Contributed by Adam Carlton
A group of senior citizens in Queensland decided to act over the Adani Carmichael coal mine. They went into the foyer at the state government’s headquarters in William Street.
The purpose was to get an assurance that Adani will be prosecuted over an alleged breach of its pollution licence, after releasing sludge into waters near the Great Barrier Reef.
“Adani has broken Queensland’s law and lied about how much toxic coal sludge was released,” said Galilee Blockade spokesperson Ben Pennings.
The building was entered at 11 am yesterday.
Communities around Australia have been waging an ongoing campaign against the Adani mine and the associated railway, meant to transport coal to an expanded Abbott Point terminal, to be shipped out, via the region of the Great Barrier reef.
Adani is dogged by a history of allegations and convictions, relating to corrupt practices and lack of environmental safeguards. It seems that these practices have now been extended into Australia.
Most Australians do not want it. Unfortunately, government has been deaf to this, and has tried to find every way to assist the mining mogul. The extent of the opposition, undoubtedly helped along by a well organised campaign, is strong enough to convince the banks to not lend money to Adani. It is considered a bad investment.
Despite this, the federal government continues to support the projects, and the Queensland government continues to vacillate. There is an ongoing a lack of action, over evidence that has led to the allegation that the company has caused environmental damage, through violation of its licence agreement, and deliberately lied about it
This is not good enough. Even if there was some merit to the Carmichael coal mine and the Abbott Point terminal, this is not a fit organisation to be in charge.
Neither should go ahead, when the environmental risk is too high. Especially when it is now clear that it makes little economic sense, locking Australia into an industry that has nearly reached the end of its life span, and choosing short-term expediency, at the cost of longer-term needs.