How green is gas?

This is an op-ed piece I submitted to the Newcastle Herald on 1 December (not yet published as at date of this posting).

Gas is often portrayed as a clean energy source that could play an important role in a transition from dirty fuels such as coal and oil to a renewable energy economy.

This portrayal is now being seriously questioned.

The clean energy claim is primarily based on the fact that natural and coal seam gas (which is mostly methane) produces much less carbon dioxide than coal or oil when burned for fuel.

Origin Energy – Australia’s largest natural gas producer – states in its 2010 Sustainable Energy Report that its gas-fired Darling Downs Power Station in Victoria emits less than half the greenhouse gases of a typical coal-fired power station with the same capacity.

The NSW Department of Industry and Investment website states that “changing from electricity to gas for applications such as water heating, space heating and cooking could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a factor of four.”

Locally, this claim was repeated verbatim in a recent media release from the Hunter Business Chamber on the eve of a visit to Newcastle by Advent Energy CEO, David Breeze, to promote his company’s exploratory gas drilling 55km off Newcastle’s coast.

Given the massive expansion of the gas industry now hitting the Hunter Valley, such claims deserve closer inspection.

Like coal and oil, natural and coal seam gas is a non-renewable fossil fuel. Methane, which can leak in the extraction and transport of gas, is itself a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The amount of carbon dioxide currently produced by the burning of natural and coal seam gas is already a significant contributor to total greenhouse gas emissions, and this is expected to rise considerably over the next few decades.

In a recently published conclusion to a full carbon footprint assessment of the greenhouse impact of gas extracted from shale formations in the United States, Robert Howarth, Professor of Ecology and Environmental Biology at Cornell University, urges “caution in viewing natural gas as a good fuel choice for the future”.

Professor Howarth says that “using the best available science, we conclude that natural gas is no better than coal and may in fact be worse than coal in terms of its greenhouse gas footprint when evaluated over the time course of the next several decades.”

The “clean fuel” claim for gas is also linked to the fact that it does not produce the range of chemicals and particulates associated with burning coal or oil.

However, a full production-cycle analysis reveals an environmentally darker side to gas, dramatically portrayed in the film Gasland, a nominee for this year’s documentary Oscar.

Modern gas extraction uses the controversial technique of “fracking”, involving high pressure hydraulic fracturing of the geological substrata (usually either coal or rock seams) that contain the gas.

Fracking uses large quantities of water and a chemical cocktail. The technique has raised a range of concerns about ground and water contamination, air pollution, subsidence, and the handling of waste. Off-shore operations present a slightly different set of concerns, mostly related to the impact on the marine environment.

The current surge in the development of the gas industry occurred earlier in the United States than here. This week, the New York State Assembly voted for a moratorium on further gas exploration to allow safety and environmental concerns about fracking to be properly investigated.

Communities and environmentalists in the Hunter are calling for the same approach here, before the region is locked in to yet another industry with dubious environmental credentials.

Laman Street trees saved by people power!

Outside city hall before last night's council meeting

Friends of the Laman St trees doing their thing last night

What a great feeling to be able to celebrate an all-too-rare victory for the community and common-sense at a Newcastle Council meeting last night, when councillors voted to save Laman Street's majestic avenue of giant figs from the chainsaw.

The current council is dominated by conservative "independents" (they call themselves this, despite accepting donations from vested interests, such as developers), many of whom were long ago - and all-too-willingly - captured by the council administration.

On 17 August, the council decided (by a 5-7 vote) to remove all 14 of the Laman Street figs "as soon as possible", refusing to consult any further with the community on a range of options for the future of the trees that the community had never had an opportunity to scrutinise and discuss.

In the ensuing period, the community learned that the council intended to circumvent the normal requirements of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act by using a section of the Roads Act intended to allow roads authorities to remove trees for road works or to remove a traffic hazard.

As far as I have been able to establish, this strategy had never been previously mentioned by council officers, and came to light just before the chainsaws were about to move in. To stop the imminent removal of the trees, the Parks and Playgrounds Movement lodged an injunction.

The ensuing case in the Land and Environment Court turned on the interpretation of the wording of s.88 of the NSW Roads Act. The council argued that the Act allowed them to ignore normal planning requirements, and the PPM argued that it didn't.

Eventually, the Court found in favour of the council's interpretation. The judge noted the contrast in the wording of that section of the NSW Act with the equivalent provision in the Victorian Roads Act, which would not allow a council to circumvent normal planning requirements to remove trees where there was no genuine immediate need to do so.

