1.3% of 3% of 0.04% of atmospheric CO₂ =?

See if you can get your head around this.

Australia contributes 1.3% of world CO₂ emissions (man-made carbon dioxide). Human emissions are 3% of total CO₂ in the air. The air is 0.04% CO₂. So that's 1.3% of 3% of 0.04% of atmospheric CO₂ = ?

The answer is 0.000000156%. If Australia immediately converted completely to renewables and stopped all use of fossil fuels in industry and power generation that's the miniscule effect it would have on carbon dioxide, one of several of Earth's Greenhouse Gases. 0.000000156%! Can you even imagine, let alone perceive, the tiny fraction of a degree of temperature reduction that equates to?

Even if those figures aren't exact it gives a good indication of the size of the factors in play. The cost of reducing carbon emissions is in the zillions of dollars globally, in the trillions for large countries and billions for others like Australia who have comparatively small GDPs.

Factor in that most of the temperature rise since the end of the last Glaciation period is solar and completely natural - therefore global warming will continue regardless of CO₂ reductions - and that fossil fuels are a dirt cheap source of power for developing economies, it's easy to see why governments that intend to impose restraints on economic development from 'dirty fossil fuels' are unpopular in countries with communities that are struggling.

We see this in Australia where the opposition party failed to win the election by riding largely on the Climate Change ticket. The ruling party stuck with the Prosperity ticket and people voted with their hip pocket. It seems no-one wants to pay for expensive Climate Change policies if it's going to damage their quality of lifestyle and economic security. Due to peer pressure everyone agrees that "Climate Change is terrible and we must do something about it" but when it comes down to a secret, private ballot that cannot be scrutinised they vote with their feet. "Not In My Back Yard" as the saying goes!