The government of Iran spent the most on promoting fossil fuel consumption in 2010, doling out $81 billion in subsidies. This equaled more than 20 percent of the country’s gross domestic product. Saudi Arabia was a distant second at $44 billion. Rounding out the top five were Russia ($39 billion), India ($22 billion), and China ($21 billion).

Kuwait’s fossil fuel subsidies were highest on a per capita basis, with $2,800 spent per person. The United Arab Emirates and Qatar followed, each spending close to $2,500 per person.

Carbon emissions could be cut in scores of countries by simply eliminating fossil fuel subsidies. Some countries are already doing this. Belgium, France, and Japan have phased out all subsidies for coal, for example. As oil prices have climbed, a number of countries that held fuel prices well below world market prices have greatly reduced or eliminated their motor fuel subsidies because of the heavy fiscal cost. Among those reducing subsidies are China and Indonesia. Even Iran, which was pricing gasoline at one fifth its market price, dramatically reduced its gasoline subsidies in December 2010 as part of broader energy subsidy reforms.

In contrast to the $500 billion in fossil fuel supports in 2010, renewable energy received just $66 billion in subsidies — two thirds for electricity generation from wind, biomass, and other sources, and one third for biofuels. Not only do fossil fuel subsidies dwarf those for renewables today, but a long legacy of governments propping up oil, coal, and natural gas has resulted in a very uneven energy playing field.

A world facing economically disruptive climate change can no longer justify subsidies to expand the burning of coal and oil. The International Energy Agency projects that a phaseout of oil consumption subsidies by 2020 would cut oil use by 3.7 million barrels per day in that year. Eliminating all fossil fuel consumption subsidies by 2020 would cut global carbon emissions by nearly 5 percent while reducing government debt. Shifting subsidies to the development of climate-benign energy sources such as wind, solar, and geothermal power will help stabilize the earth’s climate.

This data highlight is adapted from World on the Edge by Lester R. Brown. For more data and discussion, see the full book at www.earth-policy.org.

They have chosen to label the Tar sands as “ethical oil” on the basis that it is not “conflict oil” as well Canadians, aren’t they all friendly and green and everything? Well actually no! Much of the fossil fuels consumed in America (oil, gas and coal) comes from North of the border, as Canada compete with Venezuela for the title of America’s leading source of energy imports (and thus the primary source of America’s carbon addiction). In addition much of the Uranium that powers America (and Canada’s) nuclear reactors comes from Canadian mines. Northern Canada is also home to many large open cast mines for various minerals. I would also note that energy consumption of the average Canadian is actually higher than that of the average American  (7.4 toe for Canada against 7 for the US). Finally I would note that like any country Canada is made up of different provinces with very different regimes in each state. Alberta province, where the Tar sands are based, happens to be the most right wing state in the Union with the worst environmental record. Indeed they are often described as the “Canadian Texas”.

Should anyone reading this be unfamiliar with the whole tar sands controversy, tar sands are basically a mixture of moisture, soil, sand, clay and heavy oil. They are usually the consequence of oil escaping at some point in the past from its underground source rock and migrated up to the surface. Here it became mixed with the soil and also came under attack from the biosphere. Given a few more hundreds of thousands of years it would all get broken down into an unusable form (this is the same mechanism that has over the last 250 million years destroyed much of the oil that ever formed on this world, only a tiny fraction survived to the present day). Extracting oil from Tar sands, the world largest and most accessible deposits are in the Athabasca region of Northern Canada, is more of an open cast mining operation. This would involve tearing down large quantities of pristine old growth boreal forests, possibly an area the size of the England and Wales may ultimately be destroyed.

The major problem with the Tar sands is thus, the enormous environmental pollution caused by this mining and processing, see here for a summary of the problems it creates and see pictures of the destruction here. Or actually just go to Google Earth and pop in “Fort McMurray”. I don’t need to be any more specific than that, as they are literally creating a mess big enough to see from space! Also this processing consumes large quantities of energy, meaning you’re energy payback from oil sands (EROEI) isn’t nearly as good than you get with conventional oil (indeed it may prove to be an order of magnitude less). This also means you need a substantial source of energy to power you’re oil sands extraction process, and the carbon emissions resulting from this process are increased (some figures say Tars sands produces 20%  to four times the greenhouse gas emissions compared to conventional oil, depending on who you ask). It also requires substantial quantities of water, both to aid in oil processing, but also to “flush” away the many chemicals contained within the associated tailings (which can include a toxic mix of known or suspected carcinogens, heavy metals, POP’s, arsenic, etc.)….this “flush” often seeing large amounts of sediment laden with toxins finding its way into mountain rivers and streams. In short if you think the conventional oil production is bad, Tar sands are much worse. An order of magnitude increase in Tar sands production will produce a significant spike in pollution (again in the middle of an boreal wilderness) and carbon dioxide levels (Guardian article on the Canadian governments to hide these facts here). It is no wonder that environmentalist recoil in horror.

So I think we can safely say that from an environmental prospective this “ethical oil” claim is completely unjustified, unless you consider destroying one of the world’s last great wildernesses while clubbing baby seals to death (another Canadian “pastime”) as “ethical”! But what about this claim that Canadian Tar Sands isn’t “conflict” oil? They put a picture of Hugo Chavez on one poster under the term “conflict oil” then imply that Canadian oil is conflict free. Let’s pick that one apart. Who exactly is Venezuela at war with? While they are having a few border disputes with Colombia, as far as I’m aware the country is not engaged in any formal conflict, nor significant informal conflict with any of his neighbours. Ironically of course Canada has troops serving in Afghanistan, whose presence there is ultimately funded in part by revenue raised by the Tar sands. So actually if you want to buy “non-conflict oil” my advice would be to give Hugo a call and the Canadians a miss.

The also accuse Hugo Chavez, in the poster, of promoting “forced labour”. While I’m not necessarily a fan of old Hugo, I think that is a gross misrepresentation of his regime, which has sought to redistribute the country’s oil wealth to the poor. By contrast a bunch of labour union supporters showed up at the Occupy Calgary camp  recently to highlight the problems they face with Alberta’s lax protections of employee rights. I also recall meeting during my travels a year or so ago in Canada, a local farmer who was ultimately in danger of loosing his land to the tar sands through a compulsory purchase order they we’re likely to hit him with. Pushing farmers and locals off their land so multinationals can exploit oil reserves (under the farmer’s feet mind!) doesn’t quite fit in with the “ethical oil” image I think. In short you could easily reverse many of these posters and accuse Canada of being the warmongering nation with a dreadful environmental record who tramples on human rights and pushes people off their land.

Indeed reading through this “ethical oil” propaganda there seems to me to be a dangerous and bigoted undercurrent. They tar (oh! the irony!) all the OPEC countries with the same Saudi brush (awful of course tho the Saudi’s human rights record is), ignoring the diverse nature of the many Middle East nations (and their attiudes to Islam or womens rights). And of course not all OPEC states are in the Middle East nor are they Muslim! And the world’s largest oil producer? Russia!

So what these “Ethical oil” lot seem to be saying is that oil pumped by white anglo-saxons is ethically and morally superior to that pumped by those nasty evil foreigners with their dark skin, strange religions and funny languages. I’ve not come across such fascist crap and misinformed bigotry since I last saw a Mel Gibson film. And again ironically, if this is the intended point our “ethical oil” spinster’s are making, then even this is factually inaccurate. The bulk of the finance behind the Tar sands is coming not from Canada, but from abroad (economist article mentions that here). Chinese, Russian, Indian and American firms are indeed all major investors in the tar sands (see wiki page here for info and links on this). Indeed I would argue that the problem for the Canadians here is they are loosing control of the situation. Ultimately decisions on the Tar sands (how much will be produced and how bad the environmental mess which the Canadians will have to clean up afterwards) will be made in foreign countries by foreign multinationals.

