Australian environmental minister Greg Hunt on Monday approved the expansion of a coal terminal in Abbot Point in northern Queensland, a decision which prompted backlash from green groups who said the port poses a grave risk to the Great Barrier Reef.
The USA said protect the environment and stop global warming and then approved exporting fossil fuels overseas (tar sands oil).
Australia has now done the same thing. They publicize how investments are fleeing coal and laud their own efforts to save the reef and then approve a deal that would have been fiercely opposed if it had been announced openly earlier on.
They say nothing about how long this deal was in the works and being negotiated. Do they pretend that a deal was hammered out overnight? Likely as not they were talking about how Australia was going green and would protect the reef ... they were also working out this deal behind the scenes and then announced it only after the conference in Paris.
How is it that the corporate elites are doing all these things almost in concert with each other? They make the world helpless in the face of greed. Governing elites are acting criminally because they know they represent the people and do not own these resources or public lands themselves and people don't want these things to happen. They'd rather protect the reef and do something other than coal in other words. But someone makes big money with this coall. Truly criminal.
It is as if any tiny step forwards to ameliorate the worst of climate change gets pushed two steps backwards as if almost by spite? They don't believe that climate change is real or so they have said repeatedly but you can tell that they know it is true ... but they don't care.
They really do know it is real but they simply don't care. They want the big money... NOW.
The face of greed is not guilt ridden. Greed simply doesn't care!
Despite the google, I could find no information of the damage that coal dust might do to tropical reefs. Coal is actually a rock. So dropping sand on a reef might do slight damage but nothing like parrot fish do.
Environmentalists should carefully pick which fights they want to fight, because when they make some blanket accusation like coal dust will destroy a reef without any scientific evidence it undermines the credibility of the entire movement.
Or worse exposes environmentalists as simply exposing them as what they are, humanity haters. If man does this or that he is always diminishing the "environment". Coal dirty! (bad). Farming destroys meadows (bad). Cows fart (bad again).
Or worse, this article is based on a known lie, that coal sand has no great ill effect on reefs, but the greater good will be done by using laws put into effect to prevent reef loss, because somebody else hates the idea of mining coal. In effect, the "Good Lie". I am here to remind you that a good lie is a lie, and paints those who tell those lies as untrustworthy, devious, liars.
More plunder Down Under
The main point is that this mine will release more CO2 than the whole of Europe and will tip the planet over the edge.
For this reason it must be stopped.
What a crock of misinformation, ignorance and wishful propaganda! Propagandists (and shills for industry) should carefully pick which misinformation they want to push on the public. "Dropping sand on a reef" - really? http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/aug/01/-sp-great-barrier-reef-and-coal-mine-could-kill-it
Its curious your comment echos this "general manager's": "After a recent spill at a British Columbia marine coal export terminal, the general manager was quoted saying:
"There’s a lot of misinformation around coal. Coal is a naturally-occurring mineral. It is not toxic".
"There’s no doubt that coal often contains a range of pollutants, including uranium, thorium, arsenic, mercury, lead, and other elements toxic at low concentrations."
"handling of coal in ports - the risk of spilling this mineral in operation areas is considerably high. Toxic elements contained in minerals of coal may cause potential environmental effects on soil, air and water related with its physiological toxicity, even at a low exposure level. Consequently, it can be said that coal could endanger marine flora."
and fauna" http://commons.wmu.se/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1478&context=all_dissertations
Your astounding bias and ignorance is amply demonstrated by the idiot comment: "environmentalists are humanity haters" - as Abe Lincoln said, "Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than speak and remove all doubt"
There is no mention of coal dust at all. What are you talking about? Your argument is facetious and slightly absurd. You ignored all the valid concerns mentioned and blathered on about coal dust? The article didn't mention coal sand either. You are a silly person. (Monty Python)
Aren't you a cutie though! Please continue gracing us with your intellectual arguments. I have to ask whether you think the coal is under the reef. This a port facility for transporting coal. You need to do more homework. The coal is on land lol... Coal sand huh? Odd idea that...lol
I read your link, and I found 4 direct statements in that article that the author admits is common thinking similar to this "most authorities think Coal is non-reactive". I will agree that the guy who wrote the paper did find that there were some bad things leached from coal, but, he could not document a single environmental location that was devastated by coal spill pollution near loading facilities, despite considerable volumes spilled and world wide coal handling facilities.
