Cobbora Coal Mine

I have reviewed the ecological assessment in many mining EIS's over the years - this one by EMM is no different. It downplays environmental values, while emphasising the supposed impacted nature of the environment, and describes a depauperate ecology of the region, to make it sound "not so bad" to have a mine. Throw in a few offsets, and the project will actually provide conservation benefit, even though over 1000ha of intact EEC will be destroyed. What a farce.

In fact the Goldney work the EIS mentions describes an already impacted environment - the proposed mine will add to this impact, making things worse for the regions wildlife.

Further and fundamentally, the surveys and assessments for wildlife done by ERM and EMM were vastly deficient, and contain many omissions and contradictions. I have mapped vegetation extensively in the region, including Cobbora Rd and around Dubbo, and have not found it hard to describe high quality and intact native grassy ecosystems (derived grassland in the legislation), which the researchers have seemed reluctant to do, even within quite a large study area. I have also seen many mining-oriented consultancies do exactly as these consultants have done, failing to find good intact grassland units. No-one from the state or commonwealth regulators / environment offices will bother checking the veracity of their supposedly "independent" findings, either - no-one thinks there is any conflict of interest in these sort of companies getting so much return custom from their mining clients, despite the uniformly pro-mining position, in the reports prepared by these "expert" mining consultancies.

In addition "no elliot or cage trapping" in the methodology fails to even mention pitfall trapping, the most effective way to detect reptiles, bar none. No wonder they describe a small set of reptiles (25 species out of a regional total of more than 100 species). Relying on Goldney for a reptile species list is also risky - Professor Goldney has consistently failed to report Rosenbergs Goanna from the region, despite it being picked up near Orange and Hill End, and Aprasia has also been recorded from Goulburn River National Park, and near Dubbo. The reptile survey work by ERM and EMM is so poor as to be effectively useless in making a determination - you cannot say there will not be an impact on species which are not even mentioned, much less discussed.

I am not going to go into details on the deficicncies of the ecological impact assessment - it does what it needs to do, and all that the departments expect of this type of industry-based report - it says "no significant impact", and nothing I can say will divert the industry and government from pushing this proposal - another coal mine - through, despite local, regional and international opposition to this type of "development".

I'm a 42 yrs old who enjoys sports and outdoors with my wife and daughter. I am a multi skilled operator, operating upto 360 tone excavators, 900 992 loaders, D10r dozers, 16 h-m graders, 789 trucks, 777 water trucks and more plant. Certificates- civil 3 construction,excavator, loader,skid steer, non swing crane, chainsaw, and more. I'm looking for something new where i can be apart of ,To grow as a employee and a person and to have the opportunity to work within this organisation. I have sound knowledge within the mining industry with safety in high regard.
please dont hesitate in contacting me for any further information
that maybe required.
Yours sincerely ,
David Wade

12 October 2012 TRANSMITTED VIA EMAIL


Mr Stephen O'Donoghue
Planning Officer
Department of Planning and Infrastructure
23-33 Bridge Street
Sydney NSW

Dear Stephen,


Re: Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment and Project Application

Along with my parents we currently hold land adjacent to land held by Cobbora Holding Company Pty Limited which is described as Property Location 1172 within the Cobbora Coal Project Environmental Assessment.

As longterm residents of the area we currently have a number of issues which we feel have not been adequately addressed by the proposed Cobbora Coal Mine Environmental Assessment. I have outlined these below for reference:

* One of these issues is I currently use the all weather Spiring Ridge Road on a daily basis to commute from my property at Gulgong where I reside to my land at Cobbora. Cobbora have advised they plan to divert the road which would result in myself having to travel approximately 175km a week extra (25km both ways). This results in a financial and inefficiency to our business and has not been credibly addressed within the assessment or by Cobbora representatives.

