Comments on: Garnaut’s scary glimpse into China

By: Tom McLoughlin

Tom McLoughlin — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Granted, it's hopeless and superannuation is folly.

But you all make the threshhold error of comparing "Australia" with "China". How dumb is that.

If we were honest and really brought good faith to this "diabolical" problem we would compare 20 million on this island with 20M in Shanghai with 20M in Beijing with 20M in Tibet autonomous region with 20M in ... the next place in Asia etc.

By some strange conflation of statehood with share of global greenhouse emissions we here try and deny an international responsibility of each individual per capita by reference to scientifically irrelevant (but I agree political-economy relevant) nation state boundaries.

The real question is who in China is increasing and who is not. Who in Australia is and who is not. And so on per capita. The weasely politicians paid for by multinationals aren't going to do this for us. We have to do it to them.

By: Jack

Jack — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

The incessant cries for per capita comparisons to make Australia look really really naughty may make those after a bit of self-flagellation feel good, but really do miss the point made by Simon Grose.

Here’s my stoopid guy interpretation: If you have a pie and really fat guy eats it, leaving just the crumbs for a little boy - the fat guy can justify eating all the pie by saying “Hey, I’m fat, and I have not actually eaten very much if measured per kilo !” But does that really matter if all you want to know is who ate all the pies ?

By: Jack Cribb

Jack Cribb — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Yeh! And what happens to the 550 ppm after 2050 when every person in the world is putting 4 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere per year?

By: mike smith

mike smith — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Per capita consumption is only used to make people in advanced countries feel guilty, the real issue is total emissions. The harsh reality is that Australia’s projected reductions over the next 20 years will be engulfed by China’s *increases* in emissions. That’s ignoring the elephant in the room, guys.

By: JamesK

JamesK — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I can only assume that Charlie McColl has ‘intentionally’ misunderstood the point that Simon Grose took some pains to make in very considerate way wrt to the projected CO2 emissions from China.

One might reasonably ask why?

By: Kate

Kate — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

The whole point is that an international agreement should aim to offset carbon emissions of developing countries against decreases in emissions by rich countries. If, as Simon Grose estimates, Australia can reduce its emissions by one third of China’s increase, that sounds like a worthwhile contribution to me, assuming commensurate reductions from other larger developed countries. In fact if we can have this much effect with just 10%, we should definitely try harder to avoid catastrophe.

By: Charlie McColl

Charlie McColl — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

The writer appears to make the case that China is the world’s climate change problem. And that Australia is not part of the problem. This would be a reasonable position if only writers consistently dealt in per capita figures for CO2 emissions rather than gross quantities.
The way I see it, Australia has about the highest per capita emissions in the world, is without doubt the best placed to lead the world in per capita emission reduction and is currently the most breast-beating, sluggish and, frankly, whingeing complainer, per capita, the world will ever see.
Sure, it’s going to be ages before China stops polluting. But when Australia can reduce emissions to half its GDP growth, without some dodgy land clearing scam, perhaps then we can look around to see how everyone else is doing. Any calculation about the likely date?