your carbon emissions aren't practically zero though, are they? you focus on your individual lifestyle choices whilst conveniently ignoring the vast background of production/consumption that sustains your lifestyle. you are the beneficiary of an australian standard of living but don't want to include the huge carbon costs of being an australian in your book-keeping. it's very odd. you're excluding an awful lot of material factors from your analysis.
and, once again,
individual carbon footprints are not useful when discussing global climate change. what good is it of you living a perfect lifestyle when 95% of your own compatriots don't? what good is it when your national government is intending to scale-up your emissions? 'the planet doesn't care about per capita emissions' you say, then you gloat about your own personal carbon footprint. are you fucking this dumb, or what?
and people do criticize the USA taken as a whole, don't they? that's because, dumbass, we need to act collectively on the national and global level. it's no good saying, 'well, my state of 1.7 million people are doing OK so nur', and ignoring other groups of people that belong to your SAME polity. we need widespread collective action! the USA has to make national commitments! it's no good talking in terms of states, cajoling texas to do better whilst the vermonters feel smug about themselves ... that's hopeless! and yet it's you who keeps linking graphs here, on multiple occasions, about SA's energy grid and declaring 'that's it, problem solved from my end'. dumb, dumb, dumb. you also belong to a NATION and you still elect a national leadership don't you? what's the point of being in a federal democracy if you don't think the people in the next state over, or the leadership bringing chunks of coal into the parliament building, share accountability with you? australia's figures
are your figures.
australia
doesn't produce lower emissions than the UK. it's 14th globally and the UK is 17th. which, relative to population size, means australia emits, per capita, over 3x the amount of co2 per person. am i going insane here or what? are you incapable of reading basic fucking statistics? australia is a
significantly smaller nation than the UK and
still emits
12% more carbon.
australia
is not doing 'great environmentally' is the only conclusion. forget your tiny state of 1.7 million people. your nation of 25 million people are world-beating in some of the least illustrious metrics for carbon emissions. renewable energy in 2020-21 in the UK accounted for 43% of her production. renewable energy in 2020-21 in australia accounted for 24% of her production.
and, once and for all, stop going on about land size. the relation between land mass and energy consumption is irrelevant. it's not the land itself that uses energy or generates a demand for fuel, is it? it's human beings that use energy. and if you happen to live in a country with vast amounts of land, big open spaces, low population density, etc, then it's still YOUR human responsibility for the high carbon emissions involved in piping all that water, gas, electricity, internet, etc. to your doorstep, isn't it? YOU'RE still the one insisting on living in an oasis in the desert with all of the conveniences of the 21st century and to a first-world standard. to say nothing about the fact that 85% of said land mass is utterly irrelevant and uninhabited, anyway! the metric has absolutely no significance. the vast majority of australians are concentrated in state capitals and major cities, just like people in any other first-world nation leading comparable lifestyles and relying upon similar infrastructure.
blaming koreans for their high co2/land mass ratio is just bad statistics. koreans live in extremely high density housing due to a lack of available landmass, similar to how australians live on the coastal plains near the sea. the vast majority of koreans live in high-rise apartments and high-density housing. do you want to take a bet on which type of housing/lifestyle is more energy efficient? high-rise apartment blocks or a suburb in adelaide? here's a hint: look at the per capita emissions data, you fucking retard! even with their poor renewables record, their addiction to huge concrete pours, their explosive expansion and development, their lack of green credentials, etc, their per capita emissions is still better than australia's! now, there's no question that korea's overall picture is bad – it's just that australia's is comparably bad, in the same ballpark, and by some metrics (meaningful metrics, that is) australia is worse.
in terms of the comparison, it's probably worth mentioning here, also, about the political picture and general collective werewithal. korea has already made net zero commitments and is making huge investments in her green sectors. the political class and general population acknowledge that climate change is real and that action is necessary; it's in their self-interest, considering that korea is dependent on imports for her energy, which presents a major geopolitical strategic weakness; the air quality here is a perennial and daily concern for normal people. the australian political class, in contrast, dependent on fossil-fuel incomes as they are, are full of climate change skeptics and deniers. korea will probably come together collectively to act on its carbon neutral goals, whilst australia's self-serving elites will continue to plunder her natural reserves and put off decisive action.
to summarize: australians have some of the highest per-capita energy contributions on the planet. australia is one of the world's biggest carbon emitters despite her small population. australia's renewable energy sector is still relatively small. australia is planning to substantially grow her fossil-fuel exports. that's the picture. that's it.
SCIENCE!!!
Last edited by uziq (2021-11-04 00:11:51)
