Australian Politics Forum - Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49023
At my desk.

Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries
Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 9:52am

For some reason people keep pointing out that Australia's GHG emissions are far less than those of China, India etc (example 1, example 2). It is a pretty stupid argument, but looking back, it does not appear to be an argument at all. I have not seen anyone follow this up with any sort of rational argument or conclusion. So I would like the people who keep parroting this line to start by attempting to make an argument. Here are a few suggestions, based on what I think they are trying to say:

1) A country's emissions should be compared directly, regardless of population, so that a country with 1 million people can contribute as much as one with 100 million.

2) Smaller countries should not have to do anything about their GHG emissions.

3) We could solve global warming by getting China to split into lots of smaller countries so they can make the same stupid argument.

4) Any excuse, no matter how vapid, will do, so long as we don't have to pull our weight.

5) It will help in international negotiations to set targets for all countries if we blame the problem on countries with lower per capita emissions and expect poorer countries with less resources to make bigger sacrifices than us.

6) It is harder for us to reduce our emissions because we are emitting so much less than China and India.

Australia's GHG emissions, on a per capita basis, are among the highest in the world.

This empty headed one-liner gets trotted out pretty much constantly now, but for some reason these questions always go unanswered, the responses go ignored and people just keep parroting it.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 10:10am by freediver »

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49023
At my desk.

Re: Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries
Reply #1 - Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 1:12pm

Andrei came close to a rational argument, but then went back to parrot mode:

freediver wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 11:09am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 10:51am:

That's not what I am arguing.
I am stating the target should be total based and a flat rate.

The country's figure in 1990 and the target emissions needs to be a set % of that.

That way the United States has a set reduction to be say 90% of that and China should be 90% of their 1990 level.

The Falklands aren't penalized absurdly then and everyone reduces.

"Global emissions should be reduced to reduce the threat of climate change. We in the United States should play our part. But let me tell you something, I'll be damned if America is going to pick up the bar bill for the Chinese and everybody else"
President George W Bush, Kyoto.

So if a country that was dirt poor in 1990 wants to increase their standard of living, they should be forced to pay money to wealthy counties for the right to pollute at the same level? That is what it means for wealthy countries to not pay the tab for poorer countries?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 1:04pm:

Look, there is a tonne in that post from Karnal that I agree - particularly regarding the complexity and inter-linking of the global economy.

However it doesn't deal with the actual problem itself.

Whether people like it or not, China pollutes 1/3rd of the entire world's pollution.
That's not a made up number its fact.

China has increased its pollution over the last decade by more each year than a country like Australia pollutes in total.

So in layman's terms, if Australia reduced its pollution to ZERO, China's increase would offset it and add more.

China's increases over the Kyoto programme was FIVE TIMES that of all the countries reductions added together.

That is the reality of the problem.

Yeah there is a bleeding heart issue here.
People take the "Oh but China was poor in 1990, we should let them pollute to catch up..."

That's like us at work sitting around at the end of the year and going "ooooh Elf struggled in Latin America this year, we should cap our drilling and give them some of our rigs to catch up..."

The route I take - everyone has a year, everyone has the % to get to - may be tough on some, but it will a step to fixing the problem.

Because as the figures show you - handing China and India Get-out-of-Jail free cards pretty much fks up any advances the rest of us make.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries
Reply #2 - Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 1:34pm

For what it's worth, I agree with Andrei's point that we should not be paying China to reduce carbon emissions. In fact, China is in a far better position to do that and they are doing a lot more about it than Australia.

It's not about catching up with economic levels. It's about everybody doing what they can to reduce carbon emissions now. Forget about the past.

What is not needed is to hijack the issue by trying to restribute wealth in the guise of reducing carbon emissions. Providing renewable power generation to Mali or Chad will achieve precisely nothing towards the goal of reducing carbon emissions.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 1:39pm by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries
Reply #3 - Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 2:11pm

freediver wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 9:52am:

For some reason people keep pointing out that Australia's GHG emissions are far less than those of China, India etc (example 1, example 2). It is a pretty stupid argument, but looking back, it does not appear to be an argument at all. I have not seen anyone follow this up with any sort of rational argument or conclusion. So I would like the people who keep parroting this line to start by attempting to make an argument. Here are a few suggestions, based on what I think they are trying to say:

1) A country's emissions should be compared directly, regardless of population, so that a country with 1 million people can contribute as much as one with 100 million.

