A couple of days ago I reported on a landmark decision in the Queensland Land and Resources Tribunal. It was decided that operations at a coal mine in central Queensland could be expanded without any of the conditions sought by two environmental groups, inparticular that mining giant Xstrata avoid, reduce or offset the greenhouse gas emissions likely to result from the mining, transport and use of the coal from the mine.
The decision included comment from Tribunal President Koppenol that Professor Ian Lowe, an expert witness for the environment groups, had exaggerated greenhouse gas emissions by a factor of 218 in his evidence. Professor Lowe immediately hit back in comment to media claiming he had only got the facts wrong by a factor of 15.
I must say, this seems like rather a large amount!
A reader of this blog, Cinder (aka Alan Ashbarry) has done his own calculations and concludes the Professor overstated the emissions but by not quite as much as President Koppenol claimed:
Hi Jennifer,
The decision by the Queensland Land and Resources Tribunal is supported by a well argued assessment of the merits of the development of this mining enterprise. It also critically examines the evidence presented on behalf of the Queensland Conservation Council by its ‘Expert Witnesses’.
Whilst not privy to the verbal presentation of the witnesses we can see that the written evidence may be confusing to many. QCC witness, Dr Hugh Saddler, first calculated the emissions from the mine’s operations, the transport of the coal and then the use of that coal. Dr Saddler then determines an annual figure and a total mine life’s figure. He does so by using his own methodology rather than the Australian Greenhouse Office that he states “this calculation of emissions yields a higher figure than would be the case if the default emission factor given in the AGO Factors and Methods Workbook were used.” Dr Saddler did not provide the AGO figure.
In Dr Saddler’s written evidence http://www.envlaw.com.au/newlands5.pdf the calculated total annual greenhouse emissions and the total greenhouse emissions were compared with Australia’s total greenhouse gas emission including Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry. A similar comparison was made with Global Annual emission (excluding LULUCF).
Dr Saddler’s comment “The total greenhouse gas emissions from the mining, transport and use of the 28.5 Mt of coal from the 15 year life of the Project (84 Mt CO2-e) are, therefore, equivalent to approximately 0.24% of international annual greenhouse gas emissions based on 2000 levels of emissions (of 34 Gt CO2-e).” appeared in Professor Lowe’s written evidence as
“To put the potential release of CO2 from the proposed mine extension into context, the lifetime emissions from the proposed mine extension … about 0.24 per cent of the current annual global release of greenhouse gases.”
The Chair of the Tribunal correctly points out that this should only be an annual comparison, and correctly points out that the 0.24% figure is calculated on the 15 year life of the mine. However in his attempt to correct the evidence of Professor Lowe who used Dr Saddler’s figures the Tribunal appears to have divided the annual emissions by 15 rather than the total of 15 years output.
The Tribunal should have calculated 84 Mt divide 15 years = 5.6Mt to determine annual, then divide by 34 Gt equaling 0.0164%, an overstatement by 14.63 times.
Such an error is understandable given the number of equations, calculations and comparisons presented to the Tribunal, and whilst it changes the order of magnitude of the exaggeration, it still shows an exaggeration. The correct figure still agrees with the conclusion that the mine’s annual contribution to annual global GHG emissions was "very small".
The Tribunal also could have added the LULUCF figure of about 8Gt to the global annual figure or excluded the estimated 5.5 Mt per annum usage figure as it could have been argued that coal from another source would be used, thus this mine would not have a net impact on global use of coal.
Excluding the use of the coal, the mine’s operation and the transport of the coal is in the order of 0.1 Mt each year or 0.0003% of yearly Global emissions
It would appear that the expert evidence, by including comparisons of life time emissions and annual emission, has created a mathematical dilemma that is not easily understood by the lay person, and takes more than a 15 second grab on TV to explain.
This appears to be identical to the tactics employed by the Wilderness Society in Tasmania when they apply mathematical comparisons to official government figures in the forest debate, such as comparing today’s old growth forest to the area that estimated to have existed in the year 1750 even though the forest in 1750 was of all ages, and only a percentage would have been considered “Old Growth”.
The word “Statistics” can be found in a well known phrase attributed to Benjamin Disraeli and popularised by Mark Twain: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.”
As Wikipedia says this semi-ironic statement refers to the persuasive power of numbers, and succinctly describes how even accurate statistics can be used to bolster inaccurate arguments.
