MCA publicises report asking governments to commit similar resources to carbon capture and storage as to renewables

This article is more than 2 years old

This article is more than 2 years old

The Minerals Council of Australia has stepped up its advocacy for coal power in spite of its biggest member, BHP, saying it will leave the group unless it shifts its stance to become technology-neutral.

On Tuesday the MCA publicised a report by the Coal Industry Advisory Board that called for governments to commit similar resources to carbon capture and storage as they do to renewable energy.

The report was written by representatives of some of the world’s biggest coalminers, including Anglo American, Glencore and Peabody, as well as by Peter Morris of the MCA.

BHP opposes Minerals Council of Australia's war on activist rights Read more

In a section directly aimed at Australia, the report called for a public campaign to promote carbon capture and storage, and for governments to support so-called “high-efficiency low-emissions coal” (HELE) among other technologies.

“It makes economic sense for there to be an international commitment to CCS that rivals the scale of commitment that countries have made to renewables,” the report said.

In December a report from the Australian National Audit office sharply criticised the federal government’s investments in carbon capture and storage. It found that despite a commitment of more than $2bn, little had been achieved.

In a media release linking to the Coal Industry Advisory Board report, Greg Evans from the MCA said: “CCS is important if Australia is to help contribute to global emissions reduction goals at the lowest possible cost. It will also help decarbonise energy-intensive industries that depend on the continued use of fossil fuels.”

Earlier this month the MCA announced it would continue its TV advertisements promoting coal power, and has since sent out a media release promoting HELE coal.

Following a move by its own shareholders, BHP agreed to review its membership of industry and business groups such as the Minerals Council. That review, published in December, concluded that unless the MCA adapted its advocacy activities within a year, it would cancel its almost $2m yearly membership, which makes up about 17% of the MCA’s revenue from memberships.

Specifically, the review said the MCA must stop prioritising the affordability and reliability of energy over emissions goals. It also noted that although the MCA regularly said it supported a “technology neutral and market based approach,” it actually advocated policies that gave preferential treatment to coal.

Minerals Council says it makes political donations to gain access to MPs Read more

Brynn O’Brien, the executive director of Australian Centre for Corporate Responsibility, which led the shareholder action, said the Minerals Council appeared to be ignoring BHP’s ultimatum.

“In terms of the pattern, it just seems as though the Minerals Council is back to its old tricks of coal advocacy and this does not represent a technology-neutral approach, and it therefore conflicts with BHP’s request of them,” O’Brien said.

However, BHP is itself a supporter of CCS globally, funding a number of CCS-related projects, and so may not be hostile to the MCA’s advocacy on CCS.

In the same review of the groups to which it belongs, BHP found an even stronger list of material differences between its positions and those held by the US Chamber of Commerce on climate and energy, including the chamber’s views that keeping global warming under 2C is unachievable and that the Paris Agreement is ineffectual. But BHP said it would request further information from the group before it quit its membership.

When reviewing its membership of the World Coal Association, BHP made a preliminary decision to quit the body, but would seek a response from the WCA before making a final determination.

In a response to questions about whether the advocacy on these issues marked a continuation of earlier positions or a shift along the lines requested by BHP, a spokesman for the MCA said:



“The MCA’s longstanding policy supports energy market solutions that will reduce emissions, improve supply reliability and minimise costs for business and households.”

Counter to the claims made by BHP in its review, the spokesperson said: “The MCA has always advocated and will continue to advocate for a level playing field based on sound science and technology neutrality.”

In its review, BHP noted that the MCA had called for government funding of a coal power plant and for the government to set emissions intensity thresholds in climate policy relative to technology-specific factors, in order to accommodate coal generation.

BHP was contacted for comment.