2) Smaller countries should not have to do anything about their GHG emissions.

3) We could solve global warming by getting China to split into lots of smaller countries so they can make the same stupid argument.

4) Any excuse, no matter how vapid, will do, so long as we don't have to pull our weight.

5) It will help in international negotiations to set targets for all countries if we blame the problem on countries with lower per capita emissions and expect poorer countries with less resources to make bigger sacrifices than us.

6) It is harder for us to reduce our emissions because we are emitting so much less than China and India.

Australia's GHG emissions, on a per capita basis, are among the highest in the world.

This empty headed one-liner gets trotted out pretty much constantly now, but for some reason these questions always go unanswered, the responses go ignored and people just keep parroting it.

Ok, I'll try.

The whole 'per capita' argument is designed simply as guilt trip to make us ( the population of Australia) feel worse about our emissions than we feel about China's...

The principle fact in the whole Co2 pollution argument is more=bad, less=not so bad, right?...so raw tonnage is, or should be, the major factor on the World stage.
Per Capita should be a purely internal matter, used only to decide how much each individual has to cut back to meet the nations targets..

China as a whole, produces about 7 Billion tonnes of GHG per year, and Australia produces about 400 Million tonnes....

If every person in China reduces their 'carbon foot print' by 10%, that equates to a reduction of 700 million tonnes (almost twice Australia's total), on the other hand, if every person in Australia reduces theirs by 10%, that's a reduction of only 40 tonnes. So, classifying our emissions as far worse than China's is incorrect (or an out right lie).

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

Sir lastnail

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 30088
Gender: male

Re: Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries
Reply #4 - Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 2:22pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 2:11pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 9:52am:

For some reason people keep pointing out that Australia's GHG emissions are far less than those of China, India etc (example 1, example 2). It is a pretty stupid argument, but looking back, it does not appear to be an argument at all. I have not seen anyone follow this up with any sort of rational argument or conclusion. So I would like the people who keep parroting this line to start by attempting to make an argument. Here are a few suggestions, based on what I think they are trying to say:

1) A country's emissions should be compared directly, regardless of population, so that a country with 1 million people can contribute as much as one with 100 million.

2) Smaller countries should not have to do anything about their GHG emissions.

3) We could solve global warming by getting China to split into lots of smaller countries so they can make the same stupid argument.

4) Any excuse, no matter how vapid, will do, so long as we don't have to pull our weight.

5) It will help in international negotiations to set targets for all countries if we blame the problem on countries with lower per capita emissions and expect poorer countries with less resources to make bigger sacrifices than us.

6) It is harder for us to reduce our emissions because we are emitting so much less than China and India.

Australia's GHG emissions, on a per capita basis, are among the highest in the world.

This empty headed one-liner gets trotted out pretty much constantly now, but for some reason these questions always go unanswered, the responses go ignored and people just keep parroting it.

Ok, I'll try.

The whole 'per capita' argument is designed simply as guilt trip to make us ( the population of Australia) feel worse about our emissions than we feel about China's...

The principle fact in the whole Co2 pollution argument is more=bad, less=not so bad, right?...so raw tonnage is, or should be, the major factor on the World stage.
Per Capita should be a purely internal matter, used only to decide how much each individual has to cut back to meet the nations targets..

China as a whole, produces about 7 Billion tonnes of GHG per year, and Australia produces about 400 Million tonnes....

If every person in China reduces their 'carbon foot print' by 10%, that equates to a reduction of 700 million tonnes (almost twice Australia's total), on the other hand, if every person in Australia reduces theirs by 10%, that's a reduction of only 40 tonnes. So, classifying our emissions as far worse than China's is incorrect (or an out right lie).

as an individual you should feel guilty Sad

what has an artificial border got to do with ones environmental impact on the planet when what an individual does effects the planet as a whole and not only within this artificial border as you are alluding to ?

How about dividing the china population up into many imaginary borders and then how does your stupid argument fair ?

Back to top

In August 2021, Newcastle Coroner Karen Dilks recorded that Lisa Shaw had died “due to complications of an AstraZeneca COVID vaccination”.