Correspondence provided to date from Cobbora has outlined the proposal to relocate the road and that it would shorten my travel time, resulting in no affectation. This is very confusing as I am able to travel at 100kph on the current sealed road and it is a lot shorter distance so unless they are allowed to increase the speed limit I am unsure how my travel time not be impacted by the proposal. There is an alternate route which is the Avonside West Road which is currently a public road but is only really suitable for four wheel drive vehicles. It would be my preference to have this road upgraded to the same level as the current Spring Ridge Road they are going to close so we can use this as an alternate route rather than the one proposed by the mine. The Avonside West Road would also be a shorter route for those residents living closer to Cobbora to access Gulgong, Mudgee and Sydney.

* We also maintain reservations to the potential impacts from noise and air quality from the proposed operations. We recognise that the Environmental Assessment has modelled these potential impacts and the results indicate that we will not be affected. Our concern primarily relates to the predominant winds within the local area being from the West and the South-West which will amplify these issues to our residence and our property. These are unknown factors at present but any requests to have these monitored prior to operations beginning have been ignored.

* We currently rely on groundwater for stock and domestic purposes and having 4 bores located on the same stream as those owned by Cobbora Coal. Modelling presented within the Environmental Assessment appears to show an impact to the Alluvial Aquifers that our property is located on, however we are still unsure the effect this will have on our business or water quality and quantity. This is a significant concern to us and should be further addressed by Cobbora Coal.

* As life-long farmers, we do maintain issues with Land Management displayed by Cobbora Coal to date and their inability to control weeds - with no weed control being undertaken on neighbouring properties for the past three years and livestock on land owned by the mine consistently grazing on public roads and on two instances causing near fatalities. Certainly this is not ideal and is likely to cause impact to adjoining properties, like ourselves, and introduce financial impost to our business from the need to undertake additional weed control and feral animal control programs within our landholdings.

* As a result of 5 out of our six neighbours being purchased by Cobbora Coal and being advised in writing by Cobbora Coal that we will not be affected, we have consistently raised the issue of our current land holding being devalued as a result of having no neighbours competing for the purchase of our land in the event of sale nd any potential purchaser being deterred away as a result of not wishing to leave near a Coal Mine. We maintain these reservations.

Thank you for considering our concerns.

Yours sincerely

John, Connie and Peter Portelli

I can't believe the government are even considering opening a new coal mine. There are large abundant renewable energy resources in Australia. Organizations such as beyond zero emissions have devised plans to switch 100% renewable energy within 10 years. The government should be listening to these people rather than lining their pockets with coal lobby money. It is of international importance that this coal mine is scraped before it gets of the ground.
alain

I object to another coal mine being built in NSW. Open cut mines devastate local habitat and utilise valuable water in this dry region.
An extra 20 million tonnes of coal dug out of the ground and burnt is counter to the actions we need to take to reduce carbon pollution globally.

The recommendations from the International Panel on Climate Change, as well as Australia's own Climate Comission and the Premier's Office of Environment, highlight that NSW should transition away from using coal as an energy source. I object to the opening of a new thermal coal mine that will perpetuate the operation of the Bayswater, Liddell, Eraring and Vales Point Power Stations. This will result in greenhouse gas emission that are having an effect on many parts of our environment, water security, agricultural performance as well as direct human health.


There is greater public interest in protecting agricultural land, the water catchment and threatened species, particularly in a changing climate, and rejecting the proposal for relatively short-term extractive mining. I object to this coal mine proposal under the principles of ecologically sustainable development (ESD), particularly the precautionary principle and the principle of intergenerational equity, which should be considered as part of the public interest.


To approve a new open cut thermal coal mine stifles investment in sustainable, renewable technologies and industry.


The open cut mine and ancillary ore processing and transportation systems, make dust from the operations are a health concern, and can jeopardise the tourism and agricultural industry in this pastoral region. The mine, buying water on the open market, competes with the agricultural sector for water supply, potentially pushing up the price of water as the coal mines purchasing potential based on coal commodity prices is projected to rise. With Destination NSW promoting the wine tours in the region, this open cut mines risks tarnishing the tourism appeal through it's visual and noise impacts as well.

