Pun-tacular Problems Part 2

This is the second part of my CSG conversation.

Factors influencing Govt decisions

As always, government decisions aren't as simple as they seem.  When a government looks to change a policy they might receive submissions from all types of groups.  There are non-governmental organisations, the experts, businesses big and small as well as independent statutory bodies like the National Water Commission.  Then other areas of consideration mostly gravitate around the economy while the public vote also comes into play.  


New industries such as CSG create jobs fairly quickly, and are another export market - albeit in the same resources category, it's like a new line of product at a supermarket (for example, cheesy Vegemite). With a current account deficit like ours (where total imports are far more than total exports) the rational choice for government seems to be to support CSG.  The government also needs to create cleaner alternatives to fossil fuels that are cost effective - apparently CSG is the way to go to reduce the effects of carbon tax on the hip pocket.  But this point, is fast becoming arguable!  Not only because of the questionable reduced emissions of the CSG life cycle but also because of the effects of the export market demand on the domestic market prices.

Most voters that aren't aware of all sides of the story will just look upon the short term effects of government decisions.  But the reality is, these decisions also produce long term consequences and potentially undesirable outcomes in society.  At the local markets this morning I was listening to some farmers who were talking politics.  One of them frankly said: "The problem is, no matter who you vote for, you will always end  up with a politician.  The trouble with that is, they always think of the three year term".  


I thought it was a point worth sharing, because politicians more often than not will make the popular decisions - popular decisions are those that immediately create jobs, boost the economy and reduce taxes while at the same time, miraculously not incurring any public debt.  For those who didn't take economics in high school, the latter combination of ideal outcomes of government decisions are actually infeasible - but that's why we have our good old  friends called propaganda, rhetoric and spin. It happens in every democracy.....

What do "They" say?

Here I will provide you with a brief snapshot of what the different parties in the CSG debate are saying - I should probably mention here that as a student, I like to put more weighting on what the experts say, but the caveat would be that scientific experts at universities tend to be a little bit removed from politics.  So I account for their opinion with an idealistic outlook of the world rather than a more practical one.

Government says:
The regulations and processes in place for CSG companies are to ensure that adequate environmental assessments are completed.  Each CSG company is required to submit a comprehensive EIS complete with a detailed water management and waste management plan.  These plans must demonstrate how the production unit will treat/dispose/reuse its "associated water" (a term given by CSG companies which basically means the toxic/contaminated water that comes out with the gas and eventually gets separated).  Consultations must also be carried out within the community and stakeholders to establish "make good" provisions for if things go wrong and environment gets damaged.

University experts:
Most of the time, universities are just looking for good topics to research and I guess society (or the part that gets clued in on it) is only better for it since we can analyse and be cynical about things.  Unfortunately, without enough noise about it - that is, enough to make it an unpopular political decision - not a lot changes.  But it often results in greater regulation.  The experts have come out highlighting all the uncertainties around greenhouse gas emissions and provide us with some good cost-benefit analysis of the issue.  I think the article on The Conversation: "Coal gas seams good...until you measure the methane" (the puns just keep coming) sums up pretty well that what the scientists know is that they just don't really know what will happen - until it actually happens. (And people take the Mickey out of political scientists who have struggled for centuries to predict political behaviour!).

CSG Companies:
The big CSG company "threat" in the region seems to be Arrow Energy.  I must say, their websites are more organised than the DERM website - maybe this is part of their bid to win over communities.  As I said before, they are essentially in it for the profit, however, they go to great lengths to explain what is they are doing and the processes they must go through to set up a production site.  Just by reading about Arrow's methods of fraccing, I have found that BTEX is actually banned for use in the fraccing process and that they are required to continually test for it in the water that comes out of the coal seams.
The picture is pretty rosey on their website from what I can see (especially the environment section) - and it almost made me feel better about CSG production.  The good feeling left me very quickly however when I saw all the talk about "make good" provisions.  To me this just sets off some alarm bells.  Firstly because it's vague and secondly because I feel like a child being promised that everything will still be the same in a new house when it won't.

Protestors:
The main group of protestors in this space in Queensland is the Lock the Gate Alliance.  These are the angry farmers and greenies who are very concerned about the changes this will bring to our food producing region.  These are the people whose backyards will be affected by production units placed on their farms seemingly arbitrarily pending approval from State or Federal government.  They have a tough gig trying to raise awareness of all the problems this will bring.  But they are on quite a micro level in their approach.  They are worried about what is happening on the ground - in Beaudesert for example.  What they lack is looking at this from the bigger picture i.e. the growth of the CSG industry and what has caused it.  When I look at protests, opposing opinions and arguments, I always look for and ask for the alternative.  It's one thing to protest about something, but advocating for the alternative I think would be far more powerful than negative outcry that may be interpreted by the uninformed as radical and dramatic.