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries
Reply #5 - Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 2:29pm

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 2:22pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 2:11pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 9:52am:

For some reason people keep pointing out that Australia's GHG emissions are far less than those of China, India etc (example 1, example 2). It is a pretty stupid argument, but looking back, it does not appear to be an argument at all. I have not seen anyone follow this up with any sort of rational argument or conclusion. So I would like the people who keep parroting this line to start by attempting to make an argument. Here are a few suggestions, based on what I think they are trying to say:

1) A country's emissions should be compared directly, regardless of population, so that a country with 1 million people can contribute as much as one with 100 million.

2) Smaller countries should not have to do anything about their GHG emissions.

3) We could solve global warming by getting China to split into lots of smaller countries so they can make the same stupid argument.

4) Any excuse, no matter how vapid, will do, so long as we don't have to pull our weight.

5) It will help in international negotiations to set targets for all countries if we blame the problem on countries with lower per capita emissions and expect poorer countries with less resources to make bigger sacrifices than us.

6) It is harder for us to reduce our emissions because we are emitting so much less than China and India.

Australia's GHG emissions, on a per capita basis, are among the highest in the world.

This empty headed one-liner gets trotted out pretty much constantly now, but for some reason these questions always go unanswered, the responses go ignored and people just keep parroting it.

Ok, I'll try.

The whole 'per capita' argument is designed simply as guilt trip to make us ( the population of Australia) feel worse about our emissions than we feel about China's...

The principle fact in the whole Co2 pollution argument is more=bad, less=not so bad, right?...so raw tonnage is, or should be, the major factor on the World stage.
Per Capita should be a purely internal matter, used only to decide how much each individual has to cut back to meet the nations targets..

China as a whole, produces about 7 Billion tonnes of GHG per year, and Australia produces about 400 Million tonnes....

If every person in China reduces their 'carbon foot print' by 10%, that equates to a reduction of 700 million tonnes (almost twice Australia's total), on the other hand, if every person in Australia reduces theirs by 10%, that's a reduction of only 40 tonnes. So, classifying our emissions as far worse than China's is incorrect (or an out right lie).

as an individual you should feel guilty Sad

what has an artificial border got to do with ones environmental impact on the planet when what an individual does effects the planet as a whole and not only within this artificial border as you are alluding to ?

How about dividing the china population up into many imaginary borders and then how does your stupid argument fair ?

Well I don't feel guilty...

And what does an artificial border have to do with the non-availability of EVs then??

'Artificial borders' are used all the time in the REAL World, and, in particular, in the per capita emissions argument as well..

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries
Reply #6 - Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 2:35pm

Maybe Gizmo has a point.

I think it is terribly unfair that people in NSW pay more income tax in total than comes from Tasmanians.

I think all Tasmanians should pay about 15 times more tax than they currently do - so that an equal amount of tax would come out of Tasmania as it does from NSW.

Is this how your logic works Gizmo?

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries
Reply #7 - Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 2:37pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 2:29pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 2:22pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 2:11pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 9:52am:

For some reason people keep pointing out that Australia's GHG emissions are far less than those of China, India etc (example 1, example 2). It is a pretty stupid argument, but looking back, it does not appear to be an argument at all. I have not seen anyone follow this up with any sort of rational argument or conclusion. So I would like the people who keep parroting this line to start by attempting to make an argument. Here are a few suggestions, based on what I think they are trying to say:

1) A country's emissions should be compared directly, regardless of population, so that a country with 1 million people can contribute as much as one with 100 million.

2) Smaller countries should not have to do anything about their GHG emissions.

3) We could solve global warming by getting China to split into lots of smaller countries so they can make the same stupid argument.

4) Any excuse, no matter how vapid, will do, so long as we don't have to pull our weight.

5) It will help in international negotiations to set targets for all countries if we blame the problem on countries with lower per capita emissions and expect poorer countries with less resources to make bigger sacrifices than us.

6) It is harder for us to reduce our emissions because we are emitting so much less than China and India.

Australia's GHG emissions, on a per capita basis, are among the highest in the world.

This empty headed one-liner gets trotted out pretty much constantly now, but for some reason these questions always go unanswered, the responses go ignored and people just keep parroting it.

Ok, I'll try.

