Tag Archives: pollution

Mercury – thanks to our pollution, tuna will soon be unsafe for human consumption Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Whether man-made sources of mercury are contributing to the mercury levels in open-ocean fish has been the subject of hot debate for many years.

My colleagues Carl Lamborg, Marty Horgan and I analyzed data from over the past 50 years and found that mercury levels in Pacific yellowfin tuna, often marketed as ahi tuna, is increasing at 3.8% per year. The results were reported earlier this month in the journal Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.

This finding, when considered with other recent studies, suggests that mercury levels in open-ocean fish are keeping pace with current increases in human-related, or anthropogenic, inputs of mercury to the ocean.

These levels of mercury – a neurotoxin – are now approaching what the EPA considers unsafe for human consumption, underscoring the importance of accurate data. With this article, I’ll explain the evolution of the science to this point and our findings. I expect our analysis will either quiet the debate or add more fuel to the fire.

Busting the dilution myth

Motivated by the seminal environmental book Silent Spring, environmental chemists have long found widespread mercury pollution in wastewater from industrial activities.

Surprisingly, mercury also appeared far from point sources – in ‘pristine’ lakes of Scandinavia and northeastern North America. It took many years and careers to understand why mercury wound up in these ‘pristine’ lakes.

Once emitted from natural or man-made sources, such as coal-burning power plants, mercury can travel as a gas many times around the globe before falling with rain, snow, or dust. Once out of the air and in the water, it can then be taken up by fish.

There has been a false perception, however, that the open ocean – far removed from point sources of pollution – is too voluminous to be polluted with mercury from atmospheric fallout.

The shorthand for saying oceans can’t be significant sinks for air-borne pollutants is ‘dilution is the solution to pollution.’ The argument is that lakes are concentrated environments because they are in direct contact with their watersheds that collect rain and snow, but the deep open ocean is an extremely dilute environment.

Two manuscripts published in Science in the early 1970s supported this argument. The first stated that mercury pollution could only result in a negligible increase in mercury levels in open ocean water.

But my colleagues and I found these conclusions were based on faulty data. Before the advent of clean sampling techniques that prevent contamination before, during, or after collection, it was accepted that natural mercury levels of open ocean waters ranged in the low parts per billion.

But we now know that a typical mercury level is about 200 parts per quadrillion. That means the natural mercury level of open ocean water is about 5,000 times lower than previously thought – and that it takes a lot less mercury from other sources to pollute the open ocean.

The second manuscript reported no difference in mercury levels in tuna between museum specimens dating from 1878-1909 and samples caught during 1970-1971. This finding may be true, but also has a critical error in that mercury levels in the museum specimens were not ‘corrected’ for lipid (fat) loss.

Mercury is primarily in fish muscle and preservation with ethanol causes significant loss of fats. The net effect is that this preservation technique ‘inflates’ the mercury concentration in the tissue that remains.

As a result, we question how valid these findings are. In other words, this second study doesn’t conclusively demonstrate whether mercury levels in fish have gone up, down, or stayed steady.

But where’s the mercury coming from?

More recently, the focus of debate has been on the source of mercury in open-ocean fish. The mercury absorbed by fish is a compound called methylmercury, a form readily taken up by plant and animal cells but not easily eliminated.

Because of this, mercury is concentrated with each step of the food chain. As a result, methylmercury levels in predatory fish are about a million times greater than in the water in which they swim.

In lakes, there is overwhelming evidence that methylmercury is formed in sediments and bottom waters that are devoid of oxygen. But where is methylmercury in oceans formed?

In 2003, Princeton scientists published a hypothesis to answer the question of where methylmercury comes from in open ocean fish. The hypothesis was based on the observation, mentioned above, that there was no increase in mercury levels in yellowfin tuna near Hawaii between 1971 and 1998.

With no increase in mercury levels in tuna during a period of greatly increasing anthropogenic mercury emissions, the scientists presented the idea that methylmercury in the open ocean forms from mercury naturally present in deep waters, sediments, or hydrothermal vents.

Subsequently, however, independent studies have shown that there is not enough methylmercury in deep waters of the ocean to account for mercury in open ocean fish.

One of these studies also found that methylmercury is formed on sinking particles in the water that provide a micro-environment devoid of oxygen. That research showed that the methylmercury is formed from mercury coming from above – that is, the atmosphere – which we know is polluted from human activities.

Finally and most importantly, we know mercury levels in ocean water are increasing globally.

What the numbers say

Given the ongoing debate, our study set out to test a simple question: have mercury levels in fish stayed the same over time?

We assembled data from published sources for mercury in yellowfin tuna from Hawaii to compare three different time periods: 1971, 1998, and 2008. The comparison had to factor in the size of each tuna for each time period, because mercury level increases with size.

The statistical comparison indicated mercury levels were higher in 2008 than in either 1971 or 1998. As a result, we concluded that mercury levels are increasing in yellowfin tuna near Hawaii. The rate of increase between 1998 and 2008 of 3.8% per year is equivalent to a modeled increase in mercury in ocean waters in the same location.

What’s the source of the mercury? The overwhelming scientific evidence points to anthropogenic sources of mercury polluting open ocean waters and methylmercury being produced in the water column and then accumulating in fish. The average mercury level in a Pacific yellowfin tuna is approaching a level the US EPA considers unsafe for human consumption (0.3 parts-per-million).

Fish are an important source of food for billions of people worldwide and a solution to the problem is not to eat less fish, but to choose fish lower in mercury, as the EPA and FDA jointly recommend.

The ultimate solution to the problem is to control mercury emissions to the atmosphere at their source, which is the aim of the new United Nations Environment Programme’s Minamata Convention on Mercury.

 

 

Paul Drevnick is Assistant Research Scientist at the University of Michigan.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 




390393

Fracking policy and the pollution of British democracy Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




During the 2000s the ‘fracking boom’ in the USA was fuelled by speculative Wall Street finance. When that bubble burst in 2008, the dodgy finance was cut off and the number of drilling rigs collapsed by over 50% within a few months.

Last December, I wrote in The Ecologist of how the ‘funny money’ from quantitative easing was once more fuelling the number of drilling rigs, supporting the Ponzi-style ‘shale bubble’.

Just over a week ago I wrote of how that junk-debt-fuelled house of cards was being shaken by the fall in oil prices.

Now Baker-Hughes, the US drilling services company which monitors industry trends, has announced the biggest weekly decline in US drilling activity since 1991; and the decline over the last six weeks – the decommissioning of 209 rigs – is the largest since their records began in 1987.

