>
> State spokesperson for the Queensland Greens, Libby Connors, today slammed
> Campbell Newman’s commitment to revoke protection of four wild rivers in
> Cape York if an LNP government is elected.
>
> ‘Campbell Newman has proved he will be an even more aggressive proponent
> of mining and gas development than the present irresponsible Labor
> government.
>
> ‘The main threats to the Cape York rivers are from bauxite and coal mining
> although coal seam gas developers are also moving into north Queensland.
> ‘Campbell Newman will be a tool of the big miners.
>
> ‘This revocation will take out the Steve Irwin reserve that Terri Irwin
> fought so hard to protect from mining and lead to the destruction of a
> precious wilderness area.
>
> ‘The voters of Brisbane need to understand that Campbell Newman will not
> stand up for our precious rural and environmental regions against the big
> miners.
>
> ‘If you want a state government that will stop the rash and irresponsible
> mining and gas rush that is harming our economic future they must vote for
> a minor party.
>
> ‘At this election the Greens are presenting a responsible mining policy
> that will not harm other essential economic sectors such as agriculture,
> tourism and education and provide balanced economic development.’
>
>
>
>
>
Sunday, 6 November 2011
APPEA report same old cherry-picking on coal seam gas
Friday 4 November 2011
A report commissioned by the fossil fuel industry to justify claims of the environmental benefits of coal seam gas continues to cherry-pick data to reach its conclusions, the Australian Greens said today.
The report by WorleyParsons for the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association nevertheless concludes that it is only in the unlikely circumstances of best practice gas replacing worst practice coal, and using very low figures for the global warming impact of methane, that the gas industry's claims can be justified.
"You have to wonder why, when the Europeans and Americans are investing in zero emissions baseload solar power, industry in Australia is still obsessed with comparing one polluting fossil fuel with another," Australian Greens Deputy Leader, Senator Christine Milne, said.
"The most important fact which needs to be established soon is the real, on-the-ground leakage of gas from the mining process. APPEA uses only industry standard estimates based on American Petroleum Institute figures.
"The real climate impact of coal seam gas can't be established until we have independently verified data on how much gas leaks and is flared and vented on the ground here in Australia.
"The real figures on leakage are triply important because APPEA's report uses a hugely outdated and understated figure for the global warming impact of the methane which leaks.
"If calculated over the next 20 years - the critical period when we risk triggering tipping points in the climate if we don't act to cut pollution fast - methane's climate impact is actually more like 72 times that of carbon dioxide, not the 21 times used in this report.
"It is worth noting that, if indeed this gas is used to replace coal, a peer-reviewed study notes that the short-term climate impact of that shift is negative as coal burning has a greater dimming effect than gas burning, more than cancelling out the climate benefits."
Australian Greens mining spokesperson, Senator Larissa Waters, said "This report continues the gas industry's practice of cherry-picking to suit its profit-making agenda rather than protect the environment.
"We have to remember, as well, that this is not just a question of the impact on the climate.
"If we allow coal seam gas to expand as much as the industry wants, we jeopardise food production on prime agricultural land, the Great Artesian Basin and even suburban areas where the companies want to drill."
A report commissioned by the fossil fuel industry to justify claims of the environmental benefits of coal seam gas continues to cherry-pick data to reach its conclusions, the Australian Greens said today.
The report by WorleyParsons for the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association nevertheless concludes that it is only in the unlikely circumstances of best practice gas replacing worst practice coal, and using very low figures for the global warming impact of methane, that the gas industry's claims can be justified.
"You have to wonder why, when the Europeans and Americans are investing in zero emissions baseload solar power, industry in Australia is still obsessed with comparing one polluting fossil fuel with another," Australian Greens Deputy Leader, Senator Christine Milne, said.
"The most important fact which needs to be established soon is the real, on-the-ground leakage of gas from the mining process. APPEA uses only industry standard estimates based on American Petroleum Institute figures.
"The real climate impact of coal seam gas can't be established until we have independently verified data on how much gas leaks and is flared and vented on the ground here in Australia.
"The real figures on leakage are triply important because APPEA's report uses a hugely outdated and understated figure for the global warming impact of the methane which leaks.
"If calculated over the next 20 years - the critical period when we risk triggering tipping points in the climate if we don't act to cut pollution fast - methane's climate impact is actually more like 72 times that of carbon dioxide, not the 21 times used in this report.
"It is worth noting that, if indeed this gas is used to replace coal, a peer-reviewed study notes that the short-term climate impact of that shift is negative as coal burning has a greater dimming effect than gas burning, more than cancelling out the climate benefits."
Australian Greens mining spokesperson, Senator Larissa Waters, said "This report continues the gas industry's practice of cherry-picking to suit its profit-making agenda rather than protect the environment.
"We have to remember, as well, that this is not just a question of the impact on the climate.
"If we allow coal seam gas to expand as much as the industry wants, we jeopardise food production on prime agricultural land, the Great Artesian Basin and even suburban areas where the companies want to drill."
Friday, 4 November 2011
THE CARBON TAX
No one wants another tax. Tax is a dirty word and our instinct is to fight it. So there had better be a very good reason to support this one. Unfortunately, there is.
It’s hard to believe it but we have poured so much pollution into the air that it’s causing the world’s climate to destabilize and to heat up. We’ve all seen those belching chimney stacks. Now we’re beginning to see the damage they are causing; catastrophic droughts, fires so fierce we haven’t the skills to control them and floods of unanticipated proportions. Worse still, island neighbours are going under as sea levels rise. We could view the carbon tax as a way of repaying an environmental debt.
Until now, polluting has been free and we’ve polluted as though it doesn’t matter. Having to pay to pollute is a sure fire way to get us to reduce our pollution.
So the 500 biggest polluting companies will be taxed, and because they are profit driven they will be persuaded to reduce their pollution. Yes, they will pass some of the cost on to us, but Treasury predicts the cost of living will rise by just over half a percent. Isn’t it worth it if it means we’re leaving the next generation of loved ones a pathway towards a cleaner world? And besides, 90% of us will be reimbursed for any out of pocket expenses.
We’ll be the 42nd country to get a carbon tax. Sweden
We’ve got to clean up our act and the carbon tax is a start. A large number of big companies agree. Fosters brewing company says “It’s right that we do it. Let’s get on with it”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)