We are at emergency levels

Originally posted by madamswer ↑

"Fact we are the second highest emitter per person in the world."

Except that we are not.
Not according to the European Commission's Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research, which has just released its 2019 report.

According to that report, Australia ranks 16th on a per capita CO2 emissions basis (2018 data).

But I think that if anyone wanted to be taken even remotely seriously as a commentator on this subject then it is not so much the actual ranking position that is occupied (which is really only a static snapshot in time and largely a legacy measure anyway), but what is far more relevant is what is happening to the rate of change of emissions, i.e. how fast are emissions falling from at whatever level they happen to be at any given point in time.

If carbon emissions is what worries you - and it seems that it does more than just a little bit, judging by your unparalleled posting velocity(!) - then a high level emitting country reducing its high levels of emissions at a rapid rate should be far more desirable than a medium-level emitter which is not reducing its emissions, or is doing so merely slowly.

And on the score of the rate of change in emissions, Australia is doing very well indeed, having reduced per capita emissions by an impressive 10% in just the past 8 years alone (from since 18.7 tonnes CO2 per capita in 2010 to 16.8 tonnes CO2 per capita in 2018).

In terms of per capita reductions, Australia is reducing emissions at a rate not far behind countries such Netherlands (-14%), Ireland (-13%), and Belgium (-13%) and is doing better even than "climate progressive" countries such as Germany (9% reduction), Austria (-9%), Singapore (-4%), Canada (-3%), New Zealand (-1%), Japan (+1%), Hungary (+3%).

Ranked in terms of per capita reductions in emissions since 2010, Australia is positioned 48th out of 210 countries, so in the top quartile [*]. Objectively, that's quite credible.

In fact, a report published earlier this year by the ANU said the Australia was leading the world in renewable energy installation and not only that, but also that we are on track to meet our Paris targets five years earlier than expected.

Pretty impressive, huh?

I'm sorry that the relevant facts - which are unambiguously positive - nullify your 50-plus posts a day crusade the sprouts forth doom, gloom and other general vitriol.

[*] And that includes the commissioning of the major LNG plants in Queensland during the past decade; it you strip the impact of those out, then Australia ranks 30th in terms of per capita emissions reductions, placing us in the top 15% of emissions reducing countries, up there with the likes of France and Switzerland (in the mid teen % reductions) and not far behind Sweden and Greenland (-20%).

.

Expand

Unfortunately you are wrong. Climate Tracker tells the real story.
https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/australia/

While the federal government continues to repeatedly state that Australia is on track to meet its 2030 target “in a canter”, the Climate Action Tracker is not aware of any scientific basis, published by any analyst or government agency, to support this. The OECD has warned the Australian Government that it will not achieve its target without intensified mitigation efforts. It describes current climate policy as a “piecemeal approach”.

The Government intends to achieve its target mainly through use of Kyoto carry over - a move that a number of other countries with such carry overs have explicitly rejected. These carry over units make up more than half of the abatement task based on current government projections. Australia’s emissions have been increasing since 2014, when the federal government repealed the carbon pricing system, and the latest quarterly emissions data inventory to December 2018 (published in June 2019) shows continuing increases. Emissions are projected to grow through 2030, instead of reducing in line with the 2030 target.

The federal government continues to promote coal as a solution to an energy security issue it claims exists, but which has not been identified by the Australian Energy Market Operator. It proposes to underwrite new coal-fired power generation by guaranteeing to pay any future carbon price-related costs, create barriers to renewable energy and obfuscate its climate policies.

The reality on the ground at the state level, in public opinion and across the business sector in Australia, is very different. All states and territories - except Western Australia - now have strong renewable energy targets and/or zero emissions targets in place.

The state of South Australia is widely seen as a global leader: it has one of the highest shares of variable renewable energy, with 51% share of wind and solar total generation in 2018, the world’s largest lithium-ion battery, and innovative projects for renewable hydrogen and virtual power plants.

Households across Australia are massively deploying small-scale solar and increasingly combining this with battery storage: about 32% of dwellings in South Australia, 33% in Queensland and 27% of Western Australia had solar PV by 2018, with substantial shares in several other states and territories as well, a trend that is showing no sign of slowing down.

In a recent poll, published just before the recent elections in May this year, more than 80% of Australians want the government to enhance their climate action, and more than 90% want to see more renewable energy. Three quarters want to see the Government do more to increase the number of electric cars.

In another recent survey, capturing the views of Australian business and industry, 92% of respondents say Australia’s current climate and energy policy is insufficient to meet the required targets. A further sign of escalating and widespread public disquiet and concern at their government’s lack of action on climate change were the unprecedented, nation-wide strikes by school children in late November 2018 and March 2019.