"Western / developed countries need to lead the way for several reasons including because they are the countries with the resources to develop the new technologies required, & to show leadership (ie not giving countries the lame excuse of why should we bother because we're such a small number?"
Several major western/developed countries have indeed lead the way for several decades (emissions peaked in several EU countries in the 1980s, and have been falling since then. UK's emissions, per capita, have fallen by 45% from their 1985 peak, Germany's by 30%, Denmark by 51, Sweden by 37%) and even the USA's is down 23% from its peak (although its peak emissions occurred later, in 2003).
Yet that "leadership" has had no discernable impact on the increase in emissions from developing nations, which have risen by almost two-and-a-half times during the period when developed countries have been reducing their emissions.
"Australia has one of the highest per capita emissions in the world & as a socially responsible citizen of the planet must share it's part in reducing emissions globally."
It is doing so.
Australia's per capita emissions are declining as follows (figures in tonnes per capita of CO2 emissions):
(Source: European Union Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research, adj. for LNG displacing coal)
"As for the developing countries they should be assisted by financing & installing renewable power generation instead of fossil fuels ones for their development."
Can you say what the extent of such financing might be, in dollar terms?
And where that capital will come from to provide such financing?
"ie go from A to C rather than A to B to C."
What, apart from financing, is preventing developing countries from doing so today in a manner that causes them to cease increasing emissions?
