In my last post I wrote about the cost of a just transition, noting some of the logistical difficulties that may arise as fossil fuel plants are closed and replaced with cleaner sources of energy. I mentioned an article from 2017 about Australian coal plants closing on short notice (for economic reasons, not environmental ones) and leaving their employees with no time to adjust. This is obviously an example of what to avoid, but it appears that Australia is starting to learn from its mistakes. Last week, EnergyAustralia announced that it would shut down its Yallourn W coal plant in 2028, four years earlier than expected. It will be replaced with renewable sources of power, coupled with a large grid-scale battery to be completed in 2026.
The Yallourn site has a long history of generating power from coal, going back exactly one century. In 1921, a temporary power plant was built on the grounds. A permanent one replaced it in 1924, and a major station called Yallourn A was built on the grounds in 1928. Stations B, C, D, and E followed over the next few decades. Eventually the stations reached the end of their utility. Stations A and B were demolished starting in 1968, and Yallourn W was built during the 1970s. The remaining stations other than Yallourn W were demolished in the 1990s, but Yallourn W remains in use for now.
According to an article in The Guardian, the approximately 500 employees at the coal plant were notified of the advanced date of the impending closure at the beginning of March. They have seven years to prepare, and EnergyAustralia has promised a workforce support package worth ten million Australian dollars (about eight million American dollars). This is what happens when closures are planned out. There is no reason why every single one of those employees cannot land on their feet when the time comes. But that is much, much harder to do when employees are reassured that they have nothing to worry about until the plant closes on short notice. There is a right way and a wrong way to go about closing carbon-emitting power plants, and I think that we can agree that the needs of the affected workers need to be carefully considered and addressed.
But that brings us to the question of whether keeping an old coal plant open for another seven years is good enough. The Guardian article reports that “Climate campaigners said the closure was inevitable, but not soon enough given the scientific evidence about what was needed.” I’d have liked to have seen a specific quote from a specific person or organization, but I do think it’s fair to acknowledge that keeping the global temperature increase under 1.5ºC requires closing fossil fuel plants (coal plants especially) with a sense of urgency. And it can’t just be one aging plant that closes, either. But the comment does underscore the need to strike a balance between doing right by affected workers and doing right by a rapidly destabilizing climate that has the potential to affect a great many more people.
The plant closure also provides an interesting example of how different media outlets can spin the same story in two very different ways, despite presenting the same set of facts to the readers. The Guardian has a reputation for being left-leaning, for example. Reuters, by contrast is more centrist. Both news outlets mention in their articles on the closure that Australia’s energy and emissions reduction minister, Angus Taylor, is worried that “reliability and affordability concerns” will ensue. His concerns stem at least partially from price spikes that happened in the aftermath of sudden plant closures in 2016 and 2017. But Reuters made that a part of the headline for their article, and The Guardian didn’t. And yet, the articles themselves are not dramatically different in tone or content from each other; more than anything, it’s the headline. I think an important conclusion to draw from this, regardless of your taste in reading material, is to go beyond the headlines – which say a lot less than people give them credit for, regardless of what they think about media bias and who is or isn’t engaging in it – and look at the details. As far as the details go, I think projecting the fallout from a closure planned seven years in advance based on what happened with abrupt closures that weren’t entirely expected is unreasonable and unfair.
So there are a number of conclusions to draw from the announced closure of the Yallourn plant. First, a good plan will leave ample time for affected employees and their communities to adapt. Second, the urgency to close coal plants is real. It will take good, smart leadership to face that urgency without adversely affecting workers, and the balance will be delicate, but it can be done. Finally, I think we all need to agree to go beyond the headlines and the “clickbait” and understand the details. This applies to issues well beyond energy and climate, but looking at news in a shallow way or simply absorbing somebody’s spin isn’t helping the public discourse any.
No comments:
Post a Comment