Sender: Grace FitzGerald
Date: 30/09/2015 05:34 PM
To: renewable.energy@ecodev.vic.gov.au
Subject: SUBMISSION: An ambitious Victorian Renewable Energy Target is critical to protecting
health and wellbeing
Dear Minister Lily D'Ambrosio,
As a medical student and future health professional, I am writing to congratulate the Renewable
Energy Roadmap and commitment to Victorian Renewable Energy Targets for 2020 and 2025. A
baseline Victorian Renewable Energy Target of no less than 20 per cent by 2020 will almost double
the amount of renewable energy generation in our state. However if we are to protect health and
wellbeing, it is imperative that Victoria adopts a more ambitious renewable energy target and
develops a clear strategy for a just transition towards a renewable energy future.
The evidence regarding the necessity of a move away from fossil fuel dependence is clear.
Every aspect of the life cycle of coal, including mining, preparation, combustion and waste disposal
is detrimental to human health1. PM2.5 particulate matter is defined by both the World Health
Organization and the International Agency describe PM 2.5 as a class 1 carcinogen for Research on
Carcinogens2. Coal combustion affects at least three of the nine National Health Priority Areas:
cancer control, cardiovascular health and asthma. Every aspect of the life cycle of coal, including
mining, preparation, combustion and waste disposal is detrimental to human health3.
The
respiratory risks of exposure to these particulates include the development and exacerbation of
asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), stunted lung development and lung
cancer. Cardiovascular risks include ischaemic heart disease, dysrhythmias and heart failure;
neurological effects include ischaemic stroke and developmental delay4. European data estimates
that greater than 24 deaths per TWh are directly attributable to power generated by coal – and up
to 32 deaths per TWh are attributable to lignite, or brown coal, the primary raw material of
combustion in Victoria5.
The oft –proposed alternative to coal combustion, expansion of natural gas industries, warrants
significant concern in light of probable negative health, social and environmental impacts. There is
mounting evidence in the published scientific literature outlining threats posed to human health
through unconventional gas development (UGD).
The medical community is increasingly concerned by the growing evidence suggestive that
unconventional gas extraction may be associated with adverse health risks through exposure to
polluted air, water, and soil6. Doctors for the Environment Australia (DEA) recognize that good
health requires not merely the absence of disease, but also clean air, safe food and water, and a
1
Epstein P, Buonocore J, Eckerle K, Hendryx M, Stout I BM, Heinberg R, et al. Full cost accounting for the life cycle of
coal. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2011;1219:73-98.
2
Loomis D, Grosse Y, Lauby-Secretan B, El Ghissassi F, Bouvard V, Benbrahim-Tallaa L, et al. The carcinogenicity of
outdoor air pollution. The Lancet Oncology. 2013;14(13):1262-3.
3
Physicians for Social Responsibility. Coal's Assualt on Human Health Executive Summary. 2009.
4
Ibid.
5
Markandya A, Wilkinson P. Electricity generation and health. The Lancet.370(9591):979-90. Doctors for the
Environment Australia. Briefing paper on the health impacts of coal mining and pollution. 2011.
6
Physicians Scientists and Engineers for Healthy Energy. More than 100 leading medical, scientific experts urge White
House to halt rush to expanded shale gas fracking for export purposes. 2012.
stable climate. Many of these determinants of health are threatened by unconventional gas
development – including through chemical exposures, threats to water security and psychological
or socio- demographic impacts7. The Australian Medical Association (AMA) has urged governments
to ensure that all future proposals for UGD are subject to rigorous and independent health risk
assessments, which take into account the potential for exposure to pollutants through air and
groundwater and any likely associated health risks8.
The importance of policy stability cannot be understated; as cuts to renewable energy jobs have
significant consequences for the livelihoods of those employed in or hoping to transition to the
sector. A reduction in the federal Renewable Energy Target saw investment in renewable energy
industries fall by 90%, and the loss of over 2,500 jobs in the sector9. Commitment to renewable
energy expansion in Victoria is vital to ensuring that the economic costs of a shift to a green
economy do not fall on workers in targeted industries and their communities. An ambitious VRET
would provide a policy and market environment that is supportive of the creation of well-paid,
secure, healthy, satisfying jobs that meet the needs of affected workers and their communities.
