Plus if coal becomes more expensive relative to other substitutes, such as renewables, suppliers will invest in these. The whole we need to export coal has a There is No Alternative ring to it.
A clear absence of cost effective alternatives would assure they would just buy from someone else but that is not the case any more; constraining the supply will make those clean energy options more attractive and tip borderline decisions towards them. And that border line keeps shifting and progressively favoring the clean energy.
I don't know to what extent Labor under Albanese is beholden or cowed, doesn't see global emissions reductions as their job or just don't care about climate that much isn't clear but appeasing and subsidising the fossil fuel sector into not opposing Labor so Labor will be free to be more ambitious on climate - and win over some LNP voters - seems delusional to me. It won't stem the flow of Labor votes to Greens and Teals and the increasingly serious real world impacts of global warming will assure that the number of Australians willing to vote accordingly will only grow.
Bring on some minority governments - the LibNatLab triopoly won't do real commitment to zero emissions as long as they don't have to. It would be refreshing to see Labor appeasing progressives concerned about climate to assure OUR votes.
Leaving aside the analogy with drug dealers, I'd view this as a simple cost benefit analysis.
Not exporting the coal will mean a somewhat higher price of coal and a somewhat lower emission of CO2 which is a benefit. The benefit will mainly be enjoyed by non-Australians, but I assume that we (you guys :)) have a universalistic view of benefits; harm reduction is harm reduction whoever is not harmed.
Not exporting the coal will mean lower profits for the exporter, lower royalties to landowners, less tax revenue to the Australian government, etc.
Which is larger?
I'd suppose this will turn mainly on the elasticity of supply of non-Australian coal and total elasticity of demand for coal. By how much will total coal consumption and CO2 emissions be reduced by the decision not to export the Australian coal?
The main argument against further limiting coal supplies is that it won't happen for obvious political economy reasons. Its one of Australia's major exports. As Australia is the world's leading (or second leading) coal exporter the effect of a prohibition would be to raise international prices and encourage substitution towards new energy sources and towards new sources of coal as you say. Australian production is about 7% of the total so the effects on price would be significant but not huge. Russia, China and the US have greater coal reserves than Australia so the switch toward new sources would not be difficult even if a slightly higher price would have to be paid.
Plus if coal becomes more expensive relative to other substitutes, such as renewables, suppliers will invest in these. The whole we need to export coal has a There is No Alternative ring to it.
A clear absence of cost effective alternatives would assure they would just buy from someone else but that is not the case any more; constraining the supply will make those clean energy options more attractive and tip borderline decisions towards them. And that border line keeps shifting and progressively favoring the clean energy.
I don't know to what extent Labor under Albanese is beholden or cowed, doesn't see global emissions reductions as their job or just don't care about climate that much isn't clear but appeasing and subsidising the fossil fuel sector into not opposing Labor so Labor will be free to be more ambitious on climate - and win over some LNP voters - seems delusional to me. It won't stem the flow of Labor votes to Greens and Teals and the increasingly serious real world impacts of global warming will assure that the number of Australians willing to vote accordingly will only grow.
Bring on some minority governments - the LibNatLab triopoly won't do real commitment to zero emissions as long as they don't have to. It would be refreshing to see Labor appeasing progressives concerned about climate to assure OUR votes.
Leaving aside the analogy with drug dealers, I'd view this as a simple cost benefit analysis.
Not exporting the coal will mean a somewhat higher price of coal and a somewhat lower emission of CO2 which is a benefit. The benefit will mainly be enjoyed by non-Australians, but I assume that we (you guys :)) have a universalistic view of benefits; harm reduction is harm reduction whoever is not harmed.
Not exporting the coal will mean lower profits for the exporter, lower royalties to landowners, less tax revenue to the Australian government, etc.
Which is larger?
I'd suppose this will turn mainly on the elasticity of supply of non-Australian coal and total elasticity of demand for coal. By how much will total coal consumption and CO2 emissions be reduced by the decision not to export the Australian coal?
The main argument against further limiting coal supplies is that it won't happen for obvious political economy reasons. Its one of Australia's major exports. As Australia is the world's leading (or second leading) coal exporter the effect of a prohibition would be to raise international prices and encourage substitution towards new energy sources and towards new sources of coal as you say. Australian production is about 7% of the total so the effects on price would be significant but not huge. Russia, China and the US have greater coal reserves than Australia so the switch toward new sources would not be difficult even if a slightly higher price would have to be paid.