tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19408890.post115077391727716102..comments2024-02-07T21:14:26.719+11:00Comments on Oikos: Climate change litigation in AustraliaDavid Jefferyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11826563619710355534noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19408890.post-1159332226973053642006-09-27T14:43:00.000+10:002006-09-27T14:43:00.000+10:00Heya,Great to find your blog, the issue of GHG ass...Heya,<BR/>Great to find your blog, the issue of GHG assessment is obviously very timely and very tricky and needs all the teasing it can get. I think that SOME kind of climate change impact assessment needs to be made before a new coal mine is approved. I live in newcastle, the world's largest coal exporting port, and i like to think that this issue is getting big here. I have just lodged a court case aginst the approval of a large open cut coal mine because the EA prepared for the project did not include an assessment of the impacts generated by the combustion of the coal.<BR/><BR/>I dont think that the argument that the coal would be sourced from elsewhere is a valid one. If, say, 50 million t of coal is kept where it is in the ground, then even if all the other coal in the world was burned, that 50 million t wouldn't be. Its a tricky argument, i know, but I could make the comparison with drug supply - you cant justify selling heroin by saying that it is just supplying a demand or that someone else is going to sell it anyway, can you?<BR/><BR/>As for flow on effects into other industries, I think that just a commonsense principle should apply. The idea of a steel mill counting the emissions for the cars where the steel ends up is obviously an extensio ad absurdum. Coal mines are much more obvious targets.<BR/><BR/>A coal fired power station - sure. A contemporary example of something that i think should have been assessed on climate imapcts was a new coal loader in the port of newcastle. The construction of the loader would mean they needed to mine more coal to make the loader economically effective. if you have to mine more coal then you are going to sell more coal, and would be responsible, as a an acessory before the fact, for its combustion.<BR/><BR/>I hope im not sounding like a lunatic, Ive obviously got an axe to grind, and I apologise for the scattered thoughts. I was just excited to find your blog. perhaps an email conversation would be better (im not used to posting on blogs and am not crash hot with IT in general)<BR/><BR/>again, great to read your thoughts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19408890.post-1151017291061000842006-06-23T09:01:00.000+10:002006-06-23T09:01:00.000+10:00Thanks Grant.Thanks Grant.David Jefferyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11826563619710355534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19408890.post-1150853314581451202006-06-21T11:28:00.000+10:002006-06-21T11:28:00.000+10:00Just wanted to say "I agree" - the points you rais...Just wanted to say "I agree" - the points you raise pretty much outline my thinking on the matter, just way more eloquently :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com