The Latrobe Valley contains one of Australia’s largest long-term energy resources: brown coal. Australia has limited local liquid-fuel reserves, while diesel remains essential for freight, farming, construction, mining, emergency services and national supply chains.
That makes the coal-to-diesel question important.
But one question must be answered honestly:
Would further industrial development in the Latrobe Valley worsen local health?
The strongest concern is respiratory health, particularly asthma, chronic lung conditions and exposure to fine particles such as PM2.5.
This page examines whether the available evidence supports the claim that Morwell’s poorer lung-health outcomes are caused by current measured fine-particle air quality from nearby open-cut coal and coal-fired power generation.
The conclusion is clear:
Morwell has poorer lung-health outcomes, but the particulate air-quality data reviewed shows Morwell having worse measured PM2.5 air quality than nearby Latrobe Valley towns. In fact, the data reviewed shows Morwell’s measured fine-particle levels were lower than Traralgon’s. This points toward other causes — especially smoking, disadvantage, housing, age, occupation, historical exposure and regional factors — as more likely explanations for Morwell’s poorer lung health.
The 2021 Census data reviewed showed that Morwell had higher reported asthma and lung-condition rates than Traralgon and Sale.
Area
Asthma
Lung condition including COPD/emphysema
Traralgon
10.6%
2.6%
Sale
10.7%
3.1%
Morwell
11.6%
4.0%
Victoria
8.4%
1.5%
Morwell’s asthma rate is higher than Traralgon and Sale, but the bigger difference is broader lung disease. Morwell’s reported lung-condition rate was 4.0%, compared with 2.6% in Traralgon, 3.1% in Sale, and 1.5% across Victoria.
So the issue should not be dismissed.
But proving a health difference is not the same as proving the cause.
The question is whether Morwell’s poorer lung health is explained by current measured particulate air quality from nearby coal operations.
Based on the evidence reviewed, it is not.
Asthma Across Victorian LGAs
The map below shows asthma prevalence across Victorian Local Government Areas using PHIDU 2021 LGA data.
Insert map here: Victoria LGA Asthma Map PNG
The map shows that Latrobe is high, but it is not uniquely high.
Latrobe ranks among the higher Victorian LGAs for asthma, but several regional areas without Latrobe-style brown-coal power generation also have high asthma rates.
Examples reviewed included:
Area
Asthma rate
Victoria
8.4%
Latrobe LGA
10.9%
Ballarat
11.4%
Greater Bendigo
10.6%
Greater Shepparton
9.7%
Greater Geelong
9.8%
Baw Baw
9.7%
This is important because it weakens any simple claim that high asthma in Latrobe must be caused by nearby coal operations.
Asthma is affected by many factors, including smoking, age, housing, income, mould, stress, pollen, dust, occupation, health access and regional environment.
Morwell, Traralgon and Sale
Sale is a useful comparison because it is also a Gippsland regional town, but it is not located beside the Latrobe Valley brown-coal power complex.
The comparison is revealing.
Traralgon and Sale have very similar asthma and lung-health outcomes. Morwell is worse.
Morwell is also materially poorer.
Area
Median weekly household income
Asthma
Lung condition including COPD/emphysema
Traralgon
$1,484
10.6%
2.6%
Sale
$1,327
10.7%
3.1%
Morwell
$942
11.6%
4.0%
Victoria
$1,759
8.4%
1.5%
This suggests Morwell’s poorer lung health is more likely connected to cumulative disadvantage and health-risk factors than to current measured outdoor PM2.5 alone.
That does not mean historical industry had no effect.
It means the current public particulate data does not support a simple claim that Morwell’s poorer lung health is caused by present-day measured fine-particle air quality from nearby coal operations.
Particulate Air Quality
Fine particles, especially PM2.5, are important because they are small enough to be inhaled deep into the lungs.
Australia’s annual PM2.5 standard is 8 µg/m³. The 24-hour PM2.5 standard is 25 µg/m³.
The Latrobe Valley PM2.5 data reviewed showed the following 2021 annual averages:
Monitoring site
2021 annual average PM2.5
Morwell South
5.2 µg/m³
Morwell East
6.4 µg/m³
Moe
6.0 µg/m³
Churchill
6.2 µg/m³
Traralgon
7.2 µg/m³
On these figures, Morwell did not have worse measured fine-particle air quality than nearby towns. Morwell South and Morwell East were both below Traralgon.
This is central.
If current PM2.5 from nearby coal operations were the main explanation for Morwell’s poorer lung health, the expected pattern would be higher measured PM2.5 exposure in Morwell.
