I hope you are not serious.Australia is being portrayed as the worse country in the world with implementing reductions to CO2 emissions, which is probably true, but is it fair? The greenies like to use CO2 per capita to show how bad Australia is, ignoring that Australia is a resource rich country supplying the world, mining and agriculture being major contributors to Australia's CO2 emissions. But perhaps a better guide would be CO2 per square KM, if you think of each country's surface area as a bar heater, heating the planet with CO2. Then the following table is interesting and paints a different picture with Australia not so bad after all:
Note: Those nations or territories with less than 50 tonnes of fossil CO2 emissions per square kilometer and those with a total of less than 10 million tonnes of fossil CO2 emissions are not included.
Nation or Territory CO2 emissions per km2
(tonnes of CO2)Total fossil CO2 emissions
(million tonnes of CO2)1. Singapore 89764.5 64.8 2. Bahrain 44689.6 34.5 3. Hong Kong 38978.8 43.0 4. Qatar 11180.3 129.8 5. Trinidad and Tobago 7933.2 40.7 6. Taiwan 7502.1 271.5 7. South Korea 6148.1 616.1 8. Kuwait 5858.2 104.4 9. Netherlands 3859.2 164.0 10. Belgium 3279.5 100.1 11. Israel 3204.3 66.6 12. Japan 3189.4 1205.1 13. United Arab Emirates 2796.5 231.8 14. Germany 2239.0 799.4 15. Lebanon 1879.5 19.5 16. Brunei Darussalam 1772.4 10.2 17. United Kingdom 1571.4 384.7 18. Czech Republic 1368.1 107.9 19. Italy 1180.0 355.5 20. Poland 1044.5 326.6 21. China 1025.2 9838.8 22. Switzerland 970.6 40.1 23. Austria 833.9 69.9 24. Denmark 801.7 34.6 25. Malaysia 772.0 254.6 26. India 750.3 2466.8 27. Slovakia 724.5 35.4 28. Slovenia 720.6 14.6 29. France 651.3 356.3 30. Bangladesh 611.5 88.1 31. Viet Nam 603.3 198.8 32. Portugal 593.8 54.9 33. Greece 576.0 76.0 34. Turkey 573.8 447.9 35. Ireland 565.4 39.7 36. Spain 557.5 281.4 37. USA 547.1 5269.5 38. Hungary 541.2 50.3 39. Bosnia and Herzegovina 521.2 26.6 40. Serbia 510.3 45.1 41. North Korea 481.3 58.0 42. Iraq 444.9 194.5 43. Bulgaria 442.4 49.1 44. Azerbaijan 441.2 38.2 45. Estonia 438.0 19.8 46. Dominican Republic 436.5 21.3 47. Philippines 425.4 127.6 48. Iran 408.0 672.3 49. South Africa 374.1 456.3 50. Sri Lanka 352.7 23.1 51. Ukraine 351.4 212.1 52. Thailand 350.1 330.8 53. Romania 336.8 80.0 54. Cuba 329.3 36.5 55. Saudi Arabia 323.9 635.0 56. Oman 306.8 65.2 57. Croatia 303.9 17.2 58. Belarus 295.6 61.4 59. Indonesia 253.6 486.8 60. Mexico 248.6 490.3 61. Pakistan 247.3 198.8 62. Jordan 231.4 21.4 63. Uzbekistan 221.3 99.0 64. Egypt 218.3 218.7 65. Lithuania 205.4 13.4 66. Guatemala 191.7 20.9 67. Venezuela 175.0 159.6 68. Tunisia 172.0 28.1 69. Georgia 157.1 11.0 70. Syria 150.7 27.9 71. Turkmenistan 148.9 72.7 72. Morocco 140.5 62.7 73. Norway 138.3 44.8 74. Ecuador 136.8 38.8 75. Finland 135.9 46.0 76. New Zealand 134.0 36.0 77. Panama 128.6 10.1 78. Nigeria 116.2 107.3 79. Chile 111.8 84.6 80. Kazakhstan 107.7 292.6 81. Russian Federation 99.1 1692.8 82. Honduras 95.2 10.7 83. Sweden 92.2 41.5 84. Argentina 73.8 204.3 85. Colombia 71.3 81.2 86. Ghana 70.0 16.8 87. Algeria 63.2 150.6 88. Canada 57.4 572.8 89. Brazil 55.9 476.1 90. Australia 53.7 413.1 91. Kyrgyzstan 52.6 10.4 92. Peru 50.4 64.8 The Whole World 242.7 36153.3
Or indeed CO2, per unbiased and objective contributor.They are a bit unfair, however, so we should use a ubiquitous metric which, of course, is CO2 per honest politician.
