Australians were once again the world’s worst coal power polluters per capita in 2021   

May 20 2022
New Daily

As both major parties shy away from climate policy during the election campaign, Australia continues to have the highest coal power emissions per person among the world’s major economies.   

Australia produced 4.04 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person from coal-fired power stations last year, according to a new report by energy think tank Ember.

That’s roughly four times the global average, double the average per person in countries like the US and Japan, and more than any other country in the G20 or the OECD.

University of Adelaide energy economist Dr Liam Wagner said he was unsurprised by the ranking, given Australia has long been one of the world’s most coal-dependent countries.

“Australia’s current energy policy has been ineffectual, and has greatly affected our competitiveness and our ability to transition to zero carbon,” he told The New Daily.



Andrew Stock from the Climate Council, who has more than 40 years’ experience in the renewable and traditional energy sectors, said that “Australia’s had its head in the sand for many, many, many years” when it comes to transitioning away from coal.

The impact of this on the climate is tangible in a country like Australia.

“Burning coal on this scale is setting the stage for many fire seasons to come,” Ember’s global lead Dave Jones said.

Dr Wagner said the government hasn’t embraced the transition to renewables despite falling costs, and now the energy providers are playing catch up.

“We’ve been in this position and stuck simply because of policy uncertainty that we’ve had over the last 10 years, if not longer, and it’s really hampered the investment in renewables and made certainly heavy industry more difficult to move to lower carbon practices,” he said.

But the market is starting to shift on its own.

The march of progress
More and more energy providers are looking towards renewables as coal-fired power plants are closed years ahead of schedule.

Last year’s figure of 4.04 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person is down from the previous five years, when coal-fired power stations created on average 5.3 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person.

There are 19 coal-fired power plants around Australia. Most are scheduled to close within the next two decades.

“In fact, companies now are talking about how they progressively close those [coal-fired] plants even sooner,” Mr Stock said.

But experts say it’s still too slow.

Both parties have shied away from climate action during their election campaigns.

“Australia’s solar boom is reducing coal use, but there is still a long way to go,” Mr Jones added.

Mr Stock also pointed out that although the current rate of progress might technically be enough to meet the government’s “paltry” target of cutting emissions 26 to 28 per cent by 2030, the reality is more urgent.

“The science would say, and the Climate Council says, that we need to be cutting emissions by 75 per cent – so around three times the cut the government’s talking about – by 2030,” he told TND.

Labor’s proposed 2030 target is higher at 43 per cent.

“Both of the major parties are well north of the level of reductions that are required by 2030, based on the climate science,” he added.

The Ember analysts looked at domestic electricity generation, but Australia is also the world’s second-largest exporter of thermal coal.

“The impact we have globally isn’t just the coal we burn to make our own electricity – it’s the coal we export as well,” Mr Stock said.

We're also the #1 consumer of solar per capita.

I'm calling BS on the OP.



https://www.visualcapitalist.com/how-much-solar-energy-is-consumed-per-capita-19...

And despite that coal consumption we are still a carbon sink. Not that the Climate Council will tell YOU that.

True. If it were only per capita emissions per capita that counted China could keep on keeping on until they caught up.

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on May 20^th, 2022 at 2:24pm:



So only in the country of mining or at both ends?

The Greens don't want you to see this as it confirms
that any climate action we take is a drop in the ocean compared
to what other countries are doing to increase CO2 levels.
The Green targets are only symbolic yet they try to make out that
it will make a measurable difference.
The Greens are liars.
Now with Albo's minority Govt  the Greens will have Albo over a barrel.

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on May 23^rd, 2022 at 7:54am:



Watch this:

Alan Jones

whiteknight wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2022 at 5:59pm:



Just exactly what is the emergency?

The old per capita wankfest.

Comparatively Australia is a large country with a small population. Added to that most of the industry is in the South East. That means long supply lines to the rest of the country. And most of the population lives on the long stretch of coastline.

Germany with 3.5 times our population lives in an area slightly larger that Victoria and Tasmania combined.

AusGeoff wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2022 at 7:41am:

A ridiculous statistical sleight of hand.

Why can't the Gretas of this world be honest?

(They wouldn't be catastrophising Gretas then, would they? Natch. )

Belgarion wrote on May 20^th, 2022 at 1:10pm:


On the one hand, Australia producing 1.2% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions is quite high when you consider that Australia's population is only 0.3% of the world's population.

On the other hand, there is a large section of the world's population that does not use industries on a large scale that produce these emissions. And then there is the argument that various first world countries are using clean energy to power their industries.

AusGeoff wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2022 at 7:41am:


There are 25 million Australians producing 619.3 million tonnes of gas emissions. The United States (330 million) producing 5.8 billion tonnes of gas emissions. The United States having a population 13 times that of Australia would mean that Australia would produce 8 billion tonnes of gas emissions if Australia had the same population as the USA. Or if the USA had the same population as Australia, the USA would be producing 446 million tonnes of gas emissions.

The USA is about 30% of China's population. But the USA is producing half the Chinese gas emissions. Australia produces 1.3 times the amount of emissions per capita that the USA produces.

Clean energy needs to be considered more thoroughly.

Quote:


Do you think we could halve the problem with China's emissions by splitting the country in two?

