Restart of Redbank Power Station

See attached submission

The environmental impact assessment does not adequately address the environmental impacts of the project.
The project will effectively create and support a market for wildlife habitat destruction and incentivise native tree clearing. The EIS suggests that biomass fuels without a "higher order" use will be used in the power station however there is no process outlined as to how decisions will be made about what is a higher order and how those decisions could be implemented.
The EIS does not deal adequately with the greenhouse gas impacts of the project. Carbon dioxide is carbon dioxide, whether it come from wood or coal. In order that climate change is addressed there needs to be a reduction to zero of additional carbon dioxide emissions.
The project will have an impact on federally listed threatened species through the loss of habitat which will occur by it proving a market for environmentally destructive practices to obtain through the fuels it uses.

FEA object strongly object to the proposal to restart Redbank Power Station for energy production because doing so will contribute to irreversible environmental degradation and global heating in a time when the majority of the Australian population have clearly indicated that the need to address biodiversity loss and climate action are high priorities.

See attached submission

I am disgusted that we are burning trees to provide energy! This is so much worse than burning coal because trees are a carbon sink and provide homes to threatened species. Trees cool our planet and help combat global warming. Our government are allowing and embracing "Flintstone" policies. It's a shameful and embarrassing reflection on our country and it's global responsibility.

Rebank Action Group's submission opposing the restart of Redbank Power Station attached.

It's absolutely absurd to burn woodchip to provide power. I do not believe this woodchip is sourced from "offcuts" of timber used for other purposes! It's even more distressing for me that power is being generated from deforestation as opposed to coal. Both are absolutely detrimental to the the environment and contribute to global warming. However deforestation destroys an important carbon sink and, more importantly, destroys the habitat of threatened species. This method of power generation belongs to the nineteenth century and is an embarrassing disgrace to the backward policies of our government.

I strongly object to this project for a number of reasons.

NSW is Australia's second biggest producer of native forest logs, and has been ranked the worst state in the country in combating deforestation (Forbes & Parmeter, 2023). The Australian Government has legislated greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets of 43% (from 2005 levels) by 2030, and net zero by 2050 (DCCEEW, 2023). Researchers from ANU and Griffith University are calling for an immediate cessation of native forest logging, having determined that for the Australian Government to meet its legislated greenhouse gas emissions reduction, emissions should be cut by 15.3 megatons per year (ANU, 2023). This number roughly equates to the annual emissions created through native forest logging.

This project will create a new market for wildlife habitat destruction and incentivise native tree clearing;
1,480,000 dry tonnes of wood is anticipated to be produced from clearing in years 1-4 of the project. This high volume should make it a matter of National Environmental Significance and require assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 for its impacts on federally listed threatened species;

The EIS fails to sufficiently identify the specific areas and species to be cleared or reflect on the cumulative impacts of intensive clearing over the life of the project;

The EIS fails to account for greenhouse gas emissions from the broad scale tree clearing that underpins this project. The carbon cost of this project extends far beyond the emissions created at the site of power generation. The NSW Government should analyse the gross level of emissions attributable to tree clearing over the life of the project;

Biomass burning is not a clean fuel or a clean means of energy production. Biomass burning emits more greenhouse gases per unit of energy than coal. Clearing native vegetation negatively impacts biodiversity, ecosystem functionality, reduces ecosystem services such as long term true carbon sequestration, water filtration, nutrient cycling, weather and precipitation cycles and damages, fragments or destroys critical habitat for native and endangered flora and fauna. Ecological recovery is imperative at this critical juncture and must be assigned a higher priority than timber harvest and carbon intensive, unsustainable biomass burning to generate power.

The NSW Government has committed to reigning in excessive land clearing and acknowledges that the State’s environment laws fail to protect biodiversity, including endangered wildlife such as Koalas and Greater Gliders. It is irresponsible to approve a project that is in direct opposition to these commitments and one that that is dependent on retaining, not fixing, weak clearing laws.

Further, the native forest logging industry is a subsidised industry, in which the state owned enterprise FCNSW posted a 20 million dollar loss in the 2020-2021 year (Cormack & O’Malley, 2022). The Nature Conservation Council (NCC), cite independent studies in their claim that 91% of Australia’s timber materials are currently being sourced from existing plantations, while 95% of native forest logs do not become beautiful hardwood features, but are instead destined to be chipped or in this case, burned for energy. I find the thought of our beautiful native forests being cleared for garden mulch or biofuel at a high carbon cost and a loss of 20 million taxpayer dollars per year abhorrent and would expect that the state give much better consideration to the effective management of our resources and heritage.

It is also well documented that logged forests face an increased risk of bushfire in the years following harvest (Hutchins, 2021). In the wake of an historic fire season, and with the ever increasing risks associated with a changing climate, now would seem a prudent time for the state to transition out of the native forest logging industry. My home and property in the Laguna area were directly impacted by bushfire fire in 2019/20, and I am alarmed to know that any logging proposals increase bushfire risk in my area.

Thank you for your consideration. I hope that the NSW Government honours its responsibility to meeting its legislative greenhouse gas reduction targets and chooses to prioritise our collective health, our environmental, economic and social future and our heritage, by refusing to grant approval to this project.