An upcoming production downturn

That interruption in the ‘shale drilling treadmill’ means that the clock has started to tick. Within a year or so, due to the high decline rate of unconventional oil and gas wells, production will begin to tail-off once more.

The gas drilling stall in 2008 led to gas production levelling-off in 2011/12. When quantitative easing cash flooded in to turn the drills back on again, many rigs switched to drilling for shale oil instead. Today it’s not clear whether the US government can or will prevent the ‘shale bubble’ imploding.

In addition to the finance issues, over the last few weeks we’ve also seen health and environmental agencies in New York State and Quebec recommend bans on future development of the industry there.

Whether or not these difficulties will bring an official realisation of the unsustainable nature of unconventional fossil fuels is not clear. That same finance treadmill ensures those involved in the industry make big bucks from this process.

As a result they have the ready cash to pay public relations agencies to obfuscate the debate on unconventional gas and oil.

Crisis? What crisis?

And here in Britain? In the corridors of power, the events of recent weeks appear to have had no recognition whatsoever. The problems of the global oil and gas industry – from the US to Britain, to Australia – has not diverted the political shale gas and oil bandwagon (at least in England and Wales).

Last week I attended the public hearings for the Environmental Audit Committee’s (EAC) inquiry into the ‘environmental impacts of fracking‘. For me, those sessions typify the problems our national politics has in examining contentious public debates.

The Committee did not appear to want any specific detail of what the impacts of fracking would be in Britain – demonstrated by experience elsewhere, or through analysis of the proposals outlined by the Department for Energy and Climate Change.

And though the Committee were looking at the ‘environmental impacts’, much of the debate was centred around conventional economics and investment models – not the identification of ecological or health impacts.

At the same time, across Parliament Square, the Government were trying to steamroller through their shale project as part of the Infrastructure Bill – from tax breaks for drillers, to weakened regulation, all designed to facilitate the Government’s unsubstantiated case for a UK ‘shale revolution’.

The myth of a ‘balanced debate’

Politicians might call for a ‘balanced debate on shale’, but arguably it is they who are peddling a manufactured rhetoric. This is because the political process has been hijacked by lobbyists paid by the industry, whose manipulative tendrils reach right inside the Government.

For me, the most eye-opening part of the EAC’s evidence session was when Caroline Spelman asked, “What could be done to address public mistrust over fracking and who would be trusted to provide an objective assessment of the pros and cons?”

They very fact the question was posed shows how out of touch politicians are on this issue. For example, they could start by asking representatives of public to their inquiry, to ask them directly what their concerns are.

Instead what we often get in the place of public involvement, or the substantiation of the Government’s claims using objective evidence, are stooges – public relations representatives who say what the political consensus wants to hear.

The witness at the EAC’s inquiry I found the most troublesome was Chris Smith: formerly chair of the Environment Agency (who issued Cuadrilla’s fracking permit last week); chair of the Advertising Standards Authority (who recently took umbrage at  an anti-fracking leaflet); and chair of the new ‘independent’ Task Force on Shale Gas.

The problem for the Committee was that the Task Force on Shale Gas hasn’t done any work yet! All Smith could do was apologetically state that they would produce statements on a range of issues at some future date.

Industry ‘astroturf’ has become the benchmark of impartiality

While the Task Force on Shale Gas might laud itself as being independent, and command Parliamentary time in the place of those who might have something substantive to say, the details surrounding the Task Force’s organisation say something rather different.

There is another body called the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Unconventional Gas and Oil. Like a number of other APPGs in Parliament it’s essentially an industry ‘astroturf’ group, set up as a lobbying vehicle to access decision-makers in government.

The secretariat for APPG on Unconventional Gas and Oil is provided by a political lobbying company, Edelman, using funding from companies with direct links to or investment in the shale gas industry – such as IGas, Cuadrilla, The Weir Group, Centrica, Total and GDF Suez.

And what has this to do with Chris Smith’s ‘independent’ Task Force on Shale Gas?:

In fact the Task Force on Shale Gas’s ‘industry front’ credentials go deeper than that:

  • One of the three panel members the Task Force’s panel has an academic post which is part-funded by BG Group – who have investments in shale in the USA;
  • Another panel member is a professor at the University of Manchester – where research funded by Cuadrilla and others is being carried out – who signed an ‘open letter’ with other academics calling for politicians to recognised the “undeniable economic, environmental and national security benefits” of shale gas in Lancashire”;
  • One of the three ‘advisory experts’ has done consultancy work for an oil and gas exploration company, promoting the business case for shale gas development in Poland; and
  • Another advisory expert has spoken in support of shale gas at other Parliamentary committees, and has stated that “UK climate campaigners should support fracking for shale gas.”


Fracking is also polluting British democracy

To return to Caroline Spelman’s question, ” … who would be trusted to provide an objective assessment of the pros and cons?” – arguably not the Task Force on Shale Gas!

Such ‘objectivity’ is not based within people, or their credentials. Objectivity is defined by how evidence is assessed, and the transparency of the assessment process which digests and ranks that evidence.

When we trace the connections, and examine the substances of the debate to date, much of the media promotion of shale gas presents a partial view, overtly hostile to any contrary view, and often based upon debatable evidence.

Politicians ask for a ‘balanced debate’ from campaign groups, and yet much of the imbalance is fronted by the industry side. Even witnesses at the EAC’s inquiry believed that politicians had over-stated the benefits of shale gas.

When governments pursue policies such as unconventional energy in the absence of balanced evidence, then ultimately it’s the public and the environment who will suffer.

However, that’s not simply because ‘fracking’ is bad for the environment. It’s because the exercise of executive power in Britain today has become toxic for our democratic institutions.

 

 

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer, and maintains the Free Range Activism Website.

A fully referenced version of this article is located on FRAW.

Also on The Ecologist: ‘Parliament’s fracking examination must be inclusive and impartial‘ and other articles by Paul Mobbs.

 




389204

ECJ affirms UK’s right to clean air – the Government must act! Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The European Court of Justice delivered a landmark verdict today by ruling in favour of ClientEarth’s case against the UK Government for its failure to tackle air pollution.

This ground-breaking ruling, the first ever on the effect of the EU’s Air Quality Directive, puts the UK Government in “ongoing breach” of UK law.

And it means that the UK Supreme Court will be compelled to take action against the Government, with the threat of huge fines being handed out further down the line if the breach continues.

The ruling has also paved the way for future legal actions to enforce other EU targets on emissions and energy efficiency.