In fact can I play this game too? I could for example come up with a poster labelling Canada brutal treatment of native Americans in past centuries, or indeed the present day (one tribe down river from the Tar sands (Fort Mckay) have had their water source polluted by Tar sands runoff with a growing cancer cell springing up) with Saudi Arabia who are so multicultural they actually prefer to hire workers from India or Pakistan  Or how about their positive attitude towards women, while Canadian women are forced to drive their own cars, the Saudi’s provide their women with chauffeurs and male chaperons instead Yes buy Saudi oil, the “ethical” oil!

Jokes aside, the fact is there is no such thing as “ethical oil”. The stuff that comes out of a hole in the ground in Canada is as dirty as the stuff that comes out of a hole in the ground in the Middle East, possibly dirtier in fact.

But we need those jobs here in Canada, the Tar sands supporters will say, if the tar sands aren’t promoted all those jobs will go abroad along with North America’s energy security. And how many jobs could be created if Canada exploited instead its vast renewable energy potential? North America has some of the best and most varied renewable resources on the planet, if only our American cousins would only get over their whole “real men don’t use solar panels” attitude. And if the point of tar sands oil is to improve north American energy security then why are they building pipelines to Texas and West Coast ports from the tar sands? That sort of implies that the bulk of the oil will ulitmately be exported, or at the very least if America wants the oil it will have to pay the market price (which could be high in the future).

But we need the Tar sands to rescue the world from peak oil, is the other argument. Again, as will all tar sands propaganda this one too falls flat. I’ve seen estimates for the maximum tar sands ranging from 1 million bbl/day to 8 million bbl/day with 5m bbl/day often been quoted as a “best guess”. However this is but 6% of the current global demand of around 80million bbl/day and even that 8m bbl/day figure (wildly optimistic thought it is) is but 8% of the projected 2030 demand figure for oil of 100million bbl/day. Were does the other 94-96% of the world’s oil come from?

Furthermore, again we have to consider the issue of EROEI. I’ve seen EROEI estimates for the tar sands ranging from 9 to 0.7 (with a ratio in the range of 3-7 being probably a more credible range of values), substantially worse than any existing oil fields (EROEI ranging from 10 – 100). Remember that because an IC engine is typically just 20-30% efficient (and the primary consumption path of oil is ultimately transport fuels) we need to achieve an EROEI of at least 5-3.3 just to break even energy wise (else our tar sands count as a net energy sink rather than a source).

Inevitably the above means we’ll need to divert huge quantities of natural gas to power the whole operation. Indeed its questionably if there is sufficient quantities of gas (or coal) to spare within the whole of North America – a fear that seems justified given recent talk about bringing in nuclear reactors to meet demand. When I first heard about this plan to use nukes to extract tar sands I assumed it was a hoax perpetrated by Republicans trying to yank Greenpeace’s chain, but unfortunately no its for real. Of course even a number of pro-nuclear campaigners aren’t entirely happy about this one, describing it to me as “perverse” and “an abuse of nuclear technology”. After all, it involves (as they see it) taking high grade zero-carbon nuclear energy and using it to produce a load of low grade carbon intensive energy! Would you not be better just building reactors closer to cities and generating electricity and heat they argue? When the nuclear lobby calls you environmental terrorists you know you’re goose is cooked! And of course I would point out, ridiculous as this idea is, it can only be sustained as long as we can keep feeding Uranium into the nuclear reactors. And who is going to pay the decommissioning costs of those reactors and what happens if one of them pops its cork in the middle of the Canadian Boreal forests?

While nuclear power would reduce the net carbon output from the Tar sands we are still looking at a situation where the tar sands will still produce much more greenhouse gases, both from disturbance to the eco system as well as from the oil itself and the refining and processing of it, compared to existing oilfields. A global policy of climate change mitigation and tar sands (or shale gas) extraction are simply not compatible.

The Tar sands are thus in summary not ethical, not eco friendly, not a solution to peak oil and arguably not even Canadian anymore! The only people who will ultimately gain from tar sands extraction are the shareholders of a small number of foreign multinational oil companies…or certainty greedy PR types happy to sell their souls and they’re nation’s credibility for a few (tar splattered) bucks.

IEA predicts that over the next five years the world will build so many dirty factories, fossil-fuelled power stations and energy inefficient buildings that it will become impossible for us to stop global warming from rushing past safe climate levels. And so they warn that our last chance against dangerous climate change will be lost forever. Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, said that “the door is closing.”

“I am very worried – if we don’t change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what scientists tell us is the minimum for safety. The door will be closed forever.”

Everything that produces greenhouse gas emissions, such as dirty coal plants and other fossil-fueled power stations, which are being constructed from now on, will continue to spew out carbon for decades to come. And this will lock the world on a path towards irreversible climate change with disastrous effects. The Guardian reports:

“If the world is to stay below 2C of warming, which scientists regard as the limit of safety, then emissions must be held to no more than 450 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; the level is currently around 390ppm. But the world’s existing infrastructure is already producing 80% of that “carbon budget”, according to the IEA’s analysis, published on Wednesday. This gives an ever-narrowing gap in which to reform the global economy on to a low-carbon footing.

If current trends continue, and we go on building high-carbon energy generation, then by 2015 at least 90% of the available “carbon budget” will be swallowed up by our energy and industrial infrastructure. By 2017, there will be no room for manoeuvre at all – the whole of the carbon budget will be spoken for, according to the IEA’s calculations.”

A couple of days before the IEA “bombshell” the US department of energy released another gloomy report which showed that global carbon dioxide emissions rose with 6% in 2010, greatly exceeding the worst case scenario outlined by the IPCC. Al Jazeera English reports:

“In 2007, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its last large report on global warming, it used different scenarios for carbon dioxide pollution, and said the rate of warming would be based on the rate of pollution.

Tom Boden (director of the Energy Department’s Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee) said the latest figures put global emissions higher than the worst case projections from the climate panel. Those forecast global temperatures rising between 2.4 and 6.4 degrees Celsius by the end of the century with the best estimate at four degrees Celsius.”

According to the report the world released around 564 million more tonnes of carbon emissions into the air during the last year compared to previous levels in 2009. The increase in emissions mainly comes from China and the USA which alone stood for more than half of the emissions in 2010. But more and more emissions come from developing countries. “We really need to get the developing world because if we don’t, the problem is going to be running away from us,” climate scientist Andrew Weaver from the University of Victoria said. “And the problem is pretty close from running away from us.” But “the more we talk about the need to control emissions, the more they are growing,” John Reilly, co-director of MIT’s Joint Programme on the Science and Policy of Global Change, said.

It’s now clearer than ever. We must start to aggressively change our high-carbon energy systems to more clean and renewable energy sources, scrap our massive fossil fuel subsidies and deploy a myriad of climate policies such as a carbon tax. We only have a few remaining years to make a difference until we must face certain and worldwide climate catastrophe. It looks grim, really grim to be honest. But we can’t give up just yet. Let’s put up a good fight.

Calculation of the greenhouse gas (GHG) impact of leaked natural gas

Natural gas is about 85% methane (CH4) and burning 1 tonne CH4 yields 2.75 tonnes carbon dioxide (CO2). Thus gas is not “clean” as asserted by pro-gas lobbyists and politicians and is in fact a dirty source of energy. However if there is industrial leakage of CH4 (estimated to be 3.3% in the US from US EPA data) [1], then one must also consider the greenhouse gas (GHG) effect of the leaked methane which is 105 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas on a 20 year time scale with aerosol impacts included [2-5]. These considerations render false the position of pro-gas lobbyists who plead for a coal to gas transition, falsely arguing that gas burning is “cleaner” than coal burning.

Thus in Victoria, Australia, gas-fired power stations (0.60 – 0.90 tonnes CO2-e/MWh, average 0.75 tonnes CO2-e/MWh) are roughly twice as efficient in producing energy as brown coal-burning power stations (1.21-1.53 tonnes CO2-e/MWh) according to a report by Green Energy Markets commissioned by Environment Victoria (EV) [6]. However, at a systemic leakage of 0.94% the GHG pollution due to gas-fired power would roughly double to about 1.5 tonnes CO2-e/MWh, equivalent to that of Hazelwood, the dirtiest coal-fired power station in Victoria.

