mhaze, within your Frenchman's (and for that matter, the generic European)case, according to Wikki, over 70% of his power comes from clean nuclear power. If Ms Langford was serious about Australia cleaning up our climate changing emissions, she would be working hard to remove the unrealistic opposition to nuclear power and be lobbying her listeners to not just accept nuclear, but march to Parliament house to demand that her Andrews Government immediately start building one to replace the coal stations that have been removed from generation.
The truth is, those running and attending COP24 do not want the western economies to have cheap and clean reliable electricity supplies.

I generally agree with you, Jay Cee Ess. A lot of the difference in the Frenchman's greenhouse gas emissions before and after he moves to Australia are due to our widespread hysteria about nuclear power, which is probably more of a factor than any conspiracy to keep power prices high. This hysteria, generally found on the Left, is just as foolish and counterproductive as the climate change denial on the Right.

It is not as though keeping the population within reasonable bounds is optional. If it keeps growing, it will cancel out any other strategy for fixing our environmental and social problems, either locally, or even globally, if the open borders fanatics get their way.

mhaze should look up the racism of lower expectations. Many Western people in the past saw non-white people as childlike little brown and black brothers and believed that it was unfair to expect too much of them. No one expects a child to reliably plan for the future, to forego an immediate reward for some greater future benefit, or to consider the rights or welfare of anyone other than himself.

"But who wants a conversation about reducing our emissions from 25 tonnes(Australia) to 8 tonnes (EU) and even lower with deep awareness and resolve?"

Not me because it's stupid.

The climate whinge wouldn't even be an issue if we didn't keep taking migrants.
The fertility rate is around 1.7, less than replacement, yet we still have projected population growth.

Why?

http://www.afr.com/news/politics/national/why-australia-needs-to-get-real-on-population-growth-20131130-ij9ym

I didn't ask for the immigrants, and I didn't ask for your stupid climate guilt trip.

You lefties have to choose - stop the immigrants and the increased population growth or there's no way in hell you'll reduce Australians carbon emissions by two thirds.

If you stop the immigrants, and rely on new technology you might make those targets but it's doubtful.

Why?

Because you need the immigrants for the growth and if you don't have the growth you cant pay for the new technology.

And if you turn all the coal plants off to meet the targets and increase the price of energy you'll send the country broke; and we wont have money to pay for new technology.

So basically we're all just stuffed, yet we're going to have our money stolen from us for nothing anyway.

https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/41452/4/pop-targets.PDF

Stable population should be 60,000 immigrants a year.

My electricity bill is saying 8.3 kWh per day per person. But that doesn't include the car which I don't use everyday. I wouldn't expect those with health issues to do this in the Australian climate- Europe is better for climate in many places. But house design can make a difference- old style double brick houses appeared to be a better design for Australian conditions- than "modern" brick veneer- I'd need to do some more research to confirm this.

Jay Cee Ess,

Thanks for pointing out the nuclear element. That was why I made my European a Frenchman. I was going to make that point but ran out of allowed posts.

So yes, if these people really do think we're-all-gunna-die, they would be out there demanding that nuclear plants be built the day before yesterday. But they don't because they don't really think that. It's a device to alter society t their liking.

Equally, I always like to point out that the US has reduced its per capita emissions by moving some coal to CSG. So again, if these people really thought we have to reduce our emissions to save the planet, they'd be demanding that we get fracking asap. But again...crickets.

Divergence,

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at with your post. You seem to be saying that these people are incapable of understanding their own best interest and need to be led to the truth. I really hope that's not what you're saying and so assume it isn't. But I can't discern any other interpretation. So please elaborate.