https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/euro-stock  s - h i t -s  luggish-eurozone-032503011.html

ffs the BF parsing machine pulled the word s h ! t out of a web link and voided it

too right TB a free kick for the Chinese (just imagine the control they will have if we all throw our $$ away on carbon credits whilst they have free rein for at least 16 years and then who knows)
Ben Eltham what a joke...get a real job

ffs ted lol .. the heat getting to you

china told the world to get stuffed ... and that they're burning as much as they can till 2030

great deal for whom ?

the yanks 2016 to start a 25% reduction plan (right on their next presedential election)

how ill the yanks do this 25% reduction we ask

no information available sorry

prediction ... they hold the largest quantity of shale oil gas .. which means ...

fracking

great deal for whom ?

sadly the money game game will get Oz on the end ... the lobby from the cartels is just too strong

but at least we have a current govt prepared to fight for sovereign stability

now ... have a look at how much we emit compared to the 'big four burners'


china  10385
usa     6866
india   2326
russia  2326

japan, , brazil, germany, indonesia, iran, canada  (726), mexico, sth korea, UK

and # 15 in the world australia  587   

less than mexico ffs

well done Oz keep the grubby money hungry hands off our country

govt has THE SAME 5% REDUCTION PLAN  as the weak opposition

pretty sure you be on the nonsense thread ted

or that 'new' nonsense thread

or that 'very new' nonsense thread

don't you think

govt has a 5% emissions reduction plan Ted

you may have missed it reading all the left wing cr@ppola sites

and the opposition party ? ... hey a 5% emissions reduction plan

exactly the same reduction plan Ted .. or don't you want to hear that

unless you are saying that the opposition reduction plan is weak also

maybe we should do a deal with Obama and tell him we're dropping the 5% emissions target and we're gonna just burn away to our hearts content .. till 2030  ...

then we'd have a 3 way deal going on with the TWO BIGGEST LARGEST UNCONTROLLED EMITTERS on this planet

ou know when your dad’s been away for a while and he lays into you about not taking the rubbish out while he was gone? He says he’s not mad, just a little disappointed, then goes into an inspiring speech about how we all have to do our part around the house. That’s essentially what just happened to our entire country. President Obama has only been in Australia for a matter of hours and he’s already incited people to take action on climate change.

Speaking at the University of Queensland prior to the official commencement of the G20 Summit in Brisbane today, Obama delivered his trademark oratory fireworks to a large crowd mostly comprised of local students. Though his speech spanned the gargantuan topics of foreign policy, social discrimination, international diplomacy and of course, climate change, he kicked things off with some jokes.
Regardless, it took the President just 20 minutes to get to the topic on everyone’s minds: climate change. And when he did, the entire room broke into applause. “Here in the Asia Pacific, nobody has more at stake when it comes to thinking about and then acting on climate change,” he said. “Here in Australia, it means longer droughts, more wildfires… The incredible natural glory of the Great Barrier Reef is threatened.”

After acknowledging that there has been some “healthy debate” on the topic in our country, he stated that “leaders must be held accountable”. “Combating climate change cannot be the work of governments alone,” he said. “You have to keep raising your voices, because you deserve to live your lives in a world that is cleaner and that is healthier and that is sustainable … That’s not going to happen unless you are heard.”

He then announced he was going to contribute $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund to help developing nations deal with climate change, dropped the mike and moonwalked off the stage.

Except, no, it didn’t even stop there. He then went on to talk about broader issues of social inequality, religious freedom and human rights. “We’ll stand up for our gay and lesbian fellow citizens because they need to be treated equally under the law,” he said. “We’ll stand up for the rights and futures of our wives and daughters … because I believe that the best measure of whether a nation is going to be successful is whether they are tapping the talents of their women and treating them as full participants in politics and society and the economy.”

Stunned to be in the presence of a politician who had a semblance of a coherent idea and a general sense of moral decency, the entire audience rose to their feet in rapturous applause and convulsive fits of pleasure. Obama was then whisked away to the official start of the G20 Summit like a goddamned rock star.

And what of our fearless leader, you may ask? He spent the morning rambling about Medicare and getting outclassed by a guy with rubber ear extensions. Soz Tone.

