Australia blows Paris carbon targets sky high

Released into the holidays as usual:

Australia has a target of reducing emissions to 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels in 2030. The current estimate is that cumulative emissions reductions of 695 Mt CO2-e (26 per cent reduction) to 762 Mt CO2-e (28 per cent reduction) will be needed over the period 2021–2030 to meet Australia’s 2030 target.

What a pack of arsehats we are, with an appalling liar for a leader:

In response to a damning IPCC report earlier this year on the state of the climate, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said Australia was on track to meet its targets “in a canter”.

Comments

    • More to the point why don’t you ask the question who’s been doing the heavy lifting. CO2 emissions have fallen from 597 million tonnes of carbon to 443 tonnes of carbon in the 12 years from 2005. This is almost entirely due to the agriculture sector. Transport and industry have made no impact.

      As for the sanctimonious bloggers on here – why don’t you ask inner city commuters to start carrying the load – why doesn’t bill shorten come out and tell people how he intends to reduce emissions by 45% by 2030 – half the cars and trucks off the road, half the food taken off our plates and half the jobs from productive industries gone – I doubt it – of course he won’t because in this country consumers are sacred cows while producers are vilified. It’s much easier just to bag the coalition but at least some of them are in touch with reality.

      If this keeps up all producers will eventually go offshore (if they haven’t already) and the consumers are suddenly going to find themselves without a livelihood – just an empty ideology.

      I challenge you blowhards to fill in your back yard swimming pools, turn off your air conditioners and stop taking overseas vacations before you start spewing you breathtaking hypocrisy.

      • Watching the kids play in the pool now. More than happy to pay a carbon tax, more fuel tax and a plastic tax and reduce population growth to stop the endless development. Also more than happy to subsidise local producers through a city land tax. I’ve spent plenty of time in the regions and there is a fair share of hypocrites there itching to trash everything for a buck.

      • Good for you – since you’re so cashed up why don’t you run for politics with your tax policies – see how far you get with the average joe who is trying to make ends meet. Btw I’ve spent plenty of time in the cities and there are plenty of people there who trash everything to make a buck as well. – the only difference is they tend to consumer a lot more than they produce.

        It cracks me up that the coalition is under attack for not meeting its 26% carbon emission target yet no one asks Bill Shorten how he intends to reduce it by 45%. There’ll be a lot more pain under Labor.

      • It’s laughable to suggest the LNP are any different to the the ALP in trashing our productive economy. What they are excellent at is convincing screwed over country folk that somehow it’s not their fault that we do nothing but bulk commodities by foreign owned entities. Adani is not a solution – it’s a symptom of how f..d it is. No legitimate mining house will touch this, so we end up subsidising regulatory fraud specialists with shameless politicians like Canovan willing to pretend a turd sandwich is a gourmet roll.

      • Excellent point Sam. And to you morgs, you can’t pay your way out of making carbon emissions. You actually have to consume and do less which is something no one wants to do. No point in paying carbon offest to plant another tree to make you feel all good and fuzzy inside while you take that flight.

      • That’s why taxing (read puting a price on) the negative externalities is important, because if you don’t create the mess there is no charge. If you do, you cover the full cost, can’t just push it onto the environment or the taxpayer.

      • Although I would agree, like traffic fines, there may need to be regulation as well, so the wealthy can’t just pollute with impunity.

      • Air con and house running on solar yesterday

        High efficiency low output leds

        Riding to work

        Growing food

        Not consuming much

        I’m such a hypocrite

        You need a hug sambo

      • Morgs – the area is 2,000 hectares – cape york is 12,000,000 hectares so the area in question is miniscule less than 1% of 1%. Typical vilification of the bush while far more than that area would be cleared for housing developments every year.

      • Morgs – the area is 2,000 hectares – cape york is 12,000,000 hectares so the area in question is miniscule less than 1% of 1%. Typical vilification of the bush while far more than that area would be cleared for housing developments every year.