How did the Government get in such a mess?

The EU’s Air Quality Directive sets legal limits on air quality which member states are required to meet within a certain time frame.

Our current government is failing spectacularly to meet these targets: it has drawn up plans which show it will not meet nitrogen dioxide limits until after 2030 – 20 years after the original deadline!

This prompted environmental lawyers at ClientEarth to take our Government to court. This is embarrassing for the Government to say the least – and it’s deeply concerning that it takes an EU Court ruling for them to start taking the issue of air pollution seriously.

ClientEarth got it right when they said: “We have a legal right to breathe clean air. When the government fails in its duty to uphold that, the courts must step in.

“If the government were allowed to stick with current proposals for tackling pollution, a child born today in London, Birmingham or Leeds would have to wait until after their 16th birthday before they can breathe air that meets legal limits.

“ClientEarth does not believe this is acceptable, which is why we have challenged the government through the courts for the past five years to tackle the problem urgently. The longer government is allowed to delay, the more people will die or be made seriously ill by air pollution.”

In their judgment, the panel of European judges said the Government should have planned to secure compliance with the Directive by January 2015 – 15 years earlier than it intended.

Air pollution and disease – the facts

Air pollution, primarily caused by emissions from road vehicles, is the second biggest killer in our country after smoking. According to the Healthy Air campaign, air pollution contributes to around 200,000 early deaths in the UK each year.

Cars, lorries, vans and buses emit large amounts of air pollution directly into the streets where we live and work. With more vehicles on the road than ever, this is creating significant problems. In densely populated areas like London the impacts are exacerbated.

Burning fuels in boilers and power stations is another source of air pollution. Heating boilers, power generation, and industry burning coal, oil, wood, petrol, diesel and natural gas – energy sources which we are very reliant on, are all significant sources of pollution.

I also remain concerned about the impact of aviation on air pollution – particularly with proposals for a new runway at either Heathrow or Gatwick.

Air pollution is an invisible public health crisis. Long term exposure to air pollution is associated with heart and lung disease. Diesel fumes are the main source of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) – a harmful gas linked with heart attacks and asthma and the gas that this court case rests on.

Children can be particularly vulnerable to the impacts. Research has shown that children growing up near motorways can suffer permanently reduced lung capacity. This may also be the case for people living nearby to other high polluting industries such as airports.

Even those who live and work in areas with clean air can have their health affected when they visit a polluted area as short term exposure to air pollution can irritate our airways, causing wheezing and shortness of breath. This is particularly a problem for those with existing respiratory conditions, such as asthma.

What happens next?

The growing problem of air pollution isn’t going to go away. As the Green MEP for South East England, an area widely affected by poor air quality, I believe this issue needs to be tackled at every level of Government, from local councils to Westminster.

For that to happen the Government must wake up to the reality of air pollution. Clean air is one of the fundamental things we need in order to enjoy good health and a good quality of life.

The judgment is also good news for the rest of Europe. As ClientEarth points out, today’s judgment sets a “groundbreaking legal precedent in EU law” – one that will paves the way for other legal challenges across the EU. ClientEarth has promised to “spearhead these efforts to help people defend their right to clean air in court.”

The legal case will return to the UK Supreme Court for a final ruling in 2015, for judges to apply the ECJ’s ruling to the facts in the UK case, following the judges order that

“it is for the national court having jurisdiction, should a case be brought before it, to take, with regard to the national authority, any necessary measure, such as an order in the appropriate terms, so that the authority establishes the plan required by the directive in accordance with the conditions laid down by the latter.”

In other words the UK Supreme Court is required to order the government to draw up a new plan to meet limits in a much shorter timeframe. But the Government should not wait until it is ordered – it should draw up and implement urgent plans immediately to drastically cut pollution from diesel vehicles and bring itself within the law.

In my opinion, dirty diesel-burning HGVs, buses and trains in particular should be a first priority for emissions reductions, with urban buses switching to ‘hybrid’ and purely electric technologies.

There’s also a case for ‘grounding’ all non-essential diesel vehicles at times of high air pollution. And the Green Party believes that London’s plans for an ‘ultra low emission zone‘ should be rolled out nationally.

But we must also address the deeper causes – which means investing much more in sustainable transport methods such as cycling and walking, and the shift from cars to public transport to reduce overall traffic levels. The public must also be properly warned of the risks, and how to reduce exposure.

There’s lots to do – and it’s high time for the Government to stop prevaricating, wake up and get on with the job!

 

 

Keith Taylor is the Green MEP for South East England.

Website: keithtaylormep.org.uk.

 

 




380987

ECJ affirms UK’s right to clean air – the Government must act! Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The European Court of Justice delivered a landmark verdict today by ruling in favour of ClientEarth’s case against the UK Government for its failure to tackle air pollution.

This ground-breaking ruling, the first ever on the effect of the EU’s Air Quality Directive, puts the UK Government in “ongoing breach” of UK law.

And it means that the UK Supreme Court will be compelled to take action against the Government, with the threat of huge fines being handed out further down the line if the breach continues.

The ruling has also paved the way for future legal actions to enforce other EU targets on emissions and energy efficiency.

How did the Government get in such a mess?

The EU’s Air Quality Directive sets legal limits on air quality which member states are required to meet within a certain time frame.

Our current government is failing spectacularly to meet these targets: it has drawn up plans which show it will not meet nitrogen dioxide limits until after 2030 – 20 years after the original deadline!

This prompted environmental lawyers at ClientEarth to take our Government to court. This is embarrassing for the Government to say the least – and it’s deeply concerning that it takes an EU Court ruling for them to start taking the issue of air pollution seriously.

ClientEarth got it right when they said: “We have a legal right to breathe clean air. When the government fails in its duty to uphold that, the courts must step in.

“If the government were allowed to stick with current proposals for tackling pollution, a child born today in London, Birmingham or Leeds would have to wait until after their 16th birthday before they can breathe air that meets legal limits.

“ClientEarth does not believe this is acceptable, which is why we have challenged the government through the courts for the past five years to tackle the problem urgently. The longer government is allowed to delay, the more people will die or be made seriously ill by air pollution.”

In their judgment, the panel of European judges said the Government should have planned to secure compliance with the Directive by January 2015 – 15 years earlier than it intended.

Air pollution and disease – the facts

Air pollution, primarily caused by emissions from road vehicles, is the second biggest killer in our country after smoking. According to the Healthy Air campaign, air pollution contributes to around 200,000 early deaths in the UK each year.