To get an agreement on carbon pricing, some transparent and accurate methodology, will have to be arrived at IMO. it will be interesting to see what they come up with.I Actually think CO2 per unit of GDP is probably the best guide, Australia would not be the worse better than China, Russia. Equal to US but behind most countries.
La Niña cycles are part of our climate landscape on the eastern seaboard, as is also the case for El Niño.Ten years is a long time in global warming, the science is in somewhat, things are changing whether anyone can accurately predict what will happen, is another issue .
I guess it does prove it is o.k to be completely off the mark, if you are a scientist, but if you are a politician well god help you if you make a slip up.
No one disagrees with global warming, but only some are allowed the luxury, of claiming to have all the answers, without the resulting public shaming if they are proven slightly off the mark.
The post isn't about global warming, but about the amount of rope some people are given, when they are in synch with the narrative.
From the article:
First Published: 11/02/2007
SALLY SARA: Well, making good use of water is one of the subjects of this week's interview. Professor Tim Flannery has warned climate change will impact on Australia to the point where Sydney can expect to receive 60 per cent less rainfall than it does at present. If that's the case, what about the bush? What can Australian farmers expect as weather patterns alter? I spoke with Professor Tim Flannery about climate change, water and the intriguing subject of carbon trading. Professor Flannery, congratulations firstly on being named as Australian of the Year.
PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: Thank you very much.
SALLY SARA: What will it mean for Australian farmers if the predictions of climate change are correct and little is done to stop it? What will that mean for a farmer?
PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: We're already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we're getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that's translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That's because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that's a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we're going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation.
November 2021:
From the article:Forbes residents told to prepare for flooding as deluge swells river to more than 10 metres
Rain keeps pouring and floods worsen for parts of New South Wales, threatening similar levels to the disastrous 2016 floods.www.abc.net.au
A major flood warning is in place for the Central West New South Wales community of Forbes, threatening similar levels to the disastrous 2016 floods.
"We're keeping a very close eye on the Lachlan River."
The Lachlan River runs through part of the town so floods are not unusual for the area.
The last major flood in Forbes was in 2016 when properties were inundated.
View attachment 132916
Overflowing Wyangala Dam, near Cowra, has turned the Lachlan River into a wild stretch of whitewater.(Supplied: John Batcheldor)
It experienced similar conditions in 2012 and back in the '90s.
I think we get a lot of hassle for selling coal, when the focus should be on the countries that burn it.I Actually think CO2 per unit of GDP is probably the best guide, Australia would not be the worse better than China, Russia. Equal to US but behind most countries.
As I stated, the post wasn't about climate change per sae, it was about the fact that if the comments had been by a politician, they would have been attacked endlessly.La Niña cycles are part of our climate landscape on the eastern seaboard, as is also the case for El Niño.
All you have done is cherrypick a comment that climate change deniers have trotted out on a regular basis since 2007. It's a pathetic smear that lacks context as even though Flannery said what he did, it was in relation to a climate trend which is backed by over a century worth of data and the ongoing climatic influence of CO2.
In your own WA, here's that trend:
View attachment 132931
On the east coast we see this (note how the 2016 La Niña anomaly sticks out like a sore thumb):
View attachment 132932
In 2007 Flannery gave a 10 minute interview to the WWF where he explained in a lot more detail what he thought about climate and related matters. Although this was 14 years ago he pretty well nailed most issues and even was on the money in discussing new energy potential.
First, it is exactly about climate change as that was the theme of the interview:As I stated, the post wasn't about climate change per sae, it was about the fact that if the comments had been by a politician, they would have been attacked endlessly.