        Land clearing is a massive problem.

        https://www.wilderness.org.au/news-events/10-facts-about-deforestation-in-australia

        Residential housing is a rounding error in land usage (about half a percent). Every household in Australia on a quarter acre block equates to about 1/8th of Tasmania (ca. 975,000 hectares), and they sure as hell aren’t subdividing into quarter acre blocks much anymore.

      • 172,700,000 hectares in Qld
        6,500,000 ha of protected National Parks
        356,000 ha cleared in 16/17 = 0.21% of total land area
        392,000 ha cleared in 17/18 – 0.23% of total land area

        This cleared area includes regrowth control, that is the re-clearing of land cleared before, and also the feeding of mulga as drought fodder to livestock.

        The clearing of remnant vegetation has fallen right down to 19% of the area cleared. This will include clearing for urban housing, mining & CSG projects. Agriculture can’t clear remnant except for those who still hold High Value Agriculture clearing permits issued by the government.

        So in 17/18 81% of the clearing was in non remnant vegetation. And importantly remember to be able to produce food a farmer depending on what is being grown or raised needs to clear vegetation to a lesser or greater extent.

      • The wilderness society is wrong – Co2 emissions from agriculture are down because of restrictions on tree clearing

      • You’re spot on Sam but you’re missing a key point: Australia will never meet any target as long as immigration remains at current levels. The current immigration level will always more than offset any other emissions reduction.

      • You’re right about that Hector. Until governments lower population, use nuclear and restrict consumption it’s all just hot air.

      • Remember, this is being played out all over the state. Also, much of this land is unable to cope with any meaningful agriculture or grazing, it’s just low value commodity stuff on very unproductive land. The gripe is not with legitimate production, it’s with shameless slash and burn for bugger all benefit. The pollies have a lot to answer for, they watched happily as our productive economy was destroyed/sold and are now pretending it’s the fault of people who care if we have any biodiversity left to bequeath to our kids.

      • Also, the regrowth term needs to be clarified. The recent legislative change was:

        Protecting high-value regrowth

        Changing the definition of high-value regrowth vegetation – this term now applies to vegetation not cleared in the last 15 years rather than since 31 December 1989
        Regulating regrowth on freehold land, Indigenous land and occupational licences in addition to leasehold land for agriculture and grazing
        Improving habitat and environmental protection

        Boosting protection of essential habitat for near-threatened wildlife
        Regulating all regrowth along waterways in all 6 Great Barrier Reef catchments
        Requiring a riverine protection permit before removing vegetation in a watercourse
        Prohibiting clearing for high-value agriculture and irrigated high-value agriculture
        Monitoring and compliance

        Improving monitoring and other measures to ensure compliance with the law and reporting based on latest science
        Supporting the use of self-assessment for low-risk activities.

        Like all beat-ups, the facts are diff from the spin. This legislation does not stop sensible and thoughtful farmers from getting on with their work. It does let the silly and the greedy get worked up into a lather by opportunistic pollies. Also, if you look at the price and availability of already cleared, high quality grazing land in North Queensland you will see that that this sort of clearing has very little to do with good agriculture.

    • Where did I mention Adani – is that all you’ve got – stick to the topic- how is Bill Shorten going to reduce carbon emissions by 45% – given carbon reductions are around 10% the 26% target is much more achievable (another 16%) than 45% (another 35%) – Shorten is telling a much bigger lie than Morrison.

      • half the cars and trucks off the road, half the food taken off our plates and half the jobs from productive industries gone

        You are making a number of incorrect assumptions here. FF jobs are replaced by renewable energy (RE) jobs. FF cars by EVs. When you make dumb statements, people can’t be bothered responding. Especially in this heat.

