Not bad for a country with only 20 million selfish people in it :(

http://www.wwf.org.au/?4300/Australians-worlds-seventh-biggest-polluters-global-report


Quote:

Australia’s carbon emissions are the top contributor to its new ranking as the world’s seventh biggest user and polluter of natural resources, according to a biennial report which measures the impact of human demands on nature. WWF’s 2012 Living Planet Report, produced with the European Space Agency, the Zoological Society of London and the Global Footprint Network, reveals that humans are using 50 per cent more resources than the Earth can provide, and will need two planets by 2030 to support current rates of consumption and pollution. Australian residents have the seventh largest environmental impact on the planet’s natural resources, after residents of Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Denmark, the USA and Belgium. Australia’s ranking has risen by one place since 2010. If everyone on the planet lived like the average Australian, it would take 3.76 planets to support the world population. The findings underscore the critical importance to Australia of staying the course on pricing carbon, in the face of short-sighted resistance. "Australia has some of the world's best renewable energy resources and know-how to be able to significantly reduce our carbon footprint. The Carbon Price and Renewable Energy Target are key mechanisms that together will drive the shift from coal to renewables,” said WWF Australia’s Climate Change Manager Kellie Caught. “Just like the industrial revolution brought benefits to society, the carbon price will drive a new clean revolution that will have health and economic benefits but critically give our precious environment a fighting chance.” The 2012 edition of the LPR highlights the crippling impact of carbon on the whole planet’s life support system. Carbon dioxide pollution currently accounts for over half of humanity’s Ecological Footprint. The Ecological Footprint Index tracks the area of biologically productive land and water required to provide the renewable resources people use, and includes the space needed for infrastructure and vegetation to absorb carbon dioxide waste. Australians require 6.68 global hectares1 per person to support their consumption and pollution levels, representing a slight improvement on their 2010 rate of 6.8 global hectares per person. Australia’s carbon footprint - the amount of forest land that could sequester carbon dioxide emissions - is the biggest factor in its huge ecological impact. Australians require 2.68 global hectares per person to absorb the carbon pollution they emit, ahead of the global average of 1.47 gha per capita. The report also documents the changing state of biodiversity through the Living Planet Index. The latest index shows a 30 per cent decrease in abundance of populations of species since 1970, with the tropics hardest hit - showing a 60 per cent decline in less than 40 years. Tracked populations of freshwater tropical species have fallen by nearly 70 per cent. The 2012 report offers 16 priority solutions to enable the world’s population to live within the means of one planet. They include measuring the value of natural capital, reducing consumption, and redirecting financial flows, for example by eliminating subsidies underpinning fossil fuel use. “Rethinking business is vital for our future. Business needs nature. They have a bottom-line interest in ensuring that the resources they depend on are sustainable,” said Dermot O’Gorman, Chief Executive of WWF Australia. “Australia’s population is growing and our resources are depleting. By 2050 the global population will be over 9 billion. If we rethink the way we manage our resources, we will have the capacity to provide food, water and energy for all.”

You should do your bit and buy an electric car.

... wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 12:23pm:

You should do your bit and buy an electric car.

from where ?

and how is that going to change anything ?

For the innumerate like greens-wank

It's on a per capita basis, it's not total output.

That's how the greens and labor fudged the carbon tax; on a per capita basis we are one of the worst, in real terms we hardly make any impact on carbon or consumption.

In a world of 7 bil people there is not a lot we do that has any real impact, so to get everyone worked up and fretful, the use of dodgy maths is employed.


So watch the socialist get their panties all bunched up and the rest of us that passed primary school maths realise it's nothing more than a beat up.

Sir lastnail wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 12:29pm:

... wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 12:23pm: You should do your bit and buy an electric car. from where ? and how is that going to change anything ?

From the electric car dealer. 

How can you expect 20 million people to change if you won't change yourself?

Sir lastnail wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 12:29pm:

... wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 12:23pm: You should do your bit and buy an electric car. from where ? and how is that going to change anything ?

Apparently quite a lot of them in canberra.

SOB

Sir lastnail wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 12:29pm:

... wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 12:23pm: You should do your bit and buy an electric car. from where ?

http://www.holden.com.au/pages/volt-coming-soon?gclid=CPrjp6ahgbACFcVMpgodqVeYGw

Per capita is the only 'real' way of measuring impact. Otherwise you are basically just measuring population and claiming that splitting a country in half makes a difference.

freediver wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 12:38pm:

Per capita is the only 'real' way of measuring impact. Otherwise you are basically just measuring population and claiming that splitting a country in half makes a difference.

