Australia Leads the World in Coal Emissions Per Capita (bloomberg.com) 114
India and China are the world's two biggest coal polluters, but Australia and South Korea lead the world in emissions from the world's dirtiest fossil fuel when you adjust for population size, according to energy and climate research organization Ember. Data calculated since the Paris Agreement on climate in 2015 show that some of the world's richest countries have the most work to do in moving away from coal to cleaner energy sources.
We need another Climate Junket (Score:1, Insightful)
How 'bout Rio this time [apnews.com]. The weather's much nicer than Glasgow in November.
Re: We need another Climate Junket (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that with the warming likely interfering with the Gulf stream, there is a real possibility that temperatures in Europe might actually go down at least in the medium term.
Many people do not think of how far north Europe actually is compared to say . Your example Glasgow is further north than Edmonton Canada.
And Paris is about as far north as the US/Canada border.
Re: We need another Climate Junket (Score:2)
Skewed story (Score:1, Troll)
Both South Korea and Australia use scrubbers; which China and India do not. Just like the US Coal Plants that have scrubbed exhaust making them low-pollution...
Re: (Score:2)
For example, when I was a kid, the state I live in used coal for the majority of its' electricity production. Its' sources for electricity are currently above 50% nuclear and below 30% coal, with the rest split mostly between natural gas and wind, but it still exports a lot of coal to other states for their use in electricity production..
Re: (Score:2)
From the Australian government [industry.gov.au]:
Australian thermal coal exports declined from an all-time high 213 million tonnes in 2019-20 to 192 million tonnes in 2020–21, as a result of COVID-19. Exports are expected to recover to 212 million tonnes by 2022–23, as Asian economies return to normal conditions.
Meanwhile, China stopped importing coal from Australia this year [reuters.com], and is on an overall downward trajectory in coal use. The recent power crunch will increase consumption again, though we don't know if it'll be a sustained trend.
Re: (Score:2)
Does the ranking include coal exports?
No, but it does include the large amount of emissions related to mining and agriculture, the majority of which is for export goods.
Similarly, China's emissions numbers include a large amount for production of goods consumed in other countries.
But Australia also uses far too much coal domestically, it makes 75% of electricity generation.
Re: Skewed story (Score:1)
Don't count China out yet, last I heard China was still aggressively building coal-fired power plants for the next 10 years, I'm certain they will catch up soon.
And yeah, as another poster noted, 'per capita' is a meaningless number as far as the climate is concerned - absolute emissions are what counts, 'per capita' is something people use to deflect/re-direct attention away from themselves.
Re: Skewed story (Score:5, Insightful)
And yeah, as another poster noted, 'per capita' is a meaningless number as far as the climate is concerned - absolute emissions are what counts, 'per capita' is something people use to deflect/re-direct attention away from themselves.
Per capita is what matters when trying to figure out who is not making enough efforts. Clearly, by any standard, Australians are emitting much more than the average Chinese or Indian. If you think Australians should have a right to continue to pollute forever and that China and India should reduce their emissions just because they are much more populous, then I suggest China and India to split into 100 smaller countries, so that none of them emit as much as Australia.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not really true. You would have to demonstrate that per-capita emissions were increasing, which nobody seems to be doing right now. With their birth rate of 1.66, as long as per-capita emissions remain relatively static, over time total emissions will decline.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not really true. You would have to demonstrate that per-capita emissions were increasing, which nobody seems to be doing right now. With their birth rate of 1.66, as long as per-capita emissions remain relatively static, over time total emissions will decline.
Not if they are outsourcing their birthing business overseas. Total population of Australia is increasing, so the total emissions will not decline.
Even if Australia's per capita emissions are not increasing, their current level is way too high, and much higher than India's (which is increasing), so Australia should be the one doing more efforts.
To be fair, Indians should reduce their emissions maybe by something like 2% and Australians by 90%, to keep the temperature increase under 2C. These numbers are a r
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, Indians should reduce their emissions maybe by something like 2% and Australians by 90%, to keep the temperature increase under 2C.
India has only a quarter the emissions of China, so I guess they could do nothing, if China, US, Russia etc did all the work.
A 2% cut on current emissions by China would have the same effect as a 50% cut by Australia. Neither is anywhere near enough to save us from 2C warming.
Australia is 1% of world emissions, and like China and India is overly dependent on coal-fired power. (If it was not for the bloody greenies opposing everything, they could have been more like Sweden, with nuclear and more hydro.)