Cars, lorries, vans and buses emit large amounts of air pollution directly into the streets where we live and work. With more vehicles on the road than ever, this is creating significant problems. In densely populated areas like London the impacts are exacerbated.

Burning fuels in boilers and power stations is another source of air pollution. Heating boilers, power generation, and industry burning coal, oil, wood, petrol, diesel and natural gas – energy sources which we are very reliant on, are all significant sources of pollution.

I also remain concerned about the impact of aviation on air pollution – particularly with proposals for a new runway at either Heathrow or Gatwick.

Air pollution is an invisible public health crisis. Long term exposure to air pollution is associated with heart and lung disease. Diesel fumes are the main source of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) – a harmful gas linked with heart attacks and asthma and the gas that this court case rests on.

Children can be particularly vulnerable to the impacts. Research has shown that children growing up near motorways can suffer permanently reduced lung capacity. This may also be the case for people living nearby to other high polluting industries such as airports.

Even those who live and work in areas with clean air can have their health affected when they visit a polluted area as short term exposure to air pollution can irritate our airways, causing wheezing and shortness of breath. This is particularly a problem for those with existing respiratory conditions, such as asthma.

What happens next?

The growing problem of air pollution isn’t going to go away. As the Green MEP for South East England, an area widely affected by poor air quality, I believe this issue needs to be tackled at every level of Government, from local councils to Westminster.

For that to happen the Government must wake up to the reality of air pollution. Clean air is one of the fundamental things we need in order to enjoy good health and a good quality of life.

The judgment is also good news for the rest of Europe. As ClientEarth points out, today’s judgment sets a “groundbreaking legal precedent in EU law” – one that will paves the way for other legal challenges across the EU. ClientEarth has promised to “spearhead these efforts to help people defend their right to clean air in court.”

The legal case will return to the UK Supreme Court for a final ruling in 2015, for judges to apply the ECJ’s ruling to the facts in the UK case, following the judges order that

“it is for the national court having jurisdiction, should a case be brought before it, to take, with regard to the national authority, any necessary measure, such as an order in the appropriate terms, so that the authority establishes the plan required by the directive in accordance with the conditions laid down by the latter.”

In other words the UK Supreme Court is required to order the government to draw up a new plan to meet limits in a much shorter timeframe. But the Government should not wait until it is ordered – it should draw up and implement urgent plans immediately to drastically cut pollution from diesel vehicles and bring itself within the law.

In my opinion, dirty diesel-burning HGVs, buses and trains in particular should be a first priority for emissions reductions, with urban buses switching to ‘hybrid’ and purely electric technologies.

There’s also a case for ‘grounding’ all non-essential diesel vehicles at times of high air pollution. And the Green Party believes that London’s plans for an ‘ultra low emission zone‘ should be rolled out nationally.

But we must also address the deeper causes – which means investing much more in sustainable transport methods such as cycling and walking, and the shift from cars to public transport to reduce overall traffic levels. The public must also be properly warned of the risks, and how to reduce exposure.

There’s lots to do – and it’s high time for the Government to stop prevaricating, wake up and get on with the job!

 

 

Keith Taylor is the Green MEP for South East England.

Website: keithtaylormep.org.uk.

 

 




380987

ECJ affirms UK’s right to clean air – the Government must act! Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The European Court of Justice delivered a landmark verdict today by ruling in favour of ClientEarth’s case against the UK Government for its failure to tackle air pollution.

This ground-breaking ruling, the first ever on the effect of the EU’s Air Quality Directive, puts the UK Government in “ongoing breach” of UK law.

And it means that the UK Supreme Court will be compelled to take action against the Government, with the threat of huge fines being handed out further down the line if the breach continues.

The ruling has also paved the way for future legal actions to enforce other EU targets on emissions and energy efficiency.

How did the Government get in such a mess?

The EU’s Air Quality Directive sets legal limits on air quality which member states are required to meet within a certain time frame.

Our current government is failing spectacularly to meet these targets: it has drawn up plans which show it will not meet nitrogen dioxide limits until after 2030 – 20 years after the original deadline!

This prompted environmental lawyers at ClientEarth to take our Government to court. This is embarrassing for the Government to say the least – and it’s deeply concerning that it takes an EU Court ruling for them to start taking the issue of air pollution seriously.

ClientEarth got it right when they said: “We have a legal right to breathe clean air. When the government fails in its duty to uphold that, the courts must step in.

“If the government were allowed to stick with current proposals for tackling pollution, a child born today in London, Birmingham or Leeds would have to wait until after their 16th birthday before they can breathe air that meets legal limits.

“ClientEarth does not believe this is acceptable, which is why we have challenged the government through the courts for the past five years to tackle the problem urgently. The longer government is allowed to delay, the more people will die or be made seriously ill by air pollution.”

In their judgment, the panel of European judges said the Government should have planned to secure compliance with the Directive by January 2015 – 15 years earlier than it intended.

Air pollution and disease – the facts

Air pollution, primarily caused by emissions from road vehicles, is the second biggest killer in our country after smoking. According to the Healthy Air campaign, air pollution contributes to around 200,000 early deaths in the UK each year.

Cars, lorries, vans and buses emit large amounts of air pollution directly into the streets where we live and work. With more vehicles on the road than ever, this is creating significant problems. In densely populated areas like London the impacts are exacerbated.

Burning fuels in boilers and power stations is another source of air pollution. Heating boilers, power generation, and industry burning coal, oil, wood, petrol, diesel and natural gas – energy sources which we are very reliant on, are all significant sources of pollution.

I also remain concerned about the impact of aviation on air pollution – particularly with proposals for a new runway at either Heathrow or Gatwick.

Air pollution is an invisible public health crisis. Long term exposure to air pollution is associated with heart and lung disease. Diesel fumes are the main source of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) – a harmful gas linked with heart attacks and asthma and the gas that this court case rests on.

Children can be particularly vulnerable to the impacts. Research has shown that children growing up near motorways can suffer permanently reduced lung capacity. This may also be the case for people living nearby to other high polluting industries such as airports.

Even those who live and work in areas with clean air can have their health affected when they visit a polluted area as short term exposure to air pollution can irritate our airways, causing wheezing and shortness of breath. This is particularly a problem for those with existing respiratory conditions, such as asthma.

What happens next?

The growing problem of air pollution isn’t going to go away. As the Green MEP for South East England, an area widely affected by poor air quality, I believe this issue needs to be tackled at every level of Government, from local councils to Westminster.

