06/11/2021

(AU SBS) Interactive: How Australia Compares To The Rest Of The World On CO2 Emissions

SBS

With Australia's climate policies in the international spotlight, the interactive graphic below shows how the country's carbon dioxide output compares with others, and sees it rank as the highest emitter among OECD member countries.


As world leaders flex their environmental credentials and urge one another to better them amid the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, Australia has come under fire. Its climate policies have been criticised by allies Britain and the United States, as well as Pacific neighbours that are highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

And while Australia’s total carbon emissions are not as significant as those of other nations, they rise further when taking into account fossil fuel exports and other trade. Furthermore, when looking at emissions on a per capita basis (to account for population size), Australia’s annual footprint stands out.

Per capita emissions are calculated by dividing a country's total emissions by its population.

How does Australia compare?

According to 2019 figures from Our World in Data - the most recently available per capita data - each person in Australia emits 16.3 tonnes of CO2 annually. The data finds the international average to be 4.72 tonnes annually per capita, meaning Australia’s footprint is more than three times above that.

In terms of the per capita emissions of all nations, Australia sits in 13th place. But when ranked among countries that are members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) – a group of 38 nations generally regarded as being developed and high-income – Australia ranks first as the bloc’s highest emitter per capita.

The interactive graphic below shows how Australia's citizens compare to those in other nations across the globe, and how each country has improved things over the past 30 years.

Which countries are the highest emitters per capita?

The Our World in Data figures looked at production-based emissions – or those produced within boundaries without accounting for trade. According to the data, the world’s highest annual emitter per capita is Qatar with 38.6 tonnes. The Caribbean countries of Curacao (31.8 tonnes) and Trinidad and Tobago (27.1) were second and fourth, while Kuwait (25.6), Brunei (21) and Bahrain (20.9) also ranked high on the list.

The Pacific island of New Caledonia was third with 29.9 tonnes.

Australia's 13th position is just ahead of the United States (16.1 tonnes) and Canada (15.4) in 14th and 16th place respectively, and marginally behind Saudi Arabia (17) in 11th spot.

Which countries are the lowest emitters per capita?

According to the data, African nations make up the vast majority of the world’s lowest emitters. Afghanistan, with 0.28 tonnes of annual emissions per capita, was the only non-African country to sit among the 22 lowest emitters.

The Central African Republic, Chad, Burundi, Somalia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo each had annual emissions per capita of 0.06 tonnes or less.

Why does measuring 'per capita' matter?

Malte Meinshausen, an associate professor at The University of Melbourne’s School of Earth Sciences, said while looking at emissions through a per capita lens doesn't tell the whole story of what happens inside a country, it is a good way of comparing countries with each other. “It gives you a good indicator about what the average lifestyle is [in that country],” he said.

“You can have some countries where you have rich people being very high emitters and a lot of people being rather poor and not emitting much. However, if you compare different countries, it does tell you a great deal.

“There are multiple more dimensions that you want to look at if you want to have a complete picture, but per capita is the best starting point.”

Ahead of COP26, Energy Minister Angus Taylor defended Australia’s emissions reduction efforts, saying they were down by 20.8 per cent on 2005 levels.

He also said Australia was on track to reach up to 35 per cent reductions by 2030 with the support of the government’s technology-focused roadmap.

“That's better than New Zealand, better than Canada, the two other big developed countries who are commodity exporters [and] better than the United States, Japan, and the OECD average,” he told reporters in Canberra.

Interactive by Ken Macleod. Lead artwork by Jono Delbridge and Karin Zhou-Zheng.

Links
at No comments:

(The Conversation) Climate Change Is A Justice Issue – These 6 Charts Show Why

The Conversation -

Street flooding has become a common problem in some communities. wokephoto17/Moment via Getty Images

Author
is Associate Professor and Senior Global Futures Scientist, Arizona State University
Climate change has hit home around the world in 2021 with record heat waves, droughts, wildfires and extreme storms.

Often, the people suffering most from the effects of climate change are those who have done the least to cause it.

To reduce climate change and protect those who are most vulnerable, it’s important to understand where emissions come from, who climate change is harming and how both of these patterns intersect with other forms of injustice.

