that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity andproductivity of the environment are maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations,(c) conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity -namely, that conservation of biological diversity andecological integrity should be a fundamental consideration,(d) improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms -namely, that environmental factors should be included inthe valuation of assets and services, such as:

(i) polluter pay s-that is, those who generate pollution and waste should bear the cost of containment, avoidanceor abatement,(ii) the users of goods and services should pay prices based on the full life cycle of costs of providing goods andservices, including the use of natural resources and assets and the ultimate disposal of any waste,(iii) environmental goals, having been established, should be pursued in the most cost effective way, byestablishing incentive structures, including market mechanisms, that enable those best placed to maximisebenefits or minimise costs to develop their own solutions and responses to environmental problems.

Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991, section 6(1)(a) and (2)

Department of Premier and Cabinet. New South Wales Whole of Government Sustainability Principles. 2006.

4.1 Definition Sustainability in the NSW public sector means addressing the needs of current and future generations through the integration of social justice,economic prosperity and environmental protection in ways that are transparent, accountable and fiscally responsible. 4.2 Principles 4.2.1 Foundation principles Inter-generational equity

The quality of life of the current generation of people in NSW does not reduce the capacity of future generations to enjoy a similar quality of life. Sustainable communities

Human settlements maximise social, economic, environmental and cultural opportunities for all residents. Economic prosperity

Economic resources (such as land, labour, capital and technology) are used in ways that maximise productivity, minimise pollution and waste, and meets the social needs of all, now and for future generations. Ecologically sustainable development

Economic, social and natural resources are used in ways that conserve and enhance ecological processes, on which life depends, so that quality of life is improved, now and in the future. Full pricing

The prices of natural resources are set to at least recover the full social and environmental costs of their extraction, use and where appropriate, restoration. Bio-diversity

The conservation of biological diversity is a fundamental consideration in all economic and social decision-making and action. The precautionary principle

Where there are risks of serious or irreversible damage, lack of scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason to postpone cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation or reduce social harm. 4.2.2 Process principles Sustainable practice

All NSW government agencies implement their legislation, policies and programs in ways that meet the needs of current and future generations. Stewardship

Public sector agencies are responsible for the long-term stewardship of the resources under their control and for accounting publicly for the resource use. Shared responsibility

NSW government agencies work in partnership with other governments, Local Councils, the private sector, non-government organisations, communities, households and individuals on sustainability issues. Participation

All people likely to be affected by the decisions of agencies have the opportunity to contribute to the decision-making before the decision is made, and to participate in any review of the decision. The local-global principleThe sustainability of NSW is not achieved at the expense of other jurisdictions or regions

International Energy Agency • 9 rue de la Fédération, 75739 Paris Cedex 15, France • www.iea.org© O

ECD

/IEA

, 201

1

WORLD ENERGY OUTLOOK 2011 FACTSHEET

What role for coal in an emissions-constrained world?

In the New Policies Scenario, global coal use rises through the early 2020s and then remains broadly flat, above 5 850 million tonnes of coal equivalent (Mtce), through to 2035 – one-quarter higher than in 2009. Coal remains the second-largest primary fuel and the backbone of electricity generation. In the Current Policies Scenario, demand carries on rising after 2020, increasing overall by nearly two-thirds to 2035. But in the 450 Scenario, coal demand peaks before 2020 and then falls heavily, declining one-third between 2009 and 2035.

China, responsible for nearly half of global coal use in 2009, holds the key to the future of the coal market with an ambitious 12th Five-Year Plan for 2011-2015 to reduce energy and carbon intensity through enhanced energy efficiency and diversifying the energy mix. In the New Policies Scenario, China accounts for more than half of global coal-demand growth, its consumption growing by around one-third by 2020 and then declining slightly before remaining broadly stable, above 2 800 Mtce, through to 2035. India also plays an increasingly important role. By more than doubling its coal use to 880 Mtce by 2035 in the New Policies Scenario, India displaces the United States as the world’s second-largest coal consumer by 2025.

