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.