–

did obama happen to mention to the students that australia has an emissions reduction scheme already in place ... or wasn't he briefed

Well that should shake things up a bit - first we have the China US deal.  Then the new fund developed with the Germans, French and Americans already putting in - next it will be an agreed text coming out of this weekends meeting promising further action.  Abbott won't be happy

The fund is a great idea imo - like Obama said, it will allow the developing countries to skip the dirty power stage and move straight to cleaner alternatives while still growing (paraphrased) - surely that's a good result for us all

Happy days for those of us waiting on action on climate change

it might have been around a while Thebas but gets a kick-along

what's wrong with a little wealth redistribution anyway?  surely it's best for everyone if the majority of the world is happy to stay where they are rather than moving to other places in desperation?

what would happen to the world economy if China stopped polluting today?

ah yes foreign aid - that stuff we keep cutting or using to pay to manage boat people (both majors did that )

I would love for China to be doing more but it's good they are doing something considering they have a whole whack of people that want to get out of poverty - they would be screwed if they tried to stop totally imo

This is an interesting read on it - i chopped out the most interesting part to paste here

http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/11/14/364001658/china-agrees-to-pollution-limits-but-will-it-make-a-difference

Meanwhile, China aims to get 20 percent of its energy from nuclear, solar, wind, hydropower and other non-fossil fuels by 2030. He says that 20 percent target is nearly as much as all of China's power generating capacity now.

"This means that in the next 15 years," he explains, "China will have to build the energy equivalent of another China, but one that is entirely based on non-fossil fuels. This sends a signal that China has begun to say goodbye to coal."

Indeed, Li notes that for the first time in this century, shifts in China's economy caused coal consumption to actually decline in the first three quarters of this year.

Have very little interest in political commentary....but in terms of climate change I am with "Team Myth".

But of course rule number 1 with winning friends is talk about what they want to hear.....heard that is what Obama or whatever that money spending democrat's name is  was rattling on about at UQ.......

If I was a leader or president or whatever with an greatly under performing economy or one I might have stuffed up (hi ms gilliard )  or one I didnt want to talk about.....i would want to talk about climate change as well and make it sound important

You lot are so pathetic......can't even accept the reality of Climate Change caused by humans.

We can't lead the world you cried....Ha Ha Ha so when the Us and China act ..you s hit your self and bring more c rap like we only

pollute a little bit.

D ikheads.

Here you go smat ar se


Historical Responsibilities: Carbon Emissions in Context
By Stephan Lewandowsky
shapingtomorrowsworld.org

Professor, School of Experimental Psychology and Cabot Institute, University of Bristol

Posted on 1 June 2011

Filed under Politics



It has often been claimed that Australian annual CO2 emissions are such a tiny fraction of the world’s total, around 1.5%, that there is no need for us to take action. If we are only responsible for such a small proportion, why should we bother with a carbon tax or emissions trading scheme?

This argument may seem plausible at first glance, especially because it seems to let us off the hook so readily.

However, even after limited analysis this argument turns out to be deeply flawed and misleading at many levels. The argument is flawed and misleading because it is ignoring the full context.

To provide context, we must first remember that there are about 200 countries in the world. If they shared emissions equally, no single country would emit more than ½ a percent of the total. So without going any further, our 1.5% is already three times more than would be expected if we had an equal share in the world’s total—clearly we do not. This reinforces the fact that looking at a single number, whether it’s 1.5% or 8% or 4.39875% is often meaningless; we must look at the full context. And this begins with a comparison of any given country’s emissions against those of other countries.

There is an additional context we must consider in the case of CO2 emissions: We must recognize the importance of the sum total of emissions across the last two or three centuries. Why? Because CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, and hence what matters to a country’s responsibility for climate change are its historical emissions—in the same way that if 5 housemates run up a debt, each person’s responsibility extends to their entire expenditures, not just last week’s excessive bar tab. Unfortunately, people’s cognitive apparatus is not well equipped to deal with quantities that accumulate, and so it is worth expanding on this point.

