Home > Economics - General, Environment > Adani out of excuses

Adani out of excuses

October 15th, 2015

Environment Minister Greg Hunt has just given approval to Adani’s proposed Carmichael coal mine in the Galilee Basin. This decision is sure to be challenged in court, but presumably the lawyers have been over the decision carefully, to fix up the errors that saw Hunt’s earlier approval overturned.

Assuming the decision stands up, Adani will be in the position of the dog that catches the car it’s been chasing. Adani and its advocates, like the Institute of Public Affairs, have been telling anyone who’ll listen that their marvellous project is being held up by “green tape”. The reality is that the project is as dead as a doornail.

No one will buy the coal it produces at a price that covers even the marginal cost of extraction. No bank will fund the deal: in fact, almost every potential financial institution that might provide funds has already announced a refusal (something almost unprecedented in the world of finance). Adani’s existing bankers, the Coommonwealth, walked away recently (or, in Adani’s telling, was pushed). All the contractors working on the project have been sacked, mostly without any public announcement

Most recently, Adani’s announcement of a proposed contract with Downer EDI has fallen into limbo. The contracts were supposed to be signed by 30 September, but nothing has happened. There’s a reference in the announcement to environmental approvals, so perhaps the contract will go ahead now, but, based on past form, this seems unlikely.

Adani would have done better, in PR terms, to pull the plug when the courts overturned Hunt’s initial approval. Perhaps they have a secret plan to salvage something from this mess, but it’s hard to see how this can work.

Categories: Economics - General, Environment Tags:
  1. Jack W
    October 15th, 2015 at 15:41 | #1

    Truly outrageous.

    – Outraged Bystander

  2. Pete Moran
    October 15th, 2015 at 15:57 | #2

    It’s obvious JQ, they’ve been promised large sums of taxpayer money.

  3. David Allen
    October 15th, 2015 at 16:17 | #3

    They might just set the entire basin on fire for the lols. F*ck you, planet Earth!

  4. johnphillips
    October 15th, 2015 at 16:41 | #4

    Without going into all the overarching issues. The only comment I would make that it is tragic for all the unemployed; esp the youth unemployed in this country which is a factor in the number of suicides etc

  5. Michael H
    October 15th, 2015 at 16:51 | #5

    @johnphillips – I think it’s unlikely that *all* of the unemployed youth of this country would get a job in one coal mine.

  6. Tim Macknay
    October 15th, 2015 at 16:54 | #6

    @David Allen

    They might just set the entire basin on fire for the lols.

    If the federal government does subsidise it they might as well be setting fire to the money.

  7. John Quiggin
    October 15th, 2015 at 17:00 | #7

    @Michael H

    The proponents estimate a net gain of 1400 jobs from a project with a capital investment of $20 billion. That’s about $15 million per job

  8. johnphillips
    October 15th, 2015 at 17:05 | #8

    Is that the only benefit or intended investment return “jobs at the mine” ??

  9. Michael H
    October 15th, 2015 at 17:25 | #9

    @johnphillips – you mentioned jobs at the mine. I don’t see any other benefits and lots of costs for everyone else – including the climate damage.

  10. johnphillips
    October 15th, 2015 at 17:44 | #10

    thats another debate, whilst we get concerned re climate change, Australia’s contribution is almost a drop in the ocean. In any case countires such as India will just go elsewhere for the electricity coal they want and need to buy

  11. rog
    October 15th, 2015 at 17:55 | #11

    I just don’t get it. IMF and most others project the the $ coal will remain static for the foreseeable future. Obviously that doesn’t include the unforeseeable future. The owners of Hazelwood (Engie) are flogging off all their coal fired power stations and switching over to renewables. As an investment coal is a dud.

    Yet the Libs are still rooting for their miners.

  12. rog
    October 15th, 2015 at 17:59 | #12

    @johnphillips You need to offset the employment gained by mining with those that lost their jobs when export industries dried up, in part or mostly due to the rise in the AUD inflated by the miners.

