BHP closes in on deal for world&#039;s first LNG-powered shipping fleet

Originally posted by raiderup ↑

Mate, greta's got nothin to do with it , your taken your eyes off the ball old thing.

Polls reveal a sharp increase in concern about the environment. The authoritative ANU Australian Election Study reports that environmental issues (21 per cent) are now just behind the economy (24 per cent) and health (22 per cent) among voter concerns.
That poll was taken in the aftermath of the 2019 election. In light of catastrophic bushfires across eastern Australia amid crippling drought, it would be surprising if environment had not leapfrogged health and, possibly, the economy.
A Guardian Essential poll last month found 60 per cent of those surveyed believed Australia should be doing more on climate, up from 51 per cent in March.
Noticeable in recent weeks is the extent to which Australia is being held accountable internationally for its climate policies, or lack thereof. Newspaper criticism might be dismissed as being of not much consequence, but a stinging Financial Times editorial reflected wider criticism of Australia’s beggar-thy-neighbour approach, in which the government seeks to minimise our contributions to global greenhouse gas emissions.

“Beyond Australia’s shore his [Morrison's] government stands as a reproach to any leaders tempted to follow its lamentable response to the deepening threat of climate change,’’ the FT’s editorial board said.
On climate, Australia is at odds with a multitude of friends and allies. This includes Canada, the European Union, Scandinavian countries and New Zealand. The latter has legislated for net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Canberra is, increasingly, an outlier.
Australia’s performance at the 25th UN climate conference in Madrid was dismal, to say the least. Energy and Emissions Reduction Minister Angus Taylor invited disdain by colluding with Brazilian and Saudi Arabian delegates to scupper consideration of stronger action.
On top of that, Canberra insists on using an accounting fudge provided by what is known as the “Australia clause’’ in the Kyoto Protocol to enable Kyoto credits to be carried forward to paper over a lacklustre performance on emissions reduction.
Frank Jotzo, one of the country’s leading authorities on emissions reduction policies, damns the Australian approach. “As a developed country most affected by climate change, it is in our interest to lead by example, not to be seen as a recalcitrant,’’ Jotzo says.
This recalcitrance has real consequences in our immediate neighbourhood. Unhelpful climate policies are jeopardising Morrison’s “step-up’’ policy in the Pacific, in which Australia seeks to bolster its relationships with island countries to counter Chinese influence.
The Prime Minister and his advisers need to reflect on this disconnect between a well-intentioned policy and real-life-and-death concerns that Pacific island leaders have about their micro states disappearing beneath the waves.

disallowed/politics/federal/morriso...his-miracle-election-win-20191227-p53n5y.html

LNG, is low hanging fruit in regards to emissions reductions, but welcome by me none the less.
The sooner we as a country get on the Hydrogen bandwagon , we can then supply the world with hydrogen fuel, for their ZEV's ( zero emissions Vessels.

Raider

Expand

"On climate, Australia is at odds with a multitude of friends and allies. This includes Canada, the European Union, Scandinavian countries and New Zealand. The latter has legislated for net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Canberra is, increasingly, an outlier."

The factual reality show this statement to be factually false, so you should amend your post accordingly, otherwise you might stand accused of spreading falsehoods.

Between 2010 and 2018, per capita emissions in Australia reduced by 13.3% (and by ~19% if the CO2 emissions that have been abated via the significant and unprecedented one-off investment in LNG exports from Australia which would largely have displaced coal fired power in SE Asia).

By comparison, per capita emissions over that period from Canada fell by 10%, and from New Zealand fell by 14%.

And EU countries reduced their emissions by 21%, but that was heavily influenced by the UK, where emissions have fallen by 40%. If you strip out the contribution to reductions made by the UK, then UE emissions reductions would be less than Australia's reductions. For example, emissions ex Germany have fallen by 11%.

Why, I wonder, is there a consistent representation of Australia as some kind of emissions pariah by some commentators, when independently-derived factual analysis points to that not being the case at all?

.