Australia's policy on climate change is completely inconsequential

[kickazz]

At what point would you pull up?

Not sure what you mean? If you mean, at what point would I dial back Australia's contribution in the face of lack of cooperation, well I guess a lot of that would come down to how much the electorate can bear and how close we are to gaining cooperation.

As a general rule though I wouldn't think going out on our own and imploring others to follow would be the best strategy. I'd rather get some small cooperative wins early, build trust and progress from there.

 

[Kwality]

Not sure what you mean? If you mean, at what point would I dial back Australia's contribution in the face of lack of cooperation, well I guess a lot of that would come down to how much the electorate can bear and how close we are to gaining cooperation.

As a general rule though I wouldn't think going out on our own and imploring others to follow would be the best strategy. I'd rather get some small cooperative wins early, build trust and progress from there.

Cost/benefit of your action, say the extreme of closing down coal. The costs being human (jobs, communities) & financial (taxes, royalties, balance of trade) versus the benefit of reduced emissions for Aus (but nil for the world with the coal supplied, but by others).
I'm not saying thats your view, exploring if/when/how you'd measure the success of the action.

 

[Northalives]

I often wonder what it would be like to live in a suburban street made up of a random selection of “ethnic” households based on actual, worldwide statistics, that is, how they actually compare to each other in the real world based on population, land mass and CO2 emissions where CO2 emissions, are represented by the wheelie rubbish bins that we put out for collection every week.

In my council area, each household has two, 240-litre bins put out on alternate weeks for green waste and recycling respectively and a 140-litre bin put out every week for general rubbish. For the point of this exercise, we will assume that these bins are all put out once a week for collection, that is, 620 litres of waste per week, per household/property.

In my hypothetical suburban street, there is me, the Australian and because we are in Australia, the size of my block is the traditional ¼ acre (1012 sq.m) and all the other blocks down my street, will be greater or smaller in size depending on the actual land mass of the represented nationalities in proportion to the land mass of Australia. For example, there is a Mexican household and the block of land they occupy on the street is 256 sq.m because Mexico is .253 the size of Australia.

The countries I have chosen for my little street of 12 blocks/properties are Indonesia, India, Brazil, Mexico, Turkey, France, Italy, the UK, China, the USA, Germany and of course us, Australia.

I added the populations of all of these countries represented in our street and then I divided their populations by that total amount, that is, there were 4,416,885,000 (aprox.) people from all of those countries and taking Mexico again as the example, I divided Mexico’s approximate population of 128,930,000 by 4,416,885,000 which makes Mexico’s percentage of the entire sample population 2.92%.

Australia’s is .58% so to make Australia 1%, I multiplied Australia’s .58 of a person by 1.725 to make the Australian (me) whole, ie. one person. I multiplied every other nationality by 1.725 to preserve the correct ratio so for Mexico, there are 5 Mexicans for every one of me (Australians).

In order to preserve the same ratio of each of my neighbour’s countries of origin CO2 emissions per capita, I also multiplied their emissions (garbage) by 1.725 to bring them in line with me, the one Australian in the street. Using Mexico again, that country’s published emissions were 3.6 metric tons per capita, multiplied by 1.725 to preserve the ratio, Mexico’s emissions become 6.2 metric tons.

The table below shows the nationalities in my street, the size of the block they inhabit, the number of inhabitants on that bit of land and the amount of garbage (CO2) they accumulate every week based on their country of origin published emissions multiplied by 1.725 to preserve the ratio of one Australian: “new Australian” eg. Australia : Mexico = 1:5. *Please note, I am using the published per capita CO2 emissions for those countries (multiplied by 1.725 to preserve the correct ratios) and assigning it to that corresponding household instead of making this hypothetical street have 177 blocks/properties, that is, I block/property per person. The ratios of per capita CO2 emissions per household/block/property in my 12-block street are exactly the same as the ratios in the expanded 177 block street, that is, using Mexico again, 5 Mexicans @ 6.2Tons CO2 emissions each = 31Tons; 5 Australians @ 16.2T CO2 each = 139.7T. That is that the Mexican total emissions are 22.19% of the Australians’. In the 12 block street, Mexico’s 6.2T emissions are 22.19% of my (Australian) emissions: 6.2 ÷ 27.94 = 22.19%.