  13. Pete Moran
    October 15th, 2015 at 18:03 | #13

    @rog

    I think it really is a panic response. The Nats, Libs and ALP have gone cycle-after-cycle making local (micro-econ) promises, never having the guts to admit the macro.

    Now it is going to rebound extremely badly. Those marginals are changing hands and those communities have STILL had no thought applied to their futures.

  14. Wendy T
    October 15th, 2015 at 18:48 | #14

    @johnphillips India is committed to ceasing coal imports within 3 years and is moving faster than most toward renewable energy. Makes sense: N one rushing to invest in poles and wires across India. Coal is OVER.

  15. GrueBleen
    October 15th, 2015 at 21:33 | #15

    @johnphillips
    Yep, that’s a truly great argument, mate: if we don’t commit evil, somebody else will.

    You can use that argument to justify, ummm, anything.

  16. October 16th, 2015 at 03:50 | #16

    While it has theoretical chance of being operational, despite a lack of investment or market at the moment, it can probably be counted by ADANI as an asset rather than a liability,

  17. John Turner
    October 16th, 2015 at 06:35 | #17

    @rog
    protecting their investments and secret deals no doubt

  18. Julie Thomas
    October 16th, 2015 at 06:43 | #18

    @johnphillips

    Yeah absolutely tragic, not.

    Have you ever worked as a miner John? It’s dangerous work. Remember Beaconsfield and Shorten? That photo of him in the rain at the mine is awesome; he looks heroic.

    And not only is it dangerous, it involves fly in, fly out work and do you understand how disruptive to family life and children’s development this sort of employment is? Did ya read how poor John Turner won’t even be on call because it disrupts his “family life”.

    I guess you have nfi how some men can become so jealous and paranoid about leaving their wives alone for weeks at a time. Noticed how domestic violence is a thing these days?

    I bet you can’t imagine how hard it is for women and children to live alone for weeks and then have a husband home for weeks at a time. No worries you say; they should get over it and suck it up eh? Because Gina needs to make more wealth that trickles down on us?

    And don’t pretend that there is any benefit for the towns nearby to the miners camps; mining companies don’t contribute to the community unless there is some publicity to be gained and a chance to fool people into believing that they care about the local economy.

  19. John Turner
    October 16th, 2015 at 07:00 | #19

    Hopefully the project is dead and buried, however I suspect that there is sufficent vested interests in the government to attempt whatever government support is necessary to resurrect the project. The politicians involved in this are in their way like the people who believe in creationism, they are truly irrational. No amount of scientific evidence will ever convince them that climate change is occurring and is driven by humanity’s environmental pollution.

    Their are no arguments about unemployment or indeed any other social benefits that could possibly justify this project. It would not matter a jot if it employed 20,000 people or a 100 thousand. The impact on co2 levels wouldbe so immense that it is tantamount to building and exploding multiple nuclear weapons and arguing that the employment benefits of building the weapons justifies the terrible impact of the nuclear fall out and the nuclear winter that would follow. The fact that the pollution from coal burning is largely unseen does not make it any less harmful.

  20. Ikonoclast
    October 16th, 2015 at 09:58 | #20

    @John Turner

    “The fact that the pollution from coal burning is largely unseen does not make it any less harmful.”

    Climate science deniers often argue from outward characteristics irrelevant to the case and then make false deductions from these. Your implication is that science deniers think that CO2 is harmless because it is invisible. This is pretty much what they do think. If I had the time, I could find the David Hume quote where he notes that characteristics immediately observable to the unaided human senses are not necessarily related to other intrinsic characteristics of the object or substance being observed. This is a principle that science deniers clearly do not understand.