It's not a flawed statement. Anyone with an ounce of nous will know that the question asked "what about the bush? " And Flannery answered it in the context of climate change as a trend. Many farmers committed suicide and many went bankrupt in the ensuing period due to prolonged drought in the bush. That pattern is highly likely to return in the next El Niño cycle.But because the statement was made by someone, that the media use on a regular basis as a source of reference for the narrative they wish to push, the obviously flawed statements, are as you say taken in the overall context of the issue.
What nonsense. You have repeated a beat up that gets the rounds from climate change denying media at every opportunity and from nowhere else.The media would be doing a better service for the public, if they adopted this approach to all their reporting, it would also lift the overall standard of their content.IMO
Here's your quote:As per usual you go wandering off on your own tangent, I never mentioned anything about "the dams never filling again, I actually never made a direct mention to anything he said.
I posted a couple of articles, to highlight the fact that the media are inconsistent in the way they treat subjects, actually the way you are making it now about climate change, reflects a similar problem.
Everything Flannery said related to the specific question about climate change (the "narrative") and its effect on farmers in the bush.The post isn't about global warming, but about the amount of rope some people are given, when they are in synch with the narrative.
Why?As I said, the issue wasn't about climate change, or indeed about Flannery, the issue was as I said about the fact if a politician made a similar comment they would be torn to shreds by the media.
Climate science is not an ideology.The media on the other hand, decide which subjects they are going to apply that ideology to, which then plays into the hands of the fanatics amongst us and leads to anger and frustration.
lol old Tim! like every other self proclaimed guru! they are nothing but a spruiker and a fraud who make a living for dribble endless ****!La Niña cycles are part of our climate landscape on the eastern seaboard, as is also the case for El Niño.
All you have done is cherrypick a comment that climate change deniers have trotted out on a regular basis since 2007. It's a pathetic smear that lacks context as even though Flannery said what he did, it was in relation to a climate trend which is backed by over a century worth of data and the ongoing climatic influence of CO2.
In your own WA, here's that trend:
View attachment 132931
On the east coast we see this (note how the 2016 La Niña anomaly sticks out like a sore thumb):
View attachment 132932
In 2007 Flannery gave a 10 minute interview to the WWF where he explained in a lot more detail what he thought about climate and related matters. Although this was 14 years ago he pretty well nailed most issues and even was on the money in discussing new energy potential.
there is a difference between fantasy and reality with a leftist! and its not reality as leftist politics never works and never ever has, has history shows!The ABC has a droll but very interesting analysis of just how easy it could be to make huge inroads into our carbon emissions.
And all the solutions are clever win/win deals that will make us far more cost effective and productive.
Have to say it is one of the most encouraging stories I have read.
How dung beetles, a tiny molecule and a giant extension cord could help solve our climate mess
Here's how Australia could become a renewable superpower by 2030. Sounds too good to be true? You tell us.www.abc.net.au
Just read an article which really shows how ironic the media is and just how easily public opinion was influenced.
If you asked anyone in Australia, which PM did the most damage to climate change initiatives, without a doubt Tony Abbott would be everyone's response, yet the mechanism that he and Greg Hunt developed to reduce carbon emissions is the blueprint for Labor's current plan.
What a hoot, maybe the media could send Abbott an appollogy, enter the trolls stage left. Lol
It is an interesting article and highlights the politics of issues.
The other good thing to come out of the post, it made me learn how to copy and paste a url on an Android tablet, there is always a positive to be gained from even the worst periods of life.?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12...r-climate-policy-greg-hunt-retiring/100680684
Let's be honest Bas, the reason it was never used was because the media never stopped bagging it as a handout to big business, that is the reason nothing gets done the media cranks up the ranters and chanters then when they are shown to be a bunch of dicks down the road they just change the chant.That was a very illuminating article. What it highlighted IMV was Greg Hunts cleverness in constructing a transparent, effective mechanism to racket down CC emissions by big emitters. The problem with the Liberal government was that they never actually used the process to create an orderly emissions reduction process. That was why Abbott was such a xxxx on CC.
Labour has decided that Greg's legislation is as good as it gets and intends to put it to work. How's that for bipartisianship
Wouldn't it be interesting to see Greg Hunt brought back into an offical CC position by a Labour Government to oversee the implementation of his legislation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?