Impacts

From my readings, one of the biggest concerns is for the environment and more specifically the impact that CSG extraction has on the water's quality, availability and access.  Most of the areas with the CSG question mark over them are sitting over the Great Artesian Basin (GAB) which is a significant water supply for Australia's food producing regions.

If any small traces of BTEX got into the surrounding water bodies, the consequences are quite substantial. For humans, it takes long term exposure to Ethylbenzene before it starts affecting our liver and kidneys but for aquatic life, the smallest doses are much more detrimental to aquatic life.  There's a good entry of it in the government's National Pollutant Inventory which briefly outlines this - interesting that it doesn't have any guidelines listed there.  Perhaps it just isn't supposed to be in the natural ecosystems at all?


The other impact of CSG is economic.  The growth of CSG - another non-renewable energy resource - is beginning to crowd out the renewable energy sector.  This is a relatively unsustainable outcome given that each CSG well has a life span of only 15 yrs and the lifetime of the entire industry is said to be 50years.  I personally don't like the idea of delaying our renewables that far.  The reason being that the cost will always increase for non-renewable energy while the cost of renewables - while expensive at first, will actually decrease as time goes on and technology advances.  But again we're back to decisions made in the short term because politics can not be escaped!

The "Bigger Picture"

Ultimately, most man-made environmental problems are irreversible in most circumstances.  So all these "make good" plans and strategies beg the following questions: 
- If the risks of CSG extraction are realised, is it possible to restore the water quality of the Great Artesian Basin from which food production and potable water is sourced? 
- How can the balance be restored in smaller surrounding ecosystems when they run on such a fine equilibrium? 
- How is the government going to regulate and police "make good" provisions and at what cost does it come?
The rules and regulations imposed by government look good and strict on paper, but there is little evidence on the successful implementation.  As most policy making is incremental, we might only find out when it's already too late.
This all seems like another symptom of our consumer driven, capitalist society.  Our obsession with non-renewable, unsustainable resources for short term economic 'fixes' probably won't cease until we've raped the land bare of its "economic worth".  Until then, the "precautionary approach" will only be as precautionary as it is politically sustainable.

Pun-tacular Problems Part 1

Coal Seam Gas (CSG) extraction has fast become a hot topic in South East Queensland (SEQ) following suit with other parts of the world. 

Recent arrests of Lock-the-Gate Alliance protestors in Beaudesert (part of the region in which I am working), brought to my attention yet another gap in my knowledge of current events.  They were arrested rightly so, as they had no real right or say over the approval of CSG exploration – that’s apparently up to the State Government with a little guidance from the Feds.

All this debate around CSG had me a bit confused. The excessive use of puns didn’t help me either, so I set out to look at all the angles of the issue to discover what the big ‘fraccing’ deal was (sorry couldn’t help myself).  I found that the issue was quite large and complex, so I’m going to break it down into two blog posts so you have some time to let it all sink in.

CSG Extraction

The diagram below comes with a good, simple explanation of how this whole process works:

Sourced from DERM 27.01.12, http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/environmental_management/coal-seam-gas/about.html

So basically in the deeper layers of earth, there is a layer called the 'coal seam'.  In between the coal, there is some water which has infiltrated from the surface and is on its purification journey through the coal seam.  At this stage of percolation, is where the gas exists, often in the cracks in combination with water which is toxic.  Sometimes, there aren't any naturally occuring cracks in the seam meaning they have to be artificially produced by the chemical known as BTEX.  This process is known as 'fraccing'.  And a simple search on 'Ethylbenzene' (one of the chemicals in the compound) will show you that it is no good for us humans and even worse for aquatic life.  The impacts of this will be discussed later - now to get into the politics.

Who’s got the Power?

Firstly, it’s important to recognise all the big players. You’ve got the CSG companies, State, Federal and Local Government, the land ‘owners’, the protestors, the experts and a group I’d like to call “potential future innocent bystanders”.

The big decision maker in Queensland is the State Government – more specifically the Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM).  The Federal Government will only become involved if there are any species or ecosystems that are threatened or endangered nearby - in which case CSG companies must seek approval from the Federal Government under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). That also goes for sites that have been 'World Heritage' listed.  But if they demonstrate in their comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that they have fulfilled all the requirements and standards set by the government (of which there are many) then they basically  have the permission to extract as they please.  One of the main requirements they must fulfill is to have 'make good' plans in the event that a big leak occurs that damages the environment.  I made a few phone calls to DERM to get some finer details about the by-product water from the fraccing process, my inquiries and research left it all a bit hazy still - so I am a bit biased here.  I'm still quite cynical about the whole Water Management Policy that's in place at the moment, I just don't see how it could possibly be implemented without some environment being affected somewhere.

CSG Companies are basically in it for the money, born profit makers, capitalists - whatever you call them, their concerns are first to get government approval, and secondly to make profit from it.  Both on domestic and international markets, demand for CSG is inflating CSG prices just enough to make a good living, yet not too much to make it more undesirable than coal and conventional gas.  I almost forgot, they create thousands of jobs, which is a plus….right?

