http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7092989.stm

The irony of this should not be lost on our local chapter of the Australian Anti-American Club...


TGA

Where's the irony?  Everybody knows the first world are the ones causing the majority of the damage.

I'm quite surprised that Canada didn't crack the top 10, actually.

Austrailia and Canada are first-world?

:haw:

ouch...

Quote from: WerekoalaAustrailia and Canada are first-world?

:haw:

Actually: The term first world refers to the western capitalist model, not economic power.

Second world referred to the soviet block model economies.

Third world referred to the nations that chose to follow neither model...


Which is a really rough and tumble way of putting it. Actually, now that I think about it I believe the distiction actually turned on political allegiance, not economics.  And A & C were both allies of the US, thus 'first world'.

Yep, Australia is shit in terms of its greenhouse gas emissions. Even worse and more wasteful than the USA. I've never said otherwise.

It happens to be a particular interest of mine, climate change, peak oil and so on. I've got a blog for it and everything, even recently an article up at theoildrum.com. I don't crosslink much since, well, roleplayers tend not to be very environmentally or resource-aware.

I disagree. I've very environmentally aware (generally prefer it around 70' and smoke free if possible) and resource aware (gas is too expensive).

That said, we need OTECs, about 15,000 of them. That'd be a good start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_thermal_energy_conversion

QuoteAustralians are the world's worst per capita polluters

Really? Have you seen ship breaking in Chittagong, Bangladesh?
ILO publication on shipbreaking
Survey of shipbreaking workers in india
End of the Line
Shipbreakers of chittagong

Yes, but not all of Bangladesh does ship-breaking. He's talking about the total emissions of a country divided by its population. Of course that depends how you count it - do you count cutting down forests as adding to greenhouse gases, if we produce steel in Australia but sell it to Japan do they get credited the emissions or do we, etc. So by calculating it different ways, you get all sorts of different rankings.

But whatever way you cut it, Australians produce shitloads of emissions, and are incredibly wasteful. Whether our neighbours and friends and enemies are better or worse is irrelevant. We're shit, and should improve.

For my part, I reduce my household's emissions - we're about 1/4 of Aussie average, just above world average, but still more than twice the level it's thought is needed to avoid catastrophic climate change - and write my state and federal MPs. Not much more I can do, really.

Quote from: Kyle AaronNot much more I can do, really.

Armed rebellion?

Naw, wars are too polluting. We've got Abrams tanks in our little army now, those things get really shitty mileage about (I kid you not) 0.3mpg.

Peace is less polluting.

What needs to happen is for the government to crack down on power generation. It's not likely to happen any time soon, because there's a lot of coal in Australia (=jobs and revenue). We don't need to be efficient!

It's strange, because it's the way they talk, you'd think there was no money or jobs in building wind farms and the like.

Maybe they think that windmills just spontaneously assemble themselves from broken toasters and derelict washing machines in landfills, and then stomp on over to the nearest hill and settle in.

It's market economics at work.  Most Australian electricity retailers offer energy generated from green sources, but it costs more.  Naturally enough, this cost is passed onto the consumer.  Typically, it costs an extra $250 per year to be supplied with 100% renewable energy (usually solar or wind generated).  

And lo' and behold, most consumers choose not to buy green energy.  If demand for green energy was greater, more green generating capacity would be built.  IMHO, imposing carbon taxes would help balance the equation a bit.  We'd see demand for green energy double overnight.

Well, it's also that green energy is more expensive than coal energy, simply because the coal-fired plants were built years ago and sold off cheap, or are being leased out, whereas most renewable energy, the people are having to build it today.

It's like if I inherit a house from my parents dying, I can rent it out a lot cheaper than if I had to build it myself.

What it boils down to is that there are enormous subsidies for coal, oil and gas, while renewable energy - speaking relatively - is expected to be successful just by itself on a free market basis. So no wonder it costs more.