To approve a new open cut thermal coal mine stifles investment in sustainable, renewable technologies and industry.

New coal mines should not be considered in NSW or for that matter Australia, as it is not in the public interest to promote practices that are against the precautionary principle and the intergenerational principle in regard to climate change. Solid scientific evidence indicates that fossil fuel emissions contribute significantly to climate change, so this goes even beyond precautionary. Whether the coal is burned here in Australia or offshore is irrelevant, as climate change is not subject to national or state boundaries, and the effects will be felt here also.

I object to this project on ethical grounds

To Whom It May Concern:
While reviewing the Ecological Assessment for the above proposal I wish to raise the following concerns.

I believe that unacceptable impacts will occur on Zieria ingramii, Tylophora linearis and Homoranthus darwinoides, in my opinion, which is supported by the definition of a 'local population' by Keith (2000) that for each of these species, numerous local populations will become completely extinct. This should trigger the need to produce a Species Impact Statement (SIS) under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, which I could not find in the attached documentation above. These species are also listed under the federal Environmental Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and in using the Significant Impact Criteria, I feel that the above documentation does not adequately address impacts on Matters of National Environmental Significance for these species. Therefore the current documentation should be seen as inadequate for completing an impact assessment on these species under both State and Federal Legislation.
Furthermore the offset lands contain extensive areas of cleared land, which while the documentation states that they will be revegetated over time, current knowledge as supported in a recent review paper in the journal Biological Conservation by Cristescu et al (2012) in considering the rehabilitation success on mined (or cleared land) found that current activities had little benefit to threatened species. Within an already overcleared landscape, further removal of large areas of remnant woodland may result in significant impacts on local populations of threatened woodland birds including the Brown Treecreeper, Speckled Warbler and Barking Owl. Impacts will also occur on Grassy Box Woodlands, which are listed as Critically Endangered Ecological Communities under the EPBC Act 1999, thus any significant removal should be seen as unacceptable. Due to these issues the current proposal should be rejected due to unacceptable impacts on matters of national environmental significance, inadequate conservation offsets and the lack of an SIS for the three aforementioned threatened flora species.

References
Keith (2000) Ecological Management and Restoration 1, 125-139.
Cristescu et al. (2012) Biological Conservation 149, 60-72.

The recommendations from the International Panel on Climate Change, as well as Australia's own Climate Comission and the Premier's Office of Environment, highlight that NSW should transition away from using coal as an energy source. I object to the opening of a new thermal coal mine that will perpetuate the operation of the Bayswater, Liddell, Eraring and Vales Point Power Stations. This will result in greenhouse gas emission that are having an effect on many parts of our environment, water security, agricultural performance as well as direct human health.
There is greater public interest in protecting agricultural land, the water catchment and threatened species, particularly in a changing climate, and rejecting the proposal for relatively short-term extractive mining. I object to this coal mine proposal under the principles of ecologically sustainable development (ESD), particularly the precautionary principle and the principle of intergenerational equity, which should be considered as part of the public interest.
To approve a new open cut thermal coal mine stifles investment in sustainable, renewable technologies and industry.
The open cut mine and ancillary ore processing and transportation systems, make dust from the operations are a health concern, and can jeopardise the tourism and agricultural industry in this pastoral region. The mine, buying water on the open market, competes with the agricultural sector for water supply, potentially pushing up the price of water as the coal mines purchasing potential based on coal commodity prices is projected to rise. With Destination NSW promoting the wine tours in the region, this open cut mines risks tarnishing the tourism appeal through it's visual and noise impacts as well.

Objection to Cobbora Coal Project - (state owned open cut coal mine proposal)
Application No: 10_0001

Major Planning Assessments
Department of Planning and Infrastructure
GPO Box 39
Sydney 2001


Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Objection to Cobbora Coal Project

I strongly object to approval being given for this project to proceed. I feel that the following key points need to be taken into account both in considering whether this project should go ahead, and if it does go ahead despite strong community objections, in considering any conditions which should be placed on approval.

