Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[basilio]

It's a perspective that isn't how I'd like the world to be but it's how things are.

As a case in point, AGL.

The company is Australia's largest coal user, they also mine the stuff, and has total CO2 emissions more than twice as high as anyone else.

Now AGL do have a plan and that plan is to cease using coal completely by 2048. In doing this their plan is to close 25% of the company's coal-fired power generating capacity in 2022 rising to 66% by 2035 and the rest by 2048.

Given it's a for-profit listed company, overall I'd say it's not a bad response. They're supposed to be making money for shareholders not losing it and from an environmental perspective it's a major step forward.

Practical reality though is the whole thing has brought nothing but conflict.

On one hand there has been opposition from the sillier elements of the environmental movement to the company's plan to invest $200 million improving fuel efficiency and output at the Bayswater plant which they intend to operate through to 2035. Those opposed wanted a far more costly improvement which, given the intent is to close the plant 12 years after completion of the upgrade, just doesn't stack up as a business proposal.

On the other hand government has given the company one hell of a bashing publicly for doing too much to reduce their use of coal, threatening all manner of things going as far as forced sale of assets.

In view of all that, well it's not hard to see why there's a lot of sitting on hands and saying nothing going on across the industry. Someone "big" sticks their head up, announces a major plan funded entirely at private expense, and gets whacked by everyone from environmentalists to government for doing so.

My own view is quite simple really. If the biggest emitter in the country is saying they're going to get out of coal completely by a set date, and are going to do a quarter of it within 5 years, then I'll take that as being a big step forward and won't quibble on whatever imperfections I happen to notice about their plans. They're a business, they need to make money, and there's a lot of different aspects to balance in all of that and if those imperfections are how they're saving or making money then I'll live with them yes.

Ideology is what stops progress on all this. Ideology from a government that wants to burn coal for the sake of burning coal and ideology from supposed environmental groups who object to any plan that isn't 100% perfect rather than accepting real progress when it's offered.

Much the same could be said for plenty of other things. Ideas rejected because they don't suit whatever ideology despite being a big step forward. End result is not much gets achieved.

The problem Smurf is that 20-30 years ago we had the opportunity to take a longer view and plan for a move to a carbon free energy future that left minimal stranded assets.
That time is now past. The reality of how much CO2 is now in the atmosphere, the effect of this on global warming means we have to make a far quicker reduction in emissions if we are to have any chance of avoiding the worst aspects of climate change.

 

[IFocus]

A quick footnote to the 40 ... hours I spent on just the Great Barrier reef ... likely 100 hrs or more.

The Marine Park Authority I knew dumbed down and downplayed the impacts. It on one hand is used for TOURISTS and on the other, does some publishing of results.

So I decided to read, the latest and then go through the reefs individually. ones NOT altered by runoff or crown of thorns, ones basically in the outlying region.

I shared some above, but ... for the vast MAJORITY .... sadly the say 1980 Coral cover is NOW around the 12-14% in 2019 for virtually every single reef, ALL OF THEM .... the Southern Ones do better but lack the diversity and when a Reef, depending on where it is, will go from say 60% to 4% Coral cover and the average cover was 60% in the whole of the 1980's average and its now 4% is NOT usual. Some very very popular tourist destinations and names, cover is ... well ... unlikely .. EVER ... EVER to recover even NOW, let alone by 2050.

Sobering when one reads the source as I gave when I knew giving the politically correct GBMA would of course have doubters, v the actual source of their politically correct watered down stuff, when a Reef has gone to 12.5% of what it was ... and the cover, due to where it is was never great, and its down to 3% COVER, verses 24% ave for the 1980's and same for 1990;s and same for 2000-2010 period then hit over the head ... three times for some ... twice for others via being warmed, its ... unlikely they exist as I said by 2050. and in some cases 2025.

