The Forum > Article Comments > The cost of inaction on carbon emissions > Comments
The cost of inaction on carbon emissions : Comments
By David Leigh, published 19/7/2011Australia needs to get on with the job of bilaterally tackling climate change and leave the politics out of the discussions.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Page 5
- 6
-
- All
I did not see any charts in your article but after a closer look, I see two red crosses – my browser has obviously failed me and I apologise to all if I have duplicated data.
However, irrespective of the charts displayed, you wrote "Australia is the largest exporter of coal on Earth. More than half the world’s metallurgical(coking) coal is mined in and exported from Australia. That would make Australia responsible directly and indirectly for a much larger percentage of global emissions than any other country."
As per my prior post, the first statement is correct and the second and third are incorrect. Moreover, these statements mislead the reader into thinking that the coal mined in Australia makes a significant contribution to the global anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is quite false - whether it's 1.6% or 4% (the latter implied simplistically by the Aussie share of global coal production), it is insignificant.
If you tell lies and make stuff up (even if it is inadvertent), you will have no credibility and people will not take you seriously. That is why most of the comments have been negative. If you want to serve your AGW cause better, please improve your research and report facts correctly.
Please also draw logical conclusions in your arguments. To say (in your last comment) that the reduction of CO2 emissions in Europe during the GFC is proof that climate change is man-made is ridiculous. All it proves is that less human industrial activity produced less CO2, which is hardly in dispute.
Anyway, good luck with all that. I must sign off now and do some paid work so I can afford to pay for the cost of "action" on carbon emissions.