The data reviewed does not show that.
The more accurate conclusion is:
If the particulate monitoring data is reliable and representative, Morwell’s poorer lung-health outcomes cannot be explained by current measured PM2.5 exposure from nearby open-cut coal and coal-fired power generation. Some other cause, or combination of causes, must be responsible.
This does not prove that coal operations have no health impact.
It does mean the simple claim — that Morwell’s poorer lung health is explained by current measured fine-particle air pollution from nearby coal operations — is not supported by the particulate data reviewed.
Smoking and Lung Health
Smoking aligns more closely with the observed lung-health differences than open-air PM2.5 does.
The smoking data reviewed was not suburb-perfect, but it provided useful population-health-area comparisons.
Area
Current smokers
Traralgon / Yallourn North / Glengarry
about 19.2%
Sale
about 19.1%
Moe / Newborough / Morwell
about 24.7%
Moe / Newborough / Morwell, age-standardised
about 26.2%
The pattern is clear.
Traralgon and Sale have almost identical smoking rates and similar asthma/lung-health outcomes.
Moe–Morwell has a materially higher smoking rate, and Morwell has worse lung-health outcomes.
This is especially important because cigarette smoke contains fine and ultrafine particles. These particles are generally in the PM2.5 size range or smaller and are inhaled directly into the lungs at concentrations far higher than normal outdoor air pollution.
This makes smoking a powerful explanation for poorer lung health.
It is not the only possible explanation, but it is more closely aligned with the data reviewed than current measured outdoor PM2.5.
What This Means for Coal to Diesel
The coal-to-diesel question should be judged on measured effects, not assumptions.
A coal-to-diesel industry should not be rejected simply because it uses brown coal.
The evidence reviewed does not show that Morwell’s poorer lung-health outcomes are explained by worse current measured PM2.5 air quality. In the particulate data reviewed, Morwell recorded lower fine-particle readings than some nearby towns while still recording poorer lung-health outcomes.
That points to other causes — especially smoking, socioeconomic disadvantage, housing, age, occupation, historical exposure, wood smoke, pollen and regional dust — as more likely explanations.
This does not mean air quality is unimportant.
Fine particles are a serious health issue and must remain controlled.
The practical test should be simple:
Coal to diesel should be allowed to proceed so long as current air quality standards are maintained and the project does not worsen measured air quality in surrounding towns.
That means:
PM2.5 remains below the annual and 24-hour standards;
PM10 remains below the annual and 24-hour standards;
sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides remain within regulated limits;
fugitive dust from mining, roads, conveyors, stockpiles and waste handling is controlled;
monitoring is public, continuous and independently checked;
measured air quality in Morwell, Traralgon, Moe and nearby communities does not deteriorate.
If those conditions are met, air quality should not be used as an excuse to deny a project that could improve national diesel security and support economic recovery in Morwell and the wider Latrobe Valley.
Economic Wellbeing
A large diesel-production industry could improve Morwell’s wellbeing if it produced stable local benefits.
Possible benefits include:
skilled industrial jobs;
apprenticeships;
higher household incomes;
local supplier work;
transport, rail and maintenance work;
stronger local business activity;
improved confidence in the region’s future;
funding for mine rehabilitation;
improved national liquid-fuel security.
This matters because poverty itself damages health.
Morwell’s poorer health outcomes appear to be connected not only to physical exposure risks, but also to disadvantage, smoking, stress and economic decline.
If a modern brown-coal-to-diesel industry improved employment, incomes and local purpose without worsening measured air quality, it could plausibly improve wellbeing in Morwell rather than reduce it.
That is not guaranteed. It depends on whether the benefits are genuinely local and whether emissions are properly controlled.
Conclusion
Morwell has poorer lung-health outcomes than nearby towns.
That is true.
But the particulate air-quality evidence reviewed does not show that Morwell has worse measured fine-particle air quality than nearby Latrobe Valley towns. In the 2021 data reviewed, Morwell South and Morwell East recorded lower annual PM2.5 levels than Traralgon. This means current measured PM2.5 from nearby coal operations is not a credible explanation for Morwell’s poorer lung-health outcomes.
The evidence points more strongly toward smoking, socioeconomic disadvantage, housing, age, occupation, historical exposure and broader regional factors.
Therefore, a Latrobe Valley coal-to-diesel project should not be rejected on air-quality grounds merely because it uses brown coal.
It should be judged on measured outcomes.
If the project meets current air quality standards, then air quality should not be used as an excuse to deny it.
The real question is not whether coal sounds bad.