    For example, flour is a white powder and it is harmless if ingested in small quantities (if you do not have coeliac disease). However, we cannot deduce from this that all white powders are harmless if ingested in small quantities. Notice that I carefully did not say “flour is a white powder and it is harmless”. Flour is not harmless if one falls into a large flour hopper and can’t get out. One will very likely suffocate.

    Similarly, climate science deniers come up with specimens of “reasoning” which say essentially that;

    (1) We breath CO2 in the atmosphere; and
    (2) Plants metabolise CO2.
    (3) Therefore CO2 is not a poison; and
    (4) Therefore CO2 can do no harm in the atmosphere.

    There are clear faults in this line of reasoning. First, “The dose makes the poison” (credited to Paracelsus). We breathe CO2 in the atmosphere at 0.04%, currently. If a person breathed a gas mix similar to the atmosphere except with 5% CO2 (and 4.96% less Nitrogen) that person would die of acidosis as that level of CO2 would lead to a fatal level of carbonic acid in the blood.

    Second, whether CO2 is or is not a poison to humans or plants at different concentrations in the atmosphere is irrelevant to its absorption/emission spectrum as a free gas. This absorption/emission spectrum is the characteristic relevant to the greenhouse mechanism.

    The real problem with science deniers (not just climate science deniers) is that they don’t know how much they don’t know. Along with this, they reason from only obvious characteristics and then draw invalid analogies or conclusions. In summary, they employ naive, pre-scientific reasoning. This sort of thinking is usually bound up with worship of a volcano god, a sky god or an invisible hand.

  21. October 16th, 2015 at 20:58 | #21

    Johnphillips, you wrote, “thats another debate, whilst we get concerned re climate change, Australia’s contribution is almost a drop in the ocean.”

    Actually, a tonne of CO2 emitted by Australia contributes just as much to global warming as a tonne of CO2 emitted in say China, despite the fact that China emits many more tonnes in total than Australia does. As far as we can tell, apart from very minor differences in isotope ratios, Australian and Chinese CO2 molecules are exactly the same, and so cutting Australian emissions is of exactly the same importance as cutting emissions elsewhere.

    For example, if you were walking down the street in Australia and decided to stab someone to death, the police would not let you off lightly even if you explained to them that particular murder was almost a drop in the ocean compared to the number of murders committed elsewhere. Rather the police regard each particular murder as being important and take each one very seriously indeed, no matter how many murders take place elsewhere. Unless perhaps for some reason the arresting officers happened to be five years old.

  22. October 18th, 2015 at 00:56 | #22

    Chinese coal imports from April to September this year were down 23% from the same period last year. Indian and Japanese coal imports are also down:

    http://ieefa.org/fact-checking-the-iea-the-worlds-three-largest-coal-importers-are-importing-less/

    World thermal coal demand appears to have peaked in 2013. This means we should now be past peak CO2 emissions. This is very good news, even though it still means we are still in a hole and still digging. But we are digging at a slightly reduced rate compared to 2013. So, huzzah.

  23. johnphillips
    October 18th, 2015 at 08:53 | #23

    @Wendy T

    So the article in the Courier Mail is incorrect is it ??
    where it says
    “”
    India is opening one new coal mine every month and the state-owned Coal India has a goal of producing 1 billion tonnes a year. That’s about five times the amount Australia exports each year.
    Its Magadh mine in Jharkhand is already forecast to produce about the same amount of coal as the planned Adani mine in central Queensland and the country currently produces about 40 million tonnes a month.
    So the mining industry is right when it says that if India doesn’t get its coal from Australia, then it will go elsewhere. For all the talk of India’s huge push into renewables, it’s coal that they really want.
    “”

  24. Julie Thomas
    October 18th, 2015 at 10:40 | #24

    @johnphillips

    The Courier Mail wrong? OMG! As if that couldn’t happen but ignoring the fact that the Courier Mail is almost always wrong, could you examine your thinking and tell us why you are so keen to keep digging coal out of the ground here in Australia?

    What’s your self-interest here?

