Why per capita?

When we are told about Australia’s role in the so-called greenhouse crisis, we are always told of our per capita emissions instead of total emissions. I recall when I learnt about the matter at school, we never even learnt about total emissions, Australia’s contribution to what the ignorant refer to as “carbon pollution”. This is used as a justification for a guilt campaign, as though our lavish lifestyles were killing the planet. We have a population of only 22 million in the 5th largest country on earth. Hence, emissions from transport are huge. Most of our energy comes from coal because we have it in abundance. Clearly then, we are not rapists of the planet.

Yes, if there was a problem our per capita emissions could be used to justify an increased responsibility, but given our total emissions (1.5%), then clearly we should not move ahead of China, India and the US, if there was a problem.

The use of the per capita line is deceitful and ignorant of the entire situation, aimed to put us at the forefront of tackling a problem that doesn’t exist.


About Climate Nonconformist

Hi, I'm the climatenonconformist (not my real name), and I am a global warming skeptic, among the few in generation Y. With Australia facing the prospect of a carbon tax, we need to be asking the simple question; where is the evidence that our emissions are causing any dangerous warming?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Why per capita?

  1. Pingback: Carbon Tax a “symbolic gesture” | Climate Nonconformist

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s