The whole 'per capita' argument is designed simply as guilt trip to make us ( the population of Australia) feel worse about our emissions than we feel about China's...

The principle fact in the whole Co2 pollution argument is more=bad, less=not so bad, right?...so raw tonnage is, or should be, the major factor on the World stage.
Per Capita should be a purely internal matter, used only to decide how much each individual has to cut back to meet the nations targets..

China as a whole, produces about 7 Billion tonnes of GHG per year, and Australia produces about 400 Million tonnes....

If every person in China reduces their 'carbon foot print' by 10%, that equates to a reduction of 700 million tonnes (almost twice Australia's total), on the other hand, if every person in Australia reduces theirs by 10%, that's a reduction of only 40 tonnes. So, classifying our emissions as far worse than China's is incorrect (or an out right lie).

as an individual you should feel guilty Sad

what has an artificial border got to do with ones environmental impact on the planet when what an individual does effects the planet as a whole and not only within this artificial border as you are alluding to ?

How about dividing the china population up into many imaginary borders and then how does your stupid argument fair ?

Well I don't feel guilty...

you are responsible for about 4 times that amount of emissions of an average Chinese person - yet you want them to reduce emissions while you do nothing!

You should feel guilty.

Back to top

IP Logged

Andrei.Hicks

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male

Re: Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries
Reply #8 - Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 2:48pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 2:37pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 2:29pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 2:22pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 2:11pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 9:52am:

For some reason people keep pointing out that Australia's GHG emissions are far less than those of China, India etc (example 1, example 2). It is a pretty stupid argument, but looking back, it does not appear to be an argument at all. I have not seen anyone follow this up with any sort of rational argument or conclusion. So I would like the people who keep parroting this line to start by attempting to make an argument. Here are a few suggestions, based on what I think they are trying to say:

1) A country's emissions should be compared directly, regardless of population, so that a country with 1 million people can contribute as much as one with 100 million.

2) Smaller countries should not have to do anything about their GHG emissions.

3) We could solve global warming by getting China to split into lots of smaller countries so they can make the same stupid argument.

4) Any excuse, no matter how vapid, will do, so long as we don't have to pull our weight.

5) It will help in international negotiations to set targets for all countries if we blame the problem on countries with lower per capita emissions and expect poorer countries with less resources to make bigger sacrifices than us.

6) It is harder for us to reduce our emissions because we are emitting so much less than China and India.

Australia's GHG emissions, on a per capita basis, are among the highest in the world.

This empty headed one-liner gets trotted out pretty much constantly now, but for some reason these questions always go unanswered, the responses go ignored and people just keep parroting it.

Ok, I'll try.

The whole 'per capita' argument is designed simply as guilt trip to make us ( the population of Australia) feel worse about our emissions than we feel about China's...

The principle fact in the whole Co2 pollution argument is more=bad, less=not so bad, right?...so raw tonnage is, or should be, the major factor on the World stage.
Per Capita should be a purely internal matter, used only to decide how much each individual has to cut back to meet the nations targets..

China as a whole, produces about 7 Billion tonnes of GHG per year, and Australia produces about 400 Million tonnes....

If every person in China reduces their 'carbon foot print' by 10%, that equates to a reduction of 700 million tonnes (almost twice Australia's total), on the other hand, if every person in Australia reduces theirs by 10%, that's a reduction of only 40 tonnes. So, classifying our emissions as far worse than China's is incorrect (or an out right lie).

as an individual you should feel guilty Sad

what has an artificial border got to do with ones environmental impact on the planet when what an individual does effects the planet as a whole and not only within this artificial border as you are alluding to ?

How about dividing the china population up into many imaginary borders and then how does your stupid argument fair ?

Well I don't feel guilty...

you are responsible for about 4 times that amount of emissions of an average Chinese person - yet you want them to reduce emissions while you do nothing!

You should feel guilty.

Bollocks.
Some idiot friend of my mothers told me I should feel guilty over christmas when I pointed out how tough my travel would be in Q1 of this year.

"Your carbon footprint will be huge, I hope you offset it"

What a crock of fking bollocks.

China emits the worst in the world. I couldn't give a monkeys how many people they have.
They must play by the same rules as the rest of us.

Letting them pollute how they like while we all try and reduce is utterly insane.