Re: (Score:2)
A 2% cut on current emissions by China would have the same effect as a 50% cut by Australia. Neither is anywhere near enough to save us from 2C warming.
I never said it was enough on its own. We need both at the same time. Plus other reductions by other countries of course.
But it wouldn't be fair to say that China should reduce to say, 5 tons per capita while Australia will only reduce to 15.
The only fair way to solve the problem is to make a worldwide cap on greenhouse gases emissions to limit temperature rise by say, 2C. Let say it's
15 Gt. You then take that 15Gt and you divide it among countries based on its share of world-wide population. So if Australi
Re: (Score:2)
You think per-capita is the only fair way? It is one way, and combined with trading, that could work.
But it rewards countries for increasing their populations, which has been the biggest driver of increased emissions. So you have a moral hazard. Poor countries will pay mothers thousands of dollars for each new baby, so they can sell the newly minted pollution rights.
To avoid that, and reward those who have limited growth, perhaps allocate based on population in say 1950? Or 1980?
The fact tha
Re: (Score:2)
You think per-capita is the only fair way? It is one way, and combined with trading, that could work.
Yes I think it's the only fair way. What else do you suggest?
I never said there aren't other options to reduce CO2. A world-wide dictatorship where only I can emit CO2 and the rest of the world are my eco-slaves and must be carbon-neutral would work, but it wouldn't be fair. As ridiculous as it sounds, it's not that far from what a lot of people opposed to CO2 emissions reduction are suggesting in Canada/Australia/USA. Basically, we should have a right to drive our big SUV while China and India should reduc
Re: (Score:2)
And if immigration declines, what then?
Re: (Score:2)
Well if a country has measures to decrease its population, it can be argued that it's an effort against climate change. However, only China has done so so far (with its one child policy). Other countries tend to favor birth, with stuff such as parental leaves, tax credits, free school, subsidized day care, etc.
Most western countries are actually trying to get as much babies as possible, even though it is often not enough to go over an average of 2 babies per women. But let say it is 1.8. Without the governm
Re: (Score:1)
Per capita is what matters when trying to figure out who is not making enough efforts.
A higher per-capita suggests Australia has a greater ability to cut emissions, and they are!
If you think Australians should have a right to continue to pollute forever
A loaded question. They are already cutting emissions. Unlike India or China, Australia has been cutting total carbon emissions since 2008.
and that China and India should reduce their emissions just because they are much more populous,
Everybody should reduce emissions. You think they have a right to pollute more? Do you think the United States should be allowed to pollute more because they have more cars? ( per capita? )
Should you be paid more because you have more children?
Overpopulation is the biggest driv
Re: (Score:2)
You're a full on retard aren't you?
That's just what we need. Persuasive people like you. That'll convince people it is in their best interest to reduce emissions, and not dig in. Sure, real helpful ;-(
Re: (Score:2)
Well you're specifically saying the cleaner people need to do more....
Cleaner?! https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
much cleaner
"you keep using that word ..." [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I suggest China and India to split into 100 smaller countries, so that none of them emit as much as Australia.
Splitting up China and India is *exactly* what the West wanted, just like how Soviet Union was split up, so none of what remains can say no when the US says "jump".
IF people really thought emission should be shared based on per country basis, then fine, let ~200 countries in the UN each get 0.5% CO2 emission quota, so any country emitting more than 0.5% need to buy the quota from those who emitted less than 0.5%. Maybe call it "Carbon Exchange" or something. It will easily get support from over 100 underd
Re: (Score:2)
Gaia doesn't care about the arbitrary borders humans group themselves in.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
'per capita' is a meaningless number as far as the climate is concerned - absolute emissions are what counts
If you are foolish enough to believe that, then the solution to climate change is trivial: Just count each Chinese province separately.
Sichuan, Hunan, Zhejiang, etc., each have a small fraction of China's emissions. So emissions are 90% lower. Problem solved.
Re: Skewed story (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
> If you are foolish enough to believe that, then the solution to climate change is trivial: Just count each Chinese province separately.
"Per province" is just as meaningless as "per capita" since absolute emissions are what count.
Absolute, as in the totality of emissions across the globe.
The only reasons to break it down any further than that are to either 1) Consider where best to focus efforts to reduce emissions, and 2) Play "hide the emissions" for political points and/or fingerpointing.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:1)
Nonsensical excuse from butthurt western exceptionalist aholes. What's meaningless is pretending that China can't pollute more than the US when China has between three and four times America's population. Insert clown emoji here.
