We are hearing this almost constant refrain that nothing Australia does can change the emissions. Our emissions are so small in relation to world emissions that if we radically change our economy, we will do little to help the climate change emergency.
So, what is the true picture?
First, the emitters. Here is the graph of the world’s top 7 emitters.
There doesn’t seem much to see here. It’s China and the US. So how does this relate to us? We don’t export to the US. But, we need to understand that emissions for the US have remained static for nearly a decade, so we are very unlikely to change it in either direction. China and Japan are a different matter. Put them together and you have about as much as all the other emitters on the graph combined.
63% of China’s emissions are from coal, both coking and thermal. Or, if you could eliminate coal as a source of energy, China’s emissions would drop to about the level of the European Union. So, changing from coal really, really matters.
Here’s a graph of our exports.
It’s easy to see that China and Japan make up almost three-quarters of our exports. This is what seems to ‘matter’ in terms of those who cry out against eliminating coal. What would we export? Where would our money come from? What about jobs?
Look at this chart. Something to chew on. You know, coal a great job creator.
Despite a rise in exports of coal, jobs in coal are dropping and may well disappear. So, how do we make money from coal? Well, royalties.
So, if you doubled the royalties on coal, not only would we double our income during the transition phase, but we would create a market mechanism to make both Japan and China accelerate their transition to alternatives. Or triple. Or quadruple. But, you say, then they will go elsewhere. Really? Yes, they might. But, in doing so, we would eliminate our part of the emissions. But would they really?
Here’s the World Bank on criteria for investment in a mine.
In considerations for investment, royalties rate 13th and 16th. No, as long as our royalties allowed a profit, investors will still stay.
The fixation with the tiny relative size of our emissions is a nice piece of misdirection. We could easily vary the cost of our coal, barely make a dent in our revenue in the short term and give us time to transition while not losing anything so we are zero exporters of emissions in the long term.