Power generation remains the main driver of global coal demand over the projection period, accounting for at least three-quarters of the increase in both the New and Current Policies Scenarios. Stronger uptake of existing clean coal technologies and carbon capture and storage could boost the long-term prospects for coal use. If the average efficiency of all coal-fired power plants were to be five percentage points higher than in the New Policies Scenario in 2035, such an accelerated move away from the least efficient combustion technologies would lower CO2 emissions from the power sector by 8% and reduce local air pollution.

Coal is the most abundant fossil fuel globally, with reserves totalling 1 trillion tonnes, or some 150 years of current production. In the New Policies Scenario, the lion’s share of the 20% increase in global coal production between 2009 and 2035 occurs in non-OECD countries. China contributes more than half of the increase in global supply to 2035; the bulk of the rest comes from India and Indonesia. Australia is the only major OECD producer to increase production to 2035; output in the United States falls around 2020, while European output continues its historical decline. Continued depletion of economically attractive seams and the need to shift new investment to deposits that are less easy-to-mine and/or more distant from existing infrastructure are expected to drive supply costs further upwards.

In the New Policies Scenario, inter-regional trade in hard coal grows rapidly to 2020, stabilising thereafter above 1 000 Mtce. The pattern of trade continues to shift towards Pacific Basin markets. Australia and Indonesia command nearly 60% of inter-regional hard coal trade in 2035. India is poised to become the world’s biggest importer of hard coal soon after 2020, as rapid demand growth outstrips the rise in indigenous production and India’s inland transport capacity. Projected imports reach nearly 300 Mtce in 2035 – about 35% of India’s hard coal use and 30% of inter-regional trade in the New Policies Scenario. The international coal market will become increasingly sensitive to developments in China, where marginal variations between very large volumes of coal production and demand will determine China’s net trade position.

Recommendations

To avoid catastrophic climate and economic change and adequately manage the transition to a Low Emission, Non-Fossil Fuel andEnergy Economy NSW and Australia must:

Industry Policy: Strategic Planning, Coal, CSG, Electricity Generation1.Immediately commence publicly transparent independent strategic planning to identify and exclude, in perpetuity, areas of potentialagriculture, potable water supply, sustainable human habitation or environmental reservation from extractive and eco-human healthpolluting industry and to identify discrete aquifer systems suitable for dedication to discrete 50 MW base load CSG power generation.2.Recognise that there is no social, economic or environmental scope for an ongoing increase in coal extraction beyond that currentlyproposed or planned to commence by 2019 in a global low-emission fuel and energy future.

1.Institute an immediate moratorium on any further coal exploration or extraction licences or approvals, including coal seamgas exploration licences and,2.Independently review and re-determine all existing extraction development proposals permitting right of third partyintervention and appeal.3.Remove all fossil fuel environmental concessions (eg cease exemptions to land clearing provisions of Native Vegetation Actetc)

3.Recognise that carbon capture and storage is not and will never be commercially viable on any scale capable of satisfying thecarbon management challenge of (current or projected increased) base load electricity generation from fossil fuels.4.Recognise that coal is the amongst the world‘s most expensive energy sources. Coal is artificially cheap because its production,transport and use is directly subsidised and resources . If priced fully for its embodied health, social, economic and environmentalcosts then coal quickly becomes one of the world‘s most expensive energy sources – not the cheapest.5.Phase out all brown coal-fired power plants by 2013.6.All new coal extraction and electricity generation projects including any extensions or major alterations of existing projects are fully,publicly evaluated prior to awarding of any subsequent Lease or License to Explore for Extraction or Permit to Emit is granted.7.All EIS and project evaluations are independently provided by Experts selected by the Energy Projects Committee from a public listmaintained by the Planning and Assessment Commission at the recompense to the Solicitor-General of the Lease or License orPermit holder.8.Reduce coal-fired power generation to 20% of national power generation by 2020. This means not approving any new coal-firedpower plants and withdrawing approval for non-commenced but approved coal-fired power plants.9.Land ownership reverts to Crown on Crown payment or equivalent of original lease fee adjusted for inflation but only followingsuccessful rehabilitation of site.10.Water infrastructure and allocation ownership reverts to Annual Crown Lease (Sovereign) on Crown payment or equivalent forsuch quality/quantity adjusted for inflation less depreciation but only following successful rehabilitation of site.11.All aspirating engine emissions including mine site engines and unregistered (off-road) vehicles to be tested annually and/orrandomly for emission filtering efficiency and maintained to [specification].

