I'll let the in-house mathematicians massage the figures around for a bit

Here's a hint. Look at the 2005 figures then calculate the percentage reduction e.g. Australia 2005 is 20 and we are looking for a reduction of 28%

The claim: Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull says that Australia's emissions reduction target of 26 to 28 per cent of 2005 levels by 2030 is "second only to the emission cuts offered by Brazil" when measured on a per capita basis.

The verdict: Australia's per capita reductions for 2030 will be 50 to 52 per cent lower than 2005 levels, which is smaller than the 53 per cent per capita reduction Brazil will make over the same time period, but the per capita cuts of Norway, at 57 per cent, and Switzerland, at 60 per cent, are even higher than both Brazil and Australia. Mr Turnbull is incorrect.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-02/fact-check-turnbull-per-capita-emissions-brazil/6968620

http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2ts_pc1990-2014

Longy isn’t here anymore, Maqqa. If you want a mathematician, you’ll probably have to go somewher e else.

Brazil is starting from a lower base of 2.5 tonne CO2 per capita compared to Australia 17+ tonne per capita. It is easier to reduce from a higher base than from a low base.

Australia should do better.

Karnal wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 11:39pm:

Longy isn’t here anymore, Maqqa. If you want a mathematician, you’ll probably have to go somewher e else.

So we can all agree that the base year is 2005. Lets look at
>> the base year numbers for each of the countries mentioned then
>> in red I'll put down a 28% reduction
>> in blue the current emission (as at 2014)

Australia - 20 - 14.4 - 17.3
Brazil - 1.90 - 1.37 - 2.5
Norway - 9.49 - 6.8 - 8.7
Switzerland - 6.39 - 4.6 - 4.93

Blue minus Red = the reduction it needs to make

Clearly Switzerland is almost there i.e. they have 0.3 to go

Whereas Australia has significantly more work to do

So Fact Checker has their numbers all over the place

When they remove the subsidies on fossil fuels in Australia, suddenly they will find that switching to renewables is more cost efficient anyway.

The cost of PV arrays is still coming down thanks to China, or at least European investors in China.

Anything relying on coal production will be problematic. It's better to cull coal power stations that are performing badly now rather than prolong the agony. There is still a glut of electricity generation capacity in Australia.

John_Taverner wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 7:35am:

When they remove the subsidies on fossil fuels in Australia, suddenly they will find that switching to renewables is more cost efficient anyway. The cost of PV arrays is still coming down thanks to China, or at least European investors in China. Anything relying on coal production will be problematic. It's better to cull coal power stations that are performing badly now rather than prolong the agony. There is still a glut of electricity generation capacity in Australia.

You mean that when anything fossil fuelled is now twice as expensive - like electricity, renewables are then cost effective?

How is the consumer better off now that his prices have doubled?

mariacostel wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 7:46am:

John_Taverner wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 7:35am: When they remove the subsidies on fossil fuels in Australia, suddenly they will find that switching to renewables is more cost efficient anyway. The cost of PV arrays is still coming down thanks to China, or at least European investors in China. Anything relying on coal production will be problematic. It's better to cull coal power stations that are performing badly now rather than prolong the agony. There is still a glut of electricity generation capacity in Australia. You mean that when anything fossil fuelled is now twice as expensive - like electricity, renewables are then cost effective? How is the consumer better off now that his prices have doubled?

Well, since it is our tax dollars paying the subsidies, how in fact is the consumer better off?

mariacostel wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 7:46am:

John_Taverner wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 7:35am: When they remove the subsidies on fossil fuels in Australia, suddenly they will find that switching to renewables is more cost efficient anyway. The cost of PV arrays is still coming down thanks to China, or at least European investors in China. Anything relying on coal production will be problematic. It's better to cull coal power stations that are performing badly now rather than prolong the agony. There is still a glut of electricity generation capacity in Australia. You mean that when anything fossil fuelled is now twice as expensive - like electricity, renewables are then cost effective? How is the consumer better off now that his prices have doubled?

I doubt if the consumer will ever be better off.  The consumer will continue to be charged as much as possible, but at a price above which demand drops off because people can't afford it. If the price is too high, the overall return drops, so it's adjused to maximise returns. 

- and the wholesale cost of energy is entirely different to what the consumer is charged.

What do you think that commodity markets operate as a charity?

It's all about market forces. Always will be.

John_Taverner wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 8:11am:

mariacostel wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 7:46am: John_Taverner wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 7:35am: When they remove the subsidies on fossil fuels in Australia, suddenly they will find that switching to renewables is more cost efficient anyway. The cost of PV arrays is still coming down thanks to China, or at least European investors in China. Anything relying on coal production will be problematic. It's better to cull coal power stations that are performing badly now rather than prolong the agony. There is still a glut of electricity generation capacity in Australia. You mean that when anything fossil fuelled is now twice as expensive - like electricity, renewables are then cost effective? How is the consumer better off now that his prices have doubled? I doubt if the consumer will ever be better off.  The consumer will continue to be charged as much as possible, but at a price above which demand drops off because people can't afford it. If the price is too high, the overall return drops, so it's adjused to maximise returns.  - and the wholesale cost of energy is entirely different to what the consumer is charged. What do you think that commodity markets operate as a charity? It's all about market forces. Always will be.

When you want to get rid of all government subsidies then go for it.  Remember that all WELFARE is a subsidy ie a payment not earned.

John_Taverner wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 7:35am:

When they remove the subsidies on fossil fuels in Australia, suddenly they will find that switching to renewables is more cost efficient anyway.

Subsidies or tax deductions?

lee wrote on Dec 20^th, 2015 at 6:13pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Dec 20th, 2015 at 7:35am: When they remove the subsidies on fossil fuels in Australia, suddenly they will find that switching to renewables is more cost efficient anyway. Subsidies or tax deductions?

I think he believes the renewable sector isnt subsidised!  If the renewable sector had its subsidies removed, no one wouls put solar on their roof and no more solar plants would be built.