The overall average as of 2019, and I used the conservative overall 2018 number .... at 75% gone, in 2018, initial reefs in 2019 and findings looks a LOT WORSE. Those that did not get hit by floods, nor for SOME not hit by heat in 2018/19 but SOME WERE ... they did not recover or regrow and regrowing something that's 12% of what it was ... and expecting NO new heat events is bloody unlikely.

Not happy. Just sad. But still deny deny deny ... its not a problem, Vote one Pauline Hanson or Liberal party or Trump !!

Pauline Hanson went the the GBR put on googles / snorkel and declared the reef to be fine vote 1 Pauline.

 

[kahuna1]

Pauline Hanson went the the GBR put on googles / snorkel and declared the reef to be fine vote 1 Pauline.

Love it ... her spokesperson released another video ... even better than the first one ..



I find I must bring humor into this, reality is depressing. Maybe I join the non scientific or take another door prize and loss of IQ points ?

 

[Smurf1976]

The problem Smurf is that 20-30 years ago we had the opportunity to take a longer view and plan for a move to a carbon free energy future that left minimal stranded assets.
That time is now past.

No argument there but personally I gave up any hope of that one once the big boom in coal use globally took place.

Even just getting back to year 2002 levels, that is just before the boom, seems unlikely to happen anytime soon.

If the issue is as bad as claimed then my conclusion is that the planet’s cooked.

 

[SirRumpole]

My own view is quite simple really. If the biggest emitter in the country is saying they're going to get out of coal completely by a set date, and are going to do a quarter of it within 5 years, then I'll take that as being a big step forward and won't quibble on whatever imperfections I happen to notice about their plans. They're a business, they need to make money, and there's a lot of different aspects to balance in all of that and if those imperfections are how they're saving or making money then I'll live with them yes.

Yes, they do need to make money, whether in Australia or elsewhere. Global businesses shop around for countries that best suit them. If another country lets them dig up coal dirt cheap and screw money from the masses then that's where they will go.

Really, the government has to be in charge of the energy grid for that reason. Of course they can still deflect and blame others for their failures but at least there is some electoral accountability. I'd say there is a certain amount of pushback by the electorate on parties that sold power assets in the first place, whereas the foreign company that scrapped Hazelwood is not accountable to us in any way.

 

[Smurf1976]

Yes, they do need to make money, whether in Australia or elsewhere. Global businesses shop around for countries that best suit them. If another country lets them dig up coal dirt cheap and screw money from the masses then that's where they will go.

Yep.

Only way you'll stop it is if company xyz which made goods in country 123 which pays the workers 50c an hour and allows constrained pollution cannot in practice sell those goods in most other places. So long as we have unrestricted trade it's a race to the bottom.

If this was a stock price chart, would anyone here be willing to go short with serious amounts of their own real money?

https://image.slidesharecdn.com/gcp...l-carbon-budget-2014-49-638.jpg?cb=1412128368

The approach taken thus far clearly isn't fixing the problem so there's no point pretending otherwise.

Virtually all coal ever used by humans has been used in the past 160 years. For oil it's about 100 years and for gas just 80 years or one human lifetime with consumption of each fuel prior to that being inconsequential. So it's all incredibly recent really. Emissions from fossil fuel use were just half today's level as recently as the late 1970's.

 

[Smurf1976]

Another issue here is conflict between multiple environmental issues.

One example of that is urban air quality. Pretty much any petrol or diesel engine can be tuned to emit less CO2 so long as you don't mind an increase in other pollutants as the downside. So we've cut the smog but in return we get more CO2.

Burning biomass is another example of that. As long as it's regrown then it's sustainable as such. Terrible for local air quality in most cases though if we're talking about solid fuels. Getting rid of wood as a fuel source in homes and industry has cleared the air but at the expense of more CO2.

Another example is things like nuclear and hydro which between them have accounted for most non-fossil electricity ever generated. There are perfectly reasonable environmental arguments against some hydro projects, and there are arguments against nuclear more generally, but the reality is stark. A nuclear or hydro plant not built due to environmental issues is rarely replaced with an alternative nuclear or hydro plant supplying the same grid. Sometimes that has occurred but more commonly the outcome ends up being replacement with fossil fuels in practice. More CO2.

