"Australia is the 14th largest emitter out of 208 countries. If all countries with emissions under a “measly” 2% were lumped together we’d together be responsible for almost as much annual emissions as China and India put together."
That may be mathematically correct, but it fails to reflect the physical reality, and that is that the vast majority of countries with 2% emissions are countries that are developing countries, and whose emissions are still rising because of the laws of development economics.
Mr Holmes a' Court's proffering is silent on that not-so-insignificant fact.
And following is a listing of all the countries in the world whose emissions amount to less than 2% of the global total.
Which ones do you think Mr Holmes a Court believes have the ability to either:
- reduce their emissions at a faster rate than they already are (i.e., UK, Italy, France, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Ireland, and Denmark... which, it must be noted, collectively represent a mere 4.9% of total global emissions)?
or
- reverse the trend of their increasing emissions (the 191 other countries of less than 2% emissions... which collectively account for 30% of total global emissions)?
Country - % Of Total
Iran - 1.9%
South Korea - 1.8%
Saudi Arabia - 1.7%
Canada - 1.6%
Indonesia - 1.5%
Brazil - 1.3%
Mexico - 1.3%
South Africa - 1.3%
Turkey - 1.1%
Australia - 1.1%
United Kingdom - 1.0%
Italy - 0.9%
Poland - 0.9%
France and Monaco - 0.9%
Kazakhstan - 0.8%
Taiwan - 0.8%
Thailand - 0.7%
Spain and Andorra - 0.7%
Vietnam - 0.7%
Malaysia - 0.7%
Egypt - 0.7%
United Arab Emirates - 0.6%
Argentina - 0.6%
Ukraine - 0.5%
Pakistan - 0.5%
Iraq - 0.5%
Algeria - 0.4%
Netherlands - 0.4%
Philippines - 0.4%
Venezuela - 0.3%
Czechia - 0.3%
Nigeria - 0.3%
Belgium - 0.3%
Uzbekistan - 0.3%
Qatar - 0.3%
Kuwait - 0.3%
Bangladesh - 0.3%
Colombia - 0.2%
Chile - 0.2%
Oman - 0.2%
Turkmenistan - 0.2%
Romania - 0.2%
Greece - 0.2%
Austria - 0.2%
Israel and Palestine, State of - 0.2%
Morocco - 0.2%
Belarus - 0.2%
Serbia and Montenegro - 0.2%
Peru - 0.2%
Libya - 0.2%
Singapore - 0.2%
Hungary - 0.1%
Portugal - 0.1%
Finland -0.1%
Norway - 0.1%
Sweden - 0.1%
Bulgaria - 0.1%
Hong Kong - 0.1%
Ecuador - 0.1%
Switzerland and Liechtenstein - 0.1%
Ireland - 0.1%
Slovakia - 0.1%
New Zealand - 0.1%
Tunisia - 0.1%
Trinidad and Tobago - 0.1%
Denmark - 0.1%
Myanmar/Burma - 0.1%
Bahrain - 0.1%
Azerbaijan - 0.1%
North Korea - 0.1%
Syria - 0.1%
Angola - 0.1%
Bosnia and Herzegovina - 0.1%
Jordan - 0.1%
Cuba - 0.1%
Dominican Republic - 0.1%
Lebanon - 0.1%
Bolivia - 0.1%
Sudan and South Sudan - 0.1%
Estonia - 0.1%
Sri Lanka - 0.1%
Kenya - 0.1%
Mongolia - 0.1%
Croatia - 0.1%
Ghana - 0.1%
Guatemala - 0.1%
Tanzania <0.05%
Cameroon <0.05%
Ethiopia <0.05%
Côte d’Ivoire <0.05%
Lithuania <0.05%
Slovenia <0.05%
Afghanistan <0.05%
Nepal <0.05%
Kyrgyzstan <0.05%
Panama <0.05%
Mozambique <0.05%
Luxembourg <0.05%
Honduras <0.05%
Zimbabwe <0.05%
Yemen <0.05%
Georgia <0.05%
Cambodia <0.05%
Senegal <0.05%
Botswana <0.02%
Nicaragua <0.02%
New Caledonia <0.02%
Cyprus <0.02%
Curaçao <0.02%
Brunei <0.02%
Congo <0.02%
Moldova <0.02%
Benin <0.02%
Armenia <0.02%