If the systemic gas leakage rate is 3.3% (US average) then the combustion of gas for power would 2.3 times as dirty GHG-wise as coal-fired Hazelwood. If the systemic gas leakage rate is 7.9% (the upper estimate with shale formation-derived gas) [7]) then a coal to gas transition would yield power sector GHG pollution roughly 4.7 times as dirty as from coal-fired Hazelwood.

Because methane leaks and is so much worse than carbon dioxide (CO2) as a greenhouse gas (GHG), Professor Robert Howarth, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York has concluded that “The large GHG footprint of shale gas undercuts the logic of its use as a bridging fuel over coming decades, if the goal is to reduce global warming. We do not intend that our study be used to justify the continued use of either oil or coal, but rather to demonstrate that substituting shale gas for these other fossil fuels may not have the desired effect of mitigating climate warming”. [7].

Gas GHG impact ignored by Mainstream media (MSM) in Western Lobbyocracies

US President Barack Obama has outrageously and falsely lumped planet-threatening natural gas under “clean energy”; permitted a massive expansion of offshore gas and oil drilling; and supported the Alaska Gas Pipeline, massive expansion of on-shore gas drilling and an oil-to-gas shift for transportation. One would have hoped that the 2010 Gulf oil and gas disaster tragically devastating the coastal environments of the US Gulf States would have prompted sensible, informed public discussion about the immense threat that natural gas (mostly methane) poses to Humanity and the Biosphere.

At least one news report in 2010 sounded the alarm about methane from the Gulf oil spill disaster (variously known as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the BP oil spill, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the BP oil disaster, or the Macondo blowout): “According to John Kessler, a Texas A&M University oceanographer who is studying the impact of methane from the BP oil spill, the crude oil emanating from the seafloor [up to 100,000 barrels oil equivalent per day = 0.013 million tonnes oil equivalent] contains about 40% methane compared to about 5% found in typical crude oil deposits. The risk is great, as marine life will be suffocated as a result of the increased methane levels. The Gulf of Mexico will eventually have “dead zones” to deal with where oxygen is so depleted that nothing lives. This is significant and can forever alter the water/life composition. “This is the most vigorous methane eruption in modern human history,” Kessler said.” [8].

The amount of methane released over the 86 days between the initial blow-out and capping the well-head (20 April – 15 July 2010) can be estimated at 0.4 x (0.013 million tonnes methane /day) x 86 days = 0.447 million tonnes CH4 = 0.447 Mt CH4 x 105 x (44/16) (Mt CO2-e / Mt CH4) = 129 Mt CO2-e. Fortunately, according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS): “John Kessler of Texas A&M University and colleagues surveyed the Gulf waters during the leak as well as after the wellhead was sealed, and their results indicate that a vigorous bloom of bacteria degraded virtually all of the methane released form the well within 120 days of the initial blowout.” [9].

Australian novelist Peter Carey recently observed that the really important news is the news that is not reported. Ditto, “The holes in history are what makes sense of the thing” (Aarons and Loftus, “The Secret War Against the Jews”, p12). This is well exampled by President Barack Obama avoiding mention of natural gas in his recent speech on the Gulf oil disaster from the Oval Office – completely missing from Obama’s Gulf oil-and-gas disaster speech was one key word: gas. Read through his speech and you will find that he used the following words in descending order of occurrence: oil (24 times), energy (14), drilling/drill (8), clean energy (6), environmental (4), God/He (4), Al Qaeda (1), recession (1), gas (0). [10].

Similarly, a search of the entire ABC site for “Robert Howarth” yielded one (1) result relating to the Cornell professor (and that due to me in a reader comment thread), noting that the ABC is the Australian equivalent of the BBC). Searches of The Australian newspaper (Australian national flagship of the Murdoch media empire) and of The Age ( the Melbourne quality newspaper of the Fairfax media empire and arguably Australia’s most progressive Mainstream medium) reveal zero (0) and one (1) report, respectively of the findings of Professor Robert Howarth (The Age report being a letter from me that it kindly published).

Shale deposit and coal seam fracking, coal seam gas (GSG) and gas-based GHG pollution in Australia

Australia is a world leader in annual per capita greenhouse gas pollution, coal exports and liquid natural gas (LNG) exports. Australia is also part of the global gas rush, gas boom and fracking-based GasLand scenario (see the movie GasLand about the impact of fracking in the US). However the Liberal National Party-National Party Coalition opposition and the Labor Governments (collectively known as the Lib-Labs) have identical overall climate policies of “5% off 2000 Domestic GHG pollution” coupled with expanding coal and liquid natural gas (LNG) exports. The Libs gave a “direct Action “policy (too ;little too late) whereas Labor has a disastrously counterproductive Carbon Tax-ETS plan that yields massive increases in Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution in 2020 and 2050 over that in 2000. Thus the following estimates of Domestic and Exported GHG pollution in Mt CO2-e and based on Treasury, ABARE and US EIA data (noting that coal and gas exports are predicted to increase annually by 2.6% and 9%, respectively):

2000: 496 (Domestic) + 504.9 (coal exports) + 16.8 (LNG exports) = 1017.8.

2050: 527 (Domestic) + 2902 (coal exports) + 1,061 (LNG exports) = 4,409.

However these estimates do not take into account an approximate doubling of electricity sector GHG pollution due to a Labor Government-adumbrated coal to gas transition (and indeed an approximately 5 fold increase if fracked shale gas is used). Hydraulic fracking of shale seams is becoming controversial throughout the world, including Australia (see the movie “GasLand”). Thus the hydraulic fracturing (“fracking) of shale deposits with water containing numerous chemical additives has been banned in France and England and New York has imposed a moratorium on the practice. In Australia there are bipartisan concerns about fracking procedures violating prime agricultural land and contaminating and depleting aquifers e.g. the Great Artesian Basin, a huge source of water in this dry continent.

The main arguments against “fracking” of shale deposits and shallower coal seams for gas are destruction of prime agricultural land in a hungry world; pollution and depletion of underground aquifers; and that gas is dirty, generates CO2 on combustion and due to leakage can be much dirtier GHG-wise than coal or oil (if there is a coal to “fracked gas” conversion. there will a circa 5-fold increase in electricity sector GHG pollution in Australia).

However a fundamental objection to “fracking” and a coal to gas conversion is that the World is rapidly running out of time to deal with the worsening climate emergency. Thus in 2009 the German Advisory Council on Climate Change (WBGU, Wissenshaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen) issued a report entitled “Solving the climate dilemma: the budget approach” in which it estimated that for a 75% chance of avoiding a disastrous 2 degree Centigrade temperature rise the World must emit no more than 600 billion tones of CO2 between 2010 and zero emissions in 2050. In mid-2011 Australia has already exceeded its “fair share” of this terminal global GHG pollution budget and any Australian GHG pollution now is at the expense of the entitlement of all other countries. [11].

Summary

Natural gas represents a huge threat to the World if, as adumbrated by corporations and governments, there is a coal to gas transition. Ignored by MPs, mainstream media and MPs in the Western Lobbyocracies is the reality that because methane (85% of natural gas) leaks (3.3% US average, up to 7.9% from fracking) and is 105 times worse as a greenhouse gas (GHG) on a 20 year time frame with aerosol impacts included, a coal to gas transition represents a huge threat to a World that must get to zero greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution by about 2050 if it is to avoid a disastrous 2 degree Centigrade temperature rise. Hydraulic fracturing for shale deposit gas destroys agricultural land in a hungry world, pollutes and depletes aquifers and increases the systemic GHG pollution associated with heat and power generation. All countries and intranational jurisdictions must follow the examples of France, England and New York State and ban shale deposit and coal seam fracking. The World is running out of time to seriously tackle the worsening climate emergency. The atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration is now 394 parts per million (ppm) but top climate scientists and biologists say that it must be urgently reduced to about 300 ppm for a safe and sustainable planet for all peoples and all species (see 300.org:) [12] but the World is remorselessly heading in the opposite direction . Stop the coal to gas transition and stop fracking the Planet.

