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

Interesting, I was looking at the chart provided, but now I see it was from 2017
True the rate of change is more important regarding long-term trends, but there is the principle that a wealthy country like Australia should not be full of moaning minnies decrying our insignificance so we can consume like there is no tomorrow!

Yes I go ballistic at posting and believe it doesn’t hurt to meet some pretty deniers who seem to be illiterate regarding the science, but are even faster than me at slagging climate science as crap.

Do you think the improvements you cite in Australia and other developed countries are likely to save the planet from a sea level rise of at least 1m this century?

I don’t and believe we have no hope without a huge technological leap in respect to large scale CO2 capture.

I’m honoured to get such feedback that shows a lot of research and attention to detail and am happy to wear the fastest climate change poster on HC for the time being as most feedback is a couple of lines telling me my points are leftie crap, and yes, let the vitriol flow!