Actually exactly the opposite is true.

Population is the determining factor when it comes to pollution as it is the only way to determine 'real' output.

A country of 1 billion people producing 10 tonnes of garbage per person is a lot worse than a country of 20 million people producing 30 tonnes of garbage per person.


It's basic maths, not easy to fudge but the socialist will try anyway.

freediver wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 12:38pm:

Per capita is the only 'real' way of measuring impact. Otherwise you are basically just measuring population and claiming that splitting a country in half makes a difference.

You're absolutely right.  Under the per-country rule, America could half is Co2 emissions just by splitting into two "countries" (East and West America). Could still retain single currency and centralist government like the EU. 

Imagine that. The next climate change meeting, america comes in with an immediate 50% cut in emissions!

Next decade they (both) come in with a further 50% reduction (by splitting into 4).   All this reduction, without doing a thing to reduce co2 emissions.

Amazing.
;D

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 12:57pm:

freediver wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 12:38pm: Per capita is the only 'real' way of measuring impact. Otherwise you are basically just measuring population and claiming that splitting a country in half makes a difference. You're absolutely right.  Under the per-country rule, America could half is Co2 emissions just by splitting into two "countries" (East and West America). Could still retain single currency and centralist government like the EU.  Imagine that. The next climate change meeting, america comes in with an immediate 50% cut in emissions! Next decade they (both) come in with a further 50% reduction (by splitting into 4).   All this reduction, without doing a thing to reduce co2 emissions. Amazing. ;D

Are you pair for real?


That is the most stupid statement on this subject since greens_wank last posted.

BigOl64 wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 12:30pm:

For the innumerate like greens-wank It's on a per capita basis, it's not total output. That's how the greens and labor fudged the carbon tax; on a per capita basis we are one of the worst, in real terms we hardly make any impact on carbon or consumption. In a world of 7 bil people there is not a lot we do that has any real impact, so to get everyone worked up and fretful, the use of dodgy maths is employed. So watch the socialist get their panties all bunched up and the rest of us that passed primary school maths realise it's nothing more than a beat up.

typical selfish conservative brain dead thinking.

And who sells the polluting coal rubbish to the rest of the world and then boasts about all of this lovely money they make ??

greenhouse gas emissions are non discriminatory ! everyone of us effects the earth equally so cut your emissions moron.

Sir lastnail wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 1:28pm:

everyone of us effects the earth equally so cut your emissions moron.

Except for those who drive electric cars.  ;)

BigOl64 wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 12:53pm:

freediver wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 12:38pm: Per capita is the only 'real' way of measuring impact. Otherwise you are basically just measuring population and claiming that splitting a country in half makes a difference. Actually exactly the opposite is true. Population is the determining factor when it comes to pollution as it is the only way to determine 'real' output. A country of 1 billion people producing 10 tonnes of garbage per person is a lot worse than a country of 20 million people producing 30 tonnes of garbage per person. It's basic maths, not easy to fudge but the socialist will try anyway.

No it isn't. The planets environment doesn't care about countries. If someone in one part of the planet is being wasteful and polluting a lot more than someone in another part of the planet then they need to cut down. That's the simple maths.

... wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 1:30pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 1:28pm: everyone of us effects the earth equally so cut your emissions moron. Except for those who drive electric cars.  ;)

why do you have to keep repeating yourself like a dumbarse parrot. Got anything of value to contribute to the topic libbo ?

Of course you haven't :(

BigOl64 wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 1:05pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 12:57pm: freediver wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 12:38pm: Per capita is the only 'real' way of measuring impact. Otherwise you are basically just measuring population and claiming that splitting a country in half makes a difference. You're absolutely right.  Under the per-country rule, America could half is Co2 emissions just by splitting into two "countries" (East and West America). Could still retain single currency and centralist government like the EU.  Imagine that. The next climate change meeting, america comes in with an immediate 50% cut in emissions! Next decade they (both) come in with a further 50% reduction (by splitting into 4).   All this reduction, without doing a thing to reduce co2 emissions. Amazing. ;D Are you pair for real? That is the most stupid statement on this subject since greens_wank last posted.

I was being sarcastic.  Trying to convey the mind of someone who uses a countries population to blame-shift the problem to someone else.

Simply said, If the requirement to do something on climate change is based on your total emissions per country, the best way to avoid doing something is to reduce the size of your country.