Re: Skewed story (Score:2)
So if China splits itself, (on paper), into a million countries, but practically remains the same, it will stop being the problem ?
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
> which China and India do not
To burn their Australian coal you mean?
Like it or not Australia is a major coal exporter, and a first world country with more than enough opportunity to both end coal use itself (it's geography is perfect for ample solar, tidal, wind), and it's also the largest source of uranium in the world so could have one of the cleanest nuclear power programmes, with ample safe waste storage from where said uranium is mined.
There is exactly zero reason why Australia needs to continue to
Re: Skewed story (Score:1)
Nuclear is not a viable political option in Aus. There was some talk a couple of weeks ago about it. The Chief Science for NSW advised the state government that to create the expertise to run a nuclear industry would take 15 years. Also from a $ point of view in Australia has over 1,200 years of coal supply at current annual consumption. Which is a lot of taxes to forego. I agree that Australia has the capability of implementing the solutions you mention but I donâ(TM)t think it has the political
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear is not a viable political option in Aus.
That's exactly what they said a few years ago when they signed a $90 billion French submarine deal.
Re: (Score:1)
Sure, it's viable. As viable as building 6,000 sqft mansions for each homeless person to solve the homeless problem. Mansions built out of asbestos and lead paint.
Re: (Score:1)
Clean and nuclear are contradiction in terms. Your spent toxic waste will forever remain a health and environmental hazard as a concentrated heavy metal, long after it has ceased to be radioactive.
Re: (Score:3)
Both South Korea and Australia use scrubbers
Scrubbers remove sulfur. They do nothing to reduce CO2.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like the US Coal Plants that have scrubbed exhaust making them low-pollution...
Uh.... no. America scrubs, but until 2016, we scrubbed pollution that was VISIBLE, per the Republican modification of the Clean Air act. Want to see SHIT LOADS of pollution? Look in the non-visible spectrum of the stacks. Incredible amount. Now, with that said, our scrubbers, did grab a lot of other pollutants, but that was as an aside. It was not until 2016, that we went after lead/mercury, which also grabs a lot of other non-gaseous elements, and now, America has very little lead/mercury coming from our
Re: (Score:2)
Scrubbers only remove sulfur and do nothing about CO2, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm given to understand that scrubbers mostly remove sulfur compounds in order to remediate the acid rain problem. You still have to deal with all the other byproducts [wikipedia.org]. I wonder what China is doing with their ash. Various sources say it contains cadmium. And what turns up in toys from China? There we go. Problem "solved".
Re: (Score:2)
fallacy (Score:1, Insightful)
the Earth only cares about absolute carbon emissions, not "per capita". Each country has a central point of control on how they will get their energy. For that matter we can't turn back the clock, so using the phrase "greatest cumulative emitter, which is since the year 1750, won't solve anything either though yes shows the percentage of blame to give for problem right now... but not considering the coming decades. What is being done now, and what will be done in coming years, are all that can change a
Re:fallacy (Score:5, Informative)
See? Your argument works. Each Australian should do more for Earth's climate, as his actions are more effective.
Re: (Score:2)
Each Australian corporation, sure. But each Australian citizen is irrelevant if they're not making decisions for a real polluter.
Re: fallacy (Score:2)
Each Australian citizen is making the decision. How ?
1. by voting Nuclear phobic politicians
2. by buying from coal burning corporations
3. by not voting out politicians that refuse to break monopolies of coal burning corporations
4. by working for coal burning corporations
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming their votes are meaningful.
We in the US had an election that was good, right? Except we were fucked out of the candidate we wanted on the left again (that's two elections running) so we only got to choose between two shit options.
I know dick about how the political process works in Oz but I would be shocked if it weren't primarily fuckery.
Re: fallacy (Score:2)
You were "fucked out of" the candidate because you've been voting in great numbers for a party that uses a system of primaries which allows this "fucking out".
You've also been voting in great numbers for parties that do nothing to fix the winner take all idiocy prevalent in lots of states.
Re: (Score:2)
You were "fucked out of" the candidate because you've been voting in great numbers for a party that uses a system of primaries which allows this "fucking out".
Sure, but look at how the corporate media treats third parties. They haven't got a bare chance in hell.
Re: (Score:1)
Representative democracies, by design, minimize the power of "the mob" (working and poor people having a say in their own governance) in favor of elites. Said elites obviously have no problem with trashing the environment with coal, but nuclear power is too batshit insane even for officials who think nothing of burning trillions to enrich bankers and arms dealers.