Because of the clear public interest nature of the case, the judge determined that each side should bear its own costs. The council's legal costs were around $150,000.

The Land and Environment Court decision on the interpretation of the NSW Roads Act (which has not been tested by appeal) was a landmark decision, indicating a need to change the NSW legislation to clarify that it is an emergency power, and to stop roads authorities from misusing it to get rid of trees where there is no genuine urgent need.

However, the legal proceedings did provide valuable time for further discussion between the community and councillors on the future of the Laman St trees, and eventually enough councillors were persuaded to change their minds about the need to immediately remove them, and to put in place a risk management and monitoring regime aimed at preserving them.

Of course, the intervening period has also demonstrated incontrovertibly - in the courtroom of nature and reality - that there really was no need to immediately remove the trees on the spurious risk grounds argued by the council, since not a single tree has fallen over or damaged anyone or anything during that time.

The original decision was an over-reaction, driven by an administration in panic mode, whipped up by a risk-aversion industry that itself often poses the greatest risk to valuable community assets.

I recall in my time as a Newcastle councillor in the 1990s that it was once seriously proposed to construct a chainmesh fence along all the elevated sections of Newcastle's coastline to prevent the risk of accidental or deliberate falls. Common sense prevailed, and the idea was quickly scotched.

In the case of the Laman St trees, it's taken longer for common sense to prevail. On the night it decided to axe the trees as soon as possible, the council voted against an alternative motion (from Greens councillor Michael Osborne) to consult with the community on all the available options, which had never previously been scrutinised or discussed by the community. It's a pity that the council's refusal to do this at this crucial moment in the decision-making process ended up causing so much community anxiety and costing Newcastle ratepayers around $150,000.

All this could have been avoided if the council had been prepared to engage more positively and genuinely with the community on the future of the trees, rather than preemptively ramming through a decision that hardly anyone in the community supported, and that pandered to an extreme and bureaucratically driven form of risk aversion.

It remains to be seen whether senior council staff will accept the new decision of the elected council, and change their approach to a more cooperative engagement with the community.

Congratulations to the councillors who eventually came through for the community.

For the record, last night's vote to save the trees was:

For:

• Graham Boyd (Independent),
  
• Sharon Claydon (Labor),
  
• Shayne Connell (Independent),
  
• Tim Crakanthorp,
  
• Mike Jackson (Labor),
  
• Nuatali Nelmes (Labor),
  
• Michael Osborne (Greens), and
  
• John Tate (Independent).

Against:

• Bob Cook (Independent),
  
• Mike King (Independent),
  
• Brad Luke (Liberal), and
  
• Scott Sharpe (Independent).

(Councillor Aaron Buman (Independent) was absent, but previously voted for removing the trees).

The biggest congratulations go to the amazingly talented and committed group of grassroots community campaigners who came together so effectively to save this wonderful asset (you know who you are).

Media Release: Greens candidate signs on to Unions NSW Better Services Agreement

Newcastle Greens

Thursday, 9 December, 2010

Greens candidate signs on to Unions NSW Better Services Agreement

Signing up to the Unions NSW Better Services Agreement, Thursday 8 December 2010

The Greens candidate for Newcastle, John Sutton, today signed the five point “Better Services Agreement” developed by Unions NSW, pledging support for a strong public sector, public ownership of public assets, better long term planning for services and infrastructure, workers rights, and government for the common good.

Mr Sutton was the first Greens candidate in NSW to sign the agreement, at a Unions NSW launch outside Newcastle Trades Hall Council at lunchtime today.

In signing the agreement, Mr Sutton congratulated Unions NSW for the campaign, and said he expected that all Greens candidates who had the opportunity to sign the Agreement in the run-up to the March state election would do so.

“The Greens see the principles behind the commitments in this agreement as fundamental to a healthy, democratic civil society.

“People in Newcastle and the Hunter know what it means to have to fight for adequate services and infrastructure, and for governance for the common good.

“Under successive Labor and Coalition governments, our community has suffered through decades of struggles over the privatisation of institutions and services such as the State Bank, GIO, the TAB, FreightCorp, electricity, prisons, and the NSW Lotteries.

“Unfortunately, the community can tick off precious few wins in that list.

“To their great credit, our local community won a long fight to stave off the privatisation of the Wallsend Aged Care facility by the current Labor government.

“Many of our public buildings and lands have been sold off or commercialised. Who can forget the sudden whim to privatise the Newcastle bus depot by the NSW Premier, John Fahey, in the ‘90s. And today, we have the former Royal Newcastle site as a sad recent example that this kind of threat to public land is still current, under both Labor and Coalition governments.