Hydraulic fracturing is another example. It's not at all popular with environmentalists due to various concerns but in the USA, the country which uses it far more than anywhere else, the reality is rather harsh. Less fracking = less natural gas production = more coal used for power generation = more CO2.

There are many situations where fixing one problem causes another and the problem is that the downside rather often ends up being the same old story. Fixing whatever other problem results in more CO2 being emitted.

I'm not saying that many of those other things aren't real problems or shouldn't be fixed but if we choose to fix those then we have to accept the consequences of doing so and vice versa.

To throw another one into the mix, well if your only measure is CO2 well then there's a really great material for making things out of which is commonly known as plastic. As has been drawn to attention in recent times it has definite environmental downsides but CO2 isn't really one of them - not much in making it and being so light not much in transporting it either.

There's a lot of complexity in all this.

 

[basilio]

Another issue here is conflict between multiple environmental issues.

One example of that is urban air quality. Pretty much any petrol or diesel engine can be tuned to emit less CO2 so long as you don't mind an increase in other pollutants as the downside. So we've cut the smog but in return we get more CO2.

Burning biomass is another example of that. As long as it's regrown then it's sustainable as such. Terrible for local air quality in most cases though if we're talking about solid fuels. Getting rid of wood as a fuel source in homes and industry has cleared the air but at the expense of more CO2.

Another example is things like nuclear and hydro which between them have accounted for most non-fossil electricity ever generated. There are perfectly reasonable environmental arguments against some hydro projects, and there are arguments against nuclear more generally, but the reality is stark. A nuclear or hydro plant not built due to environmental issues is rarely replaced with an alternative nuclear or hydro plant supplying the same grid. Sometimes that has occurred but more commonly the outcome ends up being replacement with fossil fuels in practice. More CO2.

Hydraulic fracturing is another example. It's not at all popular with environmentalists due to various concerns but in the USA, the country which uses it far more than anywhere else, the reality is rather harsh. Less fracking = less natural gas production = more coal used for power generation = more CO2.

There are many situations where fixing one problem causes another and the problem is that the downside rather often ends up being the same old story. Fixing whatever other problem results in more CO2 being emitted.

I'm not saying that many of those other things aren't real problems or shouldn't be fixed but if we choose to fix those then we have to accept the consequences of doing so and vice versa.

To throw another one into the mix, well if your only measure is CO2 well then there's a really great material for making things out of which is commonly known as plastic. As has been drawn to attention in recent times it has definite environmental downsides but CO2 isn't really one of them - not much in making it and being so light not much in transporting it either.

There's a lot of complexity in all this.

These are wicked problems. They are complex. They require thought. Often there will be compromises that on the face of it are unpalatable.

The alternative is denial of any problem and living or dying with the consequences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem

 

[rederob]

Another issue here is conflict between multiple environmental issues.

One example of that is urban air quality. Pretty much any petrol or diesel engine can be tuned to emit less CO2 so long as you don't mind an increase in other pollutants as the downside. So we've cut the smog but in return we get more CO2.

Burning biomass is another example of that. As long as it's regrown then it's sustainable as such. Terrible for local air quality in most cases though if we're talking about solid fuels. Getting rid of wood as a fuel source in homes and industry has cleared the air but at the expense of more CO2.

Another example is things like nuclear and hydro which between them have accounted for most non-fossil electricity ever generated. There are perfectly reasonable environmental arguments against some hydro projects, and there are arguments against nuclear more generally, but the reality is stark. A nuclear or hydro plant not built due to environmental issues is rarely replaced with an alternative nuclear or hydro plant supplying the same grid. Sometimes that has occurred but more commonly the outcome ends up being replacement with fossil fuels in practice. More CO2.

Hydraulic fracturing is another example. It's not at all popular with environmentalists due to various concerns but in the USA, the country which uses it far more than anywhere else, the reality is rather harsh. Less fracking = less natural gas production = more coal used for power generation = more CO2.