For references, see page two:

Background

Before proceeding to systematically demolish the lies of this document, it is important to get the basic facts straight.

Australia is among the world leaders in annual per capita greenhouse gas pollution, coal exports and liquid natural gas (LNG) exports. Thus “annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution” in units of “tonnes CO2-equivalent per person per year” (2005-2008 data) is 0.9 (Bangladesh), 0.9 (Pakistan), 2.2 (India), less than 3 (many African and Island countries), 3.2 (the Developing World), 5.5 (China), 6.7 (the World), 11 (Europe), 16 (the Developed World), 27 (the US) and 30 (Australia; or 54 if Australia’s huge Exported CO2 pollution is included).

Top UK climate scientists Dr James Lovelock FRS (Gaia hypothesis) and Professor Kevin Anderson ( Director, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester, UK) have recently estimated that only about 0.5 billion people will survive this century due to unaddressed, man-made global warming . Noting that the world population is expected to reach 9.5 billion by 2050, these estimates translate to a climate genocide involving deaths of about 10 billion people this century, this including 6 billion under-5 year old infants, 3 billion Muslims in a terminal Muslim Holocaust, 2 billion Indians, 1.3 billion non-Arab Africans, 0.5 billion Bengalis, 0.3 billion Pakistanis and 0.3 billion Bangladeshis. Australia is disproportionately complicit in a worsening climate genocide (“Climate Genocide”).

Australia is world number 1 in coal exports and according to the Australian Government “Australia is a major exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG), with considerable potential for further development based on its abundant resources of natural gas. Australia is the third largest LNG exporter in the Asia-Pacific region and the fourth largest LNG exporter in the world, exporting 17.9 million tonnes in 2009-10 with a value of around $7.8 billion” (see Australian Government, Department of Energy , Resources and Tourism, “Australian liquefied natural gas”, 2010).

Politically Australia is dominated (18 July 2011 primary vote in parenthesis) by the Liberal-National Party Coalition Opposition (51%), the Australian Labor Party Government (26%) and the Greens (11%) (see “Latest Nielsen Poll”, Nielson, 18 July 2011). The Gillard Labor Government (elected in November 20101) is a Minority Government that rules with the support of 1 Greens MPs and 3 Independents and the next elections are due in 2013.

The Coalition greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution policy is essentially the SAME as that of the Labor Government, specifically “5% off 2000 Domestic GHG pollution by 2020” coupled with unconstrained, unlimited, burgeoning, world-leading coal and liquid natural gas (LNG) Exports. The Coalition has a Direct Action Plan (energy efficiency, incentives for cleaner energy, re-afforestation, and biochar) but must be criticized for doing too little. However it can potentially do a lot more.

In contrast, .the Labor Government has proposed a Carbon Tax-ETS-Ignore Agriculture (CTETSIA) plan involving an indirect, selectively market-based plan to achieve a decrease in GHG pollution. Labor ‘s CTETSIA plan entrenches climate change inaction while dishonestly pretending to do otherwise. Thus Labor’s CTETSIA plan will: promote a disastrous coal to gas transition (that will double power sector-derived GHG pollution because methane leaks at about 3.3% and is 105 times worse than CO2 as a GHG on a 20 year timeframe with aerosol impacts included; see “Planned coal to gas transition will DOUBLE Australian electric power greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution”, Bellaciao, 15 May 2011); scupper science-demanded 100% renewable energy by 2020; institute an empirically ineffective, disastrously counterproductive and utterly fraudulent Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) (Source); and ignore agriculture (yet World Bank experts have recently determined that GHG pollution is 50% bigger than hitherto thought and that livestock alone contribute over 51% 9f the bigger figure; see Robert Goodland and Jeff Anfang. “Livestock and climate change. What if the key actors in climate change are … cows, pigs and chickens?”, World Watch, November/December 2009).

The big functional difference between the Libs and the Labs is that while the Libs can potentially ramp up their Direct Action plan for “5% off 2000 by 2020” , Treasury analysis released by Treasurer Wayne Swan and Climate Minister Greg Combet several weeks ago (“Strong Growth, Low Pollution. Modelling a Carbon Price”) reveals that Labor will certainly NOT achieve “5% off 2000 by 2020” – in 2020 Australia’s annual Domestic GHG pollution will be 679 Mt CO2-e (Business As Usual) or 621 Mt CO2-e (with a Carbon Price) and can only attain the promised “5% off 2000 level by 2020” value of 466 Mt CO2-e by the artifice of purchasing 155 Mt CO2-e of Internationally-sourced abatement credits.

Treasury, ABARE and US EIA data show that Australia will almost DOUBLE its annual Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution in 2020 relative to that in 2000 (1,012 Mt CO2-e pa) to 1,803 Mt CO2-e pa (with a Carbon Price) or 1,861 Mt CO2-e pa (without a Carbon Price) (see “Analysis: Australian Labor Government Carbon Price-ETS scheme fails & entrenches climate change inaction”, Bellaciao).

It gets worse. In 2009 the German Advisory Council on Climate Change (WBGU) determined that for a 75% chance of avoiding a 2 degree C temperature rise, the World must pollute less than 600 Gt CO2 between 2010 and essentially zero emissions in 2050. Unfortunately Australia (through disproportionately huge annual fossil fuel burning and exports) and Belize (through disproportionately huge annual deforestation) have already used up their “share” of this terminal greenhouse gas (GHG) budget – and are now stealing the entitlement of other countries (see “World has 600 Gt CO2 left to pollute before 2050: Australia & Belize have ALREADY used their “fair share””, Bellaciao).

According to the Climate Commission’s report “The Critical Decade”, launched by PM Julia Gillard a month or so ago (Source), for a 75% chance of avoiding a catastrophic 2 degree C temperature rise (EU and Australian policy) the World must emit no more than 1 trillion tonnes of CO2 (1,000 Gt CO2) between 2010 and zero emissions in about 2050. One can readily calculate that Australia’s “fair share” of this terminal carbon pollution budget is 2,750 Mt CO2.

In 2009 Australia’s Domestic plus Exported GHG in Mt CO2-e totaled 600 (Domestic) + 31 (LNG) + 784 (coal) = 1,415 Mt CO2-e per year. Accordingly , at thjs rate of GHG pollution Australia will have 2,750 t CO2 / 1,425 t CO2-e per year = 1.9 years left before ti uses up its “share” of the terminal global GHG pollution “budget” i.e. Australia must get to zero GHG pollution by mid-2012 or roughly when pro-coal, pro-gas Labor introduces its fraudulent dishonest and ineffective Carbon Tax-ETS scheme (Source).

However in 2009 the German Advisory Council on Climate Change (WBGU) determined that for a 75% chance of avoiding a 2 degree C temperature rise, the World must pollute less than 600 Gt CO2 between 2010 and essentially zero emissions in 2050. Unfortunately Australia (through disproportionately huge annual fossil fuel burning and exports) and Belize (through disproportionately huge annual deforestation) have by August 2011 ALREADY used up their “share” of this terminal greenhouse gas (GHG) budget (see “World has 600 Gt CO2 left to pollute before 2050: Australia & Belize have ALREADY used their “fair share”“, Bellaciao).

For a detailed analysis of the worsening Climate Emergency sent to the Australian Government, its advisers and to Australian mainstream media see “Look-the-other-way, climate criminal Australia ignores 25 Elephant in the Room climate change realities“, Bellaciao, 6 July 2011). Yet look-the-other-way, climate criminal Australia simply does not want to know – it wants to exploit and indeed expand exploitation of its huge coal and natural gas reserves until the World makes it stop.

In 2009 the German Advisory Council on Climate Change (WBGU) determined that for a 75% chance of avoiding a 2 degree C temperature rise, the World must pollute less than 600 Gt CO2 between 2010 and essentially zero emissions in 2050. Unfortunately Australia (through disproportionately huge annual fossil fuel burning and exports) and Belize (through disproportionately huge annual deforestation) have already used up their “share” of this terminal greenhouse gas (GHG) budget. The analysis below will tell you how many years your country has left before it exceeds its “fair share” of atmospheric GHG pollution.

