The rest of the world is rapidly removing coal while the delusional politicians of Australia are still trying to ramp up the production of it. How many properties and wildlife would have been saved if Australia had shut down its coal production?
The book "the rational optimist" discusses how coal curbed deforestation, and oil wells replaced whale oil.
Of course now other forms of energy are becoming practical.
Zero. Australia's position on coal is absurdly outdated, but even a complete cessation of greenhouse emissions by Australia would've only been a drop in the global bucket at about 1%. They'd still be having these fires even if the entire country ran on unicorn farts since the 1800s.
Australia's emissions are smaller, however they enable much larger emissions elsewhere. Without that coal, India and China would be accelerating their transition to renewables.
Which is still not the same thing as 7% of global greenhouse emissions. Plenty of non-fossil fuel sources for emissions, like burning trees, cows making methane, etc.
Even if Australia were responsible for 7% of global greenhouse emissions, ceasing wouldn't be enough.
Meanwhile, if you want to convince other countries to reduce their emissions, it's much easier when you're part of the solution.
Given Australia is a substantial producer and exporter of coal (responsible for around 7% of global production [1]), and that coal (+ natgas + oil) power generation are responsible for around 30% of global greenhouse gas production [2], and assuming that coal is responsible for between half and all of GHG emissions from power plants [3], you could ballpark that Australian-produced coal is responsible for an incremental 1-2% or so of global greehouse gas emissions (0.3 * 0.07 * [0.5~1]).
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_Australia [2]: https://www.c2es.org/content/international-emissions/ [3]: https://www.worldcoal.org/coal/uses-coal/coal-electricity
So I suppose you're referring to the more direct aspects which have affected people and wildlife over the many years, rather than the elephant in the room.
The more direct impacts come in polluted waterways, coal mining operations and any other deforestation that resulted from our local coal industry.
Assuming that browner coal from other locations isn't too cheap, for overseas power plants.
If Australia stopped coal exports, we could have a significant impact on the viability of coal as a fuel source. If we're serious about climate change we could halt coal exports immediately, which would spike the cost of coal and lead to the closure of coal plants already on thin margins. Sounds drastic but maybe not if you consider how little time we have to correct course.
We'd need take care of the coal workers. Potentially continue their salaries for a year, then phase it out gradually. There's only $35k workers in the coal industry. Average $100k salary = $3.5 Billion per year. Doable.
I don't know what to do with the coal mines and their investors. I'm inclined to say screw them. Let them go bankrupt. But this might hurt investor confidence in Australia ...
The current fire season has seen about 6,300,000 ha. burn. A difference between the current season and previous seasons is that these latest fires have affected densely populated areas, including holiday destinations. Another important difference - at least in the amount of attention these fires get - is that there were no celebrities driving the cause in 1974-1975, let alone in 1851.
Your statement that The coal industry is a driving force behind climate change which was the primary cause of the bush fires is not supported by the previously mentioned report which abstract goes as follows: Bushfires are an inherent part of the Australian environment. We cannot prevent them, but we can minimise the risks they pose to life, property and infrastructure, production systems, and the environment. Australia has a large and very capable force of volunteer and career firefighters, advanced firefighting technologies, and significant firefighting resources. But the geographical scale of our country, the large and expanding rural–urban interface, and the potential for rapid bushfire development and spread under adverse weather conditions mean that individual Australians cannot rely solely on fire agencies to protect their lives and property from bushfires. Bushfires have a fundamental and irreplaceable role in sustaining many of Australia’s natural ecosystems and ecological processes and are a valuable tool for achieving land management objectives.However, if they are too frequent or too infrequent, too severe or too mild, or mistimed, they can erode ecosystem health and biodiversity and compromise other land management goals. We have been learning to live with fire since the first Australians arrived on our continent. We need to continue, and enrich, that learning process in contemporary circumstances and be able to adapt our planning and responses to change.This report seeks to help all Australians meet these challenges.
[1] https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&conte...
We also have more people on this Earth and better measurements now so it's not surprising that more people are recorded as being affected.
So, climate change didn't start the brush fires but it probably did make them X% more intense, but we don't know what X is.
Do you have any proposed mechanism for how Australia’s coal production would lead to increased property losses, aside from the very marginal effect of Australia’s coal production on global warming multiplied by the very marginal effect of global warming on bushfires?
For example, 1% higher temperatures or 1% less moisture or 1% higher wind might produce more than 1% additional fire damage when one occurs.
There might be a reinforcement effect where a slight change in fire conditions produces much more damage when compounded over the range of the fire.
I'm not sure we know the variables well enough to know the exact amount though.
https://qz.com/1779572/how-australias-massive-bushfires-are-...