What's the truth?

[Calaber]

This country keeps getting blasted for its performance reducing carbon emissions. Global warming is by far the biggest discussion item in so many arenas and I, for one, am getting really tired of hearing about it.
Scomo addressed the UN last week and spoke about what we have done so far and what is planned, but his claims have been ridiculed by environmental groups, the Opposition and any other organisation that believes we are dragging the chain.
In today's Sydney Daily Telegraph was a two page article debunking some of the global warming alarmist claims. I read the article fully and it sets out stats which indicate there is more happening here than I realised. Our renewable target of 30% appears to be very achievable, with rooftop installations in Australia exceeding the nearest nation, Germany, by three times and the current level being 22% of total power generated. Other policies are also having a positive effect, if the article is correct.
So , what's the truth? Is Oz pulling its weight?

 

[chrisp]

I’d treat any reports in the Daily Telegraph with some some caution.

“30/01/2019 - Australia has made some progress replacing coal with natural gas and renewables in electricity generation yet remains one of the most carbon-intensive OECD countries and one of the few where greenhouse gas emissions (excluding land use change and forestry) have risen in the past decade. The country will fall short of its 2030 emissions target without a major effort to move to a low-carbon model, according to a new OECD report.”

Quote from: https://www.oecd.org/australia/aust...y-efforts-to-meet-its-2030-emissions-goal.htm

 

[EYY]

People don't seem to realise that it's not just a political issue, but more so an economic issue. Australia has an enormous indirect impact on levels of pollution. The vast majority of goods sold and consumed here have been imported from the likes of China where we have no control over the carbon emissions of their operations.

It would be a very different story if the country still maintained local production for the majority of products consumed here. But international economic dependence means that pollution will always be a secondary concern. As soon as you upset a major international trade partner like China, there are massive consequences - both political and economic which will wreak havoc on the price of living for a start. It's no secret that Australia is very strongly dependent.

All of these winners jumping up and down trying to declare a 'climate emergency' don't seem to have a grasp on reality, and the level of infrastructure development (and therefore cashflow) required to meet their demands.

 

[Nitro_X]

People don't seem to realise that it's not just a political issue, but more so an economic issue. Australia has an enormous indirect impact on levels of pollution. The vast majority of goods sold and consumed here have been imported from the likes of China where we have no control over the carbon emissions of their operations.

It would be a very different story if the country still maintained local production for the majority of products consumed here. But international economic dependence means that pollution will always be a secondary concern. As soon as you upset a major international trade partner like China, there are massive consequences - both political and economic which will wreak havoc on the price of living for a start. It's no secret that Australia is very strongly dependent.

All of these winners jumping up and down trying to declare a 'climate emergency' don't seem to have a grasp on reality, and the level of infrastructure development (and therefore cashflow) required to meet their demands.

You make some good points.
Australia has become a 'consumer nation' and mostly imported, except for our natural resources like iron ore, coal and gas, and we export huge amounts of all three.
As you already know, combustion of coal and gas produces significant greenhouse gas emissions and steel production from our iron ore requires vast amounts of coking coal, coal is also used in the manufacture of cement.

If it wasn't for China's massive debt based infrastructure boom we would not have survived the 2008/09 GFC without a recession.
The main reason we currently have a good trade balance is due to the RBA's monetary policy which is pushing the Aussie $ lower.
*Our resource commodities are priced/sold in US dollars
But the side effect is that imports then become more expensive. (plus low interest rates are screwing over savers)
If you go back to 2012 our trade balance was pretty bad, when the Aussie dollar was hovering around $1.02 to the greenback and dropped to about 0.85c in 2014/15. Currently around 0.68c I think.
Our trade balance seems quite dependent on the price of these 3 main commodities and the AU$ exchange rate.
https://dfat.gov.au/trade/resources/trade-statistics/Pages/australias-trade-balance.aspx

.

 

[Nitro_X]

According to a study from the University of Melbourne, Australia's 'per-capita' emissions are higher than the USA, China, Germany, Brazil and India (our key trading partners)

http://climatecollege.unimelb.edu.a...remain-highest-among-its-key-trading-partners

Not very good really, when you consider the combined populations of China/India is over 2 billion and the US population is around 327 million, while Australia only has 25 million people
.

 

[Calaber]

According to a study from the University of Melbourne, Australia's 'per-capita' emissions are higher than the USA, China, Germany, Brazil and India (our key trading partners)

http://climatecollege.unimelb.edu.a...remain-highest-among-its-key-trading-partners

.