Re: (Score:1)
Nonsense, Australia is one percent of global carbon load. The Earth can sink all of Australia's emissions. What Australia does doesn't matter. Math is hard, you failed at it.
Re: (Score:2)
The U.S., while immoral, has contributed greatly to civilization, both in the form of being an industrial powerhouse for most of that period and for balancing power in the world. Without the U.S. to balance U.S.S.R, all of Europe would be speaking Russian right now and most of Asia, including the middle-east, would be under the control of U.S.S.R. These contribution came at a cost, yes. The CO2 polluting was needed. And you can't say that the CO2 pollution has not benefited the rest of the world, also.
Re: (Score:2)
This bullshit is pure cold war propaganda. Matter of fact, when the occupied Austria introduced a new constitution with neutrality clause, obviously refusing to join the NATO, the Soviets immediately packed up and left and offered the same to Germany as well. In your version of reality they would speak Russian now.
Re: (Score:1)
Wrong, the USA has lengthened the lifespan and increased life of most the world with its inventions and actions. Your "green energy" you want to save the world with is made by U.S. inventions.
Re: (Score:1)
the Earth only cares about absolute carbon emissions, not "per capita".
The Earth doesn't give a shit about absolute carbon emissions, or anything for that matter. It'll be there and continue to exist no matter what we do or don't do.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The Earth doesn't give a shit about absolute carbon emissions, or anything for that matter. It'll be there and continue to exist no matter what we do or don't do.
On that note, the earth doesn't give a flying fsck about your opinion, so shut the fuck up.
Re: (Score:2)
Your link is paywalled.
Re: fallacy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You are the one lacking logic, all those places emissions contribute essentially zero to carbon load, they don't matter. Math is hard, yes. you lose.
Re: fallacy (Score:2)
Re: fallacy (Score:3)
Honest Australian Government Ad | COP26 Climate Su (Score:5, Informative)
Honest Australian Government Ad | COP26 Climate Summit
by The Juice Media:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Was it wrong that I laughed at that?
Re:Honest Australian Government Ad | COP26 Climate (Score:4, Funny)
Honest Australian Government Ad | COP26 Climate Summit by The Juice Media: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Love it! :) Ads like these should be played before & after every climate news story. Even if the COP26 countries actually meet all their pledges, they're still waaay off keeping warming below 1.5C. Doesn't seem that our governments are just stalling & distracting us as much as they can so that their beloved fossil fuel buddies can keep polluting for as long as possible? How about we 'pledge' to pay our taxes by 2030?
Re: (Score:2)
Time, I think, to stop buying... (Score:2)
Australian wine,
Australian meat,
Australian anything
I hope everybody else does the same
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, let's hurt their ability to make money selling anything but coal! That'll make things better.
Re: well that is what happens (Score:2)
Wind farms don't need be in water...
Re: well that is what happens (Score:2)
Where is there a lack of sunshine?
Re: well that is what happens (Score:2)
Most places at night. Extreme North and South for extended periods. Cloudy places.
Australia is part of the problem (Score:2)
Not only it uses a lot of coal, but this country is also one of the largest greenhouse gas emitter per capita. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
surpassing the USA and Canada (at least in 2018). The only countries ahead of that list are oil-rich absolute monarchies. And worse, most of inhabited Australia has a temperate climate which requires very little energy for heating and cooling, at least compared to places like Canada.
Re: (Score:2)
Australia is also a net exporter, meaning it emits greenhouse gasses while making products for others.
This is a very interesting map: https://ourworldindata.org/con... [ourworldindata.org].
I may need a few revisions but it turns out I was right to think that in Europe a large part of CO2 emissions are avoided by manufacturing stuff elsewhere, but I overestimated how much China really exports. Same category as Australia.
Obviously Australia exports will drop as they adjust their foreign policy.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Australia is free to stop exporting to reduce emissions. Or use some of the money made by exporting this stuff to buy emissions credits, logically from those importing all that stuff who should have very low emissions, isn't it?
One way or another, Australia is polluting too much.
Re: (Score:3)
And worse, most of inhabited Australia has a temperate climate which requires very little energy for heating and cooling, at least compared to places like Canada.
This isn't as straight forward of a conclusion as you may think. Having temperature climate which requires little energy means that shit all effort goes into reducing costs. Compare it to Europe where there's talk currently of even larger subsidies for insulation just to keep costs down so people can heat their homes, there's little incentive to do anything in Australia.
