Why should Australia do anything at all about climate change?

Source: Our World in Data

Australia is not just doing “something” about climate change, it’s doing a lot. It’s full bore on the path to its own version of Net Zero. The government aim is a 40% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2040. That itself is a huge shift. It’s being done fully on the back of Wind and Solar. No nuclear. No gas. So it’s a tough ask. 

I ask: “Why should Australia do anything at all?”. Why should we bother?

Based on the fact that Australia is such a small part of total world emissions. And that China increases its emissions each year by more than Australia’s total emissions per year. China’s additional emissions each year are double the amount that Australia hopes to save over the next 15 years --by impoverishing the already poor; by making life difficult for all. Why? 

I’ve said this to green Australians when in Oz. The response is like to the infamous fart in an elevator. Wrinkled noses and look away. Aussies hate to think that their well-intentioned efforts mean nothing. And yet they do. Mean nothing.

I ask the question again, in the midst of our current “Transition”. Why do we bother? 

Anwers below will be unilaterally deemed irrelevant by me, for the reason I give:

1. To set a good example. Comment: No one cares. Not China, not Asia. Not America, not Europe. No one cares what we do, or what we think. To the extent that we try to “set an example”, it will be seen as colonial condescension. Which it is. 
2. To comply with the Paris Accord. Comment: We should not have signed up in the first place. The aims are just that -- aims. All signatories are already flouting (China) or will be forced to flout (everyone else) their commitments, because the commitments made are not achievable. Why should Australia be the naive one out? 
3. It’s a moral issue. Comment: This is a condescending “reason". Climate change is either something that we can do something about, or it is not. The data suggest it’s not. So why carry on about the morality? That is empty morality, aka virtue signalling. The Earth doesn’t care about your morals. It only cares about what you do. Or don’t.
4. Care for “Mother Earth”. Comment: This is a neo-Gaia type reason. Again, not a reason, for it’s either the case that we, Australia, can meaningfully help, or not. The data suggests it’s not. By all means let’s have an Australian Conservation Foundation that focusses on Conserving our unique Flora and Fauna. Counting our platypuses, caring for our echidnas. But trashing our economy for the sake of a climate change agenda that the data -- the science -- suggest can do nothing? 

Facts about Australian CO2 emissions: 

Australian CO2 emissions total per year ➤ less than 1% of the world total. Reduce that by 40% ➤ remaining CO2 emissions are less than 0.6% of world total ➤ reduce the world temperature in 2100 by 0.005 C, according to the models. 

Is it worth the massive effort for the sake -- not of one-tenth of one degree; not even for one-hundredth of one degree -- of 5 ten thousands of one degree of difference?

Some say that the climate  “Transition” (to renewables) is worth it anyway. There’s something to that view. The cleanliness of renewables. The fact they’re renewable. But there’s also a lot of the transition that’s costing the poorest people most. Cost of EVs for example, is much higher than ordinary vehicles. Air transport will be restricted or much more expensive, again affecting the poorest the most. 

China is increasing its CO2 emissions every year by ~500 Million Tonnes. Australia's TOTAL emissions are 390 MT. It would make more sense -- more bang for the buck -- for us to put money into nuclear power stations in China, or renewables in China, than in Australia. The reductions in global emissions would be greater. But we won’t do that because we don’t get the political kudos at home. So what is it? Climate or politics?

Why do anything at all? Let alone the manic move to renewables? Why?

The question remains.