      • I’m not making any assumptions – just using common sense. There are 19.2 million registered cars in Australia. Last year Tesla made 300,000 cars – if you assume they supplied the Australian market only it would take 60 years to replace all the registered vehicles in Australia. But of course Australia’s population is about 1/100 the size of the world wide car market so even if there were another 100 renewable car makers in the world it would still take 60 years assuming there was no increase in production. Even if production doubled every year and there were 100 car makers (which there isn’t) it would still take 10 years to replace the current fleet. Of course most lithium batteries are only guaranteed for 5 years so it would be almost impossible to replace the current fleet in the next 12 years even with an exponential rise in output. But even if you could you still have to recharge the batteries – is the electricity going to come from clean or dirty energy. Then there’s the energy in building the 19.2 million cars. Most cars weigh around 1500 kilos so the total weight of registered steel on the road is around 27 billion kilograms. The steel that goes into making those cars has to come out of the ground in Queensland and WA, get railed to the port, shipped overseas, melted down into steel, manufactured and then shipped all the way back again before being carried by a truck to the car yard. It takes about 4 hours to recharge a car battery – how long is it going to take to charge a tanker or rail locomotive that has to carry weight much heaver than a passenger car. Months thus rending international transport impossible though expense alone assuming you could carry enough lithium batteries to actually power the shipping vessel. On top of that you’ve got air transport – you can’t even carry lithium in storage on a plane so there’s no way you going to use them to actually power the plane. Then there’s lithium itself which is a 1% ore – so for every tonne processed 100 tonnes of ore has to be mined – and thats before taking into account stripping ratio which could be as high as 10 to 1 – how is the mining fleet going to run on lithium batteries if you haven’t mined the lithium – it then takes a lot of energy to extract the lithium from the ore – carbon free – never !

      • Labor’s high population growth, high development, high mining growth policy positions are inconsistent with any meaningful change.

      • I don’t want to interrupt a man on a soapbox. I just have to point out that trains actually don’t take months to charge their batteries. They have overhead lines, or an electrified rail. There are more EV makers than niche little Tesla, maybe you’ve heard of Nissan and Hyundai. They’re churning out hundreds of thousands of vehicles now … just not for Australia because the Government doesn’t want that electric car nonsense. If we did what the US did and swapped to natural gas (with onshore reservation) and renewables, our electricity would be almost half the price and manufacturing would be more viable (i.e. a lot more jobs as a side benefit of lowering emissions). But carry on, it’s a fun spew to watch.

      • Samscout, so many errors in your rant, and I’m not prepared to be distracted by them. You seriously need to get a clue.

      • Alterbrain – where is the electricity that the trains run on going to come from on a windless night – a battery is it night. So many errors R2M – why don’t you outline them – I’m happy to sit here and argue the point all day. You won’t though because when you start drilling down into the renewable fantasy its quickly revealed to be the con that it is – just a mining and manufacturing business by a different name.

      • Even existing hydro reserves are more than enough to supply the unusual windless night. So much hydro is being wasted on hot sunny days being consumed by aircon in 1 star rated houses without any solar cells.

      • Everyone makes do with less. Broader economy crashes. Subsistence and minimalism rule and capitalism based on waste withers and dies. What’s not to like?

  1. So much potential, so little talent. We should have been a world leader in alternative energy technology decades ago, maintaining that position and exporting it to the world.

    Nah, F that mate, dig a hole and sell ’em dirt.

  2. China produces more CO2 than the US and Europe combined, 70% of their electricity is still generated from coal. Until China decides to come to the party on carbon emissions whatever we do in the land down under is a piss in the ocean. China has reversed its ban on construction of new coal fired power plants. Sure they are investing in alternative energy, but not at a level which will significantly reduce their CO2 emissions.
    https://www.scmp.com/video/china/2177609/how-does-china-generate-its-energy
    We do the lifting and China does the leaning.
    Don”t get me wrong to lower emissions is a admirable thing, but what I cannot understand is the hypocrisy of some leading the charge here. The ALP and fake greens are quick to protest when Japan starts to harpoon whales, so why aren’t they out the front of Chinese consulates protesting about China’s carbon emissions killing the planet?

      • And if we stop coal exports to them we’ll turn instantly turn into a Venezuela

        Not quite. We can be a renewable energy superpower

    • I think we sort our own carbon emissions out first (highest per capita) before we can start lecturing anyone else about it. A bit of do as I do and not as I say..