  25. Chris O’Neill
    October 18th, 2015 at 12:11 | #25

    Haven’t you heard, there is a ‘strong moral case’ for coal.

    You just couldn’t make this up.

  26. October 18th, 2015 at 12:42 | #26

    A few things I’ll mention:

    (1) India currently buys almost no coal from Australia. Maybe a quarter of a percent of our production goes to India.

    (2) India’s Minister for Coal has publically stated that India will end all coal imports.

    (3) Power Purchase Agreements for coal and solar are now about equal in India. This means new coal power station construction in India will slow and then stop. (Construction appears to have already slowed, but I’ll wait for more solid data on that.) This means that with any half way reasonable accounting of externalities, solar is now cheaper than coal power in India.

    India has trouble meeting demand so solar power without storage that just supplies electricity during the day is a huge help to them.

    Many middle and upper class Indians already have battery storage due to frequent interuptions in grid electricity supply and increasing solar capacity will enable them to save their batteries for the evening.

    India’s existing hydroelectric capacity operates at massive capacity factors of over 60%, as one would expect in a developing country such as India. But this gives them the opportunity to increase their load following generating capacity at relatively low cost by increasing the number of turbines at existing hydroelectric dams which will let them save their water for the evening. There are of course limits to what can be achieved with hydroelectricity without investing in expensive new dams and pumped storage facilities.

    Between solar, wind, hydroelectricity, and potentially battery storage; India will have little use for Australian coal and less use for their own.

  27. Chris O’Neill
    October 18th, 2015 at 15:28 | #27

    India will have little use for Australian coal and less use for their own

    As long as India prices in the externalities. All we have to wait for now is for India to become ethical.

  28. October 18th, 2015 at 17:13 | #28

    Chris, even if India does not price in externalities new coal plant construction will cease as the cost of solar power and wind power continue to decline. And as renewable penetration increases, existing coal power stations will operate at lower capacity factors and so use less coal.

    When it comes to ethics, personally I am optimistic about India acting in an ethical manner. However, even if they have the same callous disregard for the future of the world that Australia has, they will still move away from using coal.

  29. October 18th, 2015 at 17:17 | #29

    Actually, an ethical thing for developed nations to do, including the evil heavenhole nation of Australia, would be to provide low cost financing to India and other developing nations for building of wind and solar capacity and other low emission generation. After all, it’s not as if the cost of capital isn’t low in the developed world at the moment and it’s not as if we don’t all share the same atmosphere.

  30. johnphillips
    October 18th, 2015 at 19:24 | #30

    @Julie Thomas
    No self interest whatsoever absolutely nil self interest !
    Only an altruistic sense for the youth of today and the rise especially of youth joblessness and resultant rise of youth suicide etc

  31. totaram
    October 18th, 2015 at 19:54 | #31

    @johnphillips
    In that case, a simple understanding of accounting at a national level might be of use. If the nation has a trade deficit, and the government also tries to cut spending (to “repair the budget”) then the only way the economy (GDP) can expand is by the increased debt of the private sector. Remember Joe Hockey telling people to go out and spend? Since the private sector debt is already around 150% of GDP, any increase in this is not a good idea and unlikely. Hence the low rate of growth and the increase in unemployment, which you can see since this government came to power. Since the government debt is only about 26% of GDP, increased spending on much needed infrastructure, education and health would increase employment, but the only solution this government has is to demonise the unemployed and pretend they are lazy and don’t want to work, so they will make them wait 30 days (and starve) before they can get the dole.

    I hope that clears up some of your ideas. Take care.

  32. Julie Thomas
    October 19th, 2015 at 06:53 | #32

    @johnphillips

    I thought you would say that and reveal how clearly you lack any insight into your own nature and any knowledge of human behaviour in general.

    Thanks for confirming that you are worthless as a commenter here and I’ll ignore you from now on rather than annoy JQ by telling you clearly how very lacking in any ability you are.