Sir lastnail wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 1:34pm:

... wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 1:30pm: Sir lastnail wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 1:28pm: everyone of us effects the earth equally so cut your emissions moron. Except for those who drive electric cars.  ;) why do you have to keep repeating yourself like a dumbarse parrot. Got anything of value to contribute to the topic libbo ? Of course you haven't :(

Libbo?  Bitch please...

Slurs aside, would it not help if people kicked their *ahem* "fossil fool addiction" and stopped "taking it up the arse at the fuel bowser" by switching to electric cars? 

Sir lastnail wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 1:28pm:

BigOl64 wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 12:30pm: For the innumerate like greens-wank It's on a per capita basis, it's not total output. That's how the greens and labor fudged the carbon tax; on a per capita basis we are one of the worst, in real terms we hardly make any impact on carbon or consumption. In a world of 7 bil people there is not a lot we do that has any real impact, so to get everyone worked up and fretful, the use of dodgy maths is employed. So watch the socialist get their panties all bunched up and the rest of us that passed primary school maths realise it's nothing more than a beat up. typical selfish conservative brain dead thinking. And who sells the polluting coal rubbish to the rest of the world and then boasts about all of this lovely money they make ?? greenhouse gas emissions are non discriminatory ! everyone of us effects the earth equally so cut your emissions moron.

I see you comprehension skills are still on par with the severally retarded.


You won't even buy an electric car, you think you are doing your bit for the environment by constantly whinging like a little bitch.


If a enviro-loser like yourself won't do anything positive, I don't see why should demand I do.

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 1:34pm:

I was being sarcastic.

Thank god for that.  ;D

We need to invent a new font, and call it Sarcastica sans serif.

... wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 1:37pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 1:34pm: ... wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 1:30pm: Sir lastnail wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 1:28pm: everyone of us effects the earth equally so cut your emissions moron. Except for those who drive electric cars.  ;) why do you have to keep repeating yourself like a dumbarse parrot. Got anything of value to contribute to the topic libbo ? Of course you haven't :( Libbo?  Bitch please... Slurs aside, would it not help if people kicked their *ahem* "fossil fool addiction" and stopped "taking it up the arse at the fuel bowser" by switching to electric cars?

of course it would.

Sir lastnail wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 1:46pm:

... wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 1:37pm: Sir lastnail wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 1:34pm: ... wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 1:30pm: Sir lastnail wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 1:28pm: everyone of us effects the earth equally so cut your emissions moron. Except for those who drive electric cars.  ;) why do you have to keep repeating yourself like a dumbarse parrot. Got anything of value to contribute to the topic libbo ? Of course you haven't :( Libbo?  Bitch please... Slurs aside, would it not help if people kicked their *ahem* "fossil fool addiction" and stopped "taking it up the arse at the fuel bowser" by switching to electric cars?  of course it would.

So what's your problem with my suggestion then?

BigOl64 wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 1:38pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 1:28pm: BigOl64 wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 12:30pm: For the innumerate like greens-wank It's on a per capita basis, it's not total output. That's how the greens and labor fudged the carbon tax; on a per capita basis we are one of the worst, in real terms we hardly make any impact on carbon or consumption. In a world of 7 bil people there is not a lot we do that has any real impact, so to get everyone worked up and fretful, the use of dodgy maths is employed. So watch the socialist get their panties all bunched up and the rest of us that passed primary school maths realise it's nothing more than a beat up. typical selfish conservative brain dead thinking. And who sells the polluting coal rubbish to the rest of the world and then boasts about all of this lovely money they make ?? greenhouse gas emissions are non discriminatory ! everyone of us effects the earth equally so cut your emissions moron. I see you comprehension skills are still on par with the severally retarded. You won't even buy an electric car, you think you are doing your bit for the environment by constantly whinging like a little bitch. If a enviro-loser like yourself won't do anything positive, I don't see why should demand I do.

don't start that again moron.

"you didn't understand my post because I don't even understand it" :D LOL

the message from the article is to drop your emissions and don't make excuses why you should be polluting anymore than anyone else on the planet.

