Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Australia’s energy minister Angus Taylor asks why is Australia the climate villain, when we only produce 1.2% of global emissions? But US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan says pressure will grow on China.
The real climate change villain is CHINA not Australia, argues energy minister – but the economic heavyweight is escaping scrutiny
- Federal Energy Minister Angus Taylor said the world need to focus on China
- China accounts for almost a third of global greenhouse gas emissions
- He said global leaders are too focussed on developed nations’ emissions
PUBLISHED: 11:34 AEDT, 23 December 2021 | UPDATED: 11:53 AEDT, 23 December 2021
‘I mean just under a third of global emissions now are coming from China and we’re responsible for just over one per cent as you know.
‘And yet the debate revolves around countries like Australia.’
‘Now the truth of the matter is that if China is a third of emissions and emissions are the problem then China should be a very significant part of the focus.
‘But we didn’t see that at COP, we don’t see that in the debate more generally. It’s an opportunity to try and destroy industries that people don’t like,’ he said.
‘People don’t like our mining industry, they don’t like our agriculture.’
Last week US national security adviser Jake Sullivan said he believed pressure would grow on China to offer ‘something fundamentally more ambitious’ in the fight against climate change.
There is a very obvious explanation for why Australia is being bullied on climate change – the bullies smell blood. Our Prime Minister declared a Net Zero target just before COP26, signalling a desperate need to please. Now the global community is leaning on Australia, to see what else they can squeeze out of our leaders.
As for US national security advisor Jake Sullivan’s claim that pressure would grow on China, sure Jake, in your own time. This is the same Jake Sullivan who earlier this year begged OPEC to raise crude oil production, in a desperate effort to rescue Biden from the political consequences of his ill-considered war on US domestic energy production.