Australia has the economic and technological tools to rapidly cut fossil fuel emissions whilst still
seeing economic growth10. The health co-benefits of a transition to a decarbonised economy are
immense11. Victoria, in particular, is well placed to make use of the depth of existing skills and
infrastructure in renewable energy industries which are easily ready to rapidly expand with simple
policy changes.
Other states have shown leadership on renewable energy. The ACT has a Renewable Energy
Target of 90 per cent by 2020; South Australia 50 per cent by 2025; and Queensland, 50 per cent
by 2030. Federally, the Labor opposition has committed to a national goal of 50 per cent by 2030.
Victoria can and should do more to facilitate a transition away from fossil fuel dependence towards
a healthier future.
I support Victorian Renewable Energy Targets of 50 per cent by 2020, and 100 per cent by 2025.
Growing renewable energy is critical to each and every of the social determinants of health –
making Victoria, and indeed the rest of Australia a healthier, fairer place. More ambition means
more jobs, less air pollution, greater resilience to economic shocks as the world moves away from
fossil fuel dependence, and more action on climate change.
I call on the government to adopt Victorian Renewable Energy Targets that protect human health
and wellbeing by matching the ambition of the ACT, South Australia, and Queensland.
Australia does not and should not be limited to 20 percent renewables by 2020. Achieving 100
percent renewable energy in Australia must be the ultimate aim to mitigate climate change and a
faster transition would result in a lower magnitude of health risks associated with climate change.
Thus, increasing the RET target for 2020 would result in greater health benefits for Australians.
7
Doctors for the Environment Australia. Position Statement: Unconventional Gas Development. Available from:
http://dea.org.au/images/general/DEA_Position_Statement_-_Unconventional_Gas_D evelopment_-April_2015.pdf:
2015.
8
Australian Medical Association. AMA calls for coal seam gas health checks. Available from:
https://ama.com.au/media/ama-calls-coal-seam-gas-health-checks: 2013.
9
Australian Bureau of Statistics. Employment in Renewable Energy Activities, Australia, 2013-14 2015.
10
WWF. Australia can Cut Emissions Deeply and the Cost is Low. Available at:
http://awsassets.wwf.org.au/downloads/fs077_australia_can_cut_emissions_deeply_and_the_cost_is_low_21apr15
_v2.pdf: 2015.
11
Hughes L, McMichael, T. The Critical Decade: Climate Change and Health. Department of Climate Change and
Energy Efficiency, 2011.
Pursuing high renewable energy targets will not only result in health benefits, but also economic
benefits. A recent study at the University of New South Wales found that, in a carbon constrained
world, it is unlikely that a scenario involving fossil fuels will compete economically with 100%
renewable energy in 203012. Decreased certainty in carbon policies globally is limiting the viability
of emissions intensive industries.
An analysis of the RET by Schneider Electric found that Australia would benefit from maintaining,
expanding or extending the LRET as it would lead to lower electricity prices, lower carbon
emissions and increased competition13. A report for the Clean Energy Council states that average
household bills will save over $50 per year by 2020 and further reductions in the years to follow if
the RET is kept in place.
AMSA calls on the panel to have vision and strength in protecting and advancing Australia’s
interests in becoming world leaders in the production of Renewable Energy.
Thus far, over $6 billion has been made invested in renewable generation, a figure that we can
only expect to grow. Yet investors (both Australian and international) have relied on the RET
legislation remaining in full force and effect as stable legislation (and regulation) is required for
large scale capital intensive investment. There should be no further legislated reviews of the RET
so that investors can have the confidence to invest in the industry without the fear of ongoing
policy change.
The RET is however only one of what must be multiple policy implementations to achieve adequate
CO2 emissions reductions. For example, other measures include regulatory approaches and taxbased policies. The most recent IPCC report states that policies that raise government revenue
generally have lower social costs than those that do not. The report also finds that complete
removal of fossil fuel subsidies can also achieve emissions reductions.
12
13
See n 10 above.
See n 11 above.