The real question is whether a modern diesel-production industry can improve national fuel security and local economic wellbeing without worsening the health of people living nearby.
"""^^rdf:XMLLiteral ;
sioc:content """
Read Time: 8-9 mins
Background
The Latrobe Valley contains one of Australia’s largest long-term energy resources: brown coal. Australia has limited local liquid-fuel reserves, while diesel remains essential for freight, farming, construction, mining, emergency services and national supply chains.
That makes the coal-to-diesel question important.
But one question must be answered honestly:
Would further industrial development in the Latrobe Valley worsen local health?
The strongest concern is respiratory health, particularly asthma, chronic lung conditions and exposure to fine particles such as PM2.5.
This page examines whether the available evidence supports the claim that Morwell’s poorer lung-health outcomes are caused by current measured fine-particle air quality from nearby open-cut coal and coal-fired power generation.
The conclusion is clear:
Morwell has poorer lung-health outcomes, but the particulate air-quality data reviewed shows Morwell having worse measured PM2.5 air quality than nearby Latrobe Valley towns. In fact, the data reviewed shows Morwell’s measured fine-particle levels were lower than Traralgon’s. This points toward other causes — especially smoking, disadvantage, housing, age, occupation, historical exposure and regional factors — as more likely explanations for Morwell’s poorer lung health.
Jump To
The Main Finding
Asthma Across Victorian LGAs
Morwell, Traralgon and Sale
Particulate Air Quality
Smoking and Lung Health
What This Means for Coal to Diesel
Conclusion
Sources
The Main Finding
Morwell’s poorer lung health is real.
The 2021 Census data reviewed showed that Morwell had higher reported asthma and lung-condition rates than Traralgon and Sale.
AreaAsthmaLung condition including COPD/emphysemaTraralgon10.6%2.6%Sale10.7%3.1%Morwell11.6%4.0%Victoria8.4%1.5%
Morwell’s asthma rate is higher than Traralgon and Sale, but the bigger difference is broader lung disease. Morwell’s reported lung-condition rate was 4.0%, compared with 2.6% in Traralgon, 3.1% in Sale, and 1.5% across Victoria.
So the issue should not be dismissed.
But proving a health difference is not the same as proving the cause.
The question is whether Morwell’s poorer lung health is explained by current measured particulate air quality from nearby coal operations.
Based on the evidence reviewed, it is not.
Asthma Across Victorian LGAs
The map below shows asthma prevalence across Victorian Local Government Areas using PHIDU 2021 LGA data.
Insert map here:Victoria LGA Asthma Map PNG
The map shows that Latrobe is high, but it is not uniquely high.
Latrobe ranks among the higher Victorian LGAs for asthma, but several regional areas without Latrobe-style brown-coal power generation also have high asthma rates.
Examples reviewed included:
AreaAsthma rateVictoria8.4%Latrobe LGA10.9%Ballarat11.4%Greater Bendigo10.6%Greater Shepparton9.7%Greater Geelong9.8%Baw Baw9.7%
This is important because it weakens any simple claim that high asthma in Latrobe must be caused by nearby coal operations.
Asthma is affected by many factors, including smoking, age, housing, income, mould, stress, pollen, dust, occupation, health access and regional environment.
Morwell, Traralgon and Sale
Sale is a useful comparison because it is also a Gippsland regional town, but it is not located beside the Latrobe Valley brown-coal power complex.
The comparison is revealing.
Traralgon and Sale have very similar asthma and lung-health outcomes. Morwell is worse.
Morwell is also materially poorer.
AreaMedian weekly household incomeAsthmaLung condition including COPD/emphysemaTraralgon$1,48410.6%2.6%Sale$1,32710.7%3.1%Morwell$94211.6%4.0%Victoria$1,7598.4%1.5%
This suggests Morwell’s poorer lung health is more likely connected to cumulative disadvantage and health-risk factors than to current measured outdoor PM2.5 alone.
That does not mean historical industry had no effect.
It means the current public particulate data does not support a simple claim that Morwell’s poorer lung health is caused by present-day measured fine-particle air quality from nearby coal operations.
Particulate Air Quality
Fine particles, especially PM2.5, are important because they are small enough to be inhaled deep into the lungs.
Australia’s annual PM2.5 standard is 8 µg/m³. The 24-hour PM2.5 standard is 25 µg/m³.
The Latrobe Valley PM2.5 data reviewed showed the following 2021 annual averages:
Monitoring site2021 annual average PM2.5Morwell South5.2 µg/m³Morwell East6.4 µg/m³Moe6.0 µg/m³Churchill6.2 µg/m³Traralgon7.2 µg/m³
On these figures, Morwell did not have worse measured fine-particle air quality than nearby towns. Morwell South and Morwell East were both below Traralgon.