References:
Australian National University, 2022, ‘Stopping native forest logging key to getting to net zero’, Australian National University, viewed 11 October, 2023, <https://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/ stopping-native-forest-logging-key-to-getting-to-net-zero>
Cormack L & O’Malley N, 15 March, 2022, ‘$20m loss: native forest logging last year cost NSW taxpayers $441 per hectare’, The

Sydney Morning Herald, viewed 11 October, 2023, < https:// www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/20m-loss-native-forest-logging-last-year-cost-nsw-taxpayers-441- per-hectare-20220314-p5a4g1.html>
Department of Climate Change, Energy, The Environment and Water, 2023, ‘Net Zero’, Australian Government, viewed 11 October, 2023, < https://www.dcceew.gov.au/climate-change/emissions- reduction/net-zero>

Forbes, L, Parmeter, 2023, ‘World Wildlife Fund ranks NSW government last, SA first, in Australia in combating deforestation, ABC News, 3 August, viewed 30 August, 2023, <https:// www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-03/wwf-ranks-nsw-government-last-australia-combating- deforestation/102683524>

Hutchins, C, ‘Logging and thinning of forests can increase fire risk’, Griffith News, 10 February, 2021, < https://news.griffith.edu.au/2021/02/10/logging-and-thinning-of-forests-can-increase-fire-risk/>

Nature Conservation Council, 2023, Forests & Koalas’ viewed 30 August, 2023, <https:// www.nature.org.au/forests_koalas >

I am just so disappointed that this proposal is still coming up. This is not advanced technology and it is going to cause a great deal of harm to native forests and through carbon pollution. Please do not consider this a reasonable proposal for it is not.

I object to the proposal by Verdant Earth Technologies Limited to restart the disused Redbank Power Station near Singleton by burning 850,000 tonnes of biomass from native forests on either private or public land each year. We need to reduce our emissions of CO2, not dramatically increase them as intended by this proposal. The use of solar and wind as alternative power sources need to be considered, rather than just comparing the proposal to coal.

The Sydney Basin Koala Network (SBKN) is a project of the Total Environment Centre and WIRES and works with communities across the Sydney Basin to advocate for the protection and expansion of connected, thriving koala core habitats and corridors). We strongly object to this project due to the adverse climate impacts and threats to biodiversity of burning of biomaterial for energy.

This project would incentivise further habitat destruction under the guise of energy production, exploiting loopholes in environmental protection laws and leaving koalas and other species in peril. Approval is irresponsible, particularly given the current climate and extinction emergencies. Such actions are directly at odds with the NSW Government's stated goals of biodiversity conservation and climate action. Therefore we strongly urge the government to reject the application for the Redbank Power Station's restart.

See attached submission

This proposal is absolutely insane and must not be approved.

Clearing native vegetation, chipping it, trucking it to this facility and burning it to generate electricity is immensely harmful to our globally significant biodiversity and will massively exacerbate the climate crisis. The entire proposal must not be approved because of the immense harm that it will do to our life support systems and the severe negative impacts that it will generate.

We need to retain all our native vegetation, restore it where it is degraded and expand it in key landscapes to protect catchments and to restore connectivity for the movement of our globally significant biota.

We must NOT log our native forests and/or clear and burn them for electricity. To suggest that clearing and logging native vegetation and burning it is in any way sustainable or acceptable in these times of compounding and cascading climate and extinction crises is a gross fraud and a blatant lie.

Please refuse this fundamentally unsustainable and appalling proposal to ensure a livable planet and a safer future for all coming generations.

Yours sincerely
Mark Graham

This project would make excellent use of a space that could otherwise go to waste.
To use a waste product from another industry and create power is the forward thinking that we need to move to a more sustainable future.

I strongly object to the proposed restart of Redbank Power Station. At a time when land clearing is causing habitat destruction to such an extent that even our iconic koala is under threat, it is ludicrous to approve a project that will take out even more native vegetation. Clearing native vegetation destroys habitat and prevents desperately needed ecological recovery. Over time, the fragmentation and disturbance caused by land clearing, further degrade the condition and habitat values of remaining vegetation.

This project will give to green light to those wishing to clear their land without thought of the consequences for wildlife and the loss of more carbon storing trees. The burning of this vegetation will create MORE greenhouse gas emissions than the coal once burned at Redbank! The 1,480,000 dry tonnes of wood produced from clearing in years 1-4 of the project should be a matter of National Environmental Significance and require assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, for its impacts on federally listed threatened species.

Furthermore, the current Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) FAILS to sufficiently identify the specific areas and species to be cleared or reflect on the cumulative impacts of intensive clearing over the life of the project. The EIS does not account for the greenhouse gas emissions created from the broad scale tree clearing that underpins this project.

I cannot see that this project is in the public interest. It is only in the interest of Verdant Earth Technologies and its shareholders. The project should NOT go ahead.

Yours faithfully,
Leeanne Tyler-Olsen
Bundanoon NSW 2578.

FILE ATTACHED.
IT APPEARS THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS WITH THE BIOMASS FIGURES