Key Points of Objection:
1. Cobbora Coal project is an inappropriate investment of $3.4b of NSW taxpayers money that will subsidize coal-fired power generators.

The mine will cost the NSW tax payer approx $3.4b and will be run at a loss. It is a direct subsidy to power generators in NSW. The subsidies needed to keep the mine running will unfairly disadvantage renewable energy, which will be forced to compete against power stations fuelled with below-cost coal. This will result in a market distortion, with huge environmental and employment costs. Billions of taxpayers' dollars will be ripped off and given to the private power station operators, prolonging the State's addiction to coal and perpetuating and growing the 60 million tonnes of CO2 that the State's electricity industry pumps into the atmosphere every year.

The argument for continued coal-fired electricity in comparison to the long-term benefits of renewable energy sources has not been made. Tax payer's money would be better invested in renewable energy sources. A sound feed-in tariff for solar power for domestically generated power is very important for our economy. Solar power is providing extra energy during times it is most wanted and it is generated very close to where it is being used. It helps to reduce the need for more expensive infrastructure in form of massive ugly high voltage powerlines. Solar power helps to reduce peaking demand and costs during hot summer. In fact feed-in tariffs should be extended to mini power station using ceramic fuel cells (Bluegen etc.) to help reduce our dependence on a few massive power stations and an extensive power grid.

By deciding to retain ownership, the government forgoes the possibility of generating revenue from the sale of the mine and it is not clear what, if anything, the generators will contribute towards the development costs of the mine?
As a tax payer I demand that the government reveal the price it will guarantee to the power stations for supply of this subsidized coal?

2. The project justification is based on outdated electricity demand and coal price projections
The justification for the project is based on incorrect projections of demand for coal-fired electricity over the next 10 years. Demand has dropped significantly since this project was proposed.

The price of black coal on the export market has also dropped below the projections used to justify the need to source cheaper coal for domestic use.

Does Treasurer Mike Baird stand by the comments he made in early 2011 to the New South Wales upper House inquiry into the gentrader contract - that there are significant risks and costs being imposed on the whole of New South Wales through the Cobbora development? He said that the most substantial of these were:

"Ongoing losses in the project--the market estimates that the total losses incurred from selling the coal at less than what it costs to mine the coal will be more than $1 billion. A Merrill Lynch research report said the operating cost ... will equate to about $50 a tonne. This is a $17 a tonne cash loss to the Government, and on 138 million tonnes that is a potential cost of up to $2 billion, well above the market estimates, and that excludes what your long-term view on coal prices may be. "

Apparently, the Treasurer's views at the time were supported by the Tamberlin inquiry. What has changed?

Is it true that only 5.5 million tonnes of coal from the Project are contracted to a non-State entity and the remaining 6.5 million tonnes are either not contracted or committed to a State-owned generator? If this is the case, a simple instruction from the portfolio Minister under section 21N of the State Owned Corporations Act could cancel the contract. The current government is not committed to the previous government's contractual arrangements.

3. The project will generate additional greenhouse gas emissions conflicting with State and Federal policy to reduce climate change impacts.

The project will lock NSW into coal-fired electricity generation until at least 2036.
Professor Ross Garnaut said in a speech in Canberra last week that the move could undermine the impact of a carbon price. "Media reports that New South Wales is considering allocation of coal to electricity generators, on the condition that the coal is not sold on the open market, are of note and concern," Garnaut said. "The implicit subsidy to coal-based generation within these arrangements could work against a carbon price, and be much larger than the highest carbon price that has been suggested in the Australian policy discussion."

4. The project will provide poor quality coal to Upper Hunter and Central Coast power stations. The health impacts of using poor quality coal have not been assessed.
The proposal is to mine 20mtpa (million tonnes per annum) to produce 12mtpa of usable coal for 21 years - it is extremely poor quality product with high ash content. The health impact of using poor quality coal through the power stations has not been assessed. The project should not be allowed to proceed before an assessment is made of the cumulative impact of coal burning power stations on the health of the Upper Hunter and Lithgow communities.