My house in Australia literally has cracks between floorboards big enough for a swift breeze to blow though, "perfect" for those summer day
Re: (Score:2)
Oh and my car in Australia was a 4.7L V8 and my car in Europe is a 1.4L straight 4, which is massive compared to the wife's 1L straight 3. But then petrol costs real money over in Europe compared to "quit your whining bitch" money fuel costs in Australia.
It's amazing how much cost is an actual driver in reduced emissions.
Which is, again, why Australia is part of the problem.
pretty worthless. (Score:5, Interesting)
Here is the coal consumption by nations/capita in 2019.
Australia is #1 of global coal with 5,343.29 ft^3/capita, but only 1.5% of total coal [statista.com]
S. Korea is #11 with 3,081.87 ft^3 / capita, with 1.8% of total coal (interestingly, much less than many EU nations, including Germany and Poland).
USA is #18 with 2,263.27 ft^3/capita, with 8.5% of total coal.
But, China #13, with 3,055.00 ft^3/capita with the monster usage of 50.5% of all coal.
Here is the coal consumption by USA/China in 2015, 2019, and 2020.
USA(2015): 719 USA(2019): 532 USA(2020): 438 [iea.org]
China(2015): 3788 China(2019): 3834 China(2020): 3814
So, doing averages is a way to help nations that are still growing their emissions, while making those that are dropping theirs, look bad.
Re: (Score:3)
according to this, the coal consumption of above, is actually 2016, not 2019. [worldometers.info]
As such, nations like Australia, S. Korea, USA, EU, etc have dropped, while China's has risen.
Blame the consumer (Score:2)
It's easy to shift the blame to the companies or countries, but what about the consumer of their end-products? They are the real magnet. If the consumer would demand that the product be made using non-polluting energy sources this wouldn't be a problem. The addict is the attractor the same way as the goods peddler. When two magnets attract each other, you can't dump all the blame on one magnet.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever tried to get things manufactured and then sell them in one of the big box stores? I have and so have friends. It turns out that it is the STORE BUYERS that are the issues.
A good example, was Home Depot. I was going to sell a Seasonal product through them. The CEO (Blake) loved it, esp. when I said that it was to be made in America. Problem was that when it went to the buyer, she INSISTED that I go to CHina for manufacturing.
I did some work on looking her up and found out why she was do
It's okay they just announced Net Zero by 2050 (Score:4, Insightful)
And by net zero we mean they announced some plan to hope that people will use less energy, industry will produce less emissions, and by doing fuck all emissions will drop by 85%. Wait, 85%? Oh yeah the rest is reserved for literal magic, the hope that because the rest of the world is actually doing something some magic technology will be invented that will automagically reduce emissions in Australia 15% more.
Fuck you ScoMo.
What if you don't adjust for population size? (Score:2)
What if instead you adjust by poverty rate? China and 24 times the number of people living in poverty as Australia does. They aren't going to have access to generated energy.
Re: (Score:2)
The numbers are meaningless (Score:2)
So... Australia has a lot of aluminium smelters that use a lot of coal. If Australia makes the aluminium and sends it to Germany to make cars, who REALLY had the emissions, Australia or Germany? You can claim it's Australia, but the reality is, Alumimium smelting takes a TON of energy, you can't run it off a few windmills and solar panels, and if Australia didn't do it, then some other 3rd world country would have to do it, just to make Australia's numbers look good.
The whole way of calculating who did the
Re: (Score:1)
With the exception of Bell Bay in Tasmania, which uses hydro power, Australia’s smelters produce 15-20 tonnes of carbon dioxide per tonne of aluminium because their electricity comes from fossil fuels, mainly coal. This is two to three times the global average.
Source: Australian aluminium outgunned by cheap, coal-free global rivals [grattan.edu.au]
So... manufacturing aluminium (or refining alumina) elsewhere would produce less CO2.
I have no idea where you get "then some other 3rd world country would have to do it" from - perhaps you'd be kind enough to provide a source?
who cares? (Score:2, Troll)
Climate Castastophe claims are completely overhyped. The earth has survived and the biosphere including humans thrived in much warmer and both much higher and much lower CO2 levels. The notion that a CO2 runaway is imminent is a theory not supported by the geological record. And some of those much much warmer periods had declining rather than rising CO2 levels as well. That we should fret and even dismantle our standard of living over such dark fantasies makes me doubt the sanity of the species or the b