    You are the John Phillips from The Conversation are you not? If so, I am pretty sure you are an ignorant and nasty man who just likes to hate things because that is all that is left of your humanity after the awful life you must have had.

    But I’d say that if anyone wants to understand where your self-interest lies they can check out your hatred for people in general and lack of ‘altruism’ by reading your comments there.

    The John Phillips from The Conversation reminded me of the very worst of the cruel and horrible sneery male teachers I endured during my education. I think your self-interest lies in stirring up people you see as being happier and more successful than your self; that is all you are about.

    You haven’t done all that well in life have you John? Have you heard of karma?

  33. Julie Thomas
    October 19th, 2015 at 07:08 | #33

    @johnphillips

    There is a reply to your claim of altruism in moderation, although I did try to be appropriate when I explained that you are mistaken in thinking you have anything interesting to say.

    This time, I’ll just suggest that you might be a bit mistaken in your self-assessment and that I think it is clear that you haven’t done well in life and I’d suggest that it is probably resentment and not the milk of human kindness that fills you up and motivates you to expose yourself so crudely.

    Get some help.

  34. Chris O’Neill
    October 19th, 2015 at 07:39 | #34

    even if India does not price in externalities new coal plant construction will cease as the cost of solar power and wind power continue to decline

    Why didn’t you claim that in the first place? Do you have justification for this new claim?

    personally I am optimistic about India acting in an ethical manner

    My advice to you, don’t hold your breath waiting for India to significantly price the externalities of coal-burning.

  35. October 19th, 2015 at 08:38 | #35

    Why didn’t I state that the cost of solar and wind power are declining, Chris? Because I thought everyone knew this already as it is one of the most important developments of this century.

    Do I have justification for this claim? Before I write anymore I’d just like to check if this is for realz or are you unaware of the large and continuing falls in the price of wind and solar power?

    Anyway, here is an article on the declining cost of sola in India:

    http://cleantechnica.com/2015/10/15/solar-power-bids-fall-50-5-years-india/

    As you can see the lowest bid in 2015 was Rs 5.5.

  36. Chris O’Neill
    October 19th, 2015 at 13:07 | #36

    it’s not as if the cost of capital isn’t low in the developed world at the moment and it’s not as if we don’t all share the same atmosphere.

    That’s a big no-no in Greens’ policy at the moment. Their policy is that Australians should not pay to reduce emissions elsewhere in the world for emissions credits. Their policy for such schemes would be altruism and we all know how well altruism is working, don’t we?

  37. Chris O’Neill
    October 19th, 2015 at 13:14 | #37

    The owners of Hazelwood (Engie) are flogging off all their coal fired power stations

    What are the buyers of those coal fired power stations (which they get for a bargain) going to do with them?

  38. Chris O’Neill
    October 19th, 2015 at 13:32 | #38

    Why didn’t I state that the cost of solar and wind power are declining

    Thanks for the straw man argument Ron. The assumption you don’t mention is that the cost of solar and wind power will keep declining to cheaper than coal-burning power. Do you have evidence that this will generally happen? Once the Indians have built all the coal-burning stations they are currently working on, they won’t want to turn them off until the cost of solar and wind is less than the operating cost of those coal-burners. Do you have any evidence for when that will happen?

  39. October 19th, 2015 at 15:33 | #39

    Chris. What? You think the Greens would be against helping India develop renewable power? Have you ever even met a Green? I haven’t because I despise human contact, but if I did, and I asked them if they were in favour of helping India develop renewable energy, I’m pretty confident they’d say yes.

    Emission credits? What do emission credits have to do with providing low cost financing to India or other countries for renewable energy develpment? Australia doesn’t even have emission credits. Sure, you can buy some privately, but Australia doesn’t have a carbon price. Not anymore. It was like, in the news and everything.