The findings of the Camberwell Cumulative Impact Review which show unacceptable health impacts, need to be taken into account before any further expansion of coal mining is permitted. I support the calls for an independent, cumulative study across the Upper Hunter and the Lithgow areas to examine the health impacts of the rapidly expanding coal and power industries.


5. The project proposes to increase train movements through Newcastle by 8 additional trains per day increasing traffic hold ups at Adamstown and Clyde St gates by 40 mins.
The project will cause increased coal train movements in the Hunter Valley and Newcastle rail corridors. Towns and properties along the coal chain will be impacted by additional noise and dust from increased coal train movements, the cumulative impact of these additional movements on local communities has not been adequately assessed.

6. The open cut coal mine project will disturb approx 47km2 of land with important high conservation and agricultural value and significant Aboriginal cultural heritage sites.
The NSW Government has purchased 68 of 90 properties in the affected area. The loss of farming community and broadscale food production has not been adequately assessed.

The project has a very large footprint and will cause major environmental impacts on woodland habitat as well as groundwater and surface water sources and loss of 79 Aboriginal cultural heritage sites.

The preliminary environmental risk and impact assessment for the revised proposal admits that there is potential for additional Aboriginal sites to occur within the pit area - revealing the inadequacy of the archaeological survey work undertaken to date. A full survey of the entire pit area should be undertaken to identify all Aboriginal sites and areas of archaeological potential, and the significance assessment for all sites should take into account the cumulative destruction of sites which has already occurred on a regional basis.

The complex of sites along Sandy Creek and Laheys Creek should be formally protected by a gazetted Conservation Area, and independently managed by representatives of the relevant local Aboriginal communities.

7. The project will destroy 1,867ha of significant woodland providing habitat for 39 threatened species, including nationally listed endangered species.
The clearing of 1,867ha woodland habitat will impact on species listed for national protection: eg Grassy Box Woodland; endangered and vulnerable plants, including 100% loss of the local population of Tylophora linearis , endangered bird species including australasian bittern, malleefowl, regent honeyeater, superb parrot; and vulnerable microbat species - southern long-eared bat, large-eared pied bat

Also a large number of threatened woodland birds protected under the NSW Threatened Species Act were recorded in the area of impact - brown treecreeper, diamond firetail, glossy black-cockatoo, grey-crowned babbler, hooded robin, speckled warbler, varied sittella, masked owl, barking owl, powerful owl.

The environmental impact assessment has identified that the proposal area occurs on "the edge of a potential growth region for coal mining" and that "impacts from the Project may accumulate with existing and future mining projects within the region, particularly for TEC's , threatened flora and fauna". However, the project proposal has failed to assess those cumulative impacts in detail or demonstrate that there will be a beneficial cumulative impact from the project.
In fact, the environmental impact survey has identified the need for "further surveys and additional offsets" to meet the requirements for species credits for a number of threatened species. If the project goes ahead further offsets - in the form of conservation of increased areas of appropriate, connected habitat should be required. The alternative of reducing the outcome goal to "a mitigated net loss" is not acceptable.

The survival of our beautiful native species and the health of the landscape of NSW depend on us creating a network of connected woodland areas as part of a new reserve system. Their protection is critical. Protecting and maintaining these vital woodlands will ensure that the wildlife, farmland and rivers of western NSW are healthy and productive long term. The survival of our beautiful native species and the health of the landscape depend on it.

The alternative of adding these significant areas of habitat to nearby conservation areas should be further assessed.

8. The project will compete with the Mudgee wine and tourism industry for water supply during drought conditions .

The mine will need to use up to 3,700 ML (million litres) of water per year from surface water and groundwater interception. The use of high security licenced water from the Cudgegong River will threaten the water security of the Mudgee region wine and tourism industries. It could also threaten the long -term security of urban water supply from Windamere Dam.

