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.

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.

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".

I might take this a little more seriously if the money were used to reduce the birth rate among rich Brits. Just think how much lower England’s emissions would be if aristocrats and bank directors were limited to one spoiled child each. How many Bentleys and Jaguars could be taken off the road if the Royal Family stopped reproducing altogether?

The Royal Wedding confirms my judgement.

The New Zealand environmental research group Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research has prepared a rough estimate of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the merger of the Windsor and Middleton families.

The results indicate that the activities on the day of the wedding could be responsible for an estimated 2,808 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) in greenhouse gases, for the scope of emissions calculated. Emissions due to travel by crowds lining the streets might amount to another 3,957 tonnes of CO2e and the Royal Airforce flyover might add another 1.95 tonnes of CO2e.

Total: 6,767 tonnes.

Landcare emphasizes that this is a very rough estimate, compiled as a “fun exercise.”

What’s more, their estimates aren’t complete: the London Telegraph points out that the estimated Royal Wedding emissions don’t include “emissions from the millions of tons of bunting, cheap Union Jacks and confetti flooding the streets on the day, or the flights of the international media.”

Nor, we can add, did Landcare include emissions from police operations, helicopter surveillance, pre-emptive arrests of dissidents, or other actions associated with what the Independent calls “the biggest security operation in a generation.”�

But Landcare’s estimate is high enough. The company says that emissions associated with the Royal wedding were 1230 times greater than an entire year’s emissions from an average UK household. It’s even 12 times the annual emissions produced by Buckingham Palace.

Landcare doesn’t say so, but in one day the Royal family was responsible for pumping more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than 67,700 people in Madagascar produce in an entire year.

That puts the entire “too many people” argument into proper perspective. Anyone who really wants to reduce global emissions should be campaigning to abolish the English monarchy.

Photo credit: jurvetson

French cities such as Paris, Lyon, Grenoble, and Aix-en-Provence are planning to test a ban on gas guzzlers such as SUVs, according to John Voelcker over at Greencarreports.

Paris is set to be one of the first cities to experiment with such a car policy. In 2012 city officials will begin to set restrictions on dirty gas guzzlers that emit an high amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) per kilometer. It is still unclear what kind of specific details the French restrictions will have as they are still being debated.

"An official within the Parisian mayor’s office, Denis Baupin, identified older diesel-engined cars and sport-utility vehicles as specific targets of the emissions limit.

"I’m sorry," Baupin said on RTL Radio, "but having a sport utility vehicle in a city makes no sense." He suggested that Parisian SUV owners replace their sport utilities with vehicles that are "compatible with city life.""

Besides this ban on gas guzzlers in a number of French cities the European Union has issued several policies and strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the European transport sector. These policies include a regulation on CO2 emissions from newly manufactured passenger cars that will take effect in 2012 as well.

In USA the state of California actually has a similar regulations on heavy SUVs on residential roads in effect. But as Andy Bowers points out the regulation is not being enforced by the authorities or city officials.

"And don’t expect to see stickers on new SUVs with warnings like "CAUTION: This Vehicle May Be Illegal On Many California Roads." At a GM dealership in Santa Monica, I asked a salesman (who declined to give his name) whether he informs buyers that the Tahoes and Suburbans he’s selling them are banned on most streets in the city. "I’m not aware of it," he said.

I suspect the biggest impediment to enforcing these bans is political will—SUVs are wildly popular, and it will take brave city and state officials to challenge the right of residents to use their own streets. (Of course, like a FedEx truck, heavy SUVs are allowed to use local roads for a few blocks if they have business there—like going to or from a house. But in general, they’re supposed to take the shortest possible path between designated truck routes.)"

Related reading: Politicians wants to ban gas cars in Norway after 2015

“This second eruption threw volcanic ash several kilometres up in the atmosphere which led to air travel disruption in northwest Europe for six days from 15 April and in May 2010, including the closure of airspace over many parts of Europe,” Wikipedia writes.

And you also probably know that volcanic eruptions produces carbon dioxide. So what kind of effects did Eyjafjallajökull have on our climate? Well. Not much it seems.

“This is not the big climate changing eruption that some people seem to think it is,” said Mike Burton from Italy’s National Institute of Geophysics and Vulcanology.

“At the moment, the eruption cloud reaches around 22,000 feet (7km),” says Anja Schmidt from the School of Earth and Environment at the UK’s Leeds University. “That’s high enough to affect aviation but is unlikely to be high enough to have a strong effect on the climate system.”

Because of the mass-grounding of flights in Europe the extra CO2 produced by the volcano actually helped to lower the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions during this period. The Guardian writes:

“A larger effect on the atmosphere, though still small in global terms, comes from the mass-grounding of European flights over the past few days. According to the Environmental Transport Association, by the end of today the flight ban will have prevented the emission of some 2.8m tonnes of carbon dioxide since the first flights were grounded.

The volcanic eruption has released carbon dioxide, but the amount is dwarfed by the savings. Based on readings taken by scientists during the first phase of Eyjafjallajokull activity last month, the website Information is Beautiful calculated the volcano has emitted about 150,000 tonnes of CO2 each day.”

Richard Black from the BBC News concludes that the “eruption would not have any effect on weather and climate” and that:

“[...]its daily CO2 output was only about one-thousandth of that produced by the sum total of humanity’s fossil fuel burning, deforestation, agriculture and everything else. In fact, the extra CO2 produced from the volcano is probably less than the volume “saved” by having Europe’s aeroplanes grounded.”

So it seems the Icelandic volcano managed, if only for a few days, to reduce the impact aviation has on our climate – something which our politicians haven’t managed yet.

The bottom line in the Copenhagen Climate Summit should be (a) equal per capita greenhouse gas emissions for everyone and (b) an additional but equitable penalty for First World countries for their disproportionately huge historical contribution to atmospheric carbon pollution. Anything less is pure and simple climate racism and climate injustice leading to climate genocide. Unfortunately climate criminal First World countries believe that they are much more deserving than others, and are lead by Copenhagen sabotaging, US surrogate, climate criminal Australia which wants a 2020 per capita GHG pollution for itself that would be over 60 times that of Bangladesh.

Informed by “all men are created equal and have an unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, Climate Justice demands that “annual per capita GHG emissions” should at the very least be the same for “all men” – at the very least, because European countries have been responsible for about 73% of 1750-2006 historical carbon pollution of the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century (see Dr James Hansen’s 2008 Open Letter to PM Kevin Rudd of Australia).

Below is a quantitative analysis of “annual per capita greenhouse gas pollution by 2020” inherent in the major Greenhouse Gas reduction proposals put forward at the December 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference.

Data on the past and projected populations of Developed and Developing countries is available from the UN Population Division.

Data on the past and projected greenhouse gas emissions of Developed and Developing countries is conveniently summarized by the US Environmental Protection Agency (see “Global Greenhouse Gas Data”) and is set out below (Gt CO2-e = billions of tonnes of GHGs measured as CO2-equivalent).

Developed country GHG emissions (Gt CO2-e): 15.0 (1990), 16.5 (1995), 18.0 (2000), 19 (2005), 20.0 (2010), 21.0 (2015), 22.0 (2020).

Developed country population (billions): 1.147 (1990), 1.175 (1995), 1.195 (2000), 1,217 (2005), 1.237 (2010), 1,255 (2015), 1.268 (2020).

Developed country “annual per capita GHG pollution” (tonnes CO2-e per person per year”: 13.1 (1990), 14.0 (1995), 15.1 (2000), 15.6 (2005), 16.2 (2010), 16.7 (2015), 17.4 (2020).

Developing country GHG emissions (Gt CO2-e): 10.0 (1990), 12.0 (1995), 14.5 (2000), 16.0 (2005), 18.5 (2010), 21.0 (2015), 24.0 (2020).

Developing country population (billions): 4.143 (1990), 4.538 (1995), 4.920 (2000), 5.296 (2005), 5.671 (2010), 6.071 (2015), 6.406 (2020).

Developing country “annual per capita GHG pollution” (tonnes CO2-e per person per year”: 2.41 (1990), 2.64 (1995), 2.95 (2000), 3.02 (2005), 3.26 (2010), 3.46 (2015), 3.75 (2020).

For a detailed analysis of the above data see “Climate justice & climate injustice: Australia wants a 2020 per capita GHG pollution 15 times greater than Developing World’s”, put on the Web by the Yarra Valley Climate Action Group.

“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), 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) (for sources see (see Wikipedia, “List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita” ; Dr Gideon Polya, “Pro-coal Australian Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) devalues Australian lives, threatens Biosphere and ignores Science”, 2009 ; Michael Szabo, “Cut CO2 to India’s level, top scientist urges”, Reuters, 28 May 2008 ; Ross Garnaut, The Garnaut Climate Change Review, Chapter 7: http://www.garnautreview.org.au/chp7.htm ; Hal Turton, “Greenhouse gas emissions in industrialized countries. Where does Australia stand?”, Australia Institute, 2004).

What do the various Copenhagen proposals mean in terms of “annual per capita GHG emissions” in “tonnes CO2-e per person per year” by 2020?

And how do these proposed per capita values compare with a conveniently assumed 2020 Bangladesh value of 1 tonne CO2-e per person per year?

Some of the major propositions at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference are listed below in order of DECREASING acceptability.

1. The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) proposal for “55% of 1990 levels by 2020 for Developed Countries” would mean that their per capita would go from 16 to 6.5 [6.5 times Bangladesh’s] while Developing Countries would “in aggregate aim to achieve significant deviations [downwards] from baselines [BAU?] by 2020 [less than 3.8 i.e. less than 3.8 times Bangladesh’s?] (see New York Times).

2. The UN Draft Proposal for “60-75% of 1990 levels by 2020 for Developed Countries” would mean that their average per capita would go from 16 to 7.1 – 8.9 in 2020 [7.1-8.9 times Bangladesh’s] (see New York Times).

3. India has revised its previous reported commitment that it would not exceed commitment that it will not exceed the average per capita for Developed Countries means that its per capita will increase on current projections from 2.2 to at most 8.9 by 2020 [see item #2; 8.9 times Bangladesh’s] (see: http://carbonoffsetsdaily.com/…/).

4. Notwithstanding China’s rapid uptake of renewable energy and its commitment to reduce carbon emissions per unit of gross domestic product (GDP) by 40 to 45 percent by 2020, China’s greenhouse gas pollution is predicted to double by 2020 relative to the 2005 value according to various Western experts (see: http://news.yahoo.com/…/). This means China’s per capita will increase from circa 6 to a per capita of 2 x 7,527 Mt CO2-e/1,431 million persons = 10.5 [10.5 times Bangladesh’s] (for GHG data).

5. Obama USA’s proposal for “83% of 1990 value by 2020” would mean that its per capita would go from 27 to 0.83 x 5,177 Mt CO2-e / 346 million persons = 12.4 in 2020 [12.4 times Bangladesh’s] (for 1990 GHG data see).

6. Australia’s highly conditional best offer of “75% of 2000 value by 2020” would mean that Australia’s domestic per capita would go from 30 to 17.2 in 2020 [17.2 times that of Bangladesh] (and its domestic plus exported per capita would go from 54 to 62 tonnes CO2-e per person per year in 2020 [62 times that of Bangladesh]).

Clearly the AOSIS proposal is by far the best on offer at Copenhagen and the US and Australian proposals are so destructive and so far removed from reality as to invite sanctions, boycotts, green tariffs, reparations demands, international criminal court prosecutions and other legal and trade retaliation by an indignant World.

However the AOSIS proposal would only be an initial step because top scientists are in actuality demanding NEGATIVE greenhouse gas emissions. Thus top climate scientists are now advocating a return of the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration from the current 390 parts per million to about 300 ppm for a safe ands sustainable planet for all peoples and all species (see 300.org).

A return to circa 300 ppm CO2 will mean drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere i.e. NEGATIVE CO2 emissions are inescapably required.

The Australian and US sabotage of the Copenhagen Climate Conference is likely to be successful. These greedy, racist, profligate countries in a process involving intrinsic climate racism and climate injustice will have essentially declared climate war on the Developing World, worsening the already-commenced climate genocide of non-Europeans..

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 fewer than 1 billion people will survive this century due to unaddressed, man-made global warming – these estimates translating to a climate genocide involving deaths of 10 billion people this century, this including 6 billion under-5 year old infants, 3 billion Muslims, 2 billion Indians, 0.5 billion Bengalis, 0.3 billion Pakistanis and 0.3 billion Bangladeshis (see: http://gpolya.newsvine.com/…/ and http://bellaciao.org/…/).

What can decent people do to save the Planet from the Australian, EU and US climate criminals? Decent citizens and decent governments must respond by Sanctions, Boycotts, Green Tariffs, Reparations Demands and International Criminal Court prosecutions against the people, politicians, corporations and countries complicit in the worsening climate genocide. Buying goods and services from racist, genocidal, climate criminal Australia and like countries is like buying soap made in Auschwitz.

The rich countries in the “North”, i.e. the West, have a “rapidly decreasing” population which is “expected to decline over the next forty years.” Developing countries such as India, China and most of Africa on the other hand is where we will see future population numbers increasing.

And yes. It seems so easy to blame countries with an overwhelming rising population for being responsible for wrecking our planet, climate and environment. Because surely more people must mean more pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Right?

Not really. The West is responsible for about 80% of the worlds CO2 increase. An average person living in Great Britain will in only 11 days emit as much CO2 as an average person in Bangladesh will during a whole year. And just a single power plant in West Yorkshire in Great Britain will produce more CO2 every year than all the 139 million people combined living in Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia and Mozambique.

As Fred Pearce from the Yale Environment 360 blog notes, only a small portion of the world’s people are using most of the planets resources as well as producing the most of the greenhouse gases. And those are living in the West:

“The world’s population quadrupled to six billion people during the 20th century. It is still rising and may reach 9 billion by 2050. Yet for at least the past century, rising per-capita incomes have outstripped the rising head count several times over. And while incomes don’t translate precisely into increased resource use and pollution, the correlation is distressingly strong.

[…]By almost any measure, a small proportion of the world’s people take the majority of the world’s resources and produce the majority of its pollution. Take carbon dioxide emissions — a measure of our impact on climate but also a surrogate for fossil fuel consumption. Stephen Pacala, director of the Princeton Environment Institute, calculates that the world’s richest half-billion people — that’s about 7 percent of the global population — are responsible for 50 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. Meanwhile the poorest 50 percent are responsible for just 7 percent of emissions.”

According to Pearce overpopulation in the developing countries is not the problem. Instead the increasing overconsumption among the planets 7% richest people and countries is to be blamed. And he is not alone in claiming this. George Monbiot, Europe’s leading green commentator, also agrees with this viewpoint. As Monbiot notes in a recent published article on the Guardian:

“As one the graphs King displayed demonstrated, and as the UN and independent scientists predict, the world’s population is expected to peak at around 9 billion by 2060 and then to decline to around 8.5 billion by 2100.

Of course the bisophere can ill-afford to carry these numbers, and they will load an extra 40 or 50% of pressure onto every environmental constraint. It’s an issue, in other words. But the issue?

Until the recession struck, the global rate of economic growth was 3.8%. The world’s governments hope and pray that we’ll be back on this track as soon as possible. Population, of course, is one of the components of economic growth, but the global population growth rate is currently 1.2%.

It’s responsible, in other words, for one-third of normal economic growth. The rest is supplied by rising consumption. Consumption, on this measure, bears twice as much responsibility for pressure on resources and ecosystems as population growth.”

Let’s take a look at the ecological footprint between developing countries and developed countries in the West. An ecological footprint is the estimate on how much land is required to provide you and me with food and other resources as well as cleaning up our pollution. The global average ecological footprint is 2.7 hectares per person.

Sweden, my own country, has an ecological footprint of 5.1 hectares. The UK is on 5.3. Australia has 7.8 and Canada has an average of 7.1 hectares. The United Arab Emirates and the United States of America are on the top spot with an ecological footprint of 9.5 and 9.4. Developing countries such as China only has an ecological footprint of 2.1 hectares while India is on 0.9. And most countries in Africa are around or below 1.0 hectares.

Pearce gives even more examples of unfair consumption between the rich and poor countries:

“Americans gobble up more than 120 kilograms of meat a year per person, compared to just 6 kilos in India, for instance.”

“Just five countries are likely to produce most of the world’s population growth in the coming decades: India, China, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Ethiopia. The carbon emissions of one American today are equivalent to those of around four Chinese, 20 Indians, 30 Pakistanis, 40 Nigerians, or 250 Ethiopians.”

“A woman in rural Ethiopia can have ten children and her family will still do less damage, and consume fewer resources, than the family of the average soccer mom in Minnesota or Munich. In the unlikely event that her ten children live to adulthood and have ten children of their own, the entire clan of more than a hundred will still be emitting less carbon dioxide than you or I.”

Just like Monbiot and Pearce claims overpopulation is not the problem. Even if we were to get a zero population growth around the world it wouldn’t help us against the climate crisis. Instead the overconsumption among the rich few in the world is the main problem which we must deal with.

Climate Progress writes: “To avoid catastrophic global warming impacts, the rich countries need to cut greenhouse gas emissions 80% to 90% by mid-century. The developing countries (not including China) mostly must slow emissions growth, peak by mid-century, then decline — while ending the vast majority of deforestation by 2020. China must peak its emissions by 2020 and then reduce after that, first slowly, then quickly by mid-century.”

Overpopulation is only seen as a major problem because it’s the only thing we in the West can blame the developing countries for.

Obama will abandon complex policies on emissions, clean coal and refocus on achievable goals like applying deodorant daily, learning what to say when you burp.

Don’t worry! It’s just some good’ol satire. Or is it?