Back to top

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries
Reply #9 - Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 3:03pm

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 2:48pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 2:37pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 2:29pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 2:22pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 2:11pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 9:52am:

For some reason people keep pointing out that Australia's GHG emissions are far less than those of China, India etc (example 1, example 2). It is a pretty stupid argument, but looking back, it does not appear to be an argument at all. I have not seen anyone follow this up with any sort of rational argument or conclusion. So I would like the people who keep parroting this line to start by attempting to make an argument. Here are a few suggestions, based on what I think they are trying to say:

1) A country's emissions should be compared directly, regardless of population, so that a country with 1 million people can contribute as much as one with 100 million.

2) Smaller countries should not have to do anything about their GHG emissions.

3) We could solve global warming by getting China to split into lots of smaller countries so they can make the same stupid argument.

4) Any excuse, no matter how vapid, will do, so long as we don't have to pull our weight.

5) It will help in international negotiations to set targets for all countries if we blame the problem on countries with lower per capita emissions and expect poorer countries with less resources to make bigger sacrifices than us.

6) It is harder for us to reduce our emissions because we are emitting so much less than China and India.

Australia's GHG emissions, on a per capita basis, are among the highest in the world.

This empty headed one-liner gets trotted out pretty much constantly now, but for some reason these questions always go unanswered, the responses go ignored and people just keep parroting it.

Ok, I'll try.

The whole 'per capita' argument is designed simply as guilt trip to make us ( the population of Australia) feel worse about our emissions than we feel about China's...

The principle fact in the whole Co2 pollution argument is more=bad, less=not so bad, right?...so raw tonnage is, or should be, the major factor on the World stage.
Per Capita should be a purely internal matter, used only to decide how much each individual has to cut back to meet the nations targets..

China as a whole, produces about 7 Billion tonnes of GHG per year, and Australia produces about 400 Million tonnes....

If every person in China reduces their 'carbon foot print' by 10%, that equates to a reduction of 700 million tonnes (almost twice Australia's total), on the other hand, if every person in Australia reduces theirs by 10%, that's a reduction of only 40 tonnes. So, classifying our emissions as far worse than China's is incorrect (or an out right lie).

as an individual you should feel guilty Sad

what has an artificial border got to do with ones environmental impact on the planet when what an individual does effects the planet as a whole and not only within this artificial border as you are alluding to ?

How about dividing the china population up into many imaginary borders and then how does your stupid argument fair ?

Well I don't feel guilty...

you are responsible for about 4 times that amount of emissions of an average Chinese person - yet you want them to reduce emissions while you do nothing!

You should feel guilty.

Bollocks.
Some idiot friend of my mothers told me I should feel guilty over christmas when I pointed out how tough my travel would be in Q1 of this year.

"Your carbon footprint will be huge, I hope you offset it"

What a crock of fking bollocks.

China emits the worst in the world. I couldn't give a monkeys how many people they have.
They must play by the same rules as the rest of us.

Letting them pollute how they like while we all try and reduce is utterly insane.

Ye - you have made it quite clear that you are ignorant and a bigot. We get that.

The simple fact remains however that you are responsible for about 4 times the emissions of the average Chinese person - yet you want them to take action while you do nothing!

That is a "crock of fking bollocks".

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries
Reply #10 - Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 3:06pm

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 2:48pm:

China emits the worst in the world. I couldn't give a monkeys how many people they have.
They must play by the same rules as the rest of us.

Letting them pollute how they like while we all try and reduce is utterly insane.

So...if the Government of China announces to morrow that they are splitting into 4 independant countries - then they can pollute how they like?!!?

Sit down and have another think about this sonny.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49023
At my desk.

Re: Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries
Reply #11 - Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 3:14pm

Quote:

so raw tonnage is, or should be, the major factor on the World stage

Can you turn this from vague waffle into a point?

Quote:

Per Capita should be a purely internal matter, used only to decide how much each individual has to cut back to meet the nations targets..

Are you suggesting we revert to communism?

Quote:

China as a whole, produces about 7 Billion tonnes of GHG per year, and Australia produces about 400 Million tonnes....

Those dots on the end are where your conclusion should go. Do you have a conclusion, or have you not thought this through yet?