For that to happen the Government must wake up to the reality of air pollution. Clean air is one of the fundamental things we need in order to enjoy good health and a good quality of life.

The judgment is also good news for the rest of Europe. As ClientEarth points out, today’s judgment sets a “groundbreaking legal precedent in EU law” – one that will paves the way for other legal challenges across the EU. ClientEarth has promised to “spearhead these efforts to help people defend their right to clean air in court.”

The legal case will return to the UK Supreme Court for a final ruling in 2015, for judges to apply the ECJ’s ruling to the facts in the UK case, following the judges order that

“it is for the national court having jurisdiction, should a case be brought before it, to take, with regard to the national authority, any necessary measure, such as an order in the appropriate terms, so that the authority establishes the plan required by the directive in accordance with the conditions laid down by the latter.”

In other words the UK Supreme Court is required to order the government to draw up a new plan to meet limits in a much shorter timeframe. But the Government should not wait until it is ordered – it should draw up and implement urgent plans immediately to drastically cut pollution from diesel vehicles and bring itself within the law.

In my opinion, dirty diesel-burning HGVs, buses and trains in particular should be a first priority for emissions reductions, with urban buses switching to ‘hybrid’ and purely electric technologies.

There’s also a case for ‘grounding’ all non-essential diesel vehicles at times of high air pollution. And the Green Party believes that London’s plans for an ‘ultra low emission zone‘ should be rolled out nationally.

But we must also address the deeper causes – which means investing much more in sustainable transport methods such as cycling and walking, and the shift from cars to public transport to reduce overall traffic levels. The public must also be properly warned of the risks, and how to reduce exposure.

There’s lots to do – and it’s high time for the Government to stop prevaricating, wake up and get on with the job!

 

 

Keith Taylor is the Green MEP for South East England.

Website: keithtaylormep.org.uk.

 

 




380987

ECJ affirms UK’s right to clean air – the Government must act! Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The European Court of Justice delivered a landmark verdict today by ruling in favour of ClientEarth’s case against the UK Government for its failure to tackle air pollution.

This ground-breaking ruling, the first ever on the effect of the EU’s Air Quality Directive, puts the UK Government in “ongoing breach” of UK law.

And it means that the UK Supreme Court will be compelled to take action against the Government, with the threat of huge fines being handed out further down the line if the breach continues.

The ruling has also paved the way for future legal actions to enforce other EU targets on emissions and energy efficiency.

How did the Government get in such a mess?

The EU’s Air Quality Directive sets legal limits on air quality which member states are required to meet within a certain time frame.

Our current government is failing spectacularly to meet these targets: it has drawn up plans which show it will not meet nitrogen dioxide limits until after 2030 – 20 years after the original deadline!

This prompted environmental lawyers at ClientEarth to take our Government to court. This is embarrassing for the Government to say the least – and it’s deeply concerning that it takes an EU Court ruling for them to start taking the issue of air pollution seriously.

ClientEarth got it right when they said: “We have a legal right to breathe clean air. When the government fails in its duty to uphold that, the courts must step in.

“If the government were allowed to stick with current proposals for tackling pollution, a child born today in London, Birmingham or Leeds would have to wait until after their 16th birthday before they can breathe air that meets legal limits.

“ClientEarth does not believe this is acceptable, which is why we have challenged the government through the courts for the past five years to tackle the problem urgently. The longer government is allowed to delay, the more people will die or be made seriously ill by air pollution.”

In their judgment, the panel of European judges said the Government should have planned to secure compliance with the Directive by January 2015 – 15 years earlier than it intended.

Air pollution and disease – the facts

Air pollution, primarily caused by emissions from road vehicles, is the second biggest killer in our country after smoking. According to the Healthy Air campaign, air pollution contributes to around 200,000 early deaths in the UK each year.

Cars, lorries, vans and buses emit large amounts of air pollution directly into the streets where we live and work. With more vehicles on the road than ever, this is creating significant problems. In densely populated areas like London the impacts are exacerbated.

Burning fuels in boilers and power stations is another source of air pollution. Heating boilers, power generation, and industry burning coal, oil, wood, petrol, diesel and natural gas – energy sources which we are very reliant on, are all significant sources of pollution.

I also remain concerned about the impact of aviation on air pollution – particularly with proposals for a new runway at either Heathrow or Gatwick.

Air pollution is an invisible public health crisis. Long term exposure to air pollution is associated with heart and lung disease. Diesel fumes are the main source of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) – a harmful gas linked with heart attacks and asthma and the gas that this court case rests on.

Children can be particularly vulnerable to the impacts. Research has shown that children growing up near motorways can suffer permanently reduced lung capacity. This may also be the case for people living nearby to other high polluting industries such as airports.

Even those who live and work in areas with clean air can have their health affected when they visit a polluted area as short term exposure to air pollution can irritate our airways, causing wheezing and shortness of breath. This is particularly a problem for those with existing respiratory conditions, such as asthma.

What happens next?

The growing problem of air pollution isn’t going to go away. As the Green MEP for South East England, an area widely affected by poor air quality, I believe this issue needs to be tackled at every level of Government, from local councils to Westminster.

For that to happen the Government must wake up to the reality of air pollution. Clean air is one of the fundamental things we need in order to enjoy good health and a good quality of life.

The judgment is also good news for the rest of Europe. As ClientEarth points out, today’s judgment sets a “groundbreaking legal precedent in EU law” – one that will paves the way for other legal challenges across the EU. ClientEarth has promised to “spearhead these efforts to help people defend their right to clean air in court.”

The legal case will return to the UK Supreme Court for a final ruling in 2015, for judges to apply the ECJ’s ruling to the facts in the UK case, following the judges order that

“it is for the national court having jurisdiction, should a case be brought before it, to take, with regard to the national authority, any necessary measure, such as an order in the appropriate terms, so that the authority establishes the plan required by the directive in accordance with the conditions laid down by the latter.”

In other words the UK Supreme Court is required to order the government to draw up a new plan to meet limits in a much shorter timeframe. But the Government should not wait until it is ordered – it should draw up and implement urgent plans immediately to drastically cut pollution from diesel vehicles and bring itself within the law.

In my opinion, dirty diesel-burning HGVs, buses and trains in particular should be a first priority for emissions reductions, with urban buses switching to ‘hybrid’ and purely electric technologies.

There’s also a case for ‘grounding’ all non-essential diesel vehicles at times of high air pollution. And the Green Party believes that London’s plans for an ‘ultra low emission zone‘ should be rolled out nationally.