That is the simple message but you have trouble comprehending it as usual :(

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 1:34pm:

BigOl64 wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 1:05pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 12:57pm: freediver wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 12:38pm: Per capita is the only 'real' way of measuring impact. Otherwise you are basically just measuring population and claiming that splitting a country in half makes a difference. You're absolutely right.  Under the per-country rule, America could half is Co2 emissions just by splitting into two "countries" (East and West America). Could still retain single currency and centralist government like the EU.  Imagine that. The next climate change meeting, america comes in with an immediate 50% cut in emissions! Next decade they (both) come in with a further 50% reduction (by splitting into 4).   All this reduction, without doing a thing to reduce co2 emissions. Amazing. ;D Are you pair for real? That is the most stupid statement on this subject since greens_wank last posted. I was being sarcastic.  Trying to convey the mind of someone who uses a countries population to blame-shift the problem to someone else. Simply said, If the requirement to do something on climate change is based on your total emissions per country, the best way to avoid doing something is to reduce the size of your country.

selfish people always will find a lame excuse to justify their excesses :(

Sir lastnail wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 1:50pm:

don't start that again moron. "you didn't understand my post because I don't even understand it" :D LOL the message from the article is to drop your emissions and don't make excuses why you should be polluting anymore than anyone else on the planet. That is the simple message but you have trouble comprehending it as usual :(

You lose your sh1t pretty quickly don't you?  ;D

Actually the message is that Australians should feel bad, because on a "per capita basis" they pollute more than others, but overlooks the reality that due to our tiny population we don't produce frig all pollution.

While we are telling the massively populated countries like china and india that it is all Australia's fault they will continue to do bugger all and that is the danger.

If we were to cut ALL our pollution by 100%, the total improvement to the planet would be stuff all.

We don't make that much of an impact, positive or negative.

why do people always point a finger at only china and india in these discussions but never the united states

JC Denton wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 2:11pm:

why do people always point a finger at only china and india in these discussions but never the united states

Because the United States is actively aiming at reducing their emissions whereas India have said 'it's not a priority' and both have admitted their emissions will grow for the foreseeable future.

Neither are even trying to reduce.

The Chinese even made up a metric called "Carbon intensity" because they couldn't keep measuring their overall growth in emissions because it was absurdly high.

it's pretty difficult to reduce when you're economically growing substantially

unless you just want to ask them to remain poor or something

China is actually on track with renewable energy.  They should easily achieve the 20% renewable energy mark by 2020 if they haven't achieved it already. India is a different matter.

JC Denton wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 2:16pm:

it's pretty difficult to reduce when you're economically growing substantially unless you just want to ask them to remain poor or something

If you're going to feel sorry for them - then people should get off this 'we have to save the planet' thing.

You can't ask other countries to drop down to a % of their 1990 levels but allow two other countries (who happen to be two of the three worst polluters) to just carry on.

Their total emissions are so much greater than everyone else added together it is bound to fail.

It's akin to emptying a bath using a jug yet allowing both taps on the bath to run fully at the other end.

muso wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 2:19pm:

China is actually on track with renewable energy.  They should easily achieve the 20% renewable energy mark by 2020. India is a different matter.

Chinese emissions are expected to rise for the next 10 years.
That's their own data.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 2:20pm:

muso wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 2:19pm: China is actually on track with renewable energy.  They should easily achieve the 20% renewable energy mark by 2020. India is a different matter. Chinese emissions are expected to rise for the next 10 years. That's their own data.

That's true too.

JC Denton wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 2:11pm:

why do people always point a finger at only china and india in these discussions but never the united states

Because the US like Australia are the ones being blamed and expected to do all the changing where-as china and india are being given a free ride.

Chinas main source of renewable energy is hydro. But how do you equate China’s renewable energy with projects like the 3 Gorges Dam?

Sure they get hydro power, but at what cost?

Considering the panty twisting by the Greens when it comes to dams, it sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

BigOl64 wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 12:53pm:

freediver wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 12:38pm: Per capita is the only 'real' way of measuring impact. Otherwise you are basically just measuring population and claiming that splitting a country in half makes a difference. Actually exactly the opposite is true. Population is the determining factor when it comes to pollution as it is the only way to determine 'real' output. A country of 1 billion people producing 10 tonnes of garbage per person is a lot worse than a country of 20 million people producing 30 tonnes of garbage per person. It's basic maths, not easy to fudge but the socialist will try anyway.

Sure, if you want to calculate the total global pollution, but that is not usually why people compare emissions rates between different countries.

Normally it is a to compare levels of waste, who is doing their fair share to reduce pollution, who is emitting more than their fair share etc.

Whatever you think the 'fair share' is, per capita is the only rational way to make the comparison.

