Australia's policy on climate change is completely inconsequential

[Mofra]

Just once I would like to see us thinking ahead of the game.

We have in the past - WiFi as an example. We were (many years ago) leaders in solar technology. Both were CSIRO projects. It's been gutted for funding because 'budget'.

 

[Engimal v3]

It doesn't matter what our contribution is. If Australia is feeling the effects of climate change, who would we be to encourage large countries to reduce their emissions without any real effort ourselves?

 

[HardcoreGeelongFan]

As a thought experiment let's make an assumption

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.

Yes our own emissions themselves are negligible but we should still be taxing these companies into the ground. If they're not going to pay up I'd like to see them go the way of the dodo. Plus the coal we export probably contributes to global emissions more than what we create locally

No Cookies | The Courier Mail

No Cookies

www.news-mail.com.au

'Staggering': $90 billion lost in resources tax

An Oxford University tax expert says Australia has given up on collecting a meaningful amount of revenue from some of its most valuable resources.

www.smh.com.au

 

[Frank Bunn]

Even the Morrison Government disagrees with the OP.

As Scotland said, the policy is about what they think will get votes, or rather not lose so many.

In summary, of all the developed countries, Australia stands to lose the most if an international agreement to reduce global emissions is not achieved. It would be difficult for Australia to justify any other position than playing its full and fair part in committing to mitigate emissions. Implementing our own domestic measures consistent with that responsibility will both facilitate the successful realisation of an effective international agreement and ease the integration of our economy and industries into a carbon–constrained world. Australia is also likely to benefit from continuing to work with regional and international partners to develop and maintain mutual capacities to anticipate and respond to the challenges posed by climate change.

This is waffle by the Libs.

We've signed an international agreement which is non-binding on the countries, and each country can set their own targets. The four biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, currently comprising 65% of emissions and growing, are either non-signatories or are signatories but their emissions will continue to grow. We are in dreamworld if we think China, USA, India and Russia look to Australia to guide their policy. Until there is a binding agreement that includes significant targets for the major emitters it makes no sense for us to be implementing domestic measures based on countering climate change.

 

[Pistol Night]

I just shit myself. But not many other people did and it’s not really effecting anyone. Looks like I’m not gonna change my pants.

Funny analogy. But whatever floats ya boat

 

[DapperJong]

Funny analogy. But whatever floats ya boat

Update, other people are noticing the smell. Looks like my actions are starting to effect other people.

 

[Scotland]

As Scotland said, the policy is about what they think will get votes, or rather not lose so many.

The only small positive is that the Liberals are saying 26-28% of 2005 levels by 2020 and the ALP are saying 45%. So at the most basic of levels that's better than nothing. Neither will have much of an impact of anything, but it wasn't that long ago it was a background issue come election time.

We've signed an international agreement which is non-binding on the countries, and each country can set their own targets. The four biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, currently comprising 65% of emissions and growing, are either non-signatories or are signatories but their emissions will continue to grow. We are in dreamworld if we think China, USA, India and Russia look to Australia to guide their policy. Until there is a binding agreement that includes significant targets for the major emitters it makes no sense for us to be implementing domestic measures based on countering climate change.

Yep, the Paris Agreement is a waste of time. And of course it's 2020 so if you say that it's a waste of time you therefore don't believe in climate change and are a right wing, conservative, Nazi... whatever.

 

[Sainteric]

What if everybody follows our lead and does f*** all too, do we just let the planet burn?

They already are, exception possibly the Germans

 

[Frank Bunn]

The only small positive is that the Liberals are saying 26-28% of 2005 levels by 2020 and the ALP are saying 45%. So at the most basic of levels that's better than nothing. Neither will have much of an impact of anything, but it wasn't that long ago it was a background issue come election time.

Both the Libs and ALP targets are wishful thinking. Just like countries with the Paris agreement, they can promise wherever they like for 10, 20 or 30 years time without proper scrutiny and compliance. It's about votes based on emotions, not any rational basis for policy.

 

[medusala]

What if everybody follows our lead and does f*** all too, do we just let the planet burn?

lol as if Trump, China, India, Japan etc give a stuff about what we do.

 

[John Bonney]

Stop mining the shit...

 

[DidakDelight]

New findings from the climate science fraternity are due to be released soon which will reveal that the location where emissions are released directly impact on temperature in that specific geographical area.

Meaning we can no longer blame China.

 

[Pessimistic]

New findings from the climate science fraternity are due to be released soon which will reveal that the location where emissions are released directly impact on temperature in that specific geographical area.

Meaning we can no longer blame China.

Denial machine firing up as we speak.....

We all know you get harsher sunburn in victoria than elswhere

 

[its free real estate]

As a thought experiment let's make an assumption

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.

Completely agree, anthropogenic climate change is real and there is nothing Australia, nor anyone else can do.

 

[DidakDelight]

Completely agree, anthropogenic climate change is real and there is nothing Australia, nor anyone else can do.

/end thread

 

[kranky al]

It's like the old sloppy Joe question, do we want to be a lifter or do want to be the global equivalent of a meth head living in public housing?