But we must also address the deeper causes – which means investing much more in sustainable transport methods such as cycling and walking, and the shift from cars to public transport to reduce overall traffic levels. The public must also be properly warned of the risks, and how to reduce exposure.

There’s lots to do – and it’s high time for the Government to stop prevaricating, wake up and get on with the job!

 

 

Keith Taylor is the Green MEP for South East England.

Website: keithtaylormep.org.uk.

 

 




380987

ECJ affirms UK’s right to clean air – the Government must act! Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




The European Court of Justice delivered a landmark verdict today by ruling in favour of ClientEarth’s case against the UK Government for its failure to tackle air pollution.

This ground-breaking ruling, the first ever on the effect of the EU’s Air Quality Directive, puts the UK Government in “ongoing breach” of UK law.

And it means that the UK Supreme Court will be compelled to take action against the Government, with the threat of huge fines being handed out further down the line if the breach continues.

The ruling has also paved the way for future legal actions to enforce other EU targets on emissions and energy efficiency.

How did the Government get in such a mess?

The EU’s Air Quality Directive sets legal limits on air quality which member states are required to meet within a certain time frame.

Our current government is failing spectacularly to meet these targets: it has drawn up plans which show it will not meet nitrogen dioxide limits until after 2030 – 20 years after the original deadline!

This prompted environmental lawyers at ClientEarth to take our Government to court. This is embarrassing for the Government to say the least – and it’s deeply concerning that it takes an EU Court ruling for them to start taking the issue of air pollution seriously.

ClientEarth got it right when they said: “We have a legal right to breathe clean air. When the government fails in its duty to uphold that, the courts must step in.

“If the government were allowed to stick with current proposals for tackling pollution, a child born today in London, Birmingham or Leeds would have to wait until after their 16th birthday before they can breathe air that meets legal limits.

“ClientEarth does not believe this is acceptable, which is why we have challenged the government through the courts for the past five years to tackle the problem urgently. The longer government is allowed to delay, the more people will die or be made seriously ill by air pollution.”

In their judgment, the panel of European judges said the Government should have planned to secure compliance with the Directive by January 2015 – 15 years earlier than it intended.

Air pollution and disease – the facts

Air pollution, primarily caused by emissions from road vehicles, is the second biggest killer in our country after smoking. According to the Healthy Air campaign, air pollution contributes to around 200,000 early deaths in the UK each year.

Cars, lorries, vans and buses emit large amounts of air pollution directly into the streets where we live and work. With more vehicles on the road than ever, this is creating significant problems. In densely populated areas like London the impacts are exacerbated.

Burning fuels in boilers and power stations is another source of air pollution. Heating boilers, power generation, and industry burning coal, oil, wood, petrol, diesel and natural gas – energy sources which we are very reliant on, are all significant sources of pollution.

I also remain concerned about the impact of aviation on air pollution – particularly with proposals for a new runway at either Heathrow or Gatwick.

Air pollution is an invisible public health crisis. Long term exposure to air pollution is associated with heart and lung disease. Diesel fumes are the main source of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) – a harmful gas linked with heart attacks and asthma and the gas that this court case rests on.

Children can be particularly vulnerable to the impacts. Research has shown that children growing up near motorways can suffer permanently reduced lung capacity. This may also be the case for people living nearby to other high polluting industries such as airports.

Even those who live and work in areas with clean air can have their health affected when they visit a polluted area as short term exposure to air pollution can irritate our airways, causing wheezing and shortness of breath. This is particularly a problem for those with existing respiratory conditions, such as asthma.

What happens next?

The growing problem of air pollution isn’t going to go away. As the Green MEP for South East England, an area widely affected by poor air quality, I believe this issue needs to be tackled at every level of Government, from local councils to Westminster.

For that to happen the Government must wake up to the reality of air pollution. Clean air is one of the fundamental things we need in order to enjoy good health and a good quality of life.

The judgment is also good news for the rest of Europe. As ClientEarth points out, today’s judgment sets a “groundbreaking legal precedent in EU law” – one that will paves the way for other legal challenges across the EU. ClientEarth has promised to “spearhead these efforts to help people defend their right to clean air in court.”

The legal case will return to the UK Supreme Court for a final ruling in 2015, for judges to apply the ECJ’s ruling to the facts in the UK case, following the judges order that

“it is for the national court having jurisdiction, should a case be brought before it, to take, with regard to the national authority, any necessary measure, such as an order in the appropriate terms, so that the authority establishes the plan required by the directive in accordance with the conditions laid down by the latter.”

In other words the UK Supreme Court is required to order the government to draw up a new plan to meet limits in a much shorter timeframe. But the Government should not wait until it is ordered – it should draw up and implement urgent plans immediately to drastically cut pollution from diesel vehicles and bring itself within the law.

In my opinion, dirty diesel-burning HGVs, buses and trains in particular should be a first priority for emissions reductions, with urban buses switching to ‘hybrid’ and purely electric technologies.

There’s also a case for ‘grounding’ all non-essential diesel vehicles at times of high air pollution. And the Green Party believes that London’s plans for an ‘ultra low emission zone‘ should be rolled out nationally.

But we must also address the deeper causes – which means investing much more in sustainable transport methods such as cycling and walking, and the shift from cars to public transport to reduce overall traffic levels. The public must also be properly warned of the risks, and how to reduce exposure.

There’s lots to do – and it’s high time for the Government to stop prevaricating, wake up and get on with the job!

 

 

Keith Taylor is the Green MEP for South East England.

Website: keithtaylormep.org.uk.

 

 




380987

China’s war on pollution could leave Australia’s dirty coal out in the cold Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




China’s recent move to limit imports of the dirtiest coal from 2015 onwards is a scary prospect for Australian miners.

The proposed restrictions will ban the burning of coal with high levels of ash or sulphur in areas around major cities, as the Beijing government battles its pollution crisis.

Analysts say that as much as half of the thermal coal currently shipped from Australia to China could run afoul of the new measures.

The exact effects on Australia’s coal export market are hard to predict, and will doubtless vary between different companies and coalmining regions.

But what is clear is that unless it can find some new customers, the sector is likely to find itself in trouble.

Aussie coal – a mainstay of the economy

Australia is the world’s fourth-largest coal nation, with a A$16.9 billion industry that produces 401 million tonnes a year – almost 8.9% of the world total.

Industry groups have claimed that coal mining contributes some A$60 billion a year to Australia’s economy – roughly the same as the iron ore and agricultural sectors – while supplying A$3 billion in total yearly royalties to the Queensland, New South Wales and Victorian state governments.