“Right now, the Labor government is pushing a major plan to privatise public assets along Newcastle’s coast, under the guise of a coastal ‘revitalisation’ strategy.

“After the March election, we face the prospect of government under the Coalition, which has already made rumblings about privatising Sydney Ferries (raising the obvious question of what would happen to our own Stockton ferry) and Sydney’s desalination plant (again raising obvious questions for the Hunter, given the local debate about desalination in the wake of the Tillegra Dam decision).

“The Better Services campaign provides an excellent opportunity to focus public attention on such issues as we approach the March state election, and I’m proud to be such an early signatory to it,” Mr Sutton said.

Click here to see the Five Point Better Services Agreement.

Media Release: New coal proposal shows need for new approach

Newcastle Greens

Thursday, 2 December 2010

New coal proposal shows need for new approach

The proposed development of new coal export facilities at the former BHP steelworks site would make Newcastle an even worse climate offender, and would further compromise the Hunter’s ability to diversify the regional economy away from its unsustainable reliance on coal, according to The Greens candidate for Newcastle, John Sutton.

As a Greens councillor and environmentalist, Mr Sutton initiated the Hunter’s first climate-based campaign to phase out the coal industry during the 1990s.

“It’s sadly ironic that news of this new proposal has emerged at the same time as the UN Climate Change Conference in Cancun, while hundreds are gathering at Lake Liddell in the Hunter to protest against further coal mining and exports, and while inner-city Newcastle residents are expressing strong concerns about the impact of coal freight on local air pollution and amenity, and the Mayfield community is up in arms about potential local traffic impacts from another proposed development on the former BHP site.

“In recent discussions about their proposed Mayfield container terminal, the Newcastle Port Corporation has admitted that coal already consumes so much of our rail network capacity that only 20% of the freight generated by its proposed container terminal development could be transported by rail, with the remaining 80% forced to use trucks. This would apply equally to the Buildev coal development on the adjacent site.

“This is a perfect example of how the current open slather approach to coal mining and exports is directly restricting our ability to create a more resilient, diverse and sustainable local economy,” Mr Sutton said.

“From both a local and global perspective, it’s just not good enough anymore for governments to simply abrogate their responsibility to the whims of the market-place.

“Our local, regional and global communities are now asking when is enough enough, and demanding government action to curb the runaway expansion of the coal industry.

“The Greens have long called for a just transition, comprising a gradual and planned phasing out of the coal industry, and associated economic restructuring and community redevelopment programs to assist affected local and regional communities to build a twenty-first century climate friendly economy.

“The Greens believe that it’s both more ethical and practical to do this in a planned, phased and systematic way, because the longer this transition is delayed, the more disruptive it will be when the need for change inevitably imposes itself.

“Starting the process now will allow us to take greater advantage of the economic and social opportunities that a transition economy offers.

“Rather than wasting precious time and resources on a proposal for new coal facilities at the former BHP steelworks site, the state government should immediately reject the proposal, and develop – in full consultation with the community - an integrated plan for the site based on sustainable job-rich industries that will contribute to a more diverse local and regional economy,” Mr Sutton said.

Media Release: Time to rethink Hunter water strategy

Newcastle Greens

29 November 2010

Time to rethink Hunter water strategy

The state government and Hunter Water should use the rejection of Tillegra Dam as an opportunity to rethink the approach to water security in the Hunter, according to The Greens candidate for Newcastle, John Sutton.

“It’s wonderful news for the Hunter’s farming communities, water customers and environment that the state government has ditched the dam, but a major opportunity will be lost if the Corporation now automatically reverts to the option of an expensive and environmentally damaging desalination plant,” Mr Sutton said.

“During the debate over Tillegra Dam, Hunter Water consistently held the threat of a desalination plant over the heads of environmentalists who campaigned against the dam, arguing that if Tillegra did not proceed, a desalination plant was inevitable.

“Desalination plants are enormously expensive, consume vast amounts of energy, and present significant environmental risks.

“It would be a major lost opportunity if the state government and Hunter Water did not now engage with the wider Hunter community to develop a new sustainable water resource plan with more ambitious water efficiency and demand reduction targets, and more creative and diverse water supply strategies.

“The Department of Planning determination on Tillegra criticised Hunter Water’s needs analysis because it was ‘limited to a small range of options’, adding that ‘a more common approach is to consider a portfolio or suite of options rather than individual options’ [DG’s Assessment Report, p.27].