North Macedonia <0.02%
Uruguay <0.02%
Jamaica <0.02%
**on <0.02%
Costa Rica <0.02%
Tajikistan <0.02%
Latvia <0.02%
El Salvador <0.02%
Paraguay <0.02%
Zambia <0.01%
Niger <0.01%
Mauritania <0.01%
Uganda <0.01%
Mauritius <0.01%
Namibia <0.01%
Suriname <0.01%
Togo <0.01%
Albania <0.01%
Bahamas <0.01%
Barbados <0.01%
Réunion <0.01%
Puerto Rico <0.01%
Papua New Guinea <0.01%
Martinique <0.01%
Burkina Faso <0.01%
Equatorial Guinea <0.01%
Iceland <0.01%
Democratic Republic of the Congo <0.01%
Guadeloupe <0.01%
Laos <0.01%
Madagascar <0.01%
Guinea <0.01%
Haiti <0.01%
Guyana <0.01%
Saint Lucia 0%
Saint Kitts and Nevis 0%
Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha 0%
Tonga 0%
Guinea-Bissau 0%
The Gambia 0%
Timor-Leste 0%
Kiribati 0%
Rwanda 0%
French Guiana 0%
Saint Pierre and Miquelon 0%
Turks and Caicos Islands 0%
Gibraltar 0%
Western Sahara 0%
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 0%
Sierra Leone 0%
Vanuatu 0%
Seychelles 0%
Grenada 0%
Greenland 0%
São Tomé and Príncipe 0%
Solomon Islands 0%
Somalia 0%
Samoa 0%
Faroes 0%
French Polynesia 0%
Cook Islands 0%
Comoros 0%
Maldives 0%
Mali 0%
Belize 0%
Chad 0%
Bhutan 0%
Central African Republic 0%
Cayman Islands 0%
Cape Verde 0%
Malta 0%
British Virgin Islands 0%
Bermuda 0%
Macao 0%
Fiji 0%
Falkland Islands 0%
Eswatini 0%
Eritrea 0%
Lesotho 0%
Liberia 0%
Palau 0%
Anguilla 0%
Antigua and Barbuda 0%
Dominica 0%
Djibouti 0%
Aruba 0%
Malawi 0%
Burundi 0%
(Oh, and you might notice that this list of sub-2% emitters collectively amount to 35% of total global emissions, compared to China and India of 44%, so Mr Holmes a' Courts assertion of the former group being almost the same as the latter is somewhat libertine in its extension.)
"The physics of the climate system doesn’t care about political boundaries. Does Germany not matter because it’s responsible for (slightly) less than 2%, or does it matter because it’s part of the EU, responsible for 9.4% of emissions? How about if we divide China into 56 countries of 25 million people, each with emissions half of Australia’s – would that let them off the hook?"
That's not inconsistent with the position I've articulated.
The only way total global emissions cease rising is if all of the world's emitters were able to reduce their emissions; not just some of them.
Ergo, if total global emissions are to cease rising, then all countries would need to be reducing their emissions.
"Likewise, if any one taxpayer stopped paying tax we all know it wouldn’t make a measurable difference to the government’s bottom line, but if everyone stopped paying tax it would smash consolidated revenue."
Useful analogy, if only it was fully-, as opposed to merely half-, baked.
If reducing emissions is analogous with the paying of tax, and total global emissions represents consolidated revenue, then the de facto situation is that countries around the globe which are "paying tax" (i.e., reducing their emissions) are being dwarfed by countries around the globe which are not "paying tax" (i.e., there emissions are increasing), which is why the Consolidated Revenue account is reducing (i.e., total global emissions are rising).
..
Expand