    A simple, concrete example might help:

    The United States Federal Bank rate is 0.25%. Indian green bonds used to raise money for renewable energy have a rate of 9.15%. The US could lend money to India for renewable energy projects at say 5% and the US would get a better return than what they are getting now, it would reduce the cost of financing renewable energy for India, and the United States and India and the rest of the world all benefit from lower greenhouse gas emissions. It’s win win win. Actually, if we give a win for every species that threatened by climate change it would be win win win win win win win win win win win win win win win win win win win win win win times by millions.

    For Australia, with a Reserve Bank rate of 2%, it’s not quite as good a deal, but Australia always has the option of saying, “Bugger that for a game of eggy toast, I’m going to build a wind farm in my own country instead.”

  40. Chris O’Neill
    October 19th, 2015 at 16:21 | #40

    You think the Greens would be against helping India develop renewable power?

    Why don’t you actually read what I said? In particular “Their policy for such schemes would be altruism”. i.e. I explicitly stated their policy for schemes (in the context of India) would be altruism.

    Try to read a bit more carefully next time Ron.

  41. Chris O’Neill
    October 19th, 2015 at 16:33 | #41

    What do emission credits have to do with providing low cost financing to India or other countries for renewable energy development?

    Allow me to educate you Ron. When Australia eventually gets an emissions trading scheme, its Carbon-emitting businesses will have an interest in buying emission permits from India and elsewhere. Thus they will have an interest in helping to set up low emission power technologies in India and elsewhere from which they can buy emissions permits. Part of helping to set up these low emission technologies involves getting finance which Australian businesses can supply.

    Australia doesn’t even have emission credits.

    Sure, but that doesn’t mean Australia will never have them. Hopefully it will have them before long so that Australian businesses are motivated to help finance schemes for reducing emissions in places like India.

  42. October 19th, 2015 at 17:04 | #42

    Clearly Chris, I am likely to misunderstand everything you write, so there is probably no point in trying to communicate with me.

  43. Collin Street
    October 19th, 2015 at 17:29 | #43

    What are the buyers of those coal fired power stations (which they get for a bargain) going to do with them?

    Very little: because they paid less for them they don’t need to run them as hard to pay the cost of capital.

    Think.

  44. Julie Thomas
    October 19th, 2015 at 18:28 | #44

    “Why don’t you actually read what I said? In particular “Their policy for such schemes would be altruism”. i.e. I explicitly stated their policy for schemes (in the context of India) would be altruism.”

    Chris it is off topic I suppose, but it would be useful if it was clear how you understand altruism and how it relates to self-interest.

    The reason I would like to help India to stop using coal is because it is in my long term interest for that to happen; you know because climate change. Lots of other reasons I can come up with too but you do get the idea about the clear rational relationship between wanting and working toward making the world a better place for everyone and having a better life yourself.

    This isn’t altruism in the way it seems that you understand it as being a do-gooder and helping people because Jebus said to do so. Even if people just aint no good – as Nick Cave said – the only thing to do if you want a good life for yourself is to make sure that everyone else has a good life too, so they don’t want to take your stuff or make you unhappy because they are unhappy and needy and full of the sort of hatred that so many people are.

    I think that the man who wrote “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” called this relationship self-interest properly understood but most people only like the thing he said about how there was an invisible hand ……or something.

  45. Chris O’Neill
    October 20th, 2015 at 01:35 | #45

    because they paid less for them they don’t need to run them as hard to pay the cost of capital.

    That depends on how much profit they make over operating cost, low profit margin => they need to run them a lot.

    Think.

    Hopefully you’ll take your own advice.

  46. Chris O’Neill
    October 20th, 2015 at 01:49 | #46

    how you understand altruism

    I meant it in the sense that I’m sure the Greens would like to spend taxpayers money on helping India set up low-emissions generation.

    I would like to help India to stop using coal is because it is in my long term interest for that to happen

    OK that could be another motivation for direct funding but my point was that the method most likely to bring about the greatest emission reduction in India with motivation provided by Australia is emissions trading.