The 2009 Report of the German Advisory Council on Climate Change (WBGU, Wissenshaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen) was entitled “Solving the climate dilemma: the budget approach” and crucially stated: “The budget of CO2 emissions still available worldwide could be derived from the 2 degree C guard rail. By the middle of the 21st century a maximum of approximately 750 Gt CO2 (billion metric tons) may be released into the Earth’s atmosphere if the guard rail is to be adhered to with a probability of 67%. If we raise the probability to 75%, the cumulative emissions within this period would even have to remain below 600 Gt CO2. In any case, only a small amount of CO2 may be emitted worldwide after 2050. Thus, the era of an economy driven by fossil fuels will definitely have to come to an end within the first half of this century” (see WBGU, “Solving the climate dilemma: the budget approach”).

The consequences of this declaration of less than 600 Gt CO2 in emissions for a 75% chance of avoiding 2 degree C temperature rise are profound. Thus, would you board a plane if it had a 25% chance of crashing? Further, the average world population in the period 2010 and 2050 will be 8.321 billion (see UN Population Division, 2010 Revision). Accordingly the per capita share of this terminal CO2 pollution budget is less than 600 billion tonnes CO2/8.321 people = less than 72.1 tonnes CO2 per person.

Using data for the annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) (including land use change) for every country in the world in 2000 (see “List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita”, Wikipedia) one can determine how many years left at current rates of GHG pollution (in units of CO2-e or CO2-equivalent i.e. taking other GHGs into account) before a given country uses up its “share”. Thus for Australia 72.1 tonnes CO2-e per person / 25.9 tonnes CO2- per person per year in 2000 = 2.8 years left, based on the 2000 data. Note that this analysis does not take into account historical pollution of the atmosphere.

In 2009 Australia’s population was 22.0 million, Australia ‘s GHG pollution was 600 Mt CO2-e (CO2 equivalent i.e. taking into account other greenhouse gases such as methane, CH4, and nitrous oxide, N2O). 600 Mt per year/ 22.0 million people = 27.3 t CO2-e per person per year and at that rate of GHG pollution Australia would use up its 2010-2050 “share” in 72.1 t CO2-e per person/ 27.3 t CO2-e per person per year = 2.6 years.

However in 2009 Australia’s Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution (in Mt CO2-e) was 600 (Domestic) + 784 (coal exports) + 31 (LNG exports) = 1,415 Mt CO2-e, this giving Australia an annual per capita Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution in 2009 of 1,415 Mt CO2-e per year/ 22.0 million people = 64.3 tonnes CO2-e per person per year, this being 64.3/0.9 = 71.4 times greater than the annual per capita of Bangladesh (0.9 tonnes CO2-e per person per year). Based on its 2009 Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution rate, Australia will take 72.1 Mt CO2-e per person/ 64.3 t CO2-e per person per year = 1.1 years in the period 2010-2050 to use up its “fair share” of the terminal 600 Gt CO2-e carbon pollution budget i.e. Australia has ALREADY used up its “share” of the terminal greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution budget.

Of course there is no way that Australia will meet its “all men are created equal” global obligations and cease polluting after having already in July 2011 achieved its “fair share” of the terminal 600 Gt CO2 global GHG pollution “budget”. Australia is fundamentally committed to coal and gas use and exports. Thus about 92% of Australia ‘s electricity derives from fossil fuel combustion, Australia is the world’s biggest coal exporter and Australia is a major liquid natural gas (LNG) exporter. The only major change adumbrated by the Gillard Labor Government is a coal to gas transition for electric power generation, this ignoring the reality that this will mean a doubling of greenhouse gas generation from the electricity sector because methane (CH4) is 85% of natural gas, leaks at about 3.3% and is 105 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas on a 20 year timeframe and taking aerosol impacts into account.

The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) has projected that Australia’s black coal exports will increase at an average rate of 2.6% per year over the next 20 years and that liquid natural gas (LNG) exports will increase at 9% per year over the same period (see “Invest in Australia”). Further, it is estimated that Australian exports of dried brown coal will reach 20 Mt by 2020, this corresponding to about 59 Mt CO2-e after combustion.

Accordingly, by 2020 and based on Liberal-National Party Coalition Opposition and Labor Government (aka Lib-Lab) promises of “5% off Domestic GHG pollution by 2020” and ABARE projections (see ABARE, “Australian energy: national and state projections to 2029-30”), Australian Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution will be 621 Mt CO2-e (Domestic) (Australian Government, Treasury, “Strong Growth, Low Pollution. Modelling a Carbon Price”, 2011) + 1.326 x 784 =1,039 Mt CO2-e (coal exports) + 2.580 x 31 = 80 Mt CO2-e (LNG exports) + 59 Mt CO2-e (brown coal exports) = 1,799 Mt CO2-e i.e. 127% of that in 2009 (see “Analysis: Australian Labor Government Carbon Price-ETS scheme fails & entrenches climate change inaction”, Bellaciao, 16 July 2010).

Thus Australian policy flies in the face of science and “all men are created equal” which show that Australia has ALREADY used up it share of the 2010-2050 terminal GHG pollution budget. Instead Australia officially projects to INCREASE its annual pollution by 2020 by about 27% over that in 2009. How does Australia ‘s refusal to DECREASE its disproportionate GHG pollution compare with the conduct of other countries? Set out below is the time (at 2000 pollution rates) for every country in the World to use up its “fair share” of the World’s 600 Gt CO2 terminal GHG pollution budget.

Years to the required “fair shares” total cessation of GHG pollution at current rates of pollution = 72.1 tonnes CO2-e per person/ (tonnes CO2-e per person per year). The annual per capita GHG pollution for each country in 2000 with the land use contribution included (tonnes CO2-e per person per year) was used (the available data for Uruguay was the 2005 per capita data without the land use contribution included). It should be noted that fossil fuel use, livestock production and deforestation variously contribute to annual per capita GHG pollution. Of course if you can access more up-to-date data (e.g. the example of Australia) and then you can use it to determine an updated time for zero emissions. Note that this analysis does not take into account historical industrial pollution of the atmosphere (73% due to European countries) (see 2008 Letter of Dr James Hansen, NASA GISS, to PM Kevin Rudd of Australia).

Countries that must cease GHG pollution within 5 years.

Belize (0.8 years), Qatar (1.3), Guyana (1.4), Malaysia (1.9), United Arab Emirates (2.0), Kuwait (2.4), Papua New Guinea (2.5), Brunei (2.8), Australia (2.8; 1.1 if including its huge GHG Exports), Antigua & Barbuda (2.8), Zambia (2.9), Canada (3.0), Bahrain (3.0), United States (3.1), Trinidad & Tobago (3.3), Luxembourg (3.4), Panama (3.7), New Zealand (3.7), Estonia (4.0), Botswana (4.1), Ireland (4.3), Saudi Arabia (4.4), Venezuela (4.6), Indonesia (4.8), Equatorial Guinea (5.0), Belgium (5.0).

Countries that must cease GHG pollution within 5-10 years.

Turkmenistan (5.1 years ), Singapore (5.1), Czech Republic (5.2), Liberia (5.2), Netherlands (5.3), Russia (5.3), Nicaragua (5.4), Finland (5.5), Oman (5.6), Palau (5.6), Brazil (5.6), Uruguay (5.7), Denmark (5.8). Germany (5.9), Mongolia (6.1), Israel (6.1), Nauru (6.2), Norway (6.3), South Korea (6.5), Kazakhstan (6.6), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (6.6), Libya (6.7), Greece (6.7), Japan (6.7), Myanmar (6.7), Taiwan (6.8), Cyprus (7.0), Slovenia (7.1), Cambodia (7.1), Austria (7.2), Iceland (7.2), Peru (7.3), Paraguay (7.3), Ukraine (7.4), Poland (7.5), South Africa (7.6), Argentina (7.8), Slovakia (7.8), Spain (7.8), Italy (7.8), Central African Republic (8.0), France (8.3), Suriname (8.4), Belarus (8.4), Gabon (8.6), Ecuador (8.8), Bolivia (8.9), Cameroon (9.5), Iran (9.5), Côte d’Ivoire (9.6), Sweden (9.6), Seychelles (9.7), Guatemala (9.7), Bulgaria (9.7), Serbia & Montenegro (9.7), Hungary (9.7), Congo, Democratic Republic (formerly Zaire) (9.7), Uzbekistan (9.9), Portugal (10.0).