At the far end of the table are the number of bins that one would see outside of the particular houses on rubbish collection day. The physical representation of the amount of rubbish is the adjusted emissions number for that household representing, for the purpose of this exercise, 50 litres of rubbish per one Ton of emissions (rubbish), that is, using Mexico once more, Mexico’s adjusted emission is 6.2 multiplied by 50 litres equaling 310 litres of rubbish. This is one large 240 litre bin full and half a small, 140 litre bin so if you drove down this street on rubbish collection day, you would notice a large wheelie bin and a small wheelie bin outside the Mexican’s property.

The point of the exercise is to replicate what is happening in the world today in the context of the world being a normal, Australian suburban street. It’s an attempt to create a visual image of what some of the world would like if it were just an everyday street in suburban Adelaide.



This is my little street in suburban Adelaide and everything was great in the beginning but after a few months, the local council was fed up with cleaning up the dumped pile of rubbish left outside Germany’s, America’s and my place. The council said that if we kept leaving rubbish dumped on the footpath next to our bins, they wouldn’t remove it.

Germany was embarrassed and said they’d try and do something but America and I told them to go and jump.

Well, true to their word, the council stopped removing the rubbish that we were leaving outside the front of our properties and it soon started to pile up – the neighbours were getting very concerned.

They called a meeting of all the residents of the street and they voiced their disproval at how dangerously unhygienic it was to have filth keep piling up in our street. We, that is America and I, we anticipated what the others would say and we came up with the strategy of accusing all the other neighbours of creating more rubbish in total than we did and that they should mind their own business.

The neighnours were at first incredulous and then, outraged! Germany just sat in the corner whimpering.

The resident’s spokesperson stood up and pointed his finger at us, America and Australia, (Germany was still cowering in the corner) and said in a raised voice, “Yes, if you put all of our waste together we probably do produce more than you two but ours is covered and we are trying to further reduce our rubbish and what’s more, the rats the size of cats, the cockroaches the size of bats and the millions of flies are gathered in and around the filth that is piling up outside YOUR place! There are diseases that are effecting us and our children that are being spread by the vermin that you have attracted to our street!”.

We told them we don’t care and to stick it; Germany were neither with us nor against us.

TO BE CONTINUED.

 

[ferball]

Did you ask a question, not like the answer?

Keep reading the thread.

 

[Kwality]

Nearly 400 people died in the 2009 heatwave that preceded the Black Saturday fires. That was one of three severe heatwaves in a 12 month period at the time but that sort of extended heat is more common these days.

People have died in a heatwave, they died from cold* as well.

Poor effort to justify your claim, but no doubt you believe it.

* big reason for India & China for wanting more power.

 

[Frank Bunn]

It's really not that difficult, see attached. Unless you think Monash Uni and ANU are fuzzy thinkers. In which case, there really is no point engaging.

Thanks. I've had a skim through it. I'll have a proper read when I've got more time.

But it seems to be assuming that nuclear is part of the energy mix. That's something no mainstream Australian party supports.

In this future 'pathway' there's no power from coal, oil or petrol. That's a massive shift from coal currently accounting for about 70% of Australia's electricity generation. Petrol and diesel vehicles currently account for about 98 per cent of Australian vehicles. The 2% of electric vehicles have their power sourced from coal and gas.

There was mention of biofuels filling the gap but I couldn't see the detail.

For agriculture, which is a significant part of our emissions, I saw a couple of assumptions without evidence and which were possibly contradictory.

Growth in beef demand slows as a result of increases in beef prices in a decarbonised world.​

Overall growth in demand sees agricultural emissions grow by 20% from 2012 to 2050​

​

Then of course, the elephant in the room, that if we do all these things, what difference will it make to the world's climate?

 

[Frank Bunn]

I understand the logic of the OP, it's pretty sound. The problem with all of these types of arguments though is that it assumes that the purpose/benefit in Australia taking action can only be measured in terms of its direct impact on the global environment. It completely ignores the power it has to have an indirect impact by influencing the behaviour of these bigger polluters.

One concludes, that to make a difference, USA, China, India need to play ball. We need to influence them to do so.

If we refuse to change ourselves, how can we expect to influence them to?

Do you think we have significant influence on the major polluters such as China, India, USA, Russia?

Yes, there is that risk that we go first and while we wait for them our economy suffers significantly. So that's when you politely ask those without a can-do attitude to leave the room, and leave it to the smart ones to work on a plan. And I'm pretty sure a big part of that plan would include us committing to do our bit.

Just throwing our hands up in the air saying "no point, cos China" is massively defeatist.