There are many situations where fixing one problem causes another and the problem is that the downside rather often ends up being the same old story. Fixing whatever other problem results in more CO2 being emitted.

I'm not saying that many of those other things aren't real problems or shouldn't be fixed but if we choose to fix those then we have to accept the consequences of doing so and vice versa.

To throw another one into the mix, well if your only measure is CO2 well then there's a really great material for making things out of which is commonly known as plastic. As has been drawn to attention in recent times it has definite environmental downsides but CO2 isn't really one of them - not much in making it and being so light not much in transporting it either.

There's a lot of complexity in all this.

No complexity at all as the problem would have been solved a long time ago with a price on carbon.
Many opportunities to achieve such a mechanism have been presented, and thwarted.
This is an old issue with inaction at government levels, predominantly those who favour free markets - read big profits - and who really have no care about our future generations.
It has taken children marching in the streets to get everyone's attention refocused.
Hopefully governments might have woken up to the fact that renewable energy is the cheapest immediate option for energy in most countries, creates significant employment, and will overcome the GHG problem if sensible long term policies are put in place.
We have at least a generation to overcome the effects of present GHG levels on climate, even if we act globally today. But we need not spoil the world for our grandchildren when have known better, and were very selfish in thinking it was never our problem to begin with.

 

[Smurf1976]

No complexity at all as the problem would have been solved a long time ago with a price on carbon.

A price on carbon provides an economic incentive to take action but does not of itself constitute action.

It provides an incentive to change but that's all, it won't magically remove some body corporate that doesn't like solar and it doesn't change the laws which prioritise reducing PM, HC, CO and NOx emissions even if doing so increases CO2 (which I'm not saying is good or bad, just noting the trade-off due to technology and that CO2 has thus far been deemed the lower priority).

I do agree with the basic point of your post though, I'm just pointing out that it's the physical action that actually cuts emissions assuming we don't intend to simply sit in the dark etc (which I note nobody is seriously suggesting).

 

[wayneL]

A price on carbon provides an economic incentive to take action but does not of itself constitute action.

It provides an incentive to change but that's all, it won't magically remove some body corporate that doesn't like solar and it doesn't change the laws which prioritise reducing PM, HC, CO and NOx emissions even if doing so increases CO2 (which I'm not saying is good or bad, just noting the trade-off due to technology and that CO2 has thus far been deemed the lower priority).

I do agree with the basic point of your post though, I'm just pointing out that it's the physical action that actually cuts emissions assuming we don't intend to simply sit in the dark etc (which I note nobody is seriously suggesting).

It also does not prevent (encourages in fact) the export of emmisions (along with economic activity) to some other country.

...and probably overall increases both co2 emmisions and other pollition

 

[rederob]

It also does not prevent (encourages in fact) the export of emmisions (along with economic activity) to some other country.
...and probably overall increases both co2 emissions and other pollution

Another post without a scintilla of evidence.
You just make up what you want to believe because you are not particularly good at much.
A price on carbon would have made extraction of coal the most expensive energy alternative, and in the immediate term given the price edge to gas. While gas was hardly the solution, were that to have happened, we would be many years ahead of where we are now with renewables, and with a significantly lesser global CO2 footprint.
In plain English it would have meant that CO2 at 400ppm was never going to happen, and the hottest years of the modern temperature era would have occurred largely last century.
Evidence for the power of global action on climate was best evidenced when ozone layer depletion was remedied by getting rid of CFCs. There were always alternatives to CFCs, and it did not take much to put them in place.
Yes, let's keep finding someone else to blame, and keep making up excuses for our greed.
Or we can begin to show real leadership, progressively price fossil fuels out of the market, and build our economy on the cheapest sources of energy available.
It's only as hard as ignoring the obstinate, ill informed and greedy.

