I've had enough. No more biting my tongue. I agree with you Mr Ritchie, why stop at the Alpha mine, why not leave ALL fossil fuels in the ground.

You are obviously very concerned about the environment and sustainable living. In view of this, I am sure that you, of all people, would certainly not choose to fly interstate or overseas for holidays, because that would mean burning JetA1 fuel. Jet A1 fuel is a non-renewable, fossil fuel and should be left in the ground.

If more people were like you Mr Ritchie and lived a truly sustainable life and swore off all fossil fuel usage, especially discretionary air travel, it would be 'good for the future'

Oops. Sorry, I said 'being good for the future'

Your admirer

Gerard Dean

Way too be a grown up Gerald, why dont you do us all a favour and save the environment by holding your breath...whats that you say? did I hear you say thats an absurd suggestion that only an immature prat would make?.....

As a previous student of yours Chris, I love the work that you do and the polite restraint that you are able to show in the face of ethically challenged interests.

However, I strongly empathise with Ian. There's only so much politeness one can exercise when big mining keeps turning your back yard into a wasteland.

The Good News, Mr Ritchie, is that India will eventually join China in weaning itself off coal, as climate change starts to bite.

Eventually, India will not need Australian coal for anything. They've got oodles of thorium, which they are keen to learn how to use, for both power generation and for direct electrolytic reduction of their iron ore to iron. That is, they eventually will do away with the carbothermic process for steel-making; I suggest you have a read of Prof Geoffrey (not Barry!) Brooks's "Treasure your metal: why we need to respect embedded energy" (http://www.theconversation.edu.au/treasure-your-metal-why-we-need-to-respect- embedded-energy-6802).

I make a similar point regarding Australia's future in the comments following that article.

Direct electrolytic reduction of iron oxides?

This *is* technically possible but (in contrast to aluminium smelting) the energy costs are higher than carbothermic reduction.

Practical chemical reduction of iron ore today invariably involves carbon in some form. The term "direct reduced iron" today refers to reducing iron oxides with hot carbon monoxide gas, generally produced from fossil fuels. This is not only possible but fairly inexpensive.

If the intention is to produce steel without any associated carbon dioxide emissions, it would be interesting to examine costs of DRI using CO produced from recycled CO2 and electrolysed water using RWGS and compare them to whatever iron oxide electrolysis might look promising,

Mr Anderson.

I too appreciate Senior Lecturer McGrath restraint and considered comments. In fact, it is the first time I have 'rolled' this early on The Conversation.

HOWEVER, that doesn't mean I will roll on your comment, '...when big mining keeps turning your back yard into a wasteland.' Indeed, it is a rediculous statement for two reasons.

Reason 1. Mining utilises less land than private concrete driveways or roads or housing estates and a tiny fraction of agriculture and pastoral areas which have transformed the landscape from its native beauty. But, we have to live somewhere and drive somewhere and eat something - so we compromise.

Reason 2. Big Mining companies bring us oil and gas and iron and copper and bauxite and lead and mineral sands and rare earths and lithium and...... And without these, there would be no modern life, no cars, no planes, no tractors, no electricity, no lighting, no schools or universities or hospital operating theatres, no internet, no iPads, no iPhones and no keyboards and screens to comment on The Conversation.

Oh, I almost forgot the most important, no Abrams tanks to keep us safe at night.

You want what the modern world gives, as long as it is dug up in Bolivia or Mali or China or Russia and not your precious Atherton tablelands.

My comment is polite, but I trust that you get the point.

Gerard Dean

Go wild Red Tickers and click those Red Ticks with your mouse.

A mouse made of plastic and carbon black extracted from fossil fuel feedstock. Inside is a small printed circuit board made from glass fibre and high technology, fire resistant epoxy. On the circuit board there is a silk screened legend made with a solvent based ink and a solder resist. On top of the board are several chips made from plastic, copper, rare earths, silicon, barium. There is also a small radio frequency transmitter, also made from a wide variety of compounds.

