Three events over the past week have highlighted the nature, and nastiness of the affliction which threatens to stifle growth –- not that three more problems needed to be added to the difficulty of low coal prices.

However, layered on top of the price slump are:

• global banks running scared of the anti-coal campaigns by environmental crusaders
• the entry of a “green activist” controlled arm of the United Nations as a key player in whether fresh investment in coalmining is made, or not.

The first issue is not new. It fits neatly under a headline in yesterday’s Australian Financial Review: “More pain to come for coal” in which industry veterans tipped more mine closures and job losses as low prices and political pressure bears down.

Perhaps the most eye-catching point in that story was the claim that a quarter of Queensland’s coal mines were operating at a loss, including half of the thermal coal produced.

Factors bearing down on Australian coal include the low international price for thermal and metallurgical material, the stubbornly high dollar, and costs that continue to rank among the highest in the world.

Compounding that news was a fresh mine closure with Glencore dropping the axe on its Newlands Northern mine near Glenden, west of Mackay, with the loss of an estimated 200 jobs.

The longwall at the mine will be its last with last coal out of the pit towards the end of next year.

The job losses at Newlands Northern take the total number of workers to be forced out of the coal industry over the past two years beyond the 8000 mark.

This is a national tragedy that seems to have disappeared beneath a political radar screen jammed with flim-flam and non-event matters closer to the hearts of Balmain basket-weavers and Fitzroy latte drinkers.

Not much change can be expected on two of those issues over the next few years with the global coal market stuffed to the gunwales with surplus material and the Aussie dollar being driven by the expectation of a boom in export revenue from rising shipments of LNG.

The second issue is also in the category of “can’t do much about it” because when one of the world’s biggest banks says it is not keen to fund coal-related projects a very unpleasant precedent has been set.

What happened is that Deutsche Bank, German’s largest financial institution, said it would not participate in the funding of an expansion at the Abbott Point coal terminal.

Given it was Deutsche that helped refinance a lease on the 30-year old terminal its refusal to put up more credit was a body blow to the expansion, which is important to a number of proposed coal developments, including one by India’s Adani group.

News of the Deutsche pullback shocked some people in the industry because it was unquestionably a huge win for the anti-coal crusaders who have worked hard at gaining effective control of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation.

When UNESCO last month said it was concerned about how dredge spoil would be disposed of to accommodate the Abbott Point expansion, and its possible effect on the Great Barrier Reef, trouble was obviously on the way.

Then when one of the chief executives at Deutsche (there are several), Jurgen Fitschen, told shareholders at the bank’s annual meeting late last week that he wanted to see agreement between UNESCO and the Australian government over the Barrier Reef issue the problem became much clearer.

“There is no consensus between UNESCO and the Australian government regarding the expansion of Abbott Point in the vicinity of the Great Barrier Reef,” Fitschen said.

“Our policy requires such a consensus at the least. We therefore would not consider applications for financing of an expansion any further.”

Boiled down, the gloom message for the Australian coal industry, if not for the entire Australian resources industry, is that an international bank has blackballed a project because a UN organisation under the control of crusading environmentalists has criticised a resource development project.

The issues left hanging are:

• the reaction of the international banking community to other resource projects, for any raw material, if the environmental crusaders put them on a Unesco banned list
• who actually runs Australia, the government or international banks and activists?

It’s probably best if The Hog doesn’t answer that final question, though readers might have a view they would care to share.