Economic Policy: Taxes & Subsidies

1.Eliminate all fossil fuel subsidies so that by 2020 fossil fuels carry the full and complete costs ofextraction, conversion, transport, use, waste disposal, health impact and environmental opportunity costand remediation.2.Redirect removed fossil fuel subsidies to promote uptake and growth in low emission technologiesparticularly in architecture (building & construction), transport, energy, information, non-fossil fuels, storedand distributed energy.3.Apply Carbon Taxation (in reference to energy and fuels) in increasing degree - from ‗zero ratedConventional Natural Gas‘ calorific or emission/eco-human health impact equivalent renewable, lowemission, non-fossil fuel, to ‗Black Coal equivalent‘ [Oil, Coal or Coal Seam Gas] power generation.4.World Parity Price (Carbon Tax Exports) to any economic destinations that do not have an equivalentquantum Carbon Tax payable on import.5.Apply benefits of Taxations and Royalty, Sovereign Fund to transition and social adjustment costs of coalphase out.6.Mandate a State ‗Coal Licence Royalty‘ system components to reflect the social contract and ensuresufficient income particularly from ‗super prices‘ > 39.9% above historical long term industry average,currently being received by largely foreign recipients, is partly transferred to fund a Sovereign ‗Transition

Fund‘ to invest in low emission, renewable, non-fossil fuels and power generation adoption and research.7.Mandate Export Quality and adjust the State ‗Ad Velorum Coal Royalty‘ system components to a calorificor emission/eco-human health impact equivalent system so that markets for lesser GHG efficient productsare displaced and in doing so mandate non-removal of waste coal tonnage from ad velorum Royalty anddomestic Electricity Generation to use only specified low GHG, low eco-human health impact emitting coal.8.Commercialise state based energy extraction, power generation and distribution systems as componentsof a regulated National Energy System with mandated and ongoing transmission, emission and generationtechnologies efficiency, research and improvements.

Health Policy

1.Legislate NSW Air Quality Standards to incorporate mandatory PM 2.5 air quality targets with independent state wideand regional monitoring and internet reporting commencing 2013.2.Continue with State Health Coal Mining Areas Comparative Population Health Studies and corrective regional healthimprovement programs with 25% mandated contribution at the recompense to the Solicitor-General of the Coal Industry.3.Provision of rainwater tank filtering/water treatment and metering to all such (stock or domestic consumption) watersupply within PM2.5 [monthly average 4g/m2] dust deposition footprint of any mine or group of mines at Coal Industryrecompense.4.Provision of air quality/air treatment and metering to all such occupied domestic residences within PM2.5 [monthlyaverage 4g/m2] dust deposition footprint of any mine or group of mines at Coal Industry recompense.5.Covering or product treatment to eliminate all transport and storage coal dust emissions.Transport & Taxation Policy1.Employ low emission, low-carbon, renewable, non-fossil fuel energy technologies for urban, intra- and inter- urban transitsystems.

1.Conversion of diesel product and national distribution system to nationally produced 100% bio-diesel equivalentby 20302.Conversion of motor vehicle fleet, product and national distribution systems to 10%, 85% & 100% ethanol by 20203.Complete National Gas Grid for transfer of NW LNG/CNG by 20194.Tender for National ‗Special Oil Products‘ refineries (2): Sth Qld, WA

Agriculture, Environment, Air, Water1.Recognise that there is a growing justifiable, economic, environmental and social imperative for sustainable, on-going,low emission increases in GM-organism-free cropping and agriculture, efficiency, output and security of supply in a globalenvironment impacted by climate change.2.Rebate all taxpayers private investment into domestic and commercial renewable energy generation, storage anddistributed grid connected projects, including water conservation projects to a maximum of $10,000 indexed per residentialpremises per annum (and $50,000 agricultural/industry operation pa)3.Requirement for Aquifer Interference Approvals under the Water Act 2007 for any commercial or industrial activity thatwill impact on groundwater.4.Prohibit use of The Hydraulic Fracturing Process for CSG extraction.5.Immediate commencement of Carbon Farming Initiatives including Conservation and Regeneration Agreements.