Per capita penalises small per capita developing countrys.

humans do not pollute as much as corporations

simple fact

namaste

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 7:33pm:

Per capita penalises small per capita developing countrys.

Lol, Avram wants to talk about externalities methinks!

  ;D ;D ;D ;D

Bring on the dodgy accounting practises I say!!!

Quote:

Actually the message is that Australians should feel bad, because on a "per capita basis" they pollute more than others, but overlooks the reality that due to our tiny population we don't produce frig all pollution.

This is not rational big ole. If we have a small population, then it is also easier to cut emissions on a per capita basis. Per capita is the only rational way to compare, otherwise you find put yourself in the absurd position that nominally splitting your country in two somehow makes things twice as easy or halves the obligations of the citizens in a global context. It doesn't.

If a country has 100 times our population and 100 times our emissions, then they should make 100 times the (total) effort to reduce emissions. Or, on a per capita basis, they are making the same emissions and should make the same effort. Not sure why this is such a difficult concept for you. The per capita basis is obviously the more rational way to compare otherwise you have to keep referring back to population to decide what is fair - both in terms of emissions and effort.


Quote:

While we are telling the massively populated countries like china and india that it is all Australia's fault

No-one is telling them that. But it is true that we are polluting more than our fair share, and only an idiot would expect China to ignore this, or be unaware of it just because we don't tell them.


Quote:

Per capita penalises small per capita developing countrys.

Avram your English is pretty poor here. What are you saying?

it_is_the_light wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 7:35pm:

humans do not pollute as much as corporations simple fact namaste

While this may be a fact, where does attitude fit in to the equation?  :-? :-?

Free diver if you use per capita. Israel is penalised as we have only small population to spread out total emission.
And we are only developing country too.

Israel rejects per capita measures at UN.

How is Israel penalised?

In what way is a country's GHG emissions related to it's nationhood and not to the population? If you have a small population, then you only have a small total emission to spread out over that small population.

freediver wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 8:23pm:

How is Israel penalised? In what way is a country's GHG emissions related to it's nationhood and not to the population? If you have a small population, then you only have a small total emission to spread out over that small population.

No that is not correct. You still need to power country and cities.
It needs to look total. In Israel we have much higher emission because of cities and military on per capita but really in total we are nothing.

You don't need to power 'a country'. You need to get power to people. That power requirement depends on the number of people. If Israel split into two countries it would not need twice as much power.


Quote:

In Israel we have much higher emission because of cities

I have heard the exact opposite here - because we are 'spread out' we need more. Neither is a rational argument.

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 7:33pm:

Per capita penises small per developing countrys.

No, my friend, it is not true.

Peoples in developing countries can have big size like West. Look at Africa.

BigOl64 wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 2:03pm:

You lose your sh1t pretty quickly don't you?  ;D Actually the message is that Australians should feel bad, because on a "per capita basis" they pollute more than others, but overlooks the reality that due to our tiny population we don't produce frig all pollution. While we are telling the massively populated countries like china and india that it is all Australia's fault they will continue to do bugger all and that is the danger. If we were to cut ALL our pollution by 100%, the total improvement to the planet would be stuff all. We don't make that much of an impact, positive or negative.

If the health of this planet's environment is a global responsibility, then it does matter. If we all recognise it as important, then it's wrong to ask others to cut their pollution and not try and reduce our own. It's not a question of impact, but a question of ethics. For us to be allowed to pollute more per capita, it's like we're some kind of aristocratic upper class that is exempt from the responsibility that belongs to the entire human race. Considering that this is a developed country, we are in a sense a kind of aristocratic upper class and it is arrogant to expect the rest of the world to adhere to harsher standards that we would not apply to ourselves. We're just hiding behind the name "Commonwealth of Australia." Do borders really matter on this issue?

It's easy to pick on countries like China and India because of their huge population and total impact, but their contribution is already lower than our's per capita. If borders didn't matter you wouldn't be able to point fingers at them. If we erased all the borders from maps of the world, the concentration of emissions would be higher in our part of the world.

If people's contributions were tracked right down to the individual, then it would show that our lifestyles generated more emissions than those in developing countries. Individually, those in Australia contribute more to world pollution.

Per capita observations are fair.

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 9:39pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 15th, 2012 at 7:33pm: Per capita penises small per developing countrys. No, my friend, it is not true. Peoples in developing countries can have big size like West. Look at Africa.

How did "penalises" get changed to "penises?" You have a weird sense of humour.