Surface and groundwater supplies will be heavily compromised by the mine, potentially destroying the local agricultural industry and, in turn, tourism in the area. This region has a $200 million agriculture industry and a $250 million tourism industry. Both industries which have long-term, sustainable benefits to the community which outweigh the short-term benefits of coalmining.

I support the call for a the appointment of a hydro-geologist to review the impact of the mine on water supplies. Because the government is both the owner and approving authority of this mine, independent review and assessment is critical.

I maintain that allowing the Cobbora Coal Project to proceed is a short-term option, which does not adequately address the cumulative impacts of the proposal on the natural environment, Aboriginal cultural heritage or local communities and does not address the urgent need for the development of long-term sustainable energy solutions.

Yours sincerely

Mr Stephen O'Donoghue,
I wish to object to the Cobbora Coal Project -state owned coal mine proposal. The reasons for my objections are as follows:
1. The project justification is based on outdated electricity demand and coal price projections.
2. The project will generate approx 615 million tonnes of additional greenhouse gases.
3. The project is in direct conflict with State and Federal policy to reduce climate change impacts.
4. The project will disturb approx 47 km2 of land with important high conservation and agricultural value.
5. The project will destroy 1,867ha of significant woodland providing habitat for 39 threatened species, including nationally listed endangered species.
6. The project will destroy significant Aboriginal heritage sites.
7. The project will compete with the Mudgee wine and tourism industry for water supply during drought conditions.

1. Cobbora Coal project is inappropriate investment of $3.4 billion of NSW taxpayers' money. . It will lock NSW into coal-fired electricity generation until at least 2036.

2. The project justification is based on outdated electricity demand and coal price projections.

3. The project will generate additional greenhouse gas emissions conflicting with State and Federal policy to reduce climate change impacts.

4. The coal is extremely poor quality product with high ash content for power stations in the Upper Hunter and Central Coast. The health impacts of using poor quality coal have not been assessed. The people of that area are already suffering higher rates of ill-health due to coal fired power. The state needs to cut down on coal burning not increase it.

5. The mine will cost the NSW taxpayer approx $3.4 billion and will be run at a loss. The argument for continued coal-fired electricity in comparison to the long-term benefits of renewable energy sources has not been made. Taxpayer's money would be better invested in renewable energy sources.

6. The project has a very large footprint and will cause major environmental impacts on woodland habitat as well as groundwater and surface water sources and loss of at least 79 Aboriginal cultural heritage sites. The clearing of 1,867ha woodland habitat will impact on threatened species listed for national protection. The proposed biodiversity offset package has not been finalized and is inappropriately based on mine rehabilitation. The replacement of high conservation value habitat especially tree hollows in slow growing woodland species takes centuries.

7. The project will compete with the Mudgee wine and tourism industry for water supply during drought conditions. The mine will need to use up to 3,700 ML (million litres) of water per year from surface water and groundwater interception. The use of high security licenced water from the Cudgegong River will threaten the water security of the Mudgee region wine and tourism industries. It could also threaten the long -term security of urban water supply from Windemere Dam.

8. The project will disturb approx 47km2 of land with important high conservation and agricultural value. The cost benefit analysis for the project has not taken into account the social disruption; competition for workforce with other industries, particularly the agricultural industry across western NSW; or the costs of major infrastructure upgrades, particularly rail lines, to accommodate additional coal transport. The loss of farming community and broadscale food production has not been adequately assessed.
9. Towns and properties along the coal chain will be impacted by additional noise and dust from increased coal train movements.

1. Cobbora Coal project is inappropriate investment of $3.4 billion of NSW taxpayers' money. . It will lock NSW into coal-fired electricity generation until at least 2036.

2. The project justification is based on outdated electricity demand and coal price projections.

3. The project will generate additional greenhouse gas emissions conflicting with State and Federal policy to reduce climate change impacts.