Substantial water quality issues exist over wide regions where coal is mined, but little of the damage is directly from leached chemicals, but rather mine waste and mining activities.
The other articles are published by people with open and stated bias, filled with mostly statements like you use "it can be said that coal could endanger marine flora." Well, it could NOT as well. I like these statements as well, "If coal is spilled we all might be sent to Mars" (and then again we MIGHT not).
Your astounding lack of hard evidence is amply demonstrated by the idiot comment " It could be said that coal could endanger marine flora" (and then again perhaps it would not...) It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than speak and remove all doubt.
And, your bias is also showing as you provided no in place substitute for the product you are panning, you have not polled those most affected by the lack of coal as to if they would like coal or the products coal generates... or some minuscule section of reef. You never considered the question. And the reason why is that you do not give a ship about those in poverty who feel they can't make a choice. Your shame in participating in the rape of the environment blinds you to the people in Africa who died of malaria after banning DDT http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1259
Or the decision to produce fuel additives with food, driving up the price of corn and fertilizer world wide. OPPS! Maybe I am wrong, Let them eat cake.
YA.. How simplistic.
How about you work for ways to make better alternatives a reality, so coal is no longer profitable?
Or you work to provide world wide affluence knowing the end result will be lower birth rates and world population declines?
I too lament the CO2, but I lived from the 40s and I was the guy who is responsible for some of that CO2 still working to heat the planet, thousands of tanks of gas, heated and cooled a poorly insulated house, flew to the Philippines and back to the USA 28 times and PLASTIC!, I am responsible or tones of the stuff being manufactured. So after all that sinning, I and billions of others have done, you want to solve that pile of human waste problem I generated by doing what again? When will you see that the "tipping point" has been reached?(350.org said for years that 350PPM would mean the end, now that it is 400, they forget) When will you see that no conservation method that is likely to occur will unwind what has been done? Why on earth would a moral person cloud ideas of mitigation when prevention is so unlikely? When will you start thinking that billions will die, how can I take part in saving a million of those? Oh, I see, where you live will not be under water, where you live will not be overrun by billions of desperate migrants and, frankly, you will be dead by that time anyway. Gotya.
I guess you missed this study on coal operations effects on coral in the Great Barrier Reef marine environment.
"Coal is a popular fuel of choice for electricity generation and global demand continues to increase. Black coal is Australia’s second highest export commodity and the number of coal vessels transiting through the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) are forecast to parallel growth in coal exports. Consequently, unburnt coal is considered an emerging contaminant in the marine environment as coal dust particles can have negative effects at the sea surface, throughout the water column and within the substrate, thus posing a potential threat to a range of marine organisms. Larval dispersal and connectivity is important for the persistence of marine invertebrate populations, and coal dust could reduce survival and settlement of marine invertebrates, including reef corals, since both gametes and larvae remain planktonic during the first week(s) of development. Sessile organisms, particularly adult corals, are also at risk from suspended and deposited particles. In order to quantify this potential risk, exposure experiments were conducted on newly fertilized embryos (3h and 12h), larvae (4d) and adult Acropora tenuis to a range of suspended coal concentrations (0-800 mg/L) over time. Our results show that for all age groups, coral survivorship significantly decreases with increased concentration and exposure time. For adult corals, the lowest observed significant effect concentration (LOEC) after 14 d exposure was 73 mg/L. Concentrations resulting in 10% and 50% tissue mortality (LC10 and LC50) were 52 and 73 mg/L, respectively, and these values declined to 36 and 38 mg/L, respectively after 28 d. Survivorship of early life history stages exposed to acute coal exposure (1-72h) never declined below 74% in any treatment group; however, chronic exposure (28d) of adult corals resulted in 100% mortality in concentrations equal to or greater than 73 mg/L. Our results show that coal contamination does pose a threat to A. tenuis survivorship and further research is required to determine the effects and critical thresholds of this emerging contaminant on other tropical marine organisms." That, it appears, is "hard evidence".