    There was a very important point about the comparison of emissions trading and the current government’s “direct” “action” made by a panelist on The Drum yesterday (19/10/15) but I wasn’t paying enough attention and missed it. I’ll read through it tomorrow and let you know about it.

  47. Chris O’Neill
    October 20th, 2015 at 01:54 | #47

    there is probably no point

    Looks like we won’t be getting any evidence that the cost of solar and wind power will keep declining to be cheaper than the operating cost of coal-burning power either.

  48. Julie Thomas
    October 20th, 2015 at 07:00 | #48

    @Chris O’Neill

    Oh well, if you can’t see the pattern or the trend against coal, and toward cheaper and better renewables, that is just too sad for you because it seems to me that there is a lot of evidence that this will happen. How can it not when coal is turning into such a dodgy investment and it is so clear that renewables are so functional and the solution to a lot of human problems?

    “In addition to regulatory headwinds that undermine in some markets the economics of coal-fired power generation in favor of cleaner fuels, the demand outlook is also challenged by additional risks,” Goldman said.

    https://www.snl.com/InteractiveX/Article.aspx?cdid=A-33970119-12844&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRojvKjOce%2FhmjTEU5z17u8vUa%2B%2Bi4kz2EFye%2BLIHETpodcMSMJiMr3YDBceEJhqyQJxPr3FJNANysRuRhDgCw%3D%3D

    It’s difficult to think rationally when one is so determined to be a know it all; have you not noticed that Chris?

  49. Chris O’Neill
    October 20th, 2015 at 12:35 | #49

    the pattern or the trend against coal, and toward cheaper and better renewables

    Where did I say that? You’re missing the point and making a strawman. Renewables may be getting cheaper but that doesn’t mean they will get cheaper indefinitely. The question is how much cheaper will they get and will that eventually be less than the operating cost of coal-burning stations.

    Goldman said

    You left out what Goldman also said: “First, the coming surge in LNG supply”. Great Carbon-free fuel LNG is, isn’t it?

    Goldman also said: “Both China and India have been reducing their demand for coal imports as they ramp up domestic supply.”

    Domestic supply is also a great Carbon-free fuel.

    It’s difficult to think rationally when one is so determined to be a know it all

    Maybe you should take a look at yourself first before you start making personal attacks on me Julie.

  50. Julie Thomas
    October 20th, 2015 at 12:43 | #50

    well knock me down with a feather – you have a point rather than a problem communicating with people? I didn’t notice that. 🙂

  51. Chris O’Neill
    October 20th, 2015 at 12:46 | #51

    Is that your justification for a personal attack?

  52. October 20th, 2015 at 13:56 | #52

    Chris, I’m not going to provide “…evidence that the cost of solar and wind power will keep declining to be cheaper than the operating cost of coal-burning power” because I never wrote that it would. If you look back at what I have written you will see no sign of it. You have misunderstood what I have written.

  53. Julie Thomas
    October 20th, 2015 at 15:43 | #53

    @Chris O’Neill

    Personal attack? That’s a bit like the pot calling the kettle black but I’m gonna have to put you on the do not reply to list. You should be safe from personal attacks if you don’t attack people first.

  54. John Quiggin
    October 20th, 2015 at 18:57 | #54

    Ok, everyone. Please stop fighting.

  55. Chris O’Neill
    October 20th, 2015 at 21:06 | #55

    @Ronald Brak

    I never wrote that it would

    OK, if you want to be a smart so-and-so about this then provide some evidence for this claim:

    new coal plant construction will cease as the cost of solar power and wind power continue to decline

    In particular why do you assume that solar power and wind power WILL become cheap enough for this to happen? Just because they get somewhat cheaper than they are now doesn’t mean they will put coal out of business which I would have presumed was the objective.

Comments are closed.