Funny how many conservatives would rail against that meth head

 

[sdfc]

Yes our own emissions themselves are negligible but we should still be taxing these companies into the ground. If they're not going to pay up I'd like to see them go the way of the dodo. Plus the coal we export probably contributes to global emissions more than what we create locally

No Cookies | The Courier Mail

No Cookies

www.news-mail.com.au

'Staggering': $90 billion lost in resources tax

An Oxford University tax expert says Australia has given up on collecting a meaningful amount of revenue from some of its most valuable resources.

www.smh.com.au

Less coal exported from Australia may actually raise emissions.

 

[kranky al]

They already are, exception possibly the Germans

Theres quite a few countries well on their way by 2050

england germany france off the top of my head

 

[its free real estate]

Has anyone thought deeply about how cement, steel and aluminium is made? These three commodities are very carbon intensive, and crucial to our daily lives. Our living standards come with a cost.

There is no solution.

 

[HardcoreGeelongFan]

Less coal exported from Australia may actually raise emissions.

Is this the black vs brown coal argument? Let's just make sure we tax them fully! They are our national resources after all. Should've been nationalized eons ago

 

[Frank Bunn]

Completely agree, anthropogenic climate change is real and there is nothing Australia, nor anyone else can do.

I think there are some considerable areas of uncertainty in the science, but apart from in the US the political argument on whether anthropogenic climate change is real is done with. Time to move on.

We need rational policies based on a view that anthropogenic climate change is real - but also based on that unless there is a binding international agreement that includes significant targets for the major global emitters it makes no sense for Australia to be implementing measures attempting to counter climate change. I doubt such an international agreement will ever be made and adhered to.

Given the above, and other considerations such as employment, living standards, cost of living etc - what are rational policies for the following?

energy
mining
agriculture
population
transport
industry
construction
bushfire management

 

[its free real estate]

I think there are some considerable areas of uncertainty in the science, but apart from in the US the political argument on whether anthropogenic climate change is real is done with. Time to move on.

We need rational policies based on a view that anthropogenic climate change is real - but also based on that unless there is a binding international agreement that includes significant targets for the major global emitters it makes no sense for Australia to be implementing measures attempting to counter climate change. I doubt such an international agreement will ever be made and adhered to.

Given the above, and other considerations such as employment, living standards, cost of living etc - what are rational policies for the following?

energy
mining
agriculture
population
transport
industry
construction
bushfire management

If it is real (and it is) then the whole politics-as-usual where we can just pile in more people to the driest inhabited continent (while designing high density housing that in no way can cope with extremes of heat without aircon) and assume everything will turn out just dandy because we have a few more solar panels and wind turbines around is rubbish.

Let's assume in some sort of fever dream Australia cuts its emissions to zero. What the **** does this change for the continent? It's still hot, it's still dry, and China is still building coal capacity equivalent to our yearly emissions each year (or thereabouts). The argument that we can mitigate climate change and become a Big Australia of 50 million - hey why not 100 million - is garbage. Even if we are the world's best climate citizen this doesn't change the calculus - other countries will pursue their industrial strategies according to their needs, and they are highly likely to be orthogonal to ours. Warragamba is still on track to dry up in 2022, and it is Australia's biggest urban reservoir. Maybe five million more people can fit in Sydney?

Therefore, any climate change realist who supports the science but thinks a continent that at best supported 1 million humans (and this is a generous guess, it was probably closer to half that) pre-industrialisation, and struggles with heat, drought, and poor soils, can support 100 million in a future that is more environmentally constrained, is a fraud.

 

[Johnny Karate]

I suppose this is the next phase in the climate debate. “It’s happening/happened but what can we do?”

Mitigation would be reducing emissions: methane, CO2, coal exports and use and so on. As well as investing in renewables.

Adaptation would be having a coordinated and fully funded approach to dealing with natural disasters and policies in place regarding building standards in vulnerable areas.

However, those two strategies alone would not ‘change the climate’. That still doesn’t mean that they’re not worth doing.

In answering the OP the two best options to ‘change the climate’ back would be:

1) Climate engineering - a radical and controversial solution which is in its infancy, where direct action is taken to reduce solar radiation.

2) Diplomacy in trying to get a firm international commitment to mitigate, adapt to and fight climate change. The USA is probably our closest ally and China are our biggest trading partner so we are closer to both of those powers than most. Australia was pivotal in the past in getting a global agreement to not mine Antarctica from world powers. So the idea of us having some chance of influence isn’t completely ridiculous.

The frustration is that we are not really doing anything and have this complete inertia. Quite literally we are fiddling while the country burns. Scotland put it far more eloquently in their excellent post, but it feels like a lost opportunity/that we follow rather than lead.

 

[Pessimistic]

I think there are some considerable areas of uncertainty in the science, but apart from in the US the political argument on whether anthropogenic climate change is real is done with. Time to move on.

We need rational policies based on a view that anthropogenic climate change is real - but also based on that unless there is a binding international agreement that includes significant targets for the major global emitters it makes no sense for Australia to be implementing measures attempting to counter climate change. I doubt such an international agreement will ever be made and adhered to.

Given the above, and other considerations such as employment, living standards, cost of living etc - what are rational policies for the following?

energy
mining
agriculture
population
transport
industry
construction
bushfire management

by similar logic, money spent on military is similarly making everyone poorer than they need to be.

when do certain sections of soceity also see climate as a greater security threat than war?

 

[HairyO]

They already are, exception possibly the Germans

Then Germany shut down their nuclear reactors and replaced them with gas and increased their emissions.

Has anyone answered the question: "if we managed to lower our emissions to zero what actually changes?"