The land owners are understandably concerned about what will happen on their land when these production units make their backyards home.  There’s a few maps about the place that indicate petroleum and gas leases.  This essentially means that any of the land highlighted on the map (which is quite a large portion of QLD) may be bought and explored for natural resources.  Sad but true, these guys have very little power in this situation.

The protestors did their job by making me curious I think.  Other than that, I don’t think they can do much except get arrested and put more pressure on our resource limited police force.  I do understand their panic though. I wouldn’t take too kindly to someone trying to crash in my backyard without my direct permission.

The experts need to hurry up and get some long term studies going before this industry takes over while we are still uncertain of the exact effects.  They have also done a good job in informing the decision makers – at least enough to make the approval process lengthy and laced with red tape (one of the few things bureaucracy is good for).  Experts only have power when consulted though, the government still has the ultimate decision.

Potential future innocent bystanders are the unknown victims of CSG – there are always victims that we cannot predict in situations like this, whether they be people or organisms.  They obviously are on the very bottom of the power chain since they don’t even know they’re about to be affected.

Now that there has been a bit of an overview of the issue at hand, I will call this the end of part 1.  CSG is pretty complicated and the next few subheadings are equally complex.  In the next part I will look at the factors affecting government decisions to go ahead with CSG as well as what “they” say about CSG.  A brief look at the impacts and potential of CSG will also be explored finishing with a “big picture” perspective on the issue.

Letter to the Hypothetical Editor

Dear Editor,


RE: Hygiene lessons will help migrants integrate: Coalition 


Too often we look outward on our problems in society without second-guessing why we do it.  The problem must always be the 'other' or the 'outsider'.  It couldn't possibly be us.
Gambaro's comments and the subsequent controversial debates demonstrate the complexity of immigration and the effort to "manage" the diversity arriving into "our" borders - which at the best of times aren't necessarily fixed!  Commentators then become so focused on what's "out there" rather than looking at what is going on "in here".  I, on the other hand, am intrigued about what's happening - on the inside.


Tolerance and acceptance are concepts Australians often struggle with - as an immigration nation, one might say that's expected.  However, the blame seems to fall back on the perceived lack of integration - on the lifestyle and hygiene habits of the newly immigrated.  These often reduced into layman's terms as: "that smelly person on the train doesn't wear deodorant, has funny shaped eyes and coloured skin, those migrants need culture awareness training".  This hardly solves the social reproduction of xenophobia and general resistance towards these immigrants who will soon be contributing to the sustainability of our social welfare system - especially the pension.  Australia's ageing population means that people are retiring from the workforce (who pay the taxes that fund the pension) at a greater rate than there are people entering the workforce (because of a lower birth rate and longer life expectancy).  


A visual of this phenomenon can be seen in the Population Pyramid - Australia - I highly recommend moving the dial towards 2030.  As you can see, it doesn't quite look like a pyramid, in fact, the trend is almost heading towards an upside down pyramid shape.  This is a common visual representation of most developed countries' population projections.  


So how do we sustain our social welfare system? We either  increase taxes (which judging by reactions to the little carbon tax is very unpopular) or increase immigration because Australians have become so dependent on the welfare state that it must be former or the latter.  Among other member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Australia is among the countries with the lowest household saving rates (-2.2%) (ABS 2003 Data).


The alternative might be of course, that we get a little -personal finance- savvy. Don't panic! I'll leave that seed to germinate in your minds for a little more...


Right now, I'm perplexed by this developed-country-mentality that the perceived contributors to social dysfunction are the people coming from "the outside".  I think that very little attention is focused on the problems created by the lack of acceptance and tolerance within our own society.  Such self righteous behaviour by those looking outward on social problems, subsequently impacts on the behaviour of those coming into our society.  Which is understandable! If I recently moved into a new town and people weren't being very nice, I probably wouldn't care less what they thought and wouldn't go out of my way at all to please them.  As Dr. Seuss says: "those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind".  Some simple words of wisdom in my books.


So, I agree with Teresa Gambaro in that there is certainly a need for education. I think it's the only way to go.  But maybe it's the Australian population that need a broader education for such a dynamic society.
Population statistics change at least yearly.  Our education system has taught the same standardised subjects in schools for centuries - society is a little more complex than maths, english and science.

Gay Marriage Debate = 1 Fact, 7 words.

One fact. Seven words. That's all it's about. The 1961 definition of marriage: "union of a man and a woman".  That's what all the commentary and opinion are about; the long sittings, the conscience votes, the widespread debates, campaigns, protests....
In the past half century so much has been changed and amended to the act that it seems trivial to be causing so much of a stir.  With all else going on in the world, another amendment to the marriage act just doesn't seem to compare to economic crises, climate change woes and what has been described as revolutionary action in the Middle East.
In all the chaos, the time consuming 'beating around the bush' in an attempt to stall unsurprising societal changes reflects the often misplaced priorities that occur within the politics of the social environment.