 

[bellenuit]

A price on carbon would have made extraction of coal the most expensive energy alternative, and in the immediate term given the price edge to gas. While gas was hardly the solution, were that to have happened, we would be many years ahead of where we are now with renewables, and with a significantly lesser global CO2 footprint.

In plain English it would have meant that CO2 at 400ppm was never going to happen, and the hottest years of the modern temperature era would have occurred largely last century.

I agree 100% with the first of these 2 paragraphs (assuming the "we" means Australia only) and 0% with the second.

Although it would certainly have meant that coal would have been uneconomic as an energy source in Australia, it would not have had any effect on many of the main coal using countries such as India and China. In fact, it may have increased CO2 pollution as these countries would have sourced their coal from dirtier sources.

Unless China, India and the US are on board, what we do in Australia will have no impact on CO2 levels. If you believe the science and understand the politics, it is inevitable that many of the dire predictions will take place to the degree forecast or to a lesser but still catastrophic extent. The question is then, how should we Australia prepare for that scenario. Destroying our economy as a token gesture is just plain foolish. When the proverbial sh*t hits the fan, we want to be in a position to alleviate as much as is possible the hardship that will occur and particularly be in a position to protect the limited resources (water, food production etc.) that we have. But having driven ourselves into poverty, we will be at the mercy of countries like China who will have continued to strengthen during this transition period by only complying with international carbon or whatever climate agreements may come into place to the extent that it doesn't hurt THEIR economy. And you can be sure that China, in view of its aggressive non-compromising stance in the South China Sea, would have no qualms about securing Australia's resources for its own people if there was no other alternative.

I agree we should try and lessen our footprint on planet earth as much as is feasible, but not to the extent we start weakening ourselves to serve the god of tokenism. Driving our industries overseas does nothing from a global pollution (not just CO2) perspective. It just shifts the source from us to somewhere else, but more importantly, it weakens us while strengthening others.

 

[rederob]

Although it would certainly have meant that coal would have been uneconomic as an energy source in Australia, it would not have had any effect on many of the main coal using countries such as India and China. In fact, it may have increased CO2 pollution as these countries would have sourced their coal from dirtier sources.

I have been talking a global perspective, although a national perspective still would have achieved a lot in terms of Australia globally leading in renewables, and we are not far off it on a per capita basis. That's occurred in spite of having no national direction on a renewables policy.
Your ideas that we, as a nation, would have been the poorer for it is totally unfounded. Have a look at what Denmark has achieved for itself: Vestas (wind power behemoth) alone has a workforce of almost 25k, while the total Australian coal industry employs less than 55k. And Denmark has a population of less than 6m compared to our 25m.
We have chosen to be spectators - you know, those who pay to watch rather than those who are well rewarded by playing the game.
I think you need to have a good look at some data before you make the comments you do.

 

[bellenuit]

I have been talking a global perspective...

Taking a global perspective is pointless if it is not reality based but simply wishful thinking. It is the duty of our government to assess what is likely to happen and based on the more probable scenarios make decisions that will best serve Australians. There is nothing likely to happen within the next 20 years that will stop us heading towards some sort of climatic disaster. Countries like China and Russia and the US under the present administration will either resist taking effective action or, in the case of the first two, will pretend they are taking effective action but it will be unverifiable. They will purely act in their own self interest which is clearly aligned to a weakened West.

Your ideas that we, as a nation, would have been the poorer for it is totally unfounded. Have a look at what Denmark has achieved for itself: Vestas (wind power behemoth) alone has a workforce of almost 25k, while the total Australian coal industry employs less than 55k. And Denmark has a population of less than 6m compared to our 25m.

Each country has certain advantages. We in Australia are blessed with various natural resources. If we stop exporting coal we are hurt. That is not unfounded. That is just obvious. And it does nothing to lower CO2 on a global scale, as our supply will be replaced by other coal producers. Comparing us to other countries that do not have the same natural resources doesn't make sense.

There is nothing stopping us emulating Denmark where it is feasible. In fact the returns from coal exports will allow us to invest in alternative energy sources.