The click you hear are the tiny beryllium copper contacts that close to make the electrons flow. Beryllium is a deadly metal, which is safer when alloyed with copper, but still poses a threat if machined dry.

But, the Red Tickers have the answer. No more mining. Have you ever grabbed a real mouse and pushed its head in to see if the screen icon changed, because that is the only mouse you will have if you get your way.

Gerard Dean

Rest assured that China and India are doing all that they can to propel another 2bn people into the middle classes while minimising their fossil fuel use - they're not stupid.

It is in Australia's best interests to get itself off consuming fossil fuels. This will be achieved, not by moralising or self-flagellation, or even by posturing before some great moral challenge, but by perfectly straightforward technological transformation. People, in their own enlightened best self-interests, will choose to purchase and use low/zero carbon technology and equipment - provided they have the money to make such purchases.

Governments can facilitate this process by giving their people whacking great tax cuts - you'll have heard that before, so you're thinking I'm just another right-wing nutjob. But here's the kicker:

For every dollar of tax cut, make up the revenue with a dollar of taxation of fossil fuel consumption, as follows.

Introduce, and then steadily increase, a fossil carbon consumption tax, using the revenue to cut other taxes.

A price on carbon emissions to the atmosphere can be readily created by a small modification to the calculation of the GST (Goods and Services Tax) that is applied to fossil fuels. Whereas GST is presently calculated is 10% of the price of a good or service, the GST on fossil fuels would be calculated as 10% of the price of the fossil fuel PLUS the dollar rate of the fossil carbon surcharge multiplied by the fossil carbon content of the fossil fuel.

REVENUE_NEUTRALITY CREATES OPPORTUNITIES FOR OTHER TAX CUTS
(pardon the capitalisation, it's intended to be emphasis rather than shouting)
Much of the additional revenue raised by this GST fossil carbon surcharge could be applied to cuts in company and personal income taxes and to appropriate adjustments to welfare benefits. [If any of this additional revenue is disbursed to States, then it is recommended that payroll taxes and other State-imposed barriers to employment should be eliminated. In turn, this could have beneficial flow-on effects on welfare expenditure, and improving national productivity.]

In subsequent years, the rate of the fossil carbon GST surcharge is increased, with further decreases in other taxes. This transfers the burden of taxation away from taxpayers that invest so as to minimise their fossil carbon use and toward those who refuse to take such action; this latter group eventually lose their business competitiveness. Fossil carbon is thus priced out of use, and substituted by investment in low/zero emission technology and equipment.

Mr Newlands

Telling the Chinese and Indian peasants who are working their guts out to claw their way out of poverty that they should't use fossil fuels to build their nations, like western nations have done for hundreds of years is a tad, how should I put it, patronising.

China is an industrial and economic tsunami, sucking resources from around the world, just like England did in the industrial revolution. The Chinese government will issue all sorts of fluff statements saying how they are building renewable energy capacity, while at the same time planning to build upwards of 2000 coal fired power stations by 2030. Nothing will get in their way to get to be number 1.

According to all energy agencies, fossil fuel usage, especially coal usage is going up for till at least 2050. I don't like it, but that is what is going to happen.

Gerard Dean

Mr Arthur

I trudged through our well written comment, then came upon the concluding statement:

"Fossil carbon is thus priced out of use, and substituted by investment in low/zero emission technology and equipment."

You forgot to add the following:

"Naturally, there will be some small lifestyle adjustments to be made to enable us to live on less than 5% of our existing power capacity. People might have get used to mass unemployment, mass societal breakdown including a complete collapse of law and order, mass starvation and mass death"

If you don't believe me, look at what happened when big, bad, Bob Mugabe de-carbonised Zimbabwe. All of the above happened, plus more.

Before you get all tetchy and start typing, you know the facts are on my side.

Gerard Dean/

China with over 1.3 bn population and India with 1.2 bn are to some extent the architects of their own misfortune. Those numbers are too large for their domestic resource base hence the need to import Alpha coal. The West is also culpable by outsourcing its dirty work, driven out by carbon taxes etc.

