Killing the Great Barrier Reef for short-term profit

If it comes to pass, will the Great Barrier Reef with all its beauty, tourism and fishing, be exchanged for short-term fossil-fuel profits, royalties and the temporary balancing of budgets?
Gladstone is the world's fourth largest coal exporting port; a gas exporting facility is being developed on adjacent Curtis Island. Circumstantial evidence suggests that the increased dredging is disturbing toxic substances which cause human illness, fish deformity and deaths.
In the Gladstone Fish Health Advisory Panel's view "there is an issue of concern around the health of some species of fish in Gladstone Harbour and this is possibly caused by environmental factors".
The regulatory processes of the Queensland and Federal governments for the development, production and export of fossil fuels must be questioned once more in view of the Gladstone Port Corporation's request to remove Gladstone Harbour from the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area; presumably the proponents recognise that the two are incompatible. If incompatible, then protecting the World Heritage Area needs to be the first priority for Federal and State governments.  This would appear not be the case.
Doctors for the Environment Australia has written to Minister Burke expressing health and environmental concerns
The Federal Government was obliged to inform the World Heritage Committee in advance about the planned port expansion, and its potential to impact on the World Heritage Area. It did not, and the Committee notes "with extreme concern the approval of Liquefied Natural Gas processing and port facilities on Curtis Island".
The committee also proposes to visit to assess the impact on the World Heritage Area of Gladstone as well as six other proposed major port developments. It is a sad indictment that we needed a distinguished body from afar to draw attention to the fact that the Emperor's regulatory clothes have big holes and to recognise the importance of cumulative impacts.
The estuaries and the ports are the sewer end of the pollutions of vast onshore fossil fuel developments within the river catchments and it is the cumulative impact that is most likely to decide the future of the Reef already under stress from sediment, nutrient and pesticide run-off and a rise in sea temperature.
There are hundreds of proposals for coal and coal seam gas mining and related infrastructure which receive approval.
In 2009-10 Queensland produced about 250Mt of coal and 6 new mega mines which will be mined for 30 years will more than double this output. The use of water is prodigious and, despite precautions, some run-off which may contain heavy metals is inevitable.
This is most obvious when existing mines flood periodically; these events have government 'special discharge conditions' for discharge into rivers, but some mines remain flooded for months accumulating toxic metals before eventually being discharged into rivers
Each of the new mega mines is subject to a separate approval. Concerns are apparent which may contribute to a cumulative impact.

Mine dewatering will affect the local groundwater regime and may cause a decline in groundwater levels, alter flow patterns, and impact on discharge mechanisms beyond the limits of the site.....  This groundwater has metals and metalloids (arsenic, aluminium, iron and manganese). (Waratah)
Although it is acknowledged in isolation, each of the project's elements may impact on local groundwater resources it is unlikely that a significant cumulative impact will occur when considered as a complete project. (Kevin's Corner)

The Coal Seam Gas(CSG) mining boom has raised many questions over the use and contamination of ground water. The Senate Committee in its interim report recommended:

...that it be a requirement of all exploration or production approvals that the fluids extracted from wells after fraccing are kept isolated in secure separate storages and prior to disposal are treated to the highest standards.
..that all future CSG development approvals should be preceded by the development of... a regional-scale, multi-state and multi-layer model of the cumulative effects of multiple developments" of ground and surface water as recommended by Geoscience Australia.

Long-term concerns of some chemicals used in, or generated from, coal seams by CSG mining include hormonal system disruption and development of cancer. Such effects may not be immediately obvious, but can nevertheless occur with very low chemical exposures and have far reaching consequences.
So it must be asked, what is the cumulative flow into coastal waters over 30 years from all coal and CSG mining? Flow not only from the mining described in each EIS, but from inevitable spills, from emptying flooded mines - each flood removal approved in isolation. What is the impact on the Reef of the operation and dredging of not just one new port but of several?
This is the independent scientific impact assessment that has not been done. Deep concerns over existing regulatory processes have been expressed by Colin Hunt.
In addition we note that the scientific criticisms of an EIS are not published; there is no transparency. It is not apparent whether a human health impact assessment has been adequate. The Federal Government relies on the State process and does not provide additional independent scientific assessment.
What are the explanations for the lack of action? It would require ignorance of the World Heritage requirements, of the documented impacts of fossil fuel mining on water, of the possibility of cumulative impacts. Ominously it seems more likely that governments are going to have these developments come what may.
Some evidence for this is provided in two recent happenings. The booklet on CSG produced by the Queensland government and sent to households, contains scientific misinformation and could be seen as industry propaganda. Its 16 pages do not use the words 'health' or "illness".
The surveillance of groups concerned about fossil fuel mining requested by Resources and Energy Minister Martin Ferguson, at the behest of energy company lobbying, is some indication of tightened industry control over government on this issue.
How would an independent jury decide on this issue if presented with the science and economics?  Would they favour royalties and the rescue of mismanaged budgets? Or sustainable tourism and agriculture? No doubt they would have a picture of West Virginia in mind and would want to bequeath a living Reef and a sustainable future to their children.
David Shearman is a medical doctor, E/Professor of Medicine (Adelaide University) and was previously on Faculty at Edinburgh and Yale Universities. See his full profile here.

Source:  http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3776784.html