What evidence is there for economies suffering significantly by those without a 'can-do' attitude required to leave the room? In reality we are one of the few signatories to Paris to meet our commitments. Many countries who are signatories can increase emissions, or will fail to meet their commitments.

 

[Deliverance]

​

Then of course, the elephant in the room, that if we do all these things, what difference will it make to the world's climate?

We are about 4% of global emissions (including exports), so admittedly, not the worst, but shocking for a population of our size.
It's also a matter of creating a majority of clean nations. Ie. The more that jump on board, the easier it becomes to convince others nations. Even if it's just bit by bit, one nation at a time. The journey of a thousand steps begins with the first one.
If we do decide to do nothing now because there's not enough being down by others, what's the tipping point for us to begin to take action? When 30, 40, 50, 80% of nations are on board? Do we wait until everyone except us is carbon neutral and then say * it, we don't need to do anything now because everyone else has done the heavy lifting for us.
Sometimes in life, you've just got to do the right thing, even when others aren't.



Sadly though, if Trump wins again, we're screwed for the bear future.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

******* disgrace

 

[Fadge]

We are about 4% of global emissions (including exports), so admittedly, not the worst, but shocking for a population of our size.
It's also a matter of creating a majority of clean nations. Ie. The more that jump on board, the easier it becomes to convince others nations. Even if it's just bit by bit, one nation at a time. The journey of a thousand steps begins with the first one.
If we do decide to do nothing now because there's not enough being down by others, what's the tipping point for us to begin to take action? When 30, 40, 50, 80% of nations are on board? Do we wait until everyone except us is carbon neutral and then say fu** it, we don't need to do anything now because everyone else has done the heavy lifting for us.
Sometimes in life, you've just got to do the right thing, even when others aren't.

View attachment 827143

Sadly though, if Trump wins again, we're screwed for the bear future.

Two questions:
1. In what way is that meme in any way related to your post?
2. If the climate science is 'settled', and it is the biggest issue known to mankind, and Trump is a 'denier' - how does Trump possibly get re-elected?

 

[Deliverance]

Two questions:
1. In what way is that meme in any way related to your post?
2. If the climate science is 'settled', and it is the biggest issue known to mankind, and Trump is a 'denier' - how does Trump possibly get re-elected?

1. Don't worry about what others are doing. Just do the right thing yourself.
2. Propaganda, uneducated electorates and dysfunctional opposition.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I understand the logic of the OP, it's pretty sound. The problem with all of these types of arguments though is that it assumes that the purpose/benefit in Australia taking action can only be measured in terms of its direct impact on the global environment. It completely ignores the power it has to have an indirect impact by influencing the behaviour of these bigger polluters.

One concludes, that to make a difference, USA, China, India need to play ball. We need to influence them to do so.

If we refuse to change ourselves, how can we expect to influence them to?

Yes, there is that risk that we go first and while we wait for them our economy suffers significantly. So that's when you politely ask those without a can-do attitude to leave the room, and leave it to the smart ones to work on a plan. And I'm pretty sure a big part of that plan would include us committing to do our bit.

Just throwing our hands up in the air saying "no point, cos China" is massively defeatist.

We go Nuclear free, China and USA......????

Yeah politely ask them to leave the room probably works in the kindergarten you teach.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Did you ignore the rest of my post because you hadn't read your own link? The paper assumes that there's no energy sourced from coal, oil or petrol. That's a massive shift from coal currently accounting for about 70% of Australia's electricity generation. Petrol and diesel vehicles currently account for about 98 per cent of Australian vehicles. The paper also assumes that nuclear is part of the energy mix yet no mainstream Australian party supports it. There was mention of biofuels filling the gap but no detail provided. Agricultural emissions to grow by 20% from 2012 to 2050.

We are about 4% of global emissions (including exports), so admittedly, not the worst, but shocking for a population of our size.
It's also a matter of creating a majority of clean nations. Ie. The more that jump on board, the easier it becomes to convince others nations. Even if it's just bit by bit, one nation at a time. The journey of a thousand steps begins with the first one.
If we do decide to do nothing now because there's not enough being down by others, what's the tipping point for us to begin to take action? When 30, 40, 50, 80% of nations are on board? Do we wait until everyone except us is carbon neutral and then say fu** it, we don't need to do anything now because everyone else has done the heavy lifting for us.
Sometimes in life, you've just got to do the right thing, even when others aren't.