Countries that must cease GHG pollution within 10-20 years.

Switzerland (10.2 years), Azerbaijan (10.6), Angola (10.8), Bahamas (10.9), Benin (11.1), Zimbabwe (11.1), Laos (11.3), Mexico (11.3), Nepal (11.4), Colombia (11.4), Namibia (11.4), Chile (11.4), Malta (11.8), Congo, Republic (12.0), Madagascar (12.0), Croatia (12.2), Jamaica (12.2), Macedonia (12.4), Barbados (12.4), Latvia (12.6), Mauritania (12.9), Turkey (12.9), Romania (13.1), Lithuania (13.4), Costa Rica (13.4), Lebanon (13.6), North Korea (13.9), Thailand (14.1), Jordan (14.7), Honduras (15.3), Sudan (15.7), Bosnia & Herzegovina (16.0), Algeria (17.2), Iraq (17.2), Sierra Leone (17.2), Syria (18.0), China (18.5), Tunisia (19.5), Dominican Republic (20.6 years).

Countries that must cease GHG pollution within 20-30 years.

St Kitts & Nevis (21.8), Nigeria (21.8), Fiji (21.8), Guinea (22.5), Mauritius (22.5), Cuba (23.3), Togo (23.3), Vanuatu (24.0), Philippines (24.0), Malawi (24.0), Mali (24.9), Chad (24.9), Sri Lanka (25.8), Uganda (26.7), Dominica (26.7), St Lucia (26.7), Egypt (27.7), Niue (27.7), Ghana (27.7), Moldova (28.8), Grenada (28.8), El Salvador (30.0), Guinea-Bissau (30.0), Tanzania (30.0), Djibouti (30.0).

Countries that must cease GHG pollution within 30-50 years.

Pakistan (31.3 years), Samoa (31.3), Tonga (31.3), Morocco (32.8), Senegal (32.8), Albania (32.8), Georgia (32.8), Armenia (34.3), St Vincent & Grenadines (36.1), Kenya (36.1), Maldives (37.9), Kyrgyzstan (37.9), Burkina Faso (37.9), India (40.1), Cook Islands (40.1), Bhutan (42.4), Yemen (45.1), Tajikistan (45.1), Mozambique (45.1), Rwanda (45.1), Burundi (45.1), Lesotho (48.1), Swaziland (48.1).

Countries that must cease GHG pollution within about 50-120 years.

Eritrea (51.5), Haiti (51.5), Solomon Islands (65.5), Vietnam (65.5), Cape Verde (65.5), Niger (65.5), Ethiopia (65.5), São Tomé and Príncipe (72.1), Afghanistan (80.1), The Gambia (80.1), Bangladesh (80.1), Comoros (103.0), Kiribati (120.2).

I must reiterate that there is no way that Australia will meet its global “fair shares” obligations because it is fundamentally committed to oil use and to coal and gas use and exports. Thus about 92% of Australia’s electricity derives from fossil fuel combustion, Australia is the world’s biggest coal exporter and a major liquid natural gas (LNG) exporter. Both the major parties, the Liberal –National Party Coalition Opposition (the Libs) and the Labor Government (the Labs) (collectively known as the Lib-Labs) are committed to a derisory policy of 5% off 2000 Domestic GHG pollution by 2020 but with greed-driven growth of coal and LNG Exports (at 2.6% pa and 9% pa, respectively). Australia is committed to a greedy and inhumane course of climate exceptionalism, climate racism and climate injustice. Having ALREADY used up its share of the terminal 600 Gt CO2-e budget, climate criminal Australia is now greedily and disproportionately using up the quotas of other countries (climate racism), with serious global implications as set out below. .

Both Dr James Lovelock FRS (Gaia hypothesis) and Professor Kevin Anderson ( Director, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester, UK) have recently estimated that only about 0.5 billion people will survive this century due to unaddressed, man-made global warming. Noting that the world population is expected to reach 9.5 billion by 2050, these estimates translate to a Climate Genocide involving deaths of about 10 billion people this century, mostly non-Europeans, this including about 6 billion under-5 year old infants, 3 billion Muslims in a terminal Muslim Holocaust, 2 billion Indians, 1.3 billion non-Arab Africans, 0.5 billion Bengalis, 0.3 billion Pakistanis and 0.3 billion Bangladeshis. Already 18 million people die avoidably every year in Developing countries (minus China) due to deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated disease and man-made global warming is already clearly worsening this global avoidable mortality holocaust. However 10 billion avoidable deaths due to global warming this century will yield an average global annual avoidable death rate of 100 million per year (see “Climate Genocide”).

Where does your country come in this “years left until zero emissions” analysis? The World is badly running out of time. The World will have to take action against the more notorious climate criminal and climate racist countries such as Australia through Sanctions, Boycotts, Sporting Boycotts (as were successfully applied to Apartheid South Africa through exclusion from the Olympic Games and other events), Green Tariffs, International Court of Justice litigations and International Criminal Court prosecutions.

Before considering the details of Labor’s plan one must consider Australia’s position as a world leader in annual per capita greenhouse gas pollution and fossil fuel exports.

Australia’s Domestic greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution including land use in Mt (million tonnes) CO2-e (CO2-equivalent) was 465 Mt CO2-e in 2000 but reached 600 Mt CO2-e in 2009. However simple cause-and-effect considerations mean that one must also consider Australia’s huge fossil fuel exports that in 2009 totalled 815 Mt CO2-e, the breakdown being 31 Mt CO2-e (liquid natural gas, LNG) plus 784 Mt CO2-e (coal). Thus Australia’s Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution was 1,415 Mt CO2-e in 2009. Australia’s annual per capita GHG pollution in 2009 was accordingly 600 Mt CO2-e/21.9 million people = 27.4 tonnes CO2-e per person per year but 1,415 Mt CO2-e/21.9 million persons = 64.6 tonnes CO2-e per person per year if Australia’s huge fossil fuel exports are included. By way of comparison, the annual per capita GHG pollution of Bangladesh is 0.9 tonnes CO2-e per person per year, 72 times lower than Australia’s Domestic plus Exported annual per capita GHG pollution).

The Labor Government plan involves the following major features (noting that Australia’s GDP is about $1,000 billion and that its power generation capacity, about 90% fossil fuel-based, is about 50,000 MW).

1. There will be a derisory GHG pollution target of “5% off 2000 GHG pollution by 2020” and a target of 80% reduction by 2050. A Climate Change Authority will recommend caps for an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and GHG pollution targets. The Government will be asked to explain if it does not adopt the recommended targets.

2. A very low carbon price or Carbon Tax of $23 per tonne of carbon ( $23/tC) will apply to a politics-determined, limited set of GHG sources from 1 July 2012, rising by 2.5% in 2013-214 and 2014-2015. In July 2015 a Cap-and-Trade Carbon Trading Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) will be introduced and the Carbon Tax will be allowed to float between a price floor of $15/tC (indexed) and 20% above the expected international price (also indexed).

3. The Carbon Tax will only apply to stationary energy (power stations), industrial processes (e.g. steel and cement manufacture) and fugitive emissions (e.g. from coal mines and rubbish tips). However, in keeping with the profoundly corrupt nature of Australian society, the Carbon Tax will not be applied to agriculture, light commercial and household transport, and to trucks. However trucking outside of agriculture will face reduced business fuel tax credits from 2014. Aviation will face a higher excise on fuel. The Australian Productivity Commission will review fuel tax arrangements.

