Talk:Greenhouse gas emissions by Australia

Australia Mid‑importance

	Australia portal Greenhouse gas emissions by Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Climate change Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Environment Low‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/The_Guardian https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Mark_Butler — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.165.2.44 (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_Australia&diff=916704266&oldid=912548068 --Senor Freebie (talk) 09:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Policies and climate action content should be moved back to Climate change in Australia

Please participate in the discussion here (https://wiki.riteme.site/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)[reply]

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)[reply]