Specifically in the Upper Hunter, Wybong Creek & Goulburn River catchments:

1.Immediate moratorium on all coal and coal seam gas exploration and extraction activities. 2.Immediate transfer of all Crown Lands adjoining or in the near vicinity of Manobalai Nature Reserve for inclusion in an (expanded Nature Reserve or similar Statutory Reserve) extension to the Greater Eastern Ranges Initiative in the Upper Hunter.3.Priority funding of Greater Eastern Ranges Initiative priority programs in the Upper Hunter.4.Additional planning/environment compliance officers to be based at Muswellbrook and Jerrys Plains and expansion of operational hours to include weekend and after hours investigation.5.Disputation over matters of air, water or noise compliance in Mining and Power Generation Emission areas subject to reporting by planning/environment compliance officers to be resolved by independent monitoring committee at the recompense to the Solicitor-General of the Coal Industry. 6.Immediate commencement to progressive mining rehabilitation enforcement including collection and propagation of local species and variants with emphasis on Threatened Species Conservation Act (NSW) and EPBC Act (Qwlth) listed species and habitats, and control of weeds and introduced species. 7.Process of Public Transparency to involve determinations of all coal and coal seam gas proposals.

NSW Legislation:Wholesale review of the Mining Act 1992 and Petroleum Act 1992 to include:

1 Landholder veto over coal, coal seam gas and extractive industry exploration and mining access (per legislation existing in other Australian jurisdictions)

2 Removal of sole power to issue exploration licences and mining applications from the Minister for Minerals and Energy without involvement and evaluation of the proposed lease area by other interested government departments eg NOW, O&H etc, Statutory Authorities eg CMA‘s, LHPA, Councils and LGA residents.

3 Realistic setbacks from homes, communities, other industries, watercourses, aquifers etc

4 State Taxation of resource revenues at full cost recovery and full resource rental5 Removal of defacto exemptions from all other Acts eg Native Vegetation, Water Act

etc6 Imposition of realistic and proportionate sanctions, including forfeiture of licences to

operate for breaches of consent conditions7 Full recognition of LEP‘s such that Community LEP‘s and REP‘s instruct

development8 Full Recognition of the citizen as the primary stakeholder9 Full Recognition & empowerment of CCC‘s to inform and seek instruction from

affected citizens and to commence proceedings for breach of consents where Government Departments fail to act.

Name Afiliation or Organisation

Amanda Albury RIVERS SOS

Wendy Bowman SHEG

Graham Brown MHEG, SBC,HEL, RIVERS SOS

Glenn Cameron WAG

Keith Campbell WAG

Deborah Campbell WAG

David Clay WAG

Edna Clay WAG

Duncan Connell WAG

Tim Duddy LTG, CCAC

Don Eather SBC

Cate Faehrmann GREENS

Peter Firminger LTG, HVPA, WAGE

John Googe LTG, HVPA, WAGE

Sean Gough LTG, HVPA, WAGE

Karyne Gough LTG, HVPA, WAGE

Kim Hahn WAG, Broke Conference

John C Thompson WAG, Broke Conference

Len Hamson WAG

Jean Hamson WAG

Acknowledgements

Other Contributors, Input Sources and Acknowledgements

and the members of Wybong Action Group, Beyond Coal Alliance, Lock the Gate Alliance, Rivers SOS, Coal Communities, SHEG, and other

affiliated groups and individuals including, alphabetically, and without limitation, exclusivity, extent of input, consultation or opinion,

together with several others including persons restrained by contract or who requested anonymity.

Name Afiliation or Organisation

Cathy Johnson WAG

Warrick Jordan LTG, WC

Peter Kennedy WAG, RIVERS SOS

Jacqui Kirby LTG, SHPS

Nicholas Litchfield WAG

Suzanne Moore WAG

Jim Morgan WAG

Wendy Morgan WAG

Sharyn Munro WAG

Christine Phelps AHA

Ray Phelps AHA

Steven Phillips RT

Martin Rush MSC

Julian Sheppard WAG

John Shewan WAG

Louise Shewan WAG

Anthony Shewan WAG

Pearl Shorter WAG

Bev Smiles MHEG, MDDA, RIVERS SOS

Dylan Turnbull WAG

Wendy Wales GREENS