“It’s now time for Hunter Water to engage with the Hunter community to consider this broader range of options,” Mr Sutton said.

“Water policy is set to play a huge role in future elections in Australia, as Victoria’s Desalination Project proved in the weekend’s Victorian state election.

“In the Hunter, Greens parliamentarians and members have worked closely with local communities and environmentalists throughout the Tillegra Dam campaign, and will continue to campaign for sustainable water management.

“Sustainable water security will only be delivered if strategies have broad community support and are based on genuine ecological sustainability principles,” Mr Sutton said.

Tillegra Dam rejected!

What wonderful news today, that the Kenneally government has finally dropped the Tillegra Dam proposal.

The decision is s a testimony to the hard work and expertise of all involved in the grassroots community campaign against the dam: the No Tillegra Dam group, The Wilderness Society, and The Greens (especially Greens MLC John Kaye), who have all worked tirelessly on this issue for a number of years now.

What an excellent hiatus this now creates to look more carefully at how the Hunter can shift to a more sustainable approach to water security.

Let's hope there isn't a reflexive resort to desalination - the threat that was always held over the heads of environmentalists involved in the Tillegra campaign.

Media Release: Community transport plan a breath of fresh air

Newcastle Greens

John Sutton

 Newcastle candidate

26 November 2010

Community transport plan a breath of fresh air

The Greens today welcomed the public launch of Save Our Rail’s WesTrans proposal as a breath of fresh air in the debate on the future of Newcastle’s public transport system.

The Save Our Rail plan will be officially launched in Wallsend this afternoon.

“Transport policy proposals are often dominated by well resourced vested interest lobby groups, or by government agencies with development agendas, so it’s very refreshing to see a committed community-based group, motivated purely by a desire for a better public transport system, make such a positive contribution,” The Greens candidate for Newcastle, John Sutton, said.

 “Whilst the proposals in the Save Our Rail study will need to be rigorously examined and costed, they offer a set of ideas that – if implemented - would make a serious start to getting people out of their cars and on to more sustainable modes of transport.

“Lately, we’ve been barraged with double-speak from the NSW Labor government about a ‘rail-based solution’ for Newcastle while they’ve been releasing proposals to cut the city’s rail infrastructure, and we’ve had so much negativity from the local anti-rail campaign against the Newcastle rail line.

“What Save Our Rail is proposing is a genuine rail-based solution, with a significant expansion of current inter-city rail services, and new light rail services that complement heavy rail and bus services.

“The plan looks at different transport modes (including light rail) in the context of the city’s larger transport system and needs.

“This plan is a serious attempt to show how we can begin the shift from our current reliance on private motor vehicles, toward more sustainable transport, such as cycling, rail and buses.

“Save Our Rail is showing the way here, and I urge the state government to treat their proposals seriously,” Mr Sutton said.

Copies of Save Our Rail’s plan can be found on the group’s website at: http://saveourrail.org.au/

Media Release: Sutton calls on McKay to declare stance on off-shore gas drilling

Newcastle Greens

25 November 2010

Sutton calls on McKay to declare stance on off-shore gas drilling

The Greens candidate for Newcastle, John Sutton, today called on the Member for Newcastle, Jodi McKay, to follow the lead of central coast Labor parliamentarians and oppose gas drilling off the coast of Newcastle.

“This is a great opportunity for Ms McKay to prove that she isn’t always the puppet of the Sydney-based Labor powerbrokers who recently succeeded in protecting her from a preselection ballot of local Labor Party members,” Mr Sutton said.

“Unlike Central Coast Labor federal parliamentarians, who spoke out against off-shore drilling during the recent federal election, Ms McKay hasn’t yet expressed any view about the recent approval of Advent Energy’s gas exploration venture, just 55 km off Newcastle, despite the serious risks it presents to precious coastal resources and fishing.

“Ms McKay has made much of her plan to commercialise Newcastle’s public coastal resources, but has said nothing about a proposal that has been secretly approved by the state Labor government, and that will operate with very little regulatory oversight,” Mr Sutton said.

 “Yesterday’s damning Montara Commission report into Australia’s largest oil spill in the Northern Territory criticised a similar lack of adequate regulation by the Northern Territory Department of Resources.

““Aside from being the local member, Ms McKay has Ministerial responsibility for Tourism and for the Hunter, so it’s crucial that she stands up for the tourism industry and for the regional community on this issue.

“Does Ms McKay and the state Labor government believe that drilling rigs off Newcastle will add to our tourism potential, or revitalise the region’s coastal environment?”