4. The coal is extremely poor quality product with high ash content for power stations in the Upper Hunter and Central Coast. The health impacts of using poor quality coal have not been assessed. The people of that area are already suffering higher rates of ill-health due to coal fired power. The state needs to cut down on coal burning not increase it.

5. The mine will cost the NSW taxpayer approx $3.4 billion and will be run at a loss. The argument for continued coal-fired electricity in comparison to the long-term benefits of renewable energy sources has not been made. Taxpayer's money would be better invested in renewable energy sources.

6. The project has a very large footprint and will cause major environmental impacts on woodland habitat as well as groundwater and surface water sources and loss of at least 79 Aboriginal cultural heritage sites. The clearing of 1,867ha woodland habitat will impact on threatened species listed for national protection. The proposed biodiversity offset package has not been finalized and is inappropriately based on mine rehabilitation. The replacement of high conservation value habitat especially tree hollows in slow growing woodland species takes centuries.

7. The project will compete with the Mudgee wine and tourism industry for water supply during drought conditions. The mine will need to use up to 3,700 ML (million litres) of water per year from surface water and groundwater interception. The use of high security licenced water from the Cudgegong River will threaten the water security of the Mudgee region wine and tourism industries. It could also threaten the long -term security of urban water supply from Windemere Dam.

8. The project will disturb approx 47km2 of land with important high conservation and agricultural value. The cost benefit analysis for the project has not taken into account the social disruption; competition for workforce with other industries, particularly the agricultural industry across western NSW; or the costs of major infrastructure upgrades, particularly rail lines, to accommodate additional coal transport. The loss of farming community and broadscale food production has not been adequately assessed.

9. Towns and properties along the coal chain will be impacted by additional noise and dust from increased coal train movements.

Dear Sir/Madam
Enough is enough!!
When will the government realise the damage they are allowing, even encouraging to happen to our beautiful country, jand its unique fauna and flora?
When will the governmant realise what damage they are doing to the health and well being of men women and chilldren that live and work in this wonderful country?.
All for the 'mighty' dollar.....which will not grow any food to feed this nation, which will not cure the health problems of its people, which will not replace the fauna and fllora wiped out?
Enough is enough!

I think that this mine proposal is environmentally destructive and fiscally irresponsible. I would rather the Government spent this money on schools, health or alternative energy generation. Please think and act responsibly with our environment and our future in mind.

The Cobbora Coal Project must be stopped. If it is allowed to go ahead it will be a disaster for the economies of the state of NSW and the commonwealth of Australia.

It will undermine our national and the international struggle to save the planet from an immediately impending environmental disaster.

We are now well on the road to a 6 degree warming by 2050. This most likely means the total collapse of human civilisation within 200 years and the extinction of over 60% of species (including us) within a thousand years.

This project ,with its corrupt arrangement to subsidise private power companies, will lock in for decades the most environmentally damaging energy (coal) and inhibit investment in environmentally benign energy projects such as solar and wind.

What the citizens of this state need, and indeed demand, is the complete reversal of the Keneally government's electricity privatisation deal. It is important for the state and federal governments to encourage investment in renewable generation capacity and decommission the most CO2 intensive plant as soon as possible.

You already know this, and if you care for the welfare of our children and our grandchildren you will act for their benefit now!

If you do not, God forgive you because we the people and our descendants will not. Their descendants will never have the chance to forgive you for they will never be born.

Wake up! Its the environment, stupid!

Re: 10-0001
The Cobbora coal mine, if built, will result in serious environmental impacts, including the destruction of more than 1,850 hectares of woodlands, loss of agricultural land, damage to groundwater resources and desecration of Aboriginal cultural heritage sites.

This ill-conceived proposal puts the narrow interests of coal-fired power generators above the interests of ordinary people and the environment. The NSW Government must abandon this costly, polluting and destructive proposal.

I object to the destruction of wildlife in order for more coal power, which will cost us more in the long term and will be extremley outdated source of power soon.
Please show what an extremely intelligent and forward thinking state we are and invest in the future with cleaner energy and future thinking