A101 wrote:Dutchy wrote:
No, per capita is the only fair way to do it.
its the only way to get your argument across does not mean its the correct way, or do you think that Luxembourg should also be treated that way with a population of 613,894 and greenhouse gases per capita 16.47t per person compared with Australia population of 25,572,766 and per capita of 16.5t
It is only fair way, because greenhouse gasses are hurting us all and we are on a carbon budget, we - as a species - can only release a certain amount. So if you use more, that means someone else must use less. That goes for someone from Luxembourg as someone from Australia alike, or any other citizen of this planet.
Or tell me, is there some other measure you would like to adopt and why? Or would you like us to continue as we do and raise the global temperature with 5 or 6 degrees?
A101 wrote:if Australia reduced its green house emissions to zero which is physically impossible what do you think would be the net gain to overall green house gases
https://www.bettermeetsreality.com/coun ... n-dioxide/
The usual excuse of people not wanting to change their way of living. It doesn't impress me much, sorry.
A101 wrote:Dutchy wrote:An Australian doesn't have more right to pollute than someone from Peru, Singapore, Kenia or Slovakia. Or do you think you are entitled to pollute more, perhaps even more because of your dual citizenship?
That is Australian sovereign right on how industry is regulated not someone from Peru, Singapore, Kenia or Slovakia to decide
No it isn't. Your personal freedom ends where another one begins. Same for countries, you aren't sovereign to mess up the planet and that's what we are doing. So yes, Australia is sovereign how to get its industry in line with the global goals, not if they do it.
Or are you going to tell me that you are fine with exporting your problems? Like you want to do with Brexit.