  3. Climate change man made global warming propaganda is based on pseudoscience and will destroy the middle class so commies can still fly planes and control a poor class.

    • I’m not convinced its one big conspiracy but I am certain some “green” lobbyists and renewable energy spruikers are pushing it to the hilt for their financial interest. Those solar farms being throw up are highly speculative and I suspect the costs reported by spruikers do not cover whole of life costs.

    • Regarding sea level rise caused by global warming, the National Geodetic Survey of America is designing their new geoid with the scenario of a 20cm sea level rise over the next 50 to 70 years. 20cm may not seem like much but when the more frequent extreme weather events are coupled with it there will be much more flooding and destruction than in the 20th century. That science is an inherently conservative field and the effects of global warming have consistently exceeded the modelled predictions I think we’d be lucky to only see a 20cm rise.

      That’s my way of pointing out that your post is substanceless nonsense.

      https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/datums/newdatums/WatchVideos.shtml

      Third video down is the source of my sea level rise figure. These are the guys that give you your lats, longs and heights. So they know their stuff.

    • Climate change man made global warming propaganda

      The only reason you get to post here is that DLS does not have time to moderate. No moderation other than a spambot = lots of fecal comments.

    • For most people, climate science is to detailed/complex to really have time to form a personal view. So it comes down to who we trust, who do you specifically trust W?

      On the other hand the total biodiversity collapse and plastic pollution disaster is obvious and undeniable. So if the same people who are telling you there is no climate change are also not interested in biodiversity or plastic solutions you might want to question their legitimacy.

  4. Andrew Bolt said on 2GB? that if Australia was completely depopulated with zero human caused emissions or coal or gas or other exports etc – absolutely no human caused emissions as our ‘contribution to earth climate stability’

    then the rate of increase in China emissions alone would fill up that ‘emissions saving contribution ’ in 9 months.

    So if he is correct – then whatever we do is self inflicted harm in tokenism.

    • But if we move first and lever the advantages of that then we are economically ahead and also leading the global change required to enable future generations to prosper.

    • Bolt is referring to this Senates Estmates hearing 1st June 2017…
      https://twitter.com/KeiraSavage00/status/1054528283327389701/video/1
      Chief Scientist Dr Finkel then tries to explain himself here….
      Quote “My response was that the impact would be virtually nothing but I immediately continued by explaining that doing nothing is not a position that we can responsibly take because emissions reductions is a little bit like voting, in that if everyone took the attitude that their vote does not count and no-one voted, we would not have a democracy.”
      https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2018/12/clarifying-the-chief-scientists-position-on-reducing-carbon-emissions/
      All good and I agree if everyone did the same, but the only problem that line of argument is the country (China) who hold the most votes (worlds worst number 1 polluter by far) on climate change does not believe in democracy has decided not to vote

    • Australia ranks 2nd. on the fossil fuel producing and exporting list.
      This is the nub of our inability to act on CC.
      Even though most of our FF is mined by overseas owned companies who get great subsidies and tax breaks, enough money finds it’s way into government coffers to give Australians the highest standard of living on the Planet…
      and none of us want to lower our standard of living.
      This makes the politics of combating Climate Change impossible in this country.

  5. Man made global warming is a hoax. The carbon dioxide level is pitifully low, plants flourish at a much increased CO2 level such as used in greenhouses. People are healthier and self repair better in an increased CO2 pressure.
    Reducing pollution is another matter, no good for living things or buildings.
    Attention to reduced solar radiation for the last two decades and increasing matters. Increased ice in the antartic matters. Sun going into hibernation matters as does the increased cosmic radiation no longer effectively repelled by suns reduced magnetic field. Resultant increase in plasma in earth and seismic action matters, including if a major quake devastates or volcanic ash covers sunlight. Meanwhile Harvard is to extend geoengineering to put. stuff up in the ionosphere to block suns rays. Global warming aka climate change the gift that keeps giving,