I study the justice dilemmas presented by climate change and climate policies, and have been involved in international climate negotiations as an observer since 2009. Here are six charts that help explain the challenges.

Where emissions come from

One common way to think about a country’s responsibility for climate change is to look at its greenhouse gas emissions per capita, or per person. For example, China is currently the single largest greenhouse gas emitter by country.

However, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the U.S., Australia and Canada all have more than twice the per capita emissions of China. And they each have more than 100 times the per capita emissions of several countries in Africa.



These differences are very important from a justice perspective.

The majority of greenhouse gas emissions come from the burning of fossil fuels to power industries, stores, homes and schools and produce goods and services, including food, transportation and infrastructure, to name just a few.

As a country’s emissions get higher, they are less tied to essentials for human well-being. Measures of human well-being increase very rapidly with relatively small increases in emissions, but then level off. That means high-emitting countries could reduce their emissions significantly without reducing the well-being of their populations, while lower-income, lower-emitting countries cannot.



Low-income countries have been arguing for years that, in a context in which global emissions must be dramatically reduced in the next half-century, it would be unjust to require them to cut essential investments in areas that richer countries already have invested in, such as access to electricity, education and basic health care, while those in richer countries continue to enjoy lifestyles with high consumption of energy and consumer goods.

Responsibility for decades of emissions

Looking at current emissions alone misses another important aspect of climate injustice: Greenhouse gas emissions accumulate over time.

Carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, and this accumulation drives climate change. Carbon dioxide traps heat, warming the planet. Some countries and regions bear vastly more responsibility for cumulative emissions than others.

For instance, the United States has emitted over a quarter of all greenhouse gases since the 1750s, while the entire continent of Africa has emitted only about 3%.

Cumulative emissions, 1751-2017, by country. Hannah Ritchie/Our World in Data, CC BY
People today continue to benefit from wealth and infrastructure that was generated with energy linked to these emissions decades ago.

Emissions differences within countries

The benefits of fossil fuels have been uneven within countries, as well.

From this perspective, thinking about climate justice requires attention to patterns of wealth.

A study by the Stockholm Environment Institute and Oxfam found that 5% of the world’s population was responsible for 36% of the greenhouse gases from 1990-2015. The poorest half of the population was responsible for less than 6%.

Share of emissions growth by wealth rank. Stockholm Environment Institute and Oxfam, CC BY-ND

These patterns are directly connected to the lack of access to energy by the poorest half of the world’s population and the high consumption of the wealthiest through things like luxury air travel, second homes and personal transportation. They also show how actions by a few high emitters could reduce a region’s climate impact.

Similarly, over one-third of global carbon emissions from fossil fuels and cement over the past half-century can be directly traced to 20 companies, primarily producers of oil and gas. This draws attention to the need to develop policies capable of holding large corporations accountable for their role in climate change.



Who will be harmed by climate change?

Understanding where emissions come from is only part of the climate justice dilemma. Poor countries and regions often also face greater risks from climate change.

Some small island countries, such as Tuvalu and the Marshall Islands, face threats to their very survival as sea levels rise. Parts of sub-Saharan Africa, the Arctic and mountain regions face much more rapid climate change than other parts of the world. In parts of Africa, changes in temperature and precipitation are contributing to food security concerns.

Many of these countries and communities bear little responsibility for the cumulative greenhouse gas emissions driving climate change. At the same time, they have the fewest resources available to protect themselves.



Climate impacts – such as droughts, floods or storms – affect people differently depending on their wealth and access to resources and on their involvement in decision making.

Processes that marginalize people, such as racial injustice and colonialism, mean that some people in a country or community are more likely than others to be able to protect themselves from climate harms.

Strategies for a just climate agreement

All of these justice issues are central to negotiations at the United Nations’ Glasgow climate conference and beyond.

Many discussions will focus on who should reduce emissions and how poor countries’ reductions should be supported. Investing in renewable energy, for example, can avoid future emissions, but low-income countries need financial help.

Wealthy countries have been slow to meet their commitment to provide US$100 billion a year to help developing countries adapt to the changing climate, and the costs of adaptation continue to rise.

