Australian Govt. votes for carbon tax

[ltfred]

Oct 14, 2011 6:03:15 GMT -5 lighthorseman said:

Oct 14, 2011 5:54:01 GMT -5 dietcokewithlemon said:

"Australians are 1) the greatest contributors to climate change, per capita, on Earth"

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Since Mark Twain's day, statistics have become more reliable. Just like with other scientists, you should believe statisticians evidence unless you have counterevidence. It's no longer acceptable to just handwave it away as faked or nonsense.

[lighthorseman]

Oct 14, 2011 6:15:18 GMT -5 ltfred said:

Oct 14, 2011 6:03:15 GMT -5 lighthorseman said:

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Since Mark Twain's day, statistics have become more reliable. Just like with other scientists, you should believe statisticians evidence unless you have counterevidence. It's no longer acceptable to just handwave it away as faked or nonsense.

The "Australians generate more carbon per capita" bit?

Gives the impression that individual Australians and private households are the worst carbon producers on the planet, and it just ain't so. Our stats are skewed because we have an exceptional mineral and livestock output and huge landmass for a tiny population. So the problem isn't that Australians, as individuals, are environmentally irresponsible. The problem is that we are a major global economy despite small population.

Got any stats comparing Australian household carbon output to those of other developed nations? Think you might be surprised.

[Mantorok]

Oct 14, 2011 5:44:54 GMT -5 ltfred said:

Australians are 1) the greatest contributors to climate change, per capita, on Earth

Anyone got a source for this? A quick search has only given me CO₂ emissions per capita from 2009, and Australia isn't even in the top 10 there.

[Vene]

Oct 14, 2011 9:46:59 GMT -5 Mantorok said:

Oct 14, 2011 5:44:54 GMT -5 ltfred said:

Australians are 1) the greatest contributors to climate change, per capita, on Earth

Anyone got a source for this? A quick search has only given me CO₂ emissions per capita from 2009, and Australia isn't even in the top 10 there.

I did a quick search and I can't find one with Australia as the top either. It's consistently high, but not at the top. Pretty comparable with US, actually.
timeforchange.org/CO2-emissions-by-country
maps.grida.no/go/graphic/national_carbon_dioxide_co2_emissions_per_capita
www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi_percap-environment-co2-emissions-per-capita
unstats.un.org/unsd/environment/air_co2_emissions.htm

[N. De Plume]

Well, if Australia actually matches with US, I’d say them cutting down is a good thing. After all, cutting down will only work if everyone is cutting back to more or less the same level. Even if the big guys drag their feet. Someone has to start doing it.

[lighthorseman]

Huh. And yet our government and environmental groups really hammer on the "Australians are the greatest contributors to climate change, per capita, on Earth" bit.

tres interestment

[Vene]

Oct 14, 2011 11:15:29 GMT -5 lighthorseman said:

Huh. And yet our government and environmental groups really hammer on the "Australians are the greatest contributors to climate change, per capita, on Earth" bit.

tres interestment

Because being number 3 (the timeforchange link) or number 8 (UN link) is so much better. It completely exonerates you of any responsibility.

[Yla]

Oct 14, 2011 11:15:29 GMT -5 lighthorseman said:

Huh. And yet our government and environmental groups really hammer on the "Australians are the greatest contributors to climate change, per capita, on Earth" bit.

tres interestment

True, but pointing to the other ones and saying 'They're doing it too' isn't going to help either.

[Dragon Zachski]

I think it's the amount they generate vs. their size.

When you're number 3 (or even number 8) on a list, but happen to be smaller than, say, number 20 on the same list, there's a problem.

[Old Viking]

Too late anyway. The CO2 that's up there will still be up there 100 years from now. Hang on and enjoy the ride.

[MaybeNever]

Well, if we're lucky the worst parts of global warming will kick in just as the zombies reach critical mass, and the problems will cancel each other out.

[Vene]

Oct 14, 2011 17:57:29 GMT -5 Dragon Zachski said:

I think it's the amount they generate vs. their size.

When you're number 3 (or even number 8) on a list, but happen to be smaller than, say, number 20 on the same list, there's a problem.

Zach, that's per capita, not absolute.

[affirmedatheist]

It's a good step. Now let's hope the opposition don't get in at the next election and dismantle it (as they've committed to do - Abbott only seems to know one word in responding to Government policy - No).

[N. De Plume]

Oct 14, 2011 18:14:24 GMT -5 Old Viking said:

Too late anyway. The CO2 that's up there will still be up there 100 years from now. Hang on and enjoy the ride.

Okay. So we’ve fucked over the future for the next hundred years. Might as well try and mitigate the damage to the century that comes after that.

[Dragon Zachski]

Oct 14, 2011 18:28:21 GMT -5 Vene said:

Oct 14, 2011 17:57:29 GMT -5 Dragon Zachski said:

I think it's the amount they generate vs. their size.

When you're number 3 (or even number 8) on a list, but happen to be smaller than, say, number 20 on the same list, there's a problem.

Zach, that's per capita, not absolute.

Ah.