4. The ETS arrangement will permit International Carbon credits after 2015 to offset the cost of licenses to pollute the one common atmosphere of all countries of the World. A maximum of 50% of International Credits can be used (e.g. from forestry-related deals with tropical Developing countries).

5. There will be all kinds of taxation benefits and pension increases to cover the increased costs of the Carbon Tax flowing through to electricity, gas and other purchases by middle to low income people.

6. Emissions intensive trade-exposed industries (notably steel) will be partly protected. A Coal Sector Jobs Package will give $1.3 billion over 6 years to assist over emissions from gassy mines. A Clean Technology Program will provide $1.2 billion to support low emissions technology in manufacturing. An Energy Security Fund will provide $5.5 billion in free permits and cash to 2016-2107 and up to 2000MW of high emissions power plants will be closed.

7. A Clean Energy Finance Corporation will invest $10 billion over 5 years from 2013-2104 in renewables and low emissions technologies (excluding Carbon Capture and Storage). An Australian Renewable Energy Agency will supervise $3.2 billion in renewable energy funding. It is projected that $100 billion will be invested in renewable energy over the next 40 years (i.e. $2.5 billion per year).

8. The revenue is expected to be $8 -$9 billion pa to 2014-2015 and fuel tax savings when implemented will save $0.6 billion pa. Household assistance will cost $4-$5 billion pa and industry assistance will cost about $3 billion pa. However a further $1 billion pa is required from general taxation-derived revenue to pay for the package. Out of this about $2 billion will go to fund renewable energy.

This is a profoundly dishonest, counterproductive and damaging proposal that fails to seriously tackle man-made climate change and indeed entrenches climate change inaction in disproportionately polluting, climate criminal Australia. In contrast, the Liberal Party-National Party Coalition Opposition has a Direct Action Plan that involves Government savings-funded action of re-afforestation, biochar and lower emissions technology and costing about $1 billion pa to achieve the same derisory “5% of 2000 GHG by 2020” goal of the Labor Government . The Coalition proposal has the benefits that it does not damage Australian industry and does not entrench climate change inaction (the Coalition scheme can be readily ramped up if needed – and of course, massive ramping up is needed).

More specific criticisms of the Labor Carbon–Tax-ETS-Ignore Agriculture (CTETSIA) plan are set out point-by-point below.

1. Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany, and currently visiting Melbourne to speak at the “Four Degrees or More?” conference at the University of Melbourne, wrote as follows in Melbourne’s The Age newspaper (11 July 2011):

“leading [the World] is about Australia adopting for itself the kind of reduction target that is needed from all to keep warming below 2 degrees. The 5 per cent reduction from 2000 by 2020 position of Australia translates into about a 25 per cent to 30 per cent increase in industrial greenhouse gas emissions above 1990 levels, once all of Australia’s special accounting rules are included”.

If we assume that Labor actually succeeds in achieving “5% off 2000 GHG pollution by 2020″ this will mean Australia’s Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution in 2020 will be roughly double that in 2000 (see: Australia’s “5% off 2000 GHG pollution by 2020” endangers Australia, Humanity and Biosphere). According to Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, for a 67% chance of avoiding a catastrophic 2 degree Centigrade temperature rise, the World must cease CO2 emissions by 2050 and top per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) polluters such as the US and Australia must get to zero CO2 emissions by 2020. According to the Australian Climate Commission’s 2011 “The Critical Decade” report, for a 75% chance of avoiding a disastrous 2 degree Centigrade temperature rise the World can emit no more than 1 trillion tonnes of CO2 before reaching zero emissions in about 2050. Australia’s high Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution rate means it must get to zero emissions in 1.9 years or in 4.6 years (ignoring Exported GHG pollution) (see: Australia Ignores 25 Huge Climate Change Realities).

2. It is estimated that a carbon tax of greater than $25/tonne carbon will encourage gas-fired power, $70/tonne carbon is needed to encourage wind and about $200/tonne carbon will encourage concentrated solar thermal installation (indeed Labor hopes for a Carbon Tax-driven coal to gas transition) . Gas is not clean, it is dirty, 1 tonne of methane (CH4) generating 2.8 tonnes CO2 on combustion. Gas burning is cleaner than coal burning in terms of twice the MWh/tonne CO2 emitted and less health damaging pollutants but gas is not cleaner than coal burning GHG-wise. Thus methane (CH4) leaks (3.3%) and is 105 times worse than CO2 as a GHG on a 20 year timeframe taking aerosol impacts into account, this meaning that a Carbon Tax-driven coal to gas transition will double electric power industry-derived GHG pollution.

3. The Carbon Tax only applies to the approximately about one third of Australia’s sources of GHG pollution and notoriously excludes agriculture which, according got the latest World bank assessment, is responsible for over 50% of GHG pollution. These politics-driven exclusions are discriminatory as well as making it quite clear that Labor simply does not want to “tackle climate change”. The boasted “80% off by 2050” can be seen as dishonest spin because most of the politicians involved will be dead or extremely elderly by 2050.

4. The ETS approach has been condemned by top climate scientists, economists and analysts as empirically ineffective (e.g. the outstandingly ineffective EU ETS), disastrously counterproductive, market manipulation-permissive and inherently fraudulent (Australia proposes to sell licences to pollute the one common atmosphere of all countries in the World). For about 50 such expert views condemning the ETS approach see 300.org). The use of International Credits is a dishonest ploy that enables high polluting companies to obtain much cheaper Carbon Credits outside Australia from corrupt and impoverished Third World countries.

5. Of the Carbon Tax and other revenue or savings amounting to about $10 billion pa, about $5 billion will be given to householders to pay for the increased costs passed on to them by the energy sector and other industry. However this simply makes Australian manufacturing less competitive, a problem compounded by the very high value of Australian dollar.

6. In addition to half the Carbon Tax money going to enable householders to pay for increased costs, the most highly polluting industries will be further supported by about $3 billion pa. The ETS will involve massive subsidies for major polluters.

7. $2 billion per year for renewables is pathetically small given the urgent, science-demanded need to reach 100% renewable energy ASAP (see point #1), an achievement that will variously cost $37 billion pa for 10years (wind and concentrated solar energy with molten salts energy storage; Beyond Zero Emissions), $13 billion pa for 20 years (Professor Peter Seligman’s scheme in his book “Australian Sustainable Energy – by the numbers”); $14-$20 billion pa for 10 years (for wind power providing 80% of an estimated 325,000 GWh of electrical energy needed by continent Australia in 2020). In social context, Australians spend about $20 billion pa on gambling. Of course one must also realize that anti-science Labor has a strange notion of what “renewable energy” means – thus this term covered methane for hot water and methane from mines in Federal Renewable Energy legislation several years ago.

8. Overall, this Carbon Tax amounts to a futile cycle of taxing some polluters and returning the money to the polluters or to consumers to help them pay for increased prices – with an arguable $2 billion pa slippage for renewable energy investment. And all this to achieve a doubling of Australia’s 2000 Domestic plus Exported GHG pollution by 2020 while pretending to “tackle climate change”.

The extraordinarily incompetent, pro-coal, pro-gas Gillard Labor Government is good at one thing – politics. Labor has very successfully conned most of the pro-environment movement in Australia into support for its disastrous climate policies on the utterly flawed basis that “doing something is better than doing nothing”. However dispassionate, science-based analysis says that Labor’s policy will be a comprehensive disaster. The fundamental reason for the disaster is that Labor’s policy is based on an endlessly trumpeted lie, specifically that it wants to “tackle climate change”. PM Julia “Juliar” Gillard refuses to say if she had opposed the ETS proposal of former Labor PM Kevin Rudd and is much criticized for promising before the last election that there would not be a Carbon Tax if her government was re-elected. Now she says that she went to the election supporting an ETS, conveniently ignoring the reality that an ETS is in itself a huge Carbon Tax.