Historical emissions data are provided by the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC), which we link to from this website. These data go back as far as 1750 (for some countries) and they are the best available record of global annual emissions over time. (These particular data extend to 2007 and they are from burning of fossil fuels.) When emissions are summed across the available record, the top 25 all-time emitters are as follows:

   

Country
   

Total Emissions (1000's tons carbon)

1
   

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
   

92,739,807

2
   

RUSSIAN FEDERATION*
   

37,562,270

3
   

CHINA (MAINLAND) 
   

29,575,206

4
   

GERMANY   
   

22,283,279

5
   

UNITED KINGDOM 
   

19,895,515

6
   

JAPAN   
   

13,857,045

7
   

FRANCE (INCLUDING MONACO)
   

9,175,102

8
   

INDIA   
   

8,706,956

9
   

CANADA   
   

6,964,865

10
   

POLAND   
   

6,372,356

11
   

ITALY (INCLUDING SAN MARINO)
   

5,307,683

12
   

SOUTH AFRICA 
   

4,098,697

13
   

MEXICO   
   

3,654,153

14
   

AUSTRALIA   
   

3,638,504

15
   

CZECH REPUBLIC*
   

3,626,181

16
   

SPAIN   
   

3,043,883

17
   

BELGIUM   
   

2,997,431

18
   

REPUBLIC OF KOREA
   

2,750,642

19
   

BRAZIL   
   

2,713,161

20
   

ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN
   

2,646,313

21
   

NETHERLANDS   
   

2,623,492

22
   

SAUDI ARABIA 
   

2,254,569

23
   

INDONESIA   
   

1,974,086

24
   

ROMANIA   
   

1,963,099

25
   

ARGENTINA   
   

1,649,989

(*For this analysis, the Russian Federation and the Czech Republic inherited all the emissions of the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia, respectively. This should be apportioned differently, e.g., based on the share of historical emissions by that part of the former, bigger, country. For simplicity I omitted that step here because it makes little difference for present purposes.)

You will note that Australia is 14th—out of 200—in terms of cumulative emissions. This should clarify how misleading it is to talk about “only 1.5% of emissions are ours”. In fact, over history, we are responsible for a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere. This can be clarified further by plotting the (logarithm of) historical emissions of all countries against the rank position of each country (in other words, we order the countries from most-emitting on the left to least-emitting on the right). This is shown in the figure below:

(In these data, some administrative entities such as the Falkland Islands are considered independent “countries”, which inflates the total number of observations but that has no bearing on the rank position of Australia).

The figure clarifies that Australia has more historical responsibility for CO2 in the atmosphere than 228 other countries. In other words, we are more responsible for climate change than about 94% of all countries in the world.

There is one additional important point to be made: The data presented thus far are total cumulative emissions, not adjusted for population. The figure above and the earlier table are not per capita but they are the sum total of emissions. Despite that, we are ahead of Brazil, for example, which has roughly 10 times the population of Australia.

Australia has 1/3 of a percent (or .0031) of the world’s population—and yet we are number 14 on the list of total emitters and have more responsibility for global warming than about 94% of all other countries.

To provide full context, let’s examine what happens when we convert total historical emissions to per capita emissions. How much of a responsibility does each one of us in Australia have for the carbon emitted during the last 100-200 years? Like it or not, Australians have emitted 3,638,504,000 tons of carbon to date, and as you can see in the table below, each and every one of us carries a share of this historical burden that’s equivalent to roughly 172 tons.

Let’s place that burden into further context:

   

Country
   

Historical per capita emissions (tons carbon)
   

Current Population (millions)

1
   

CZECH REPUBLIC*
   

349.02
   

10

2
   

UNITED KINGDOM 
   

325.83
   

61

3
   

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
   

302.97
   

306

4
   

BELGIUM   
   

282.70
   

11

5
   

GERMANY   
   

270.67
   

82

6
   

RUSSIAN FEDERATION*
   

264.31
   

142

7
   

CANADA   
   

211.25
   

33

8
   

KUWAIT   
   

194.19
   

3

9
   

DENMARK   
   

177.19
   

5

10
   

AUSTRALIA   
   

172.65
   

21

11
   

POLAND   
   

167.13
   

38

12
   

NETHERLANDS   
   

159.93
   

16

13
   

AUSTRIA   
   

148.63
   

8

14
   

FRANCE (INCLUDING MONACO)
   