This rubbish comment, very representative of your tactics and other statements, is priceless - "Substantial water quality issues exist over wide regions where coal is mined, but little of the damage is directly from leached chemicals, but rather mine waste and mining activities" - "water quality issues"? - Diversion at its best, or worst....all coal operations, of which "loading facilities" are only one, serve one goal only, to burn!
After coal is burned, when it creates dangerous/deadly air and water pollution, it becomes coal fly ash, a highly toxic waste, storage of which caused numerous spills into many different bodies of water - THAT is only one major inescapable part of the "harmless" coal you push! Hard evidence...
"Every year, coal-fired power plants dump millions of tons of toxic metals into our waterways"
"Every year, the nation's coal plants produce 140 million tons of coal ash pollution"
Taken together your misrepresentations, ommissions, and diversions defending and praising the fossil-fuel industry for fuels or petro-based chemical fertilizers and pesticides for big-ag are astounding. "Polling those in poverty who feel they can't make a choice" to ask if they support coal is absurd. The effort to link feeding and protecting poverty stricken peoples with the "savior" of for-profit chemical agriculture, lauding "kindly" corporate "business practices" is contemptible.
Criticising the banning of DDT is dangerous right-wing, chemical conglomerate propaganda, DDT is "highly persistent in the environment and extremely dangerous to a variety of wildlife species, particularly birds" including mammals like humans. Studies link DDT to increased breast cancer.
The same corporate entities, and political right, that push big chemical ag (and DDT) especially in poor nations are the same who push corn grown for fuels that raise the cost of food for the poor (as well as middle-men parasites). All parts of corporate chemical ag are costly and destructive (as well as polluting), forcing poor peoples and nations to purchase fertilizers, pesticides and proprietary unsaveable seed annually - a greed-driven callous destruction/subversion of sustainable, safe, farming practices for corporate profits.
I never said coal was totally benign, what I said is that coal is vastly better for mankind than the POTENTIAL loss of some small section of coral reef (that will die soon anyway because of acidification). To suggest we stop the use of coal, without first putting in place alternatives, is asinine, mean spirited. It is obviously your position because all of your power today is not generated using coal. Your post discounts totally a trade off as to supporting human life and what cost to the environment. Some of that coal was going to Mindanao, I know many people there, they need that power generated by that coal and have no alternative. How about you go to Mindanao (for example) and put in place generating facilities, so those people can... crap...exist!
How is it you talk of "coal ash" when the article is about a "coal loading facility"? Why not make your argument about past abuses of coal ash, responding to an article about coal ash?
Classic environmentalism, ban a substance without putting a substitute in place before doing so.
How is it you lament that DDT causes breast cancer in perhaps 20 people, and ignore 5 million babies dieing of malaria? Talk of contemptible. I think that maybe it was not your kid to die instead of a pelican. You walk, you drive, even though this has some environmental impact, every human activity has a POTENTIAL negative impact on the environment, heal thyself Physician. You rant of the possible dangers of this and that then suggest that vast industries in countries you do not live in go powerless to save sea slugs. It is time you stop looking down your nose at the way others have to live, and start investing your money at technologies that you approve of, even at a loss, so your goals can be reached. You go to Mindanao (for example) and drill for volcanic heat, so they don't have to buy coal. You fight corruption world wide so that those on the bottom of the economic ladder can get justice (the poorer you are the more likely you are to have babies). You work for an international governing body that will put into practice social justice.
I do not "push" coal. I "push" humans over rats. I lament the changes that humanity has made on earth. I lament that the carrying capacity of earth will be less than the population soon. But I for one will not be the one to select one population over another because one can make choices and one can't, I blame the ones who could have made a choice to save humanity and did not. The solution for your environmental Armageddon is and has been obvious for 60 years at least, and that is universal affluence across the globe. This would result in declining populations world wide. Your post ignores justice. Your post ignores pathways to make the changes you desire affordable, instead attacking a straw man. (nobody says " I want to do this because it rapes the environment"). I think your solution to your environmental disaster does not include spending all of YOUR money building infrastructure in Nigeria (for example) so that a woman you do not know can have dependable electricity, so she can have a dependable job, so she can have a dependable retirement.. dependable water... dependable access to health care facilities... So she does not need 8 children to support her when she is old. Much better to shame the rich to simply cut off those in poverty to save sea slugs.