Page 162 - Carbon Capitalism and Communication Confronting Climate Crisis

12 NOTHING BUT TRUTHINESS: PUBLIC DISCOURSES … 153

I will take confidence and intelligence over ignorance any day of the week.
This government strongly supports the sustainable development of the
Galilee Basin for the jobs and economic development that it will provide for
regional Queensland (Lynham 2016).

Perhaps the most pernicious oxymoron used by mine supporters is the term
‘clean coal,’ which is increasingly used to defend constructing the
megamine. Minister for the Environment Josh Frydenburg summarised
this argument:

Australia’s coal is predominantly low in sulphur and low in ash and can be
used for these high-efficiency, low-emission power plants that we are seeing
all around Asia which can reduce the carbon footprint by up to 40 per cent,
and there are other new technology like carbon capture and storage which
will be important to the future of clean coal (Frydenberg 2015).
This argument, repeated regularly in the halls of Parliament, is based on an
analysis of Galilee Basic coal is the ‘cleanest coal’ in the world, which, if
mined and burned, will actually reduce global warming.
In reality, as mentioned earlier, coal from the Galilee Basin is far from a
clean solution. In their study of the impact of the Carmichael mine on
climate action, Amos and Swann (2015) illustrated just how devastating
those emissions will be. They note that the average annual emissions from
burning the coal from the Carmichael mine—79 million tonnes of CO 2 —is
more than the annual emissions from Sri Lanka, more than Bangladesh
with its population of 160 million, about the same as those from Malaysia
and Austria, and only slightly less than the annual emissions from Vietnam.
Compared to annual emissions from cities, the Carmichael mine’s emis-
sions will be three times the average annual emissions from New Delhi,
double those from Tokyo, six times those of Amsterdam and 20% more
than New York City (Amos and Swann 2015).
To counter the claim that Galilee Basin coal is ‘clean,’ further research
by The Australia Institute points out that it ‘is only 10% above the average
quality of domestic Indian thermal coal in terms of energy content’ because
“the ash content of Carmichael coal is estimated to be 26%—more than
double the average of 12% for Australian thermal coal” (Australia Institute
2016, p. 5). The Institute report reminds us that “any environmental
impact comparison would [also] need to account for the requirement that
this low energy, high ash thermal coal needs to be transported 5–10 times