- Aug 21, 2016
- 15,702
- 24,812
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Oldham
As a thought experiment let's make an assumption
There's other threads debating this topic but let's go with it for the sake of argument.
The goal of the Paris agreement is to keep global temperature rises this century to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. This is to be achieved by each country implementing policies to reduce or mitigate CO2 emissions.
The reality.
The two countries with the largest anthropogenic CO2 emissions, China and USA, are effectively not signatories to the Paris Agreement. China's emissions grew by 80% between 2005 and 2018, and are expected to grow for at the least the next decade.
Most countries that are signatories will fail to meet their targets. Eg. India, which is the 3rd biggest emitter and will soon be the 2nd biggest. India's anthropogenic emissions grew by 76% between 2005 and 2017, and are expected to keep growing. India's policy was to create a cumulative carbon sink of 2.5-3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2030 by forest cover expansion. It is a long way behind on this plan and will probably never fulfil it.
Under the agreement, countries that are signatories can set their own emissions reduction targets. Sometimes this can mean their anthropogenic emissions go up. Eg. Russia which has the 4th highest emissions. Their target is based on 1990 emission levels. However, the collapse of the Soviet economy led to Russia's 2017 emissions being 32 per cent lower than in 1990. Thus it can actually 'pollute' more and still meet its current Paris agreement goals.
Other rich countries that are signatories will meet their targets by buying carbon credits from poorer countries. Such schemes are heavily rorted.
Given that the four biggest anthropogenic emitters of CO2 (currently comprising about 65% of emissions and will grow to possibly 75%) will not be implementing policies to reduce their CO2 emissions, Australia's policy on climate change is completely inconsequential to the world's climate and hence our climate. Our policies should reflect this reality. We should be focused on jobs and reliable, cheap energy. Arguments attempting to link our climate change policy to increased risk of bush fires are nonsense.
Anthropogenic CO2 is causing dangerous warming to the planet.
There's other threads debating this topic but let's go with it for the sake of argument.
The goal of the Paris agreement is to keep global temperature rises this century to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. This is to be achieved by each country implementing policies to reduce or mitigate CO2 emissions.
The reality.
The two countries with the largest anthropogenic CO2 emissions, China and USA, are effectively not signatories to the Paris Agreement. China's emissions grew by 80% between 2005 and 2018, and are expected to grow for at the least the next decade.
Most countries that are signatories will fail to meet their targets. Eg. India, which is the 3rd biggest emitter and will soon be the 2nd biggest. India's anthropogenic emissions grew by 76% between 2005 and 2017, and are expected to keep growing. India's policy was to create a cumulative carbon sink of 2.5-3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2030 by forest cover expansion. It is a long way behind on this plan and will probably never fulfil it.
Under the agreement, countries that are signatories can set their own emissions reduction targets. Sometimes this can mean their anthropogenic emissions go up. Eg. Russia which has the 4th highest emissions. Their target is based on 1990 emission levels. However, the collapse of the Soviet economy led to Russia's 2017 emissions being 32 per cent lower than in 1990. Thus it can actually 'pollute' more and still meet its current Paris agreement goals.
Other rich countries that are signatories will meet their targets by buying carbon credits from poorer countries. Such schemes are heavily rorted.
Given that the four biggest anthropogenic emitters of CO2 (currently comprising about 65% of emissions and will grow to possibly 75%) will not be implementing policies to reduce their CO2 emissions, Australia's policy on climate change is completely inconsequential to the world's climate and hence our climate. Our policies should reflect this reality. We should be focused on jobs and reliable, cheap energy. Arguments attempting to link our climate change policy to increased risk of bush fires are nonsense.