Talk:Greenhouse gas emissions by Australia

Section rewrite required
''In the late 1980s and early 1990s there was clear Australian consensus about the need for action on climate change between the two major political parties. However following the 1991 recession incoming right wing governments began framing science of climate change as a continuing debate. In 1997 Australia joined the United States as the only countries to not ratify the Kyoto Protocol.[11]''

No sources are provided for the claims of a concensus existing in the timeframe started. The 1991 recession occurred under the centre-left ALP government. The ALP has been centre-left in political outlook since its inception and was in power a further 5 years after the 1991 recession.

The cited footnote in this section links to an article on the Guardian website, which itself has a centre-left political outlook and is written by Mark Butler, a ALP member of Parliament since 2007. The "article" is actually an extract from a book authored by Mark Butler called "Climate Wars".

How exactly is this unbiased if the section is written by a vested interest in the debate?

https://www.mup.com.au/books/climate-wars-paperback-softback https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Butler — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.165.2.44 (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Why, what is the breakdown?
Australia is not cold, so heating costs are low. One reason is we smelt and export Aluminium, which raises the question as to what is being measured. Another is that we have no nuclear and little hydro available. But some analysis would make this a much better article. I have added some some vague material, but something better is needed. Tuntable (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Australia (like most of the Gulf States) uses a lot of air-conditioning, twenty-four seven, which is very energy intensive. They also have high levels of car usage.

Just noting a line in the lede that I've removed.
I noticed a line in the lede that claimed that Australia's emissions per capita had 'fallen significantly by 2019', which cited a government source. The amount noted in the government source was above the figure emissions had apparently reduced from, which makes the inclusion of this statement highly dubious. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_Australia&diff=916704266&oldid=912548068 --Senor Freebie (talk) 09:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Policies and climate action content should be moved back to Climate change in Australia
Please participate in the discussion here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climate_change_in_Australia#Planned_changes_to_headings_and_structure) where I am proposing that policies and climate action content should be moved back to Climate change in Australia. We should think of Climate change in Australia as the main article and this one as a sub-article. Mitigation can be included here but only in terms of technical aspects (emissions, renewable energies), but not in terms of policy and climate action (in my opinion) as those cannot be separated out from adaptation and everything else. We should not have two articles that exist side by side but one needs to be the main article, and the other the sub-article, and structured accordingly. EMsmile (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose to merge Mitigation of global warming in Australia into Greenhouse gas emissions by Australia. I think that the content in the "Mitigation of global warming in Australia" article can easily be explained in the context of "Greenhouse gas emissions by Australia", and the "Greenhouse gas emissions by Australia" article is of a reasonable size that the merging of "Mitigation of global warming in Australia" will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support, Mitigation fits well under the broad topic of Greenhouse gas emissions, and the articles are short enough that a merger brings no size issues. CMD (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Emissions should be quantified by calendar year
Because the reports to the IPCC are by calendar year so it would be easier to compare other countries. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)