Like other resource exports, Australia’s thermal coal sales – worth A$16 billion worldwide according to the Bureau of Resource and Energy Economics – are at the mercy of the world market.

The Australian coal industry is already reeling after two years dogged by job losses, increased costs and rapidly eroding profitability. Nearly 10,000 coal workers lost their jobs in 2013, and more lay-offs are expected in the future.

Coal prices are tumbling

With coal prices already falling, Australian exporters could also face the extra prospect of having to ‘wash’ their product to bring ash and sulphur within China’s new guidelines – which will add costs and damage profit margins. The potential extra cost has been estimated at anywhere between A$1 and A$27 per tonne.

Since 2004 there has been a continuous slowdown in mining sector productivity (the output relative to capital and / or labour input), mainly because both labour and capital costs have been consistently above the global average.

Yet despite these productivity issues, and the growing worldwide expectation that coal mining and coal-fired power generation should meet higher environmental standards, the Australian coal sector is focusing on increasing its production.

Recently, despite contention about the environmental impacts, federal environment minister Greg Hunt and the Queensland government approved the Carmichael coalmine in the Galilee Basin.

One of the largest coal projects in the world, the new mine will cover 200 square km and add up to 60 million tonnes annually to Australia’s existing coal production. In an increasingly competitive market, Australia will need to find more buyers for its new coal supplies.

Does Australia need more coal? Or more customers?

Indonesia already competes with Australia to export to China, and it is anticipated that the United States will increase its coal exports from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana over the next few years.

Meanwhile, other emerging producers including Mongolia and Mozambique are expected to create significant competitive pressure in the world’s coal export market.

At the same time, many Asian economies are increasing their electricity generation capacity – some of it through renewable energy including hydro, solar and wind power.

But all is not yet lost – significant amounts of new fossil fuel generation is also likely to come on stream, which may open new avenues for Australian coal exports.

China has recently shown interest in investing in coal-fired power plants in Pakistan – and Pakistani power minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif said earlier this month that one of the sources of coal could be Australia.

What will China’s new rules mean?

It is not yet clear how much Australia’s coal industry stands to lose from China’s new rules. The costs of processing it to the required standard are not clear, particularly because much of Australia’s coal is well above the Chinese requirements anyway.

But the move nevertheless represents another new problem for a sector that is facing many other challenges – including deterioration in terms of trade (the ratio of export prices to import prices), low coal prices, exchange rate appreciation, declining productivity, and the emergence of overseas rivals with lower production costs.

That is why Australia’s coal sector is now focusing on ramping up production, to try and gain a competitive advantage over emerging Asian and African miners and capture a greater market share for sustained export earnings.

The climate challenge

The other major challenge facing Australian coal, highlighted by this week’s UN Climate Summit in New York, is fact that much of the world is aiming to wean itself off it.

China’s thermal coal use is forecast to peak in just two years, and UN climate chief Christiana Figueres has advocated the replacement of fossil fuels with alternative energy sources.

China’s investment in up to 200 gigawatts of wind energy is just one sign that it is aiming to reduce its dependence on coal. There is a growing sense that China is getting serious about cutting its greenhouse emissions.

China’s new coal regulations are a warning to Australian miners that they won’t survive either without exploring other export markets besides their traditional customers, China and Japan.

And if Australia wants to remain an energy exporter far into the future, it should focus on exploiting its admirable technological abilities to develop renewable energy products that could diversify its exports still further.

 

 

Shabbir Ahmad is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the University of Queensland’s Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining. He does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

The author acknowledges comments on this piece from Dr Jo-Anne Everingham and Professor Saleem Ali at the University of Queensland.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 




384570

China’s war on pollution could leave Australia’s dirty coal out in the cold Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




China’s recent move to limit imports of the dirtiest coal from 2015 onwards is a scary prospect for Australian miners.

The proposed restrictions will ban the burning of coal with high levels of ash or sulphur in areas around major cities, as the Beijing government battles its pollution crisis.

Analysts say that as much as half of the thermal coal currently shipped from Australia to China could run afoul of the new measures.

The exact effects on Australia’s coal export market are hard to predict, and will doubtless vary between different companies and coalmining regions.

But what is clear is that unless it can find some new customers, the sector is likely to find itself in trouble.

Aussie coal – a mainstay of the economy

Australia is the world’s fourth-largest coal nation, with a A$16.9 billion industry that produces 401 million tonnes a year – almost 8.9% of the world total.

Industry groups have claimed that coal mining contributes some A$60 billion a year to Australia’s economy – roughly the same as the iron ore and agricultural sectors – while supplying A$3 billion in total yearly royalties to the Queensland, New South Wales and Victorian state governments.

Like other resource exports, Australia’s thermal coal sales – worth A$16 billion worldwide according to the Bureau of Resource and Energy Economics – are at the mercy of the world market.

The Australian coal industry is already reeling after two years dogged by job losses, increased costs and rapidly eroding profitability. Nearly 10,000 coal workers lost their jobs in 2013, and more lay-offs are expected in the future.

Coal prices are tumbling

With coal prices already falling, Australian exporters could also face the extra prospect of having to ‘wash’ their product to bring ash and sulphur within China’s new guidelines – which will add costs and damage profit margins. The potential extra cost has been estimated at anywhere between A$1 and A$27 per tonne.

Since 2004 there has been a continuous slowdown in mining sector productivity (the output relative to capital and / or labour input), mainly because both labour and capital costs have been consistently above the global average.

Yet despite these productivity issues, and the growing worldwide expectation that coal mining and coal-fired power generation should meet higher environmental standards, the Australian coal sector is focusing on increasing its production.

Recently, despite contention about the environmental impacts, federal environment minister Greg Hunt and the Queensland government approved the Carmichael coalmine in the Galilee Basin.

One of the largest coal projects in the world, the new mine will cover 200 square km and add up to 60 million tonnes annually to Australia’s existing coal production. In an increasingly competitive market, Australia will need to find more buyers for its new coal supplies.

Does Australia need more coal? Or more customers?

Indonesia already competes with Australia to export to China, and it is anticipated that the United States will increase its coal exports from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana over the next few years.

Meanwhile, other emerging producers including Mongolia and Mozambique are expected to create significant competitive pressure in the world’s coal export market.

At the same time, many Asian economies are increasing their electricity generation capacity – some of it through renewable energy including hydro, solar and wind power.