You are back to fuzzy, emotional thinking. Australia's CO2 emissions are not 4%, it's just over 1%. Claiming exports to be included, or citing emissions per capita is just self-hating guilt. You want to absolve your guilt by 'doing the right thing' and justifying that by a series of motherhood statements. Feel free to disconnect from the electricity grid, rely on a bicycle for travel and never take a flight again - but don't impose that nonsense on everyone else.

 

[ferball]

People have died in a heatwave, they died from cold* as well.

Poor effort to justify your claim, but no doubt you believe it.

* big reason for India & China for wanting more power.

That's pretty weak.

People have been dying from heat in Australia for at least 175 years. Since 1951 the rate of heatwaves and number of excessively hot days has increased and this century the rate of deaths due to heat has increased for the first time since before ww2, when modern housing and access to electrical cooling became widely available.

We have better access to cool environments, not just in our homes but across the community in public and semi public places (ie shopping centres, cinemas etc etc). Up until this century those rates had plummetted.

Across the world the 21st century has seen increasing rates of death due to heat. Along with increases in temperatures and in the number of heatwaves. Are you seriously suggesting there is no relationship between these things?

It's not even a controversial idea, except among the factually challenged.

We know it's getting hotter because of humans making the planet hotter and more people are dying during the extreme heat periods than were a generation ago but you are saying humans making it hotter doesn't have anything to do with that increased number of deaths.

Thats a cretinous argument.

 

[ferball]

We are less than a third of one percent the earths population but produce over one percent of the world's co2. So proportionally we produce over three times as much as the rest of the world.

The example we set isn't inconsequential. If other nations think what's good enough for us is good enough for them then the rate of emissions of co2 across the world will increase by enough to cook us all.

 

[Corpuscles]

We are less than a third of one percent the earths population but produce over one percent of the world's co2. So proportionally we produce over three times as much as the rest of the world.

The example we set isn't inconsequential. If other nations think what's good enough for us is good enough for them then the rate of emissions of co2 across the world will increase by enough to cook us all.

Australia is a large country with population mostly on the coast. It has large expanses without trees, yet transport needs to go from East to west North to South and return, with many of major industries located in remote distant places.

The comment above requires a much greater examination of the data.
No we Australia do not "produce over three times as much as the rest of the world."
Sorry that is one of those hysterical statements.

Per capita
4. Kuwait
5 UAE
6 Bahrain
7. Saudi Arabia
8 Oman
...

12 Australia
13 USA
14 Canada

All three of the 12-14 above per capita is similar but note Australia large size small population/ lack of trees to offset.

Have you ever heard of Palau? Look it up, per capita it puts out 3 times the amount of Co2 as Australia.
Does anyone look at them and say oh well they do so we can too? I doubt it.
It is not as simple as you claim.

Look at the countries in the list 4-8 what do you know about them?
Obviously those countries are not going to stop selling or producing Oil until a cheaper or competitive alternative is readily available to both rich and poor countries.
It is unlikely to stop completely in the next 20 years probably not 30 years

Neither are large population developing countries like China and India are going to close down hundreds of recently built coal power stations, inside their useful ROI life. Nor are they required to reduce under Paris Agreement nor future ones.


So, instead of hysteria and drama just 'hop in the pot' and get ready to "cook"!
If that is what you think is going to happen.
Or alternatively if your conscience is "burning" early you could emigrate to Kenya or Niger or Ethiopia and you well feel better living in a low per capita emitter?

All Australia can do is what it can justify and afford. Earnestly and seriously but it's not helped by overblown hysteria!
The answer is technology development
Transport (replace Oil and Gas) and Coal, is key and no it currently cannot be eliminated significantly just by renewables (solar panels) unless the country has a huge number of trees.

 

[Lebbo73]

Maybe we should've funded a Tesla factory in Australia rather than the nostalgic ute producer.

That’s an interesting concept. Who in their right might would want to manufacture anything in Oz? We have ridiculously expensive electricity thanks to inefficient renewables. Lets not forget about exorbitant wages and then we have to ship this stuff off to countries on the other side of the globe who can produce it for a fraction of the price.
Elon Musk is a leaner taking taxpayers money to fund his empire.

 

[Fadge]

That’s an interesting concept. Who in their right might would want to manufacture anything in Oz? We have ridiculously expensive electricity thanks to inefficient renewables. Lets not forget about exorbitant wages and then we have to ship this stuff off to countries on the other side of the globe who can produce it for a fraction of the price.
Elon Musk is a leaner taking taxpayers money to fund his empire.

