Litter, or less than 2%

There are many who argue that since Australia produces less than 2% of global emissions, we shouldn't bother to try and reduce our own emissions.  Our output is too small to make a difference.  This is akin to saying that you can throw your rubbish out of the car window because you contribute only 0.0001% of total litter.  Countries each individually emitting less than 2% of the global total for CO2 together emit nearly 40% of the global total, which is more even than China. (Chart from Simon Holmes à Court )

Yes, China is very important.  But China is actually taking serious steps to reduce its emissions.  Yes, the USA is important and despite the orange clown, it too is cutting its CO2 emissions.  India is a big emitter, but it's started down the road towards a low carbon economy.  (We will avert our eyes from Russia.)  And if every country responsible for less than 2% of global CO2 emissions also did their duty, we would be able to limit global warming to 1.6 or 1.8 C by 2050.

Source: Simon Holmes à Court

Consider, however, that not throwing your litter out of the window costs you very little.  Compliance with that social norm is cheap.  Perhaps complying with the global need to reduce carbon emissions is expensive?  In which case, you might be justified "throwing your litter out of the window", if everybody else also did that.  Why bother to be moral when nobody else does?  An age-old question.

20 or 15 years ago, switching to renewables was very expensive.  Renewables were 10 or 20 times as costly as fossil fuels.  Only countries with strong social consciences started down the road towards green energy.  They dutifully disposed of their litter, or at least some of it, while the rest of us continued to toss it out of the window.  It was too costly, too hard, to switch to renewables.

Even 5 years ago, though their costs had declined, renewables were still more expensive than fossil fuels.  However, by then the cost gap had narrowed dramatically, and it went on narrowing.  Now, in most places in the world, wind is cheaper than coal, and large-scale solar either is or soon will be.  We now have a powerful economic incentive to stop CO2 pollution.  The moral imperative now coincides with the economic.  Within a few years (3? 4? 5?) new renewables globally, even with some storage, will undercut the cost of old, fully depreciated coal power stations--the total cost of renewables will be less than the fuel cost of coal power stations. The only factor restraining the shuttering of old coal power stations will be how quickly we can roll out renewables to replace them, not how much renewables cost.

The same rapid cost declines are taking place with electric cars (EVs)  In five years' time, electric cars will have sticker prices which match those of ICEVs (petrol/gasoline/diesel cars.)  EVs are already far cheaper to run than ICEVs.  Even in Australia with its high electricity prices a 100 kWh Tesla  can be "filled" for just A$26. This is about one quarter the cost of the petrol needed for a similar range in a luxury (=heavy) ICEV.  Maintenance is cheaper, too: basically rotate tyres and refill windscreen washer reservoirs.  EVs are quieter, smoother, funner to drive, less smelly.  And they will park themselves.  When sticker prices of EVs match those of ICEVs, EVs will be extremely attractive, and car sales will switch very rapidly.  Yet this will require that the source of the electricity which "fills" EVs is renewable, or the benefits of switching (for society) will be a lot smaller.

If renewables and electric cars are cheaper than fossil fuels, the last excuse of the soft denialists will be swept away.  No country will be allowed by the world community to avoid doing their moral duty to cut emissions.  They will have no excuse not to go green.  In fact, small countries will be the least likely to be allowed to get away with subsidising coal or petrol and resisting the switch to a carbon-free economy.  Those small countries together producing 40% of world emissions will be under intense, irresistible, political pressure from the rest of the world to do their bit.  And that includes Australia.

Once, littering was socially acceptable.  It isn't any more.  In some quarters, emitting CO2 is still preferable to going green. It's somehow a mark of your right-wing credentials to support coal (WTF?)   But the social, moral and political pressure against carbon will just keep on intensifying as the costs of renewables plummet and global temperatures rise.  The Right's crusade against renewables will inevitably fail. And it will leave them looking like the really bad guys.