This is central.
If current PM2.5 from nearby coal operations were the main explanation for Morwell’s poorer lung health, the expected pattern would be higher measured PM2.5 exposure in Morwell.
The data reviewed does not show that.
The more accurate conclusion is:
If the particulate monitoring data is reliable and representative, Morwell’s poorer lung-health outcomes cannot be explained by current measured PM2.5 exposure from nearby open-cut coal and coal-fired power generation. Some other cause, or combination of causes, must be responsible.
This does not prove that coal operations have no health impact.
It does mean the simple claim — that Morwell’s poorer lung health is explained by current measured fine-particle air pollution from nearby coal operations — is not supported by the particulate data reviewed.
Smoking and Lung Health
Smoking aligns more closely with the observed lung-health differences than open-air PM2.5 does.
The smoking data reviewed was not suburb-perfect, but it provided useful population-health-area comparisons.
AreaCurrent smokersTraralgon / Yallourn North / Glengarryabout 19.2%Saleabout 19.1%Moe / Newborough / Morwellabout 24.7%Moe / Newborough / Morwell, age-standardisedabout 26.2%
The pattern is clear.
Traralgon and Sale have almost identical smoking rates and similar asthma/lung-health outcomes.
Moe–Morwell has a materially higher smoking rate, and Morwell has worse lung-health outcomes.
This is especially important because cigarette smoke contains fine and ultrafine particles. These particles are generally in the PM2.5 size range or smaller and are inhaled directly into the lungs at concentrations far higher than normal outdoor air pollution.
This makes smoking a powerful explanation for poorer lung health.
It is not the only possible explanation, but it is more closely aligned with the data reviewed than current measured outdoor PM2.5.
What This Means for Coal to Diesel
The coal-to-diesel question should be judged on measured effects, not assumptions.
A coal-to-diesel industry should not be rejected simply because it uses brown coal.
The evidence reviewed does not show that Morwell’s poorer lung-health outcomes are explained by worse current measured PM2.5 air quality. In the particulate data reviewed, Morwell recorded lower fine-particle readings than some nearby towns while still recording poorer lung-health outcomes.
That points to other causes — especially smoking, socioeconomic disadvantage, housing, age, occupation, historical exposure, wood smoke, pollen and regional dust — as more likely explanations.
This does not mean air quality is unimportant.
Fine particles are a serious health issue and must remain controlled.
The practical test should be simple:
Coal to diesel should be allowed to proceed so long as current air quality standards are maintained and the project does not worsen measured air quality in surrounding towns.
That means:
PM2.5 remains below the annual and 24-hour standards;
PM10 remains below the annual and 24-hour standards;
sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides remain within regulated limits;
fugitive dust from mining, roads, conveyors, stockpiles and waste handling is controlled;
monitoring is public, continuous and independently checked;
measured air quality in Morwell, Traralgon, Moe and nearby communities does not deteriorate.
If those conditions are met, air quality should not be used as an excuse to deny a project that could improve national diesel security and support economic recovery in Morwell and the wider Latrobe Valley.
Economic Wellbeing
A large diesel-production industry could improve Morwell’s wellbeing if it produced stable local benefits.
Possible benefits include:
skilled industrial jobs;
apprenticeships;
higher household incomes;
local supplier work;
transport, rail and maintenance work;
stronger local business activity;
improved confidence in the region’s future;
funding for mine rehabilitation;
improved national liquid-fuel security.
This matters because poverty itself damages health.
Morwell’s poorer health outcomes appear to be connected not only to physical exposure risks, but also to disadvantage, smoking, stress and economic decline.
If a modern brown-coal-to-diesel industry improved employment, incomes and local purpose without worsening measured air quality, it could plausibly improve wellbeing in Morwell rather than reduce it.
That is not guaranteed. It depends on whether the benefits are genuinely local and whether emissions are properly controlled.
Conclusion
Morwell has poorer lung-health outcomes than nearby towns.
That is true.
But the particulate air-quality evidence reviewed does not show that Morwell has worse measured fine-particle air quality than nearby Latrobe Valley towns. In the 2021 data reviewed, Morwell South and Morwell East recorded lower annual PM2.5 levels than Traralgon. This means current measured PM2.5 from nearby coal operations is not a credible explanation for Morwell’s poorer lung-health outcomes.
The evidence points more strongly toward smoking, socioeconomic disadvantage, housing, age, occupation, historical exposure and broader regional factors.