“It’s a chance for Ms McKay to show that she doesn’t automatically take the side of vested interests, as she has with her support for the unlimited expansion of the coal industry, and the proposal to cut the Newcastle rail line.”

Mr Sutton said he would be attending tomorrow’s community protest against the gas exploration project at 10am on the steps of Newcastle City Hall, and called on Ms McKay to come along and state her position on the issue.

Media Release: Labor powerbrokers snub Newcastle members

Newcastle Greens

24 November 2010

Labor powerbrokers snub Newcastle members

Today’s decision by Labor’s head office to protect Newcastle incumbent, Jodi McKay, from a local preselection shows that nothing has changed in NSW Labor since Ms McKay was imposed on Newcastle four years ago by the party’s Sydney-based powerbrokers, according to The Greens candidate for Newcastle, John Sutton.

“However Sydney Labor might try to spin it, the fingerprints of the sinister “leadership group”, identified by the former Labor state Minister, Rod Cavalier, in his recent book Power Crisis, as the real powerbrokers in NSW Labor preselections, are all over this decision.

“In the Epilogue to his book, Mr Cavalier asks “Does party membership matter?” in the modern Labor Party, observing that “a leadership group has presumed to determine preselections for any seat that Labor has a chance of winning wherever the local membership might select a candidate unacceptable to that group”.

“Those same powerbrokers have now been cavalier in stomping on the right of Newcastle Labor members to nominate and preselect their local candidate because they obviously know that genuine rank-and-file Labor members in Newcastle aren’t as impressed by Ms McKay as they are,” Mr Sutton said.

“This same leadership group is now rewarding Ms McKay for dutifully toeing the Labor line on electricity privatisation, Tillegra Dam, and the unimpeded expansion of the coal industry; for supporting local vested interests on issues such as cutting the Newcastle rail line; and for being such a consistent apologist for Labor’s many failures in public transport and planning.

“This is a slap in the face for any Labor member in Newcastle who thought they still mattered in the modern Labor Party, beyond their practical usefulness in raising money, handing out how to vote cards on election day, and applauding when the leadership group says ‘clap’,” Mr Sutton said.

“It’s no wonder so many Labor members and voters are now turning to The Greens, whose local candidates are preselected by local Greens members,” Mr Sutton said.

Media Release: Business Chamber caught out on gas line

Newcastle Greens

23 November, 2010

Business Chamber caught out on gas line

The Hunter Business Chamber was today caught out by The Greens for blatantly plagiarising a state government industry development website in a public statement in support of a gas industry in the Hunter.

The Greens candidate for Newcastle, John Sutton, said that a HBC media release titled “Gas is a viable future energy source” (dated 22 November 2010) was almost entirely a word-for-word lift from the Industry and Investment NSW website (http://www.industry.nsw.gov.au/energy/gas), with the stolen words being attributed to HBC CEO Peter Shinnick.

A support document, titled “Member Information Bulletin, Hunter Gas Industry”, also steals entire slabs of text straight from the government website, without any acknowledgement of the source, Mr Sutton said.

“When I was a university lecturer, a piece of work submitted with this level of plagiarism would have been immediately failed, with a requirement for it to be done again properly,” Mr Sutton said.

“That’s what the HBC needs to do here.

“It’s not good enough on such an important issue, involving such huge economic, environmental and social stakes, for the HBC to simply cut and paste its material from a government website, and present it as its own.

“This is a huge embarrassment for the Chamber, and highly insulting to the local communities who have legitimate concerns about the potential impact of gas exploration and mining, and to the National Farmers Federation, who have expressed similar concerns, and have joined with The Greens in calling for a moratorium on further gas exploration in the Hunter.

“Concerns raised revolve primarily around the practice of “fracking”, which involves chemically fracturing subterranean rock formations to allow gas extraction, potentially contaminating aquifers and land, and creating air pollution and waste.

“If the Chamber wants to be taken seriously on this issue, they can’t just play the role of a ventriloquist dummy for a government website. They need to listen to people in the affected communities, and do their own research and thinking on gas mining.

“I hope that Mr Shinnick and other Chamber board members attend the showing of Gasland in Newcastle next Tuesday (30 November, at 5:45pm at Greater Union Cinemas in King St), which depicts the harrowing story of one person’s engagement with the gas mining industry in the United States.

“This is emerging as a major issue for everyone in NSW, as the residents of St Peters, in inner west Sydney, discovered recently, when they found out that Macquarie Energy had been granted approval for exploratory drilling there,” Mr Sutton said.