If Labor were serious about “tackling climate change” it would immediately (a) abolish the estimated $12 billion pa in fossil fuel subsidies and (b) simply abolish export licences for Australia’s coal and natural gas exports. In 2009 Australia’s Domestic GHG pollution was 600 Mt CO2-e and its Exported GHG was 815 Mt CO2-e, the total being 1,415 Mt CO2-e. In 2000 Australia’s Domestic GHG (465 Mt CO2-e) plus Exported GHG (349.4 Mt CO2-e) was 814 Mt CO2-e. By 2020 on Labor’s policies, Australia’s Domestic GHG pollution will be 442 Mt CO2-e and its Exported GHG will be 1,149 Mt CO2-e, the total being 1,591 Mt CO2-e, 12% bigger than at present and 195% of that in 2000. The Australian Labor Government has no intention of “tackling climate change” while dishonestly pretending otherwise.

Of course there is a fundamentally important domestic reason for Australia to stop carbon pollution. Carbon burning pollutants have been estimated from Canadian and New Zealand data to kill about 10,000 Australians yearly. Australians dying each year from the effects of pollutants from vehicles, coal burning for electricity and other carbon burning total about 2,200, 4,600 and 2,800, respectively. Further, “annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution” in units of “tonnes CO2 -equivalent per person per year” (2005-2009 data) is 0.9 (Bangladesh), 0.9 (Pakistan), 2.2 (India), less than 3 (many African and Island countries), 3.2 (the Developing World), 5.5 (China), 6.7 (the World), 11 (Europe), 16 (the Developed World), 27 (the US) and 27 (Australia; or 64 if Australia’s huge Exported CO2 pollution is included).

In summary, in stark contrast to the Australian Coalition Opposition’s too-little-too-late Direct Action policy, the pro-coal, pro-gas, anti-science, market economics-based Carbon Tax-ETS-Ignore Agriculture (CTETSIA) policy of the Gillard Labor Government fails comprehensively in 2 key areas, specifically (1) it entrenches climate change inaction for decades by promoting a Carbon Tax-driven coal to gas transition (that will double electricity generation-derived GHG pollution) and scuppering science-demanded 100% renewable energy by 2020 and (2) it adopts an empirically ineffective, disastrously counterproductive and inherently fraudulent ETS approach as well as ignoring petrol, fossil fuel exports (apart from fugitive emissions, extraction and transport costs), soil, forestry and agriculture (agriculture being responsible for over 50% of GHG pollution). And Australia’s huge fossil fuel exports will continue to remorselessly expand with an annual growth of 2.4% for coal and 9% for LNG.

Climate criminal, climate racist Australia is disproportionately involved in a worsening climate genocide that is predicted to kill about 10 billion non-Europeans this century (see “Climate Genocide”). Australia’s selfish, greedy, politically correct racist (PC racist), dog-in-the-manger intransigence about climate change action invites international boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS), sporting bans (e.g. exclusion from the Olympics and the football and cricket World Cups), Green Tariffs, International Court of Justice (ICJ) litigations and International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutions. What can decent people do? Decent folk must (a) inform everyone they can and (b) demand sanctions in response to Australia ‘s entrenched policy of disproportionate greenhouse gas pollution of the World’s one common atmosphere.

“But I think we need to up the ante for those pursuing business as usual, the relentless expansion of oil and gas infrastructure that is causing these problems and guaranteeing that they will be worse in the future. Actions that lead to mass deaths and displacements, either directly due to a weather event or indirectly from impacts on land and livelihoods, beg for some accountability. I’m no international law-talking guy, but I believe that these things can only be called crimes against humanity.

Let’s say that again. Efforts to expand the oil and gas industry, like the Keystone XL and Enbridge pipelines, are crimes against humanity. Expanding the coal industry, like the proposal to export megatonnes of Washington state coal, is not just bad environmental policy, but a crime against humanity.”

“[...] I may be willing to give a grace period for actions take before 2000 or so, on the grounds that we did not know better (though we actually did). Nor would I punish regular folks (including me) who burn fossil fuels because of the structure of the world we live in and the lack of alternatives. This is about the dealers not the addicts; about the need for urgent change in response to the unfolding crisis.
It matters not whether such actions today are “legal” (almost all genocides were legal at the time) but they are deeply immoral and wrong. Major shareholders and senior executives in big fossil fuel industries – and the politicians that dote on them – need to understand that their profiteering off of destabilizing the climate will pay a price. That’s a little thing we call justice.”

You can read his whole article here. Related posts: UN official says biofuels are a “crime against humanity” and Dr James Hansen says we should prosecute climate change liars.

When it comes to the question about energy priorities for America there is a strong consensus. A majority wants the US to invest in renewable energy sources such as wind, hydrogen and solar instead of expanding the oil, natural gas and coal sector.

“Nearly two-thirds of Americans (63%) say developing alternative sources such as wind, solar and hydrogen technology should be the more important priority for addressing America’s energy supply; 29% say expanding exploration and production of oil, coal and natural gas should be the more important priority.”

Some findings that didn’t really surprise anyone was the result that right-wing libertarians and conservatives doesn’t like environmental regulations while being more supportive of corporations. While 39% of the general public agree with the statement that “stricter environmental laws and regulations cost too many jobs and hurt the economy” as many as 79% of libertarians agree on that.

“Staunch Conservatives and Libertarians are the only groups in which majorities say the U.S. has gone too far in its efforts to protect the environment. In all other groups – including Main Street Republicans and the GOP-leaning Disaffecteds – most say that this country should do whatever it takes to protect the environment.”

The only ones who rather want to see more investments in the fossil fuel industry than the development of renewable energy sources are “staunch conservatives”. Libertarians also misses a majority agreement on this issue.

“Staunch Conservatives are the only group in which a majority says expanding oil, coal and natural gas should be the priority; fully 72% say this should be the focus, while just 15% would emphasize alternative energy sources.”

When it comes to the question of global warming you can still, unfortunately, see that it “remains a deeply partisan issue”. A majority of the public says there is evidence that the global temperature is rising and that the climate is changing.

“Overall, 58% of the public says there is solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades while 34% say there is no solid evidence of warming. Just over a third (36%) say this warming is mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels, while 18% say it is mostly because of natural patterns in the earth’s environment.”

But what is more interesting, and satisfying to read, is that 71% of Americans believe the USA “should do whatever it takes to protect the environment”. And 59% believe strongly in that.

Analysts from IEA says the extreme rise in greenhouse gas emissions will make it impossible to reach the 2 degrees target that politicians have claimed is the threshold we should aim for to prevent dangerous runaway climate change. Fatih Birol, chief economist of the IEA, says that if the current rise in carbon emissions continues the 2 degrees target will just become "a nice Utopia".

"I am very worried. This is the worst news on emissions," Birol told the Guardian. "It is becoming extremely challenging to remain below 2 degrees. The prospect is getting bleaker. That is what the numbers say."

The British top climate economist Nicholas Stern, who recently endorsed the 350 ppm target, said in a response to the new shocking figures that we could see "widespread mass migration and conflict" as a result:

"These figures indicate that [emissions] are now close to being back on a ‘business as usual’ path. According to the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's] projections, such a path … would mean around a 50% chance of a rise in global average temperature of more than 4C by 2100.

Such warming would disrupt the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people across the planet, leading to widespread mass migration and conflict. That is a risk any sane person would seek to drastically reduce."

John Sauven, the executive director of Greenpeace UK, warned that time is now seriously running out for us:

"This news should shock the world. Yet even now politicians in each of the great powers are eyeing up extraordinary and risky ways to extract the world’s last remaining reserves of fossil fuels – even from under the melting ice of the Arctic. You don’t put out a fire with gasoline. It will now be up to us to stop them."

And just two days ago preliminary data from the US government’s Earth Systems Research Laboratory was released showing that carbon dioxide levels peaked at the highest levels on record last week. The data show that "2011 CO2 levels peaked last week at 394.97ppm. This is an increase of nearly 1.6ppm on last year and the highest ever recorded".