Putting a carbon price on coal to make it more expensive comparatively is just removing an advantage that we have over other countries. Yes, use renewables where it makes sense and gives us a competitive advantage, but don't deliberately increase our costs. So long as China and others continue to use coal, then let's export it to them and take their dollars rather than let some competing country do it. It makes no sense for us to provide cheap energy to our competitors while denying the same to our manufacturers.

 

[rederob]

It is the duty of our government to assess what is likely to happen and based on the more probable scenarios make decisions that will best serve Australians.

Climate change has been about since the 1970s. We are up to IPCC AR5 and these are intergovernmental, so what exactly has our government been doing to mitigate the impending dire consequences of inaction? Certainly nothing like they should have or could have.
China is the greatest CO2 emitter, but not on a per capita basis. It also happens to be moving into renewables at a greater rate than any other nation, but I see you are making lame excuses rather than dealing with facts.

Each country has certain advantages. We in Australia are blessed with various natural resources. If we stop exporting coal we are hurt. That is not unfounded. That is just obvious.

So to is the very obvious impact of burning fossil fuels.
But what you are really saying is that we are fine to f@ck over farmers and the community at large because if we do not then our living standards will decline. I do not deny some truth to an impact to living standards. But that's just because we are prepared to sacrifice our future generations.
You can twist your ideas any way you like but it boils down to our generation's gains for our children's/grandchildren's pains.

There is nothing stopping us emulating Denmark where it is feasible. In fact the returns from coal exports will allow us to invest in alternative energy sources.

I hope you understand that this boat sailed and we were not on board.
And your idea about using coal revenue to invest in renewables is pie in the sky. Exactly where has this been mooted politically, or acted upon. Instead we have had massive government investment in failed carbon capture technologies to support the oxymoronic concept of clean coal.

Putting a carbon price on coal to make it more expensive comparatively is just removing an advantage that we have over other countries.

So what? You don't own a coal mine do you?
The big players include BHP Billiton Mitsubishi Alliance (BMA is Australia's largest producer) and BHP Billiton Mitsui Coal, Glencore, Anglo American, Vale and the prospect of a massive Adani mine. So most profits from coal mining head offshore.
So we are not talking a "country" advantage at all, given the profits overwhelmingly do not stay in Australia.

It makes no sense for us to provide cheap energy to our competitors while denying the same to our manufacturers.

First, gas is cheaper. We have not unlocked gas for our local energy market. Just ask Australian manufacturers.
Second, renewables are now cheaper.
Thirdly, energy is a small part of the overseas equation for our "competitors". Labour costs are where we lose out.

I get where you are coming from.
However, it's truly a mentality of burying one's head in the sand.
Worse, it's a game of "chicken," except nobody wants to even start the game so everyone loses.
The biggest tragedy for Australia is that we could have been global leaders in renewables policy and practice. We are instead a global laughing stock, renown for sitting on our hands.

 

[bellenuit]

Climate change has been about since the 1970s. We are up to IPCC AR5 and these are intergovernmental, so what exactly has our government been doing to mitigate the impending dire consequences of inaction? Certainly nothing like they should have or could have.

I did not say our governments past and present have done enough.

China is the greatest CO2 emitter, but not on a per capita basis. It also happens to be moving into renewables at a greater rate than any other nation, but I see you are making lame excuses rather than dealing with facts.

What are the lame excuses? They are still burning coal and if we do not export to them they will source it elsewhere. Do you think they will suddenly decide that if one potential source of coal supply dries up for a planned power plant, they will simply decide say oh just build a solar or wind farm instead in that location. They will buy the coal elsewhere.

I hope you understand that this boat sailed and we were not on board.
And your idea about using coal revenue to invest in renewables is pie in the sky. Exactly where has this been mooted politically, or acted upon. Instead we have had massive government investment in failed carbon capture technologies to support the oxymoronic concept of clean coal.