I propose a fair-dinkumness test for China and India ,,,pay carbon tax voluntarily on Australian coal. Since c.t. is revenue neutral the money collected could be repaid into green programs in those countries. If they source coal elsewhere (eg from co-conspirator the US) perhaps Chindia is not fair dinkum about emissions cuts.

Last year China emitted 9.4 Gt of the global total 34.0 Gt of CO2. Australia emitted a tad over 0.5 Gt. I doubt the world has enough cheap coal for Asia to get to our per capita levels. Again this explains the demand for less accessible deposits like Alpha. So leave it in the ground.

Thanks Mr Dean.

We have both engaged in commentary on "The Conversation" pages, where I have mentioned technological alternatives that can and will replace fossil fuel use. I have also outlined the climatological reasons why this is necessary.

Have you the memory of a gnat? If not, then please review our previous discussions. I also suggest Rockstrom et al, "Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity", Ecology and Society 14(2): 32 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/

I am also surprised at your assumption that Mugabe's actions have been motivated by concerns for CO2 emissions.

Wonderful imagery, Mr Arthur, "Have you a memory of a gnat?" I love it Mr Arthur, I seriously do.

In fact it reminds me of several summers ago I was in the swimming pool and I asked my daughter an inane question, then immediately dived under water to the other end of the pool, whereapon I asked her the same question.

My daughter, now a doctor, answered my question about 4 times until she asked why I was repeating the same question. It took several minutes until she realised I was trying to act like the famed goldfish with a 3 second memory.

Now, Mr Arthur, I am going to struggle to fly around the room like a gnat. But I do take your point that we have had the biofuels discussion before. The only problem is, and I am as surprised by this as much as you are, is that you have not changed your views in accordance with the facts I have relayed to you on this matter.

In closing, I accept that Bob Mugabe's intention was not to blast Zimbabwe back to the stone age when he started killing his rival leaders from other tribes, stealing land from hard working farmers and their workers to give to lazy, incompetent cronies (who ended up destroying the farms) and encouraging his followers to igore the rule of law.

Bob didn't stop there. He recently spoke at the useless Rio+20 conference where he called for rich nations to provide low cost energy for poor African nations. The pity is, he is the one who destroyed Zimbabwe's power infrastructure in the first place. In 1982 Zimbabwe had the highest black education figure in Africa, the second largest economy with a diverse range of agriculture, mineral production and manufacturing, all of which enjoyed considerable exports. That has all gone now.

Chip chip.

Gerard Dean

In the 2012 Qld election
With 50% of the vote, LNP got 88% of the seats.
With 27% of the vote, ALP got 8% of the seats
With 8% of the vote, Greens got 0% of the seats.
With 12% of the vote, KAP got 2% of the seats.

If seats won reflected primary voting intention, the LNP would have won 44 seats, the ALP would have won 24 seats, the Katter Australia Party would have won 10 seats, the Greens 7 seats and Independents would have won 2 seats.

If all the Brisbane City Council area was turned into one electorate for State elections which returned 21 proportionally elected members, Gold Coast into another area with 11 members, Sunshine coast into another with 8 members, and so on for other large urban areas, then the number of seats held by different parties in Q parliament would reflect the voting intentions of the electorate. Outside of the major urban areas, multi-member electorates would be based on major river basins (Mary, Burnett, Fitzroy/Dawson/Mackenzie, Burdekin, MDB).

Electoral reform along these lines would thus empower each region against the dominance of the centre.

If this arrangement had been in place at the 2012 election, LNP would have won 45 seats out of 89, ALP would have won 24 seats, Katter's AP would have won 13 seats and the Greens would have won 5 seats. Independents would have won the other two.

While Newman may come crashing down because he is out of touch, expenditure decisions by previous governments (Paradise Dam, Traveston Crossing Dam) left the state Treasury coffers pretty empty.

"While Newman may come crashing down because he is out of touch.."