But all is not yet lost – significant amounts of new fossil fuel generation is also likely to come on stream, which may open new avenues for Australian coal exports.

China has recently shown interest in investing in coal-fired power plants in Pakistan – and Pakistani power minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif said earlier this month that one of the sources of coal could be Australia.

What will China’s new rules mean?

It is not yet clear how much Australia’s coal industry stands to lose from China’s new rules. The costs of processing it to the required standard are not clear, particularly because much of Australia’s coal is well above the Chinese requirements anyway.

But the move nevertheless represents another new problem for a sector that is facing many other challenges – including deterioration in terms of trade (the ratio of export prices to import prices), low coal prices, exchange rate appreciation, declining productivity, and the emergence of overseas rivals with lower production costs.

That is why Australia’s coal sector is now focusing on ramping up production, to try and gain a competitive advantage over emerging Asian and African miners and capture a greater market share for sustained export earnings.

The climate challenge

The other major challenge facing Australian coal, highlighted by this week’s UN Climate Summit in New York, is fact that much of the world is aiming to wean itself off it.

China’s thermal coal use is forecast to peak in just two years, and UN climate chief Christiana Figueres has advocated the replacement of fossil fuels with alternative energy sources.

China’s investment in up to 200 gigawatts of wind energy is just one sign that it is aiming to reduce its dependence on coal. There is a growing sense that China is getting serious about cutting its greenhouse emissions.

China’s new coal regulations are a warning to Australian miners that they won’t survive either without exploring other export markets besides their traditional customers, China and Japan.

And if Australia wants to remain an energy exporter far into the future, it should focus on exploiting its admirable technological abilities to develop renewable energy products that could diversify its exports still further.

 

 

Shabbir Ahmad is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the University of Queensland’s Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining. He does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

The author acknowledges comments on this piece from Dr Jo-Anne Everingham and Professor Saleem Ali at the University of Queensland.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 




384570

China’s war on pollution could leave Australia’s dirty coal out in the cold Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




China’s recent move to limit imports of the dirtiest coal from 2015 onwards is a scary prospect for Australian miners.

The proposed restrictions will ban the burning of coal with high levels of ash or sulphur in areas around major cities, as the Beijing government battles its pollution crisis.

Analysts say that as much as half of the thermal coal currently shipped from Australia to China could run afoul of the new measures.

The exact effects on Australia’s coal export market are hard to predict, and will doubtless vary between different companies and coalmining regions.

But what is clear is that unless it can find some new customers, the sector is likely to find itself in trouble.

Aussie coal – a mainstay of the economy

Australia is the world’s fourth-largest coal nation, with a A$16.9 billion industry that produces 401 million tonnes a year – almost 8.9% of the world total.

Industry groups have claimed that coal mining contributes some A$60 billion a year to Australia’s economy – roughly the same as the iron ore and agricultural sectors – while supplying A$3 billion in total yearly royalties to the Queensland, New South Wales and Victorian state governments.

Like other resource exports, Australia’s thermal coal sales – worth A$16 billion worldwide according to the Bureau of Resource and Energy Economics – are at the mercy of the world market.

The Australian coal industry is already reeling after two years dogged by job losses, increased costs and rapidly eroding profitability. Nearly 10,000 coal workers lost their jobs in 2013, and more lay-offs are expected in the future.

Coal prices are tumbling

With coal prices already falling, Australian exporters could also face the extra prospect of having to ‘wash’ their product to bring ash and sulphur within China’s new guidelines – which will add costs and damage profit margins. The potential extra cost has been estimated at anywhere between A$1 and A$27 per tonne.

Since 2004 there has been a continuous slowdown in mining sector productivity (the output relative to capital and / or labour input), mainly because both labour and capital costs have been consistently above the global average.

Yet despite these productivity issues, and the growing worldwide expectation that coal mining and coal-fired power generation should meet higher environmental standards, the Australian coal sector is focusing on increasing its production.

Recently, despite contention about the environmental impacts, federal environment minister Greg Hunt and the Queensland government approved the Carmichael coalmine in the Galilee Basin.

One of the largest coal projects in the world, the new mine will cover 200 square km and add up to 60 million tonnes annually to Australia’s existing coal production. In an increasingly competitive market, Australia will need to find more buyers for its new coal supplies.

Does Australia need more coal? Or more customers?

Indonesia already competes with Australia to export to China, and it is anticipated that the United States will increase its coal exports from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana over the next few years.

Meanwhile, other emerging producers including Mongolia and Mozambique are expected to create significant competitive pressure in the world’s coal export market.

At the same time, many Asian economies are increasing their electricity generation capacity – some of it through renewable energy including hydro, solar and wind power.

But all is not yet lost – significant amounts of new fossil fuel generation is also likely to come on stream, which may open new avenues for Australian coal exports.

China has recently shown interest in investing in coal-fired power plants in Pakistan – and Pakistani power minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif said earlier this month that one of the sources of coal could be Australia.

What will China’s new rules mean?

It is not yet clear how much Australia’s coal industry stands to lose from China’s new rules. The costs of processing it to the required standard are not clear, particularly because much of Australia’s coal is well above the Chinese requirements anyway.

But the move nevertheless represents another new problem for a sector that is facing many other challenges – including deterioration in terms of trade (the ratio of export prices to import prices), low coal prices, exchange rate appreciation, declining productivity, and the emergence of overseas rivals with lower production costs.

That is why Australia’s coal sector is now focusing on ramping up production, to try and gain a competitive advantage over emerging Asian and African miners and capture a greater market share for sustained export earnings.

The climate challenge

The other major challenge facing Australian coal, highlighted by this week’s UN Climate Summit in New York, is fact that much of the world is aiming to wean itself off it.

China’s thermal coal use is forecast to peak in just two years, and UN climate chief Christiana Figueres has advocated the replacement of fossil fuels with alternative energy sources.

China’s investment in up to 200 gigawatts of wind energy is just one sign that it is aiming to reduce its dependence on coal. There is a growing sense that China is getting serious about cutting its greenhouse emissions.

China’s new coal regulations are a warning to Australian miners that they won’t survive either without exploring other export markets besides their traditional customers, China and Japan.

And if Australia wants to remain an energy exporter far into the future, it should focus on exploiting its admirable technological abilities to develop renewable energy products that could diversify its exports still further.

 

 

Shabbir Ahmad is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the University of Queensland’s Centre for Social Responsibility in Mining. He does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

The author acknowledges comments on this piece from Dr Jo-Anne Everingham and Professor Saleem Ali at the University of Queensland.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 




384570