Having followed postings on this thread, and reading press reports in the Qld and National press, it would seem that Lowe and Saddler did mislead the Tribunal.
It seems to be quite OK for the AGW brigade and their allies in the loopy left, to put forward Lowe, as one of their own, as an (independant?), 'expert witness', to tell fibs. However the same people will howl down any scientist, or other expert who has the temerity to appear for Xstrata, or any other mining company for that matter.
As a matter of interest, I understand that Ian Lowe holds a position of 'consultant' on climate matters with the CSIRO. Enquiries to that division of the CSIRO go unanswered. Could anybody tell me whether this is so?
Your desire to insulate your cronies from the consequences of their actions was always obvious, Ian K. All I have done is outline what would constitute the proper discharge of their professional duty and then highlight the nature and extent of the variances. If that variance is so substantial that you might regard it as villification then that is their problem, not mine.
I was outlining how "justice, equity and due process" occur in the processes of a tribunal which rightly and appropriately does not have the authority to rope in treaties like Kyoto for your convenience. "Casuist crap" is your term, and is a term which it would never occur to me to use. I want to leave this debate here although I object to your besmirching the reputations of people without a skerrick of evidence that they have acted inappropriately before the tribunal. If you really hold the principles of "justice and equity" so dear, stop vilifying people without proper evidence just because they hold differing opinions to you!
I was outlining how "justice, equity and due process" occur in the processes of a tribunal which rightly and appropriately does not have the authority to rope in treaties like Kyoto for your convenience. "Casuist crap" is your term, and is one which it would never occur to me to use. I will leave this debate here although I object to your besmirching the reputations of people without a skerrick of evidence that they have acted inappropriately before the tribunal. If you really hold the principles of "justice and equity" so dear, stop vilifying people without proper evidence just because they hold differing opinions to you!
You may think the principles of justice, equity and due process are nothing but casuist crap, Ian K, but those of us who understand all the sacrifices it has taken to get us this far do not. But I accept your cop-out for what it is.
Most of the law is "casuist crap" Ian, blame the lawyers!
Ian K, you are splitting hairs to defend the indefensible. We have not seen any reports from Xstrata's team but when Saddler and Lowe prepared their reports they had a duty to raise all relevant issues. And if they seriously held the same casuist crap views that you do then they had an obligation to present those arguments as well.
They did neither. It is the tribunal's prerogative to determine which arguments are valid, not Saddler or Lowe. They were selective in their evidence and selective in the manner certain rights and privileges were applied to Xstrata.
And as we have no copy of the Xstrata position any discussion on it is purely speculative.
Ian,
I will also spell out my position as regards the issue of the company’s former operations.
1. If they fell within the terms of reference of the tribunal (which I do not concede), they would only be matters of mitigating circumstances. These could only be taken into account when assessing remedial action the company would have to take, if any. They would not bear on the findings as to whether the new part of the mine has an adverse environmental impact.
2. You seem to be talking about Kyoto Treaty obligations. The fact the opponents of the mine are pursuing it through the tribunal is because we have NOT signed the Treaty and the issue of whether the mine might comply with its conditions does not arise. Matters concerning international treaty obligations, I would think, would have to be pursued through the High Court.
3. If the former operations of the company were a relevant issue, it should have been raised by the expert witnesses for the company. If the opponent’s witnesses were dishonest in not raising this issue, you would have to say that the witnesses for the company were equally dishonest (and incompetent) in not raising it.
The attempt by certain conservationists exagerate by comparing aggregated emissions with annual emissions is very foolish. Lets say the Ian Lowe Coal Company has coal mine with a 100 year life. It's coal production contributes 100 million tonnes of CO2 in the first year but the CEO commits to abatement programmes and/or offsets that reduce this by 1 million tonnes extra every year. So second year it contributes 99 million tonnes, 3rd year it produces 98 million tonnes etc. The CEO then says to the world "I've fully offset the CO2 emissions, 1 million tonnes additional reduction every year for 100 years. That's 100% of our annual emissions!" Should the Ian Lowe Coal Company get an award for this from the conservationists? After all, the Company has used their own logic.
"Withheld information" Gee I'm sure Xstrata are really relieved to have you working for them - they would have been lost without your help. ROTFL - too much hooch Ian.
When are you going to apologise for the 218 times wrong. Time to fess up.