I find this to be a pretty misleading statistic. We use either coal, gas or hydro for baseload power. All our power stations are old. Nuclear power won't be contemplated. We might be the third worst per capita but our output is minuscule. Because we are such a large exporter of coal and gas, we get the results of consumption of those fuels blamed on us as well. Its fine to say cease coal mining and exports, but our entire economy rests on commodities exports. The country simply cannot just shut down the mines and cease exports. Not today, not tomorrow. And until a satisfactory substitute is implemented world wide, there will continue to be the need for those fuels in vast quantities.

 

[Nitro_X]

I find this to be a pretty misleading statistic. We use either coal, gas or hydro for baseload power. All our power stations are old. Nuclear power won't be contemplated. We might be the third worst per capita but our output is minuscule. Because we are such a large exporter of coal and gas, we get the results of consumption of those fuels blamed on us as well. Its fine to say cease coal mining and exports, but our entire economy rests on commodities exports. The country simply cannot just shut down the mines and cease exports. Not today, not tomorrow. And until a satisfactory substitute is implemented world wide, there will continue to be the need for those fuels in vast quantities.

We are not the the third worst per-capita on emissions, we are number one. why is it misleading?
Per-capita emissions is more relevant, using a simple country by country comparison is just an easy way to hide how bad Australia is because our population is small compared to our major trading partners.


Aside from our coal fired power generation & transportation, we export emissions to other countries.
The fact we are so reliant on commodities exports shows that our economic policy and structure is quite flawed and narrow, we don't 'value add' and we don't have a diverse productive economy because we rely so heavily on this and household consumption and flipping houses/land to the highest bidder.

In addition, we have clean air and a relatively clean environment because we also export most of our e-waste and plastic waste off-shore to other countries. Remember the dramas when China stopped taking our consumption waste (eg: plastic waste)?
We now send it to places like Thailand.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07...ern-nations-destroying-thai-villages/11274578

This section right at the bottom of the article:
In a statement, the Australian Government said it had not received any reports of improper exports to Thailand but was committed to stamping out bad behaviour, if companies were found to be violating Australian law.

Just BS, the Australian government doesn't give a flying fig about it, they don't have any lawful jurisdiction over Thailand's environmental policies, or lack there of, that's why they send our waste there instead of dealing with it here, out of sight, out of mind.
"...committed to stamping out 'bad behaviour'..." yeah right...the right thing to do is not send it off shore to start with!
They used the same empty rhetoric when referring to the fraud and corruption exposed by our big banks...just bad behaviour.
..

 

[Calaber]

It's misleading because it makes us seem like environmental vandals. Our output is a miniscule portion of the world's total yet we are pilloried by nations whose output far exceeds ours. Its disproportionate because coal fired energy has been the mainstay of our power generation from day one. Hydro power generates a much smaller proportion and we never went nuclear. Australia's topography isn't conducive to many schemes like the Snowy Mountains project. Only Tasmania is the area that has the capacity to generate a significant percentage of its power from hydro. For all sorts of political and environmental reasons, nuclear power was prohibited. So, while other countries had a better chance of large scale hydro, or went down the nuclear route, our principal choice was coal. What's the most effective, and most viable alternative for base load power for us now, recognising the shortcomings of renewables at present?

EDIT:In relation to disposal or recycling of plastics. A few points to make on this issue as you've raised it.
1. China and Thailand accepted recyclable plastics from a number of countries, not just Oz. The only reason for doing so would have been commercial opportunism. Clearly, accepting plastics and recycling them would have been of benefit to interests within those countries. It appears China underestimated the quantity of plastics involved and were engulfed before shutting the gates. Thailand accepted the waste in their stead. Whose fault is it if the Thai government fails to have proper pollution controls in place? From your post, it seems our government is at least partially responsible. What bullshit. Anything else you'd like to blame them for? I seem to recall that Morrison's address at the UN specifically referred to reduction of non putrescible (ie plastic) waste in the Pacific region. Policies need to be implemented to not just reduce single use plastic waste, but to abolish it altogether. I seem to recall that action in that direction is already underway in many countries, including ours. The volume of single use plastics in this and other countries is a cost-effective but extremely wasteful practice by corporations who clearly have little or no environmental conscience. China is probably the greatest perpetrator of this environmental vandalism of all.

If you want to heap **** on the government for its shortcomings, at least have the decency to acknowledge where they are trying to do something right.

 

[Skylarking]

 

[greenacc]

According to a study from the University of Melbourne, Australia's 'per-capita' emissions are higher than the USA, China, Germany, Brazil and India (our key trading partners)

http://climatecollege.unimelb.edu.a...remain-highest-among-its-key-trading-partners

Not very good really, when you consider the combined populations of China/India is over 2 billion and the US population is around 327 million, while Australia only has 25 million people
.

That argument makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. So we are the worst per capita, ok. But then saying it's even worse because China and India's population is so high? Um, what?
Of course living in such a densely populated country produces less emissions per capita.
The other question is, where would you rather live?