not i.

Apart from a few oil rich countries, Australia is at the top on per capita greenhouse emissions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita

16.3 metric tons per person per year, compared to a global average of about 4 tons per person per year.

We are close to the top on CO2 emissions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

Comparison of GDP per unit CO2 emissions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_GDP_to_carbon_dioxide_emissions

By total emissions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

These links also have some good maps that show the same info.

See, we're the best !!!!

fd - going to give the reasons for that ??
such as, we produce raw materials for the WHOLE world

According to some reports China has already passed the US according to your per-capita scale

IQ, that would total output, if it is meaningful at all. China is still far below the US and Australia on er capita emissions.

But be my guest and provide a link if you disagree.

freediver wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2007 at 9:34pm:


I would have thought total output is the only meaningful figure.  Otherwise one dude with a continuously burning campfire on a rock somewhere in the ocean may generate more CO2 than all the rest of the world combined on a per capita basis.  It is meaningless though.

IQSRLOW wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2007 at 10:22pm:


How can you say that?

You are a total looper!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 12^th, 2007 at 6:40pm:


Absolutely agree.  And to quote Australia as the worst is misleading.  We only contribute a small percentage of the total.

Victoria's greenhouse emissions up

http://news.smh.com.au/victorias-greenhouse-emissions-up/20080107-1khh.html

Greenhouse gas emissions from energy production in Victoria have risen by 30 per cent since 1990, new figures show, putting pressure on the state government to do more to tackle climate change.

By contrast, annual greenhouse gas emissions in NSW have risen by only seven per cent over the same period, the first annual report of the greenhouse indicator produced by the non-profit Climate Group and The Age newspaper has found.

Victoria's hefty increase, caused mainly by emissions from its Latrobe Valley brown coal-fired power stations, went against the Victorian government's policy of cutting greenhouse emissions by 60 per cent of 2000 levels by 2050, the report said.

---

Climate change to harm health: study

http://news.smh.com.au/climate-change-to-harm-health-study/20080125-1o54.html

Climate change will have potentially devastating consequences for human health, outweighing global economic impacts, researchers say.

"While we embark on more rapid reduction of emissions to avert future climate change, we must also manage the now unavoidable health risks from current and pending climate change," said Australian researcher Tony McMichael, who co-authored a study in the British Medical Journal.

"This will have adverse health effects in all populations, particularly in geographically vulnerable and resource-poor regions," he said.

McMichael, from Australia's Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, said increased wildfires, droughts, flooding and disease stemming from climate change posed a much more fundamental threat to human wellbeing than economic impacts.

A 2006 report by former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern said climate change had the potential to shrink the global economy by between 5 and 20 per cent, causing a similar impact to the Great Depression.

---

World can 'afford' to solve its environmental woes: OECD

http://news.smh.com.au/world-can-afford-to-solve-its-environmental-woes-oecd/20080306-1x9j.html

The world could solve many of the major environmental problems it faces at an "affordable" price, the OECD said Wednesday, warning that the cost of doing nothing would be far higher.

In a report presented in Oslo, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development suggested a range of measures to address what it said were the greatest global environmental challenges through 2030: climate change, biodiversity loss, water scarcity and the impact on human health of pollution and toxic chemicals.

The suggested measures would cost just over 1.0 percent of the predicted global gross domestic product in 2030, meaning world wealth would grow on average 0.03 percentage points less per year over the next 22 years, the organisation said.

"It has a positive cost-benefit result. Regardless of the ethical, of the moral, of the social, of the political consequences, simply looking at it from the business and the economic point of view, it is a better idea to start right away focusing on the environment," Gurria insisted.

The group placed a special emphasis on the need to rein in carbon dioxide emissions through special taxes and increased emission trading.