Quote:

If every person in China reduces their 'carbon foot print' by 10%, that equates to a reduction of 700 million tonnes (almost twice Australia's total), on the other hand, if every person in Australia reduces theirs by 10%, that's a reduction of only 40 tonnes. So, classifying our emissions as far worse than China's is incorrect (or an out right lie).

So it is about nothing more than 'classification'?

Quote:

you are responsible for about 4 times that amount of emissions of an average Chinese person - yet you want them to reduce emissions while you do nothing!

Don't jump to conclusions. I don't think gizmo got as far as making a decision.

Quote:

They must play by the same rules as the rest of us.

What are those rules exactly?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Andrei.Hicks

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male

Re: Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries
Reply #12 - Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 3:15pm

No.

China has a 1990 figure. They should reduce to a % of that.
If they split into four, then split that up as well.

The United States has a 1990 level and we'll reduce to that.

Level playing field.

Nothing bigotted anywhere by the way. I spend enough time in China recently and they are very pleasant and welcoming to me.

I have no bad words for them as people.

Back to top

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49023 At my desk.	Re: Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries Reply #13 - Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 3:35pm So if poorer countries want to increase their emissions to those in the west, they should have to give money to western nations and pay them to reduce their emissions?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

Sir lastnail

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 30088
Gender: male

Re: Comparing our GHG emissions with foreign countries
Reply #14 - Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 4:15pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 2:29pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 2:22pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 2:11pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2013 at 9:52am:

For some reason people keep pointing out that Australia's GHG emissions are far less than those of China, India etc (example 1, example 2). It is a pretty stupid argument, but looking back, it does not appear to be an argument at all. I have not seen anyone follow this up with any sort of rational argument or conclusion. So I would like the people who keep parroting this line to start by attempting to make an argument. Here are a few suggestions, based on what I think they are trying to say:

1) A country's emissions should be compared directly, regardless of population, so that a country with 1 million people can contribute as much as one with 100 million.

2) Smaller countries should not have to do anything about their GHG emissions.

3) We could solve global warming by getting China to split into lots of smaller countries so they can make the same stupid argument.

4) Any excuse, no matter how vapid, will do, so long as we don't have to pull our weight.

5) It will help in international negotiations to set targets for all countries if we blame the problem on countries with lower per capita emissions and expect poorer countries with less resources to make bigger sacrifices than us.

6) It is harder for us to reduce our emissions because we are emitting so much less than China and India.

Australia's GHG emissions, on a per capita basis, are among the highest in the world.

This empty headed one-liner gets trotted out pretty much constantly now, but for some reason these questions always go unanswered, the responses go ignored and people just keep parroting it.

Ok, I'll try.

The whole 'per capita' argument is designed simply as guilt trip to make us ( the population of Australia) feel worse about our emissions than we feel about China's...

The principle fact in the whole Co2 pollution argument is more=bad, less=not so bad, right?...so raw tonnage is, or should be, the major factor on the World stage.
Per Capita should be a purely internal matter, used only to decide how much each individual has to cut back to meet the nations targets..

China as a whole, produces about 7 Billion tonnes of GHG per year, and Australia produces about 400 Million tonnes....

If every person in China reduces their 'carbon foot print' by 10%, that equates to a reduction of 700 million tonnes (almost twice Australia's total), on the other hand, if every person in Australia reduces theirs by 10%, that's a reduction of only 40 tonnes. So, classifying our emissions as far worse than China's is incorrect (or an out right lie).

as an individual you should feel guilty Sad

what has an artificial border got to do with ones environmental impact on the planet when what an individual does effects the planet as a whole and not only within this artificial border as you are alluding to ?

How about dividing the china population up into many imaginary borders and then how does your stupid argument fair ?

Well I don't feel guilty...

And what does an artificial border have to do with the non-availability of EVs then??

'Artificial borders' are used all the time in the REAL World, and, in particular, in the per capita emissions argument as well..

the planet doesn't care about your fricken borders. You need to do your duty of care towards the planet just as much as anyone else !!

The truth of the matter is that you think you are more privileged or better than some chinaman that you can pollute much more than them. why ???

WTF are you ?

Back to top

In August 2021, Newcastle Coroner Karen Dilks recorded that Lisa Shaw had died “due to complications of an AstraZeneca COVID vaccination”.

IP Logged