148.42
   

62

15
   

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
   

147.01
   

4

16
   

SWEDEN   
   

129.55
   

9

17
   

FINLAND   
   

128.29
   

5

18
   

HUNGARY   
   

117.73
   

10

19
   

NORWAY   
   

115.84
   

5

20
   

BULGARIA   
   

114.67
   

8

21
   

JAPAN   
   

109.77
   

126

22
   

IRELAND   
   

105.45
   

4

23
   

SINGAPORE   
   

95.21
   

5

24
   

SAUDI ARABIA 
   

94.91
   

24

25
   

ROMANIA   
   

90.95
   

22

(Countries with a population below 2 million were omitted from this analysis because their per capita emissions often fluctuate considerably across time, suggesting that those estimates may not be terribly stable. For example, Luxembourg’s population is less than ½ million but their per capita emissions are very high. At least in part, this turns out to be due to the fact that German and French drivers fill up their cars in Luxembourg because petrol is less heavily taxed there, and the emissions then count towards Luxembourg’s. This is one of the reasons why per-capita statistics from small countries are easily distorted. *The Czech Republic and Russian Federation are again inheriting all historical emissions of their former countries for simplicity.)

We are within the top 10 emitters if we account for the size of our relatively small population relative to that of some other countries—for example China, which is in position 61 on this list. In other words, the country that is the favourite bugaboo of those who want to forestall climate action in Australia, is way down the list when it comes to the historical responsibility of each of its citizens.

Australians, by contrast are among the top 10.

There is no shirking that responsibility.

Sooner or later we must cut emissions. And of course we will, because the laws of physics do not negotiate. The only question is when we will finally begin climate action.

In the next post, we will explore that “when” and place it into its proper context, by considering what other countries have been doing already.

To provide context, we must first remember that there are about 200 countries in the world. If they shared emissions equally, no single country would emit more than ½ a percent of the total. So without going any further, our 1.5% is already three times more than would be expected if we had an equal share in the world’s total—clearly we do not.


You will note that Australia is 14th—out of 200—in terms of cumulative emissions

The figure clarifies that Australia has more historical responsibility for CO2 in the atmosphere than 228 other countries. In other words, we are more responsible for climate change than about 94% of all countries in the world.

Australia has 1/3 of a percent (or .0031) of the world’s population—and yet we are number 14 on the list of total emitters and have more responsibility for global warming than about 94% of all other countries.


We are within the top 10 emitters if we account for the size of our relatively small population relative to that of some other countries—for example China, which is in position 61 on this list. In other words, the country that is the favourite bugaboo of those who want to forestall climate action in Australia, is way down the list when it comes to the historical responsibility of each of its citizens.

Australians, by contrast are among the top 10.

There is no shirking that responsibility.

Ha ha ha you don't like the truth do you?

You will note that Australia is 14th—out of 200—in terms of cumulative emissions

The figure clarifies that Australia has more historical responsibility for CO2 in the atmosphere than 228 other countries.


Don't like hard facts when they prove the lie of your coal loving prejiduce.

InDirect Inaction  that's why...It's a joke of a policy to make it look like they are doing something......they don't give a stuff

if it doesn't work.....they give their Masters a free handout in the process. They arte addicted to coal and hate despise

renewables.....FACT

Looking after their masters....this time Murdoch with the NBN.

Sc umbag of a Gov't.

afl .. please

we have a 5% emissions reduction target so you could at least agree that australia is doing something

to bring on these c+p articles that suggest australia is doing nothing is plain wrong

and you have gone down the wrong path mate suggesting that only Abbott is a coal mining lover

i will not present a statement from the right wing

i will not present a statement from murdoch press

please refer to the ABC interview with Christine Milne when she was co-chair in the previous govt ..

her statement about the Labor Party (and gillard in particluar) was damning .. you must agree

---

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3693980.htm

CHRISTINE MILNE:     We signed an agreement which had very clearly that we'd worked together in the public interest, that we would work together to address climate change and to bring transparency to the parliamentary process and ...

Labor had walked away from that by basically choosing the mining industry rather than working with the Greens

---

again .. australia have a 5% emissions reduction target so we ARE doing something

why you suggest that australia has thumbed its nose and are doing nothing makes you plain wrong on this

and any other party politico propaganda (NBN ?) ... which i suggest is your real motive here seeping out ... and is irrelevant .. probably belongs on the nonsense thread (threads)