Furiously preparing a powerpoint presentation for tomorrow from a hotel in Dubbo, I have stumbled across the following information:
Australia is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases (GHGs)per capita in the world, using figures from the US Energy Information Administration website.
The four highest figures for 1990 appear to be: Australia, 27.7 tons CO2 equivalent; United States, 25.2 tons; New Zealand, 24.8 tons and Canada 21.2 tons.
In 2002, Australia was still highest, but down from 27.7 to 26.8 tons; then US, down from 25.2 to 24.2 tons; then Canada, up from 21.2 to 23.4 tons; and New Zealand, down from 24.8 tons to 19.8 tons.
The reason that New Zealand is so high (though down by 20% between 1990 and 2002) is because of their large emissions of CH4 (methane) and N2O (nitrous oxide) in agriculture. In NZ, agricultural emissions from these sources amounted to two-thirds of their total emissions in 1990 – 16.5 tons per head from agriculture alone in New Zealand, compared with an average for the EU for all six Kyoto GHGs of only 11.1 tons.
If one deducted the emissions arising from exports of agricultural products from New Zealand from the NZ total, and added them to the emissions of the countries that imported those products (the EU countries being among the largest importers), the picture would be quite different.
Australia’s emissions of CH4 and N2O from agriculture are also high – 10.1 tons in 1990. Again much of the produce is exported. And of course this country also emits large amounts of carbon dioxide in the production of coal, iron, bauxite & alumina & refined metals such as aluminium, nickel, lead, zinc and copper.
Nearly the whole of the output of these industries is exported to other countries for use in a variety of manufacturing industries, which again leads to emissions. Then the Swiss, who make no cars, buy their Mercedes and BMWs and show the rest of the world how easy it is to be rich and clean.
One of the reasons that Canada’s emissions went up and the US went down between 1990 and 2002 is that the integrated operations of Ford and GM led to more of the North American production being on the Canadian side of the Great Lakes and less in Detroit.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Clarification:
Carbon emissions data is available from the US EIA site. Much of the information in the above post is based on information from the IEA (International Energy Agency) publication “C02 Emissions from Fuel Combustion, 2004 Edition”.
Which would suggest that the proposed carbon trading regime is based on a very shaky foundation. If Western nations were to rigorously pursue Kyoto targets, then presumably the export of industry to Third World countries (which are not subject to Kyoto) would be accelerated, and there would also be a push for the offshoring of agriculture as well.
Sounds like a good case for a ‘polluter pays’ policy. If our emissions come from production of bauxite, coal, refined metals etc, then the cost would be passed on to rich Swiss car buyers in the form of higher prices for raw materials if we got a proper carbon accounting system in place here wouldn’t it?
Currently we have all other aussie tax payers subsidising the aluminium industry, so that we can produce aluminium cheaply and sell it to switzerland to make cheap cars.
Australia might be a big emitter of GHG but how much does it take up?
Agriculture must also take up carbon and convert it into cornflakes, woolly socks and paper.
Fuel is used to extract coal and iron ore which are then exported to China yet China is exempt from Kyoto.
Steve, it’s really not so simple. As Jennifer said, the Swiss don’t make any cars: they import them all. And they’re free to import them from Korea rather than Germany, and the carmakers in either country are free to import their from Brazil rather than Australia.
My previous comment should have said that carmakers in Korea or Germany are free to import their ALUMINIUM from Brazil rather than Australia.
Greenhouse – in which energy is stopped by an enveloping surface from escaping.
The earth has no greenhouse effect.
the earth has no greenhouse effect? are you quite sure you live on the same earth as the rest of us? Because our earth DOES in fact have a greenhouse effect, we were curious as to which planet you hailed from? are we the first to greet an alien species? if so, welcome to earth. whilst you’re here, we hope you enjoy your stay…oh, and by the way, if you wouldnt mind, please extinguish all burning carboniferous materials….we do have a bit of a problem with folk having their lungs and eyes scorched from time to time. thanks for that…please enjoy your stay, and welcome to our planet!