I didn't say it has been mooted politically. But it is revenue that will be available to us should the powers that be decide to use it wisely. Throwing that revenue away doesn't make sense.

So what? You don't own a coal mine do you?
The big players include BHP Billiton Mitsubishi Alliance (BMA is Australia's largest producer) and BHP Billiton Mitsui Coal, Glencore, Anglo American, Vale and the prospect of a massive Adani mine. So most profits from coal mining head offshore.
So we are not talking a "country" advantage at all, given the profits overwhelmingly do not stay in Australia.

Profits are just part of the equation. The cost of the actual production and export of coal provides income to Australia. Salary and wages of all those directly and indirectly involved and material demands from other sectors.

First, gas is cheaper. We have not unlocked gas for our local energy market. Just ask Australian manufacturers.
Second, renewables are now cheaper.

Great. That is what we should use. I didn't say we must use coal locally. I said we should use what is advantageous to us. If we can replace coal locally by a cheaper energy recourse then we should do it. But artificially increasing the cost of coal to make it appear more expensive is not the way to go.

Thirdly, energy is a small part of the overseas equation for our "competitors". Labour costs are where we lose out.

It is never just one item that makes one more competitive against another. With some companies managing to maintain export volume by being just slightly more competitive than those overseas, the margin that cheaper energy provides could be all that's in it.

You do not throw away your advantage for tokenism.

 

[rederob]

What are the lame excuses? They are still burning coal and if we do not export to them they will source it elsewhere. Do you think they will suddenly decide that if one potential source of coal supply dries up for a planned power plant, they will simply decide say oh just build a solar or wind farm instead in that location. They will buy the coal elsewhere.

So is the USA, and Australia and a lot of other countries.
It's a lame excuse because because it relies on the mentality of "if they can do, why can't we"?
It's also devoid of seeking alternatives that are smarter.

I didn't say it has been mooted politically. But it is revenue that will be available to us should the powers that be decide to use it wisely. Throwing that revenue away doesn't make sense.

Exactly where is this apparent revenue, in that it has been there for decades and not used or considered for your idea?
Truly pie in the sky!

Profits are just part of the equation. The cost of the actual production and export of coal provides income to Australia. Salary and wages of all those directly and indirectly involved and material demands from other sectors.

It mostly provides jobs, not revenue.
It provides about 2% of all jobs.
Renewables delivers jobs in spades. A flow on from renewables projects is the supply chain/infrastructure. Billions of dollars are needed to just get the infrastructure in place for EVs, and that will provide more new jobs in coming years than the entire mining industry, not just coal.

But artificially increasing the cost of coal to make it appear more expensive is not the way to go.

That's not a smart sentence. Coal is the worst option and should be avoided at all costs because its long run costs are never factored in to present prices.
Indeed, it's the type of thinking that has us where we are today, facing an impending climate that will cost global economies trillions of dollars every year. And that's separate from the ecological damage that the planet continues to suffer ach day.

With some companies managing to maintain export volume by being just slightly more competitive than those overseas, the margin that cheaper energy provides could be all that's in it.

Except that we are using the most expensive energy option, and it's legacy costs keep making it more expensive. On the other hand, renewables keep getting cheaper on every metric except labour (and that's a factor common to both).

You do not throw away your advantage for tokenism.

Ummm..what advantage is that?
The advantage we provide to foreign multinationals who pay exceptionally low rates of tax?
The advantage of completely missing the boat on a renewables industry?
The advantage of an energy network that has pandered to fossil fuels at the expense of renewables policy?
The advantage of high electricity prices because we have failed to plan for a renewables economy?
The advantage of water crises, prolonged droughts, land degradation, and more extreme fire events, all due to changing our climate at an unprecedented rate?
I am sure I missed some, so please fill me in.

 

[Sdajii]

Climate change has been about since the 1970s.

LOL!!! HAHAHA!

 

[basilio]

LOL!!! HAHAHA!

Wake up Sdajii..
(The concern about) climate change has been about since the 1970's.