Therefore, a Latrobe Valley coal-to-diesel project should not be rejected on air-quality grounds merely because it uses brown coal.
It should be judged on measured outcomes.
If the project meets current air quality standards, then air quality should not be used as an excuse to deny it.
The real question is not whether coal sounds bad.
The real question is whether a modern diesel-production industry can improve national fuel security and local economic wellbeing without worsening the health of people living nearby.
Sources
Air Quality and Particulate Standards
EPA Victoria — AirWatch / Check air and water qualityhttps://www.epa.vic.gov.au/check-air-and-water-quality
EPA Victoria — How we monitor air qualityhttps://www.epa.vic.gov.au/how-we-monitor-air-quality
EPA Victoria — PM2.5 particles in airhttps://www.epa.vic.gov.au/pm25-particles-air
EPA Victoria — 2021 NEPM compliance air-quality reporthttps://www.epa.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/epa/publications/2052_nepm_compliance_air-quality-report.pdf
Latrobe City — Latrobe Valley Air Monitoring Networkhttps://www.latrobe.vic.gov.au/Home/Sustainability_and_Environment/Latrobe_City_Air_Quality
Marinus Link — Technical Appendix L: Air Qualityhttps://www.marinuslink.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Technical-Appendix-L-Air-quality-1.pdf
National Environment Protection Council — Ambient Air Quality NEPM particles standardshttps://www.nepc.gov.au/resource/variation-ambient-air-quality-nepm-%E2%80%93-particles-standards
Asthma, Lung Health and Smoking Data
ABS Census QuickStats — Victoriahttps://www.abs.gov.au/census/find-census-data/quickstats/2021/2
ABS Census QuickStats — Latrobe LGAhttps://abs.gov.au/census/find-census-data/quickstats/2021/LGA23810
ABS Census QuickStats — Morwellhttps://abs.gov.au/census/find-census-data/quickstats/2021/SAL21769
ABS Census QuickStats — Traralgonhttps://abs.gov.au/census/find-census-data/quickstats/2021/SAL22569
ABS Census QuickStats — Sale / Gippsland comparisonhttps://www.abs.gov.au/census/find-census-data/quickstats/2021/2018
PHIDU Social Health Atlas — maps and LGA indicatorshttps://phidu.torrens.edu.au/social-health-atlases/maps
PHIDU Social Health Atlas — contents and indicatorshttps://phidu.torrens.edu.au/social-health-atlases/indicators-and-notes-on-the-data/social-health-atlases-of-australia-contents
AIHW — Risk factors prevalence data tableshttps://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/2252d1af-ce12-4a75-942b-08cd6b555c68/aihw-phe-292-risk-factors-prevalence-data-tables.xlsx.aspx
Gippsland PHN — Latrobe Health Innovation Zone tobacco initiativehttps://gphn.org.au/wp-content/uploads/files/pdf/FINAL-of-the-Latrobe-Health-Innovation-Zone-Early-Detection-and-Screening-Including-Tobacco-Initiative.pdf
Hazelwood and Historical Exposure
Hazelwood Health Studyhttps://hazelwoodhealthstudy.org.au/
Hazelwood Health Study — respiratory surveyhttps://hazelwoodhealthstudy.org.au/research-areas/respiratory/long-term-respiratory-survey
Hazelwood Health Study — lung function and asthma impactshttps://hazelwoodhealthstudy.org.au/articles/lung-function-and-asthma-impacts
EPA Victoria — Hazelwood Pacific prosecution / Hazelwood mine firehttps://www.epa.vic.gov.au/hazelwood-pacific-pty-ltd
Parliament of Victoria — Closure of Hazelwood and Yallournhttps://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/495c68/contentassets/bb36eec27c15447bbdefee0dec57d50f/lceic-59-08-closure-of-hazelwood-and-yallourn.pdf
Brown Coal, Diesel and Fuel Security
Geoscience Australia — Brown coal resource reviewhttps://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/minerals/mineral-resources-and-advice/australian-resource-reviews/brown-coal
Geoscience Australia — Australian Energy Commodity Resources 2025: Oilhttps://www.ga.gov.au/aecr2025/oil
Geoscience Australia — Australian Energy Commodity Resources 2025: Gashttps://www.ga.gov.au/aecr2025/gas
Sasol — coal-to-liquids history and Fischer-Tropsch operationshttps://www.sasol.com/sites/default/files/2023-11/2006%20Annual%20Review.pdf
""" ;
sioc:topic , .
rdfs:seeAlso .
rdfs:seeAlso .
rdfs:seeAlso .