Yes, that was just another example of a hysteric throwing an illogical comment out there without any thought whatsoever as to whether it would be a legitimate option in the 'real world'.

It's all about 'we need to do it now' without any realistic suggestions in relation to the what and the how.

 

[Deliverance]

Did you ignore the rest of my post because you hadn't read your own link? The paper assumes that there's no energy sourced from coal, oil or petrol. That's a massive shift from coal currently accounting for about 70% of Australia's electricity generation. Petrol and diesel vehicles currently account for about 98 per cent of Australian vehicles. The paper also assumes that nuclear is part of the energy mix yet no mainstream Australian party supports it. There was mention of biofuels filling the gap but no detail provided. Agricultural emissions to grow by 20% from 2012 to 2050.



You are back to fuzzy, emotional thinking. Australia's CO2 emissions are not 4%, it's just over 1%. Claiming exports to be included, or citing emissions per capita is just self-hating guilt. You want to absolve your guilt by 'doing the right thing' and justifying that by a series of motherhood statements. Feel free to disconnect from the electricity grid, rely on a bicycle for travel and never take a flight again - but don't impose that nonsense on everyone else.

The paper suggests a nuclear and non nuclear pathway.
There's is still fossil fuel consumption for energy and transport, but greatly reduced.
Biofuels have been in commercial aviation for a decade already.
Of course it's a massive shift. The industrial revolution was a massive shift too. So we are capable.

That’s an interesting concept. Who in their right might would want to manufacture anything in Oz? We have ridiculously expensive electricity thanks to inefficient renewables. Lets not forget about exorbitant wages and then we have to ship this stuff off to countries on the other side of the globe who can produce it for a fraction of the price.
Elon Musk is a leaner taking taxpayers money to fund his empire.

Sarcasm mate.
How'd you go old sport, figure out what the sun is currently doing to cause climate change currently? Or still stuck in that one? Please let me know when you figure it out.

 

[Lebbo73]

The paper suggests a nuclear and non nuclear pathway.
There's is still fossil fuel consumption for energy and transport, but greatly reduced.
Biofuels have been in commercial aviation for a decade already.
Of course it's a massive shift. The industrial revolution was a massive shift too. So we are capable.



Sarcasm mate.
How'd you go old sport, figure out what the sun is currently doing to cause climate change currently? Or still stuck in that one? Please let me know when you figure it out.

There’s nothing to figure out. Your stupidity is the only thing holding you back. If you have no idea about the correlation between the earth and the sun and it’s changing proximisty, seek help. Sunspot activity also results in changing weather and temperatures. But no, you keep diving back to that evil gas that only makes up 400ppm of gases in our atmosphere. I didn’t pick you for the religious nutter type?

 

[HardcoreGeelongFan]

Very interested to know the number of lnp seats that had bushfires compared to alp held seats. I bet like over 95% of areas affected by climate change are conservative.

 

[Frank Bunn]

The paper suggests a nuclear and non nuclear pathway.
There's is still fossil fuel consumption for energy and transport, but greatly reduced.
Biofuels have been in commercial aviation for a decade already.
Of course it's a massive shift. The industrial revolution was a massive shift too. So we are capable.

As I said, you are proposing revolutionary ideas on international and country economic scales yet all you can give us is fuzzy ideas justified by feel good motherhood statements.

Biofuels make up about 1% of of fuel burned each year by commercial airlines and there are significant challenges in increasing that share. It's a publicity stunt. The airlines also love to give us options to pay extra to offset the carbon footprint of our flights. This is another exercise in PR, and salving our conscience. If you look in any detail at these schemes they are massively rorted.

 

[Kwality]

1. Don't worry about what others are doing. Just do the right thing yourself.
2. Propaganda, uneducated electorates and dysfunctional opposition.

Is putting communities out of work (coal) for no net gain (emissions worldwide) an example of doing the right thing yourself ?

 

[Kwality]

Very interested to know the number of lnp seats that had bushfires compared to alp held seats. I bet like over 95% of areas affected by climate change are conservative.

No bush fires in the city? Even, bush fires are in the bush?

 

[Frank Bunn]

Is putting communities out of work (coal) for no net gain (emissions worldwide) an example of doing the right thing yourself ?

I believe about 50,000 Australians work in the coal mining industry. But it's ok if they are all jobless because someone feels better about themselves 'doing the right thing'.