BTW, I think you'll find that "they" normally talk in terms of changes to the global average temperature. Only morons engage in your elaborate game of blame shifting.

Belgarion wrote on May 20^th, 2022 at 1:10pm:


Yes.  I agree with this.  The per capita emission numbers have no
validity—it's the total emissions measured on a country by country
basis.  If Australia's emissions were magically reduced to zero
tomorrow, it would make virtually no difference to the overall global
emissions figure.

It's the country's collective emissions that rate; not you or me, or the
bloke next door.

This pie chart tells the true story:  (crickets!)     

[What's the thing with the 100 posts before posting a link or image?]

freediver wrote on Jun 8^th, 2022 at 10:16am:



Already done.

"Hence, the temperature of bodies determines the direction of the possible spontaneous heat exchange between these bodies. Likewise, the temperature is an intensive property. So if one block of ice is at −10◦ C then adding another identical block does not make the temperature −20◦ C, but it does mean that melting the two blocks of ice can be predicted to use twice as much energy."

https://www.w3schools.blog/intensive-properties-of-thermodynamics

Then of course you would have to look at air pressure. An increase in air pressure raises temperature.

"Proportionality of Temperature and Pressure Atmospheric pressure and temperature are proportional, meaning that when the temperature increases, air pressure increases and when temperature decreases, air pressure decreases. The relationship between temperature and air pressure is referred to as Gay-Lussac’s Law. "

https://www.reference.com/science/temperature-affect-air-pressure-90b37da760fa9d...

So you would have to take air pressure into account.

lee wrote on Jun 8^th, 2022 at 12:35pm:


Do you think we could halve the problem with China's emissions by splitting the country in two?

lee wrote on Jun 9^th, 2022 at 6:36pm:


Are you having difficulty understanding the question?

I don't see an answer from you.

Do you think we could halve the problem with China's emissions by splitting the country in two?

freediver wrote on Jun 10^th, 2022 at 10:17am:



You like to ask questions that you can deny you meant.

This halving - Is it population based? Is it by land area? Is it an Agrarian/ industrial split?

Until you post what split you prefer the question is unanswerable.

But tell me about those physics of which you spoke.

Interesting trend.

The per capita emission figures are just... uh... smoke and mirrors.

The IQAir (a company that tracks global air quality) reports the
average annual air pollution in every country around the world. 
Of the 117 countries analysed in 2021, Australia was ranked 9th
best country for air quality in the world, four places ahead of New
Zealand. Canberra was judged 4th cleanest air of the 107 worldwide
capital cities monitored.

Forty-six cities in Australia have the cleanest overall air quality in the
world, the report found, with Oceania having the cleanest overall air
quality in the world.

freediver wrote on Jun 10^th, 2022 at 5:00pm:



No petal. I said Australia was a large country with a small population.

lee wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2022 at 12:15pm:


It must be hard with your cognisance problems.

freediver wrote on Jun 10^th, 2022 at 5:28pm:



Poor petal Can't even read straight let alone lie straight.

freediver wrote on Jun 10^th, 2022 at 5:28pm:


Now tell us about Net Zero. You know the Net Zero that the satellites say is a net sink.

freediver wrote on Jun 10^th, 2022 at 5:28pm:



Australia would still be a net sink.

freediver wrote on Jun 10^th, 2022 at 8:35pm:



Total emissions count. If you say it is per capita just let the Chinese etc get up to our level.

I'm not the one complaining about per capita - it is the bedwetters like you.

freediver wrote on Jun 10^th, 2022 at 10:19pm:


Well that's telling. You are arguing from a position of ignorance.

Bobby. wrote on May 20^th, 2022 at 8:12am:









.

freediver wrote on Jun 11^th, 2022 at 1:34pm:


And yet you have spent pages trying to show me wrong.

Frank wrote on Jun 11^th, 2022 at 2:28pm:




buzzanddidj wrote on Jun 11^th, 2022 at 2:16pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 11^th, 2022 at 4:49pm:



You failed again.

Tell us what you want to know about physics.  Temperature? Pressure?

freediver wrote on Jun 11^th, 2022 at 5:34pm:



I know you have difficulty so I will explain. Total emissions from fossil fuels.

So tell us about the physics you want to learn.

buzzanddidj wrote on Jun 11^th, 2022 at 6:57pm:


Tell us.

buzzanddidj wrote on Jun 11^th, 2022 at 6:57pm:


You forgot the burning of wood and dung. Seeing as there are large parts of India without power I would suggest it is the equivalent of burning one 40 watt bulb.

lee wrote on Jun 11^th, 2022 at 6:10pm:


From where?

buzzanddidj wrote on Jun 11^th, 2022 at 7:27pm:


lee wrote on Jun 11^th, 2022 at 7:04pm:



So you are just playing with yourself. Good to know.

freediver wrote on Jun 11^th, 2022 at 10:24pm:



A physics book will tell  you the answer.

What do you want to know about Temperature or air pressure or something else?

Or perhaps you don't understand the term "net" in Net Zero. That is simply the amount of sequestration we need. Australia's emission about 385 Mt to reach Net Zero we need at least 385 Mt of sequestration. Australia's sequestration is in the order of 600 Mt meaning Australia is minus net zero. I hope this helps.