Steam billows from the cooling towers of the Loy Yang coal-fired power station in the Latrobe Valley. Credit:Bloomberg The burning of coal produces carbon dioxide (CO2): a greenhouse gas considered to be a major contributor to global warming. Brown coal, which has a high moisture and low energy content, emits more CO2 than black. Given that Victoria's lignite deposits have the capacity to supply electricity for more than500 years, efforts to lower emissions using new technologies are considered important. However, this dependence on coal for electricity generation makes Australia one of the highest "per capita" (per person) emitters of CO2 in the world. Although the burning of fossil fuels still produces most of the world's energy, a shift toward "renewable" sources such as wind and solar, is gaining momentum. This transition is mainly a response to the scientific consensus that human activity is driving the earth's changing climate and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for a global rise in temperature. In the United States, for example, President Barack Obama has deviated from the vision of a coal-dominated future by acknowledging that "a low-carbon, clean energy economy can be an engine of growth" in coming decades. Data also indicates that China, currently the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter, has begun to slow its coal usage. What about Australia? Despite a tentative global shift away from coal, Prime Minister Abbott says there would be "few things more damaging to our future" than leaving coal in the ground and insists that it will continue to "fuel human progress" as an "affordable energy source". He says Australia should be an "energy superpower" and use "nature's gifts" to supply the world's energy. While agreeing that it is "prudent" to reduce carbon emissions where possible, Mr Abbott says that this should not be accomplished by "ostracising any particular fuel" or "harming economic growth".

In providing the bulk of Australia's electricity and billions of dollars to the economy through thriving exports, the fossil fuel industry continues to be supported by government policies with taxpayer funded subsidies, tax incentives and infrastructure approvals. However many argue that despite these benefits, there are public health and environmental issues that cannot be ignored. For example, the potential damage to the Great Barrier Reef as a result of the increased shipping of coal exports. Others say we can't be "the world's quarry" forever; suggesting that the nation's future could be equally prosperous by further harnessing Australia's other abundant "natural gifts" such as wind and sunshine and investing even more in clean energy. What happened at Victoria's Hazelwood Mine? In Victoria, brown coal production occurs in the Latrobe Valley at the Hazelwood, Loy Yang and Yallourn power plants. Earlier this year, when embers from a nearby forest fire took hold in the Hazelwood mine, the public health costs associated with coalmining became apparent for many Australians. The fire burned for 45 days, releasing toxic smoke, carbon monoxide and ash across surrounding towns. Thousands of residents were affected and complained of blood noses, headaches and sore eyes. Others with existing health conditions experienced a worsening of symptoms. Research indicates that the human impacts from coal emissions include lung cancer, bronchial and respiratory illnesses and cardiovascular disease: more than200,000 coal-related deaths occur around the world annually. In Australia, coal-emission related health impacts cost $2.6 billion each year. Many argue that it should be mandatory for all coalmines to regularly monitor air, soil and water quality and are alarmed that this isn't common practice. What is the Renewable Energy Target?

The Renewable Energy Target (RET) scheme was designed to ensure that 20 per cent of Australia's energy comes from renewable sources by 2020. At a cost of $22 billion, it is one of the measures intended to help Australia cut greenhouse emissions by 5 per cent (on 2000 levels) by 2020: a target both major political parties are ostensibly committed to. Current figures indicate that the RET will overtake its target and reach more than 25 per cent by 2020; partially due to falling electricity demand brought on by the decline in manufacturing and improved household efficiencies. However, a recent review of the RET commissioned by the federal government has led to fears for the scheme's future. Headed by self-professed climate sceptic Dick Warburton, the review makes numerous recommendations, including the option to scale back the target. It claims the RET is increasing the electricity supply at a time when demand is falling and consequently driving down wholesale electricity prices. The panellists further argue that renewable energy investment is not "justifiable" when "lower-cost alternatives" already exist in the economy. Many are angered by this assessment, saying it misses the point of the RET entirely. They say that increasing the amount of renewable energy in the system should result in less dependence on fossil fuels; asserting that the scheme is therefore working exactly as intended and should be left alone. Recent Headlines "The RET may be a success, but that's exactly why its on the Coalition hitlist" The Guardian, August 29

"Exporting dirty habit makes for a grubby future" The Age, August 9 "BHP chief Mackenzie defends coal industry despite leftist leanings" Sydney Morning Herald, August 4 "We must kill dirty coal before it kills us" The Age, September 3 What The Age says "Given the [RET] review panel's head was climate-change sceptic Dick Warburton, the findings suggest that it is in Australia's interests to dramatically reduce the target because it is having a negative effect on emissions-intensive companies. Coal-fired power stations would be the biggest beneficiaries if the government adopts the recommendations … The government would do well to dump Warburton's review in the recycle bin and follow suit."

Editorial opinion, August 30 What people say "The onus is on the scientific community … There is evidence to explain, there is a need to express that evidence in a way that is accessible to the non-expert." Australia's chief scientist, Ian Chubb, The Age, August 30 "Kicking Australia's coal habit is the greatest gift Australians could give to everybody's children, future generations and other life on the planet."

Former head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, James Hansen, Sydney Morning Herald, August 9 "Brown coal has a long history of providing benefits to all Victorians, delivering reliable and affordable power, and we believe it has a bright future for helping build a better Victoria." Victorian Energy and Resources Minister Russell Northe, The Australian, May 16 "The axing of numerous programs that assisted us to move to a clean energy economy is analogous to a patient suffering the early signs of heart disease refusing gym membership as it costs too much. In the long run a transition to clean energy will be cheaper than continuing to use the current toxic sources of power." Michael Weadon, The Age, September 3

"Anyone with a bit of vision could see we sit on the cusp of a great age of innovation where we could be a leader in renewable energy research to power the next century." Peter Leppert, The Age, September 3 Web Links Geoscience Australia – Australian Government //www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/energy

Renewable Energy Target Review //retreview.dpmc.gov.au/ret-review-report-0 Victoria's Earth Resources – Victorian Government //www.energyandresources.vic.gov.au/earth-resources/victorias-earth-resources Your View

What do you think of Australia's dependence on coal? Should Australia shift to greater dependence on renewables? Why/Why not?