Rod at the Tarrawonga PAC hearing, sharing a laugh with Whitehaven’s Danny Young

The NSW Planning and Assessment Commission has given its approval to the Tarrawonga coal project.  We made a submission to the environmental impact assessment of the project and also presented to the PAC in Boggabri late last year.

Our submission and presentation made a number of criticisms of the economic assessment, by Gillespie Economics:

• Estimates of economic benefits retained in Australia seemed optimistic, yet there was no discussion of the methodology behind them
• Greenhouse gas emissions did not include the marginal increase in world emissions
• Underground mining alternatives were not considered
• Numerous external costs were omitted or inadequately considered, such as health impacts, impacts on Leard State Forest and social values
• Input output modelling was certain to overstate the economic impacts of the project
• Calculations in the economic assessment could not be replicated

Despite going into considerable detail on these points, no mention was made of them in the proponent’s response to submissions.  The PAC’s response was hardly better.  They noted:

Concerns with the proponent’s economic assessment; and

Concerns about the distribution of benefits and profits and suggestions that the mine is not necessary for Australia as the coal and profits will go overseas.

As none of our points have ever been addressed by the proponents, the planning department or the PAC, I can only restate our claims (in the SMH) that economic assessment is accepted by the department without scrutiny and that the PAC have decided environmental economics doesn’t matter.

An interesting side point on the PAC –  the only commissioner on the PAC who claims economics qualifications in their bio is Paul Forward.  What doesn’t appear on his bio for the PAC is that he is a principal at Evans and Peck.  Evans and Peck consult heavily to the mining and “hydrocarbons” industries.