Some leaders are also asking hard questions about what to do in the face of losses that cannot be undone. How should the global community support people losing their homelands and ways of life?

Some of the most important issues from a justice perspective must be dealt with locally and within countries. Systemic racism cannot be dealt with at the international level. Creating local and national plans for protecting the most vulnerable people, and laws and other tools to hold corporations accountable, will also need to happen within countries.

These discussions will continue long after the Glasgow conference ends.

Links
at No comments:

(BBC) COP26: More Than 40 Countries Pledge To Quit Coal

BBC

Coal produced around 37% of the world's electricity in 2019. Reuters

More than 40 countries have committed to shift away from coal, in pledges made at the COP26 climate summit.

Major coal-using countries including Poland, Vietnam and Chile are among those to make the commitment.

But some of the world's biggest coal-dependent countries, including China and the US, did not sign up.

In a separate commitment, 20 countries, including the US, pledged to end public financing for "unabated" fossil fuel projects abroad by the end of 2022.

Such projects burn fossil fuels, like coal, oil and natural gas, without using technology to capture the CO2 emissions.

Coal is the single biggest contributor to climate change.

What is the coal pledge?

Signatories to the agreement have committed to ending all investment in new coal power generation domestically and internationally.

They have also agreed to phase out coal power in the 2030s for major economies, and the 2040s for poorer nations, the UK said.

Dozens of organisations also signed up to the pledge, with several major banks agreeing to stop financing the coal industry.

"The end of coal is in sight," UK business and energy secretary Kwasi Kwarteng said.

"The world is moving in the right direction, standing ready to seal coal's fate and embrace the environmental and economic benefits of building a future that is powered by clean energy."

But UK shadow business secretary Ed Miliband said there were "glaring gaps" from China and other large emitters, who have not committed to stop increasing coal use domestically. He also noted that there was nothing on the phasing out of oil and gas.

Mr Miliband said the UK government "has let others off the hook".

Although progress has been made in reducing coal use globally, it still produced around 37% of the world's electricity in 2019.

Countries like South Africa, Poland and India will need major investments to make their energy sectors cleaner.

Juan Pablo Osornio, head of Greenpeace's delegation at COP26, said: "Overall this statement still falls well short of the ambition needed on fossil fuels in this critical decade."

"The small print seemingly gives countries enormous leeway to pick their own phase-out date, despite the shiny headline," he added.

Analysis: Digging the grave for coal?
Matt McGrath, Environment Correspondent

There's been such a flurry of announcements on the world's most polluting fossil fuel, that it's hard to see the light for all the (coal) dust.

There are many questions outstanding.

One of the biggest is the list of countries missing from this bonfire of coal commitments - including the US, China and India.

The time scales for phase-out are also a bit woolly - with richer countries promising to end coal by the 2030s, with developing nations in the 2040s.

None of these commitments are binding - again there is no big stick to force countries to do this.

And how many of the plans to stop using coal in developing countries will need financial support from the developed world?

We've already seen the UK, Germany and the US step up to pay South Africa's $8.5bn (£6.2bn) to move away from coal. Other countries are said to be interested in following in South Africa's footsteps.

So is there also a question of the rich countries paying others to do what they struggle to do at home?

What about fossil fuels?

While the US was notably absent from the coal commitments, it joined 19 other countries - including the UK, Canada and New Zealand - in pledging to stop financing unabated overseas fossil fuel projects.

"Investing in unabated fossil-related energy projects increasingly entails both social and economic risks… and has ensuing negative impacts on government revenue, local employment, taxpayers, utility ratepayers and public health," the signatories of the UK-led initiative said in a joint statement.

The deal saw countries and financial institutions vow to steer their spending into clean energy instead.

It allowed for exemptions in unspecified "limited" circumstances, but said these must be consistent with efforts to limit global temperature rises to 1.5C.

"Ending international finance for all unabated fossil fuels is the next critical frontier we must deliver on," UK energy minister Greg Hands said. "We must put public finance on the right side of history."

However, major financers of such projects, such as China, Japan and South Korea, did not sign up.

The countries did join G20 nations last month in agreeing to end financial support for new unabated coal plants overseas.

Links
at No comments: