Hi Chris,

Global warming, settled climate science and the negative effects of human CO2 emmissions is just a giant load of crap.

The 2010-2011 northern hemisphere winter was the coldest on record for 100 years. In the UK it's the coldest since met office records began.

We in Australia are experiencing a very cold begining of winter and the earliest snows since the 80's... 30 years.

If this is the result of Carbon Dioxide emissions, to be consistant the alarmists will have to say CO2 emmissions also cause cooling.

How will that affect their claim of 'settled science'?

I don't understand why the media last year highlighted isolated extreme weather events and supported the alarmists claims they were caused by global warming, how they supported the alarmists claims of our drought dominated future and this year they and the alarmists are silent about and are completely ignoring the most significant and widespread extreme cold weather event in years.

Yep the evidence we are all seeing is that the climate ois indeed changing, but apparently it is cooling.

Dear Chris, I sometimes wonder if those who write articles for OLO actually read the responses and discussions.

Some of us on OLO have long ago staked our colors to the mast by suggesting that in response to critical analysis, the “warmertariat” would react with more of the same, more urgency, more disaster, bigger disaster, more vilification of the opposition, more angles, more often, more obfuscation, more spin and more and more ideological proselytizing.

We suggested this might happen because the case is so thin that the “warmertariat” is left without a sustainable empirical case and has no choice other than to continue its tactical ideological defense.

We also suggested that so intent is the “warmertariat” in its pursuit of what it has left to fight with, that it would continue to promote that which is getting it into more trouble and yet is unable to see this. This is evidenced by the continuing nose dive in public support for the cause.

We are fortunate that this is indeed the case and I for one wish the ‘warmertariat” god speed on its decent into self inflicted oblivion and public disgrace

Now back to the topic at hand. Measures to reduce carbon emissions are all about economics and technology. And exporting emissions is an important issue because it makes one country look better while doing nothing for the planet. So it’s a pity that Chris Lewis presents the topic with such a confusing mixture of statistical material.

The crucial measures are the quantity of energy needed per unit of production (energy intensity, or its more revealing inverse, energy productivity) and the associated emissions, which simply depend on the energy source. Two aluminium smelters, for example, might need identical amounts of energy per kg aluminium but if one uses brown coal power and the other hydroelectricity then the emissions per kg will be very different.

Energy intensity data at the national level are important because they can give a rough measure of how efficiently an economy uses its energy. They can also be used ‘forensically’ to detect whether a country has fudged its performance by shutting down some industries and causing them to move elsewhere – which might be fine for emissions if the ‘elsewhere’ used only hydroelectricity or nuclear power.

However, the actual data Chris Lewis quotes from Forbes are mysterious. The International Energy Agency publishes annual energy intensity data. For the three countries Chris Lewis mentions, Japan, USA and China, the energy intensity figures for 2007 were, respectively, 5.9, 8.5, and 8.1 megajoules per dollar. For comparison, Australia was 7.8 and the world average was 8.2. These are standardised US dollars, year 2000. Japan has shut down some of its energy intensive industries and the data reflect this.

It is the similarity of these energy intensities that is striking, not the differences. Basically they show that no economy has found a way to decouple energy usage from GDP. Of course emissions intensity is what counts here, and that’s what a carbon price is mainly meant to influence. As Chris Lewis is trying to point out, carbon pricing so far has had little measurable impact and the figures give little guidance as to who, if anyone, does it best.

An interesting and thoughtful article highlighting a couple of aspects that don't get hardly any attention at the moment, namely the amount of CO2 Australia effectively exports as coal, and the amount of CO2 Australia (and other nations) imports as goods from China and elsewhere.

I question a couple of the comments and assumptions in the article.

Firstly, as Australians I believe we should be embarassed by out total CO2 emissions. Not only do we domestically have one of the highest CO2 contributions per head of population (far higher than France or Japan for example), but if you take into account the CO2 on exported coal then our per head contribution must worsen considerably.

Secondly, in tackling a massive problem it is surely better to make a start than do nothing and wait for others to act or do nothing until the perfect solution can be devised. A carbon price is a good start. Its effectiveness can be improved over time by ramping up the dollar amount, converting to an emissions trading scheme and even penalising imports from countries that don't have a carbon price. In the meantime a carbon price in Australia will encourage innovation and give Australia a chance to develop and gain experience in energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies.

For imajulianutter and spindoc the consensus of experts is that climate change caused by humans is both real and poses a serious risk for the future. It's a nasty unpleasant reality - we just need to accept it and work out what to do about it

I agree with Rich2 and Tombee. Your statements about the carbon intensity of Australia's industry compared to China are simply wrong Chris.

For example, aluminium smelted in Victoria with electricity generated from brown coal (emission factor 1.4 comared to gas 0.6) is the 'dirtiest' in the world. Aluminium smelting alone accounts for over 5% of our total emissions(google The Australia Institute website for article on this). That's why Garnaut is right that it's essential electricity generation is NOT given any exemptions from paying the carbon price.

If you look up figures from the BCSE on electricity emissions factors you'll see that Australia and China are similar; in the 5 worst in the world.

Re a carbon tax vs tradig scheme, remember they are both taxes but the former gives more certainty - predictability - does not fluctuate like a trading price. It is therefore the best option for industry and the best option for progress towards decarbonizing our economy.

We are the second worst carbon emitters in the world (28 tonnes per head); only one oil burning Arabcountry is worse. That's the issue and that's why we need a carbon price now; it has worked in Europe and it will work here; we can't continue to be among the laggards like the US; need to follow the progressives. Fixing the carbon problem will only get more expensive the longer it is delayed.

Thanks for the comments, both positive and critical.

If i have wrong data from certain sources, I need to do more research and check all claims. I apologise for that.

However, I will stick by what I believe are the major points.

First, our reliance on free trade and china is doign nothing for the global environment. Global emmissions continue to rise, and china is increasigly using a greater proportion of the world's coal, despite its other measures.

Second, Australia is kidding itself is it thinks lowering its own emmissions compensates for our growing relince on the export of fuels to china and elsewhere. All of Aust's contributions must be counted.

In other words, these key points should be part of the debate, not feel good statements about us taking the lead when the facts of growing global emmissions speak for themselves.

If I am going to be questioned about my data, let the debate include all of the facts to inform the public.