As someone who lives in Queensland I tend to find quite a lot of people reluctantly approve of the way Newman is reigning in costs.
Australians have become very conservative with their personal finances (witness the change in attitude to debt) and now have little patience for governments that blow out budgets (as Bligh found out).
It is natural for people in fear of their jobs to speak out loudly against Newman, but it would be wrong to take that as reflecting the majority opinion.

There seems to be some pressure for people who care for the environment to stop flying. If they did, would the planes?

Mr Dolan

Are you asking if people stopped buying air tickets would the planes stop flying - of course. The airlines would adjust to the reduced passenger levels by scrapping flights and rescheduling. Half empty planes mean big losses in the airline industry.

Over half of air travel is discretionary travel taken for holidays or conferences. The word 'discretionary' is important because it highlights that people do not need to take the airflight, rather they choose to fly for pleasure.

According to a recent The Conversation article, over 75% of Australians are concerned about climate change and say we should live more sustainably.

Adding it all up: 75% of 50%= 37.5% of flights are made by Australians who claim they are concerned about the environment but then choose to burn JetA1 fuel to go on holidays. They burn at least 2.6 billion litres (37.5% of Australia's annual 7 billion jet fuel usage) of non-renewable, irreplaceable JetA1 fossil fuel.

I don't like being lectured to reduce my fossil fuel use by Australians who then go and burn 2.6 billion litres of Jet fuel to fly overseas for holidays and academic conferences.

I trust you can see my point.

Gerard Dean

Senior Lecturer McGrath

Thank you for the considered reply. Although I agree with your positional statement vis-a-vis the Alpha mine status, I am intrigued that you consider Premier Newmans position to be legally wrong.

How can a Premier be legally wrong by saying that the Federal governement is holding up a mining approval. I will accept factually wrong, petty, smoke screening, spinning as suitable descriptors but how so is he legally wrong? And if he is, what chances the DPP would entertain a case?

My point about the objection process was to highlight that it is not 'significant' threat to the project. The chances that local pressure or farmers would stop a valid mine going ahead are virtually zero. The only significant threat to a mine going ahead is from public pressure on environmental grounds eg mining the Great Barrier Reef may not get up, whereas mining existing farmland is never going to be stopped.

Again thanks,

Gerard Dean

The Good News is, progress in biotech will replace mineral petroleum feedstocks with biomass feedstocks.

Mr Dean here raises the issue of consumer advocacy in driving technological progress. While it is a perfectly valid issue, its bearing on the issue of political posturing over mining approvals escapes me.

My dearest David,

Your second comment first. I first raised the issue of JetA1 fuel with Mr Ritchie (comment at top of page) because he used this article to push his agenda that we "leave the coal in the hole". Unfortunately, when the young, old and naive say these things, they never connect their public sentiments with their private world. A world where we all take advantage of the huge amount of energy to make our life easier and exciting.

Second thing, biofuels. Sorry, Old Mother Earth No Can Do. If we had to grow even 50% of Australia's 49.5 billion litre liquid fuel diet, we would have to pull up over 70% of wheat, corn, barley, oats, cotton, hops and canola. Growing 100%, even with untried algae, means we starve.

And, if we make coal into jet fuel, remember it takes 2.5 units of coal power to make 1 unit of jet fuel power - OK for Australia but an enormous carbon footprint and enormous expenditure. Only the desperate German army in WWII and the South Africans with huge coal reserves and low labour rates consider such things feasible..

Thank you

Gerard Dean

I would hope that existing food crops remain as such, and not be diverted for fuel.

The Good News about algae is, they will utilise the nutrients that presently discharge to our oceans and so damage nearby ecosystems. Among other things, this can recover N and P (Google "struvite") while synthesising carbohydrates and aliphatic hydrocarbons for reforming and refining into fuels.

Coal to liquid fuels is a self-defeating idea, since it still entails returning geosequestered carbon to the climate system, where it will add to adverse effects of previous and present CO2 emissions.