Year 10 Science · Unit 4 · Lesson 8
Challenge Worksheet
Learning Goals
Read the data
Study the bar chart of approximate per-capita greenhouse gas emissions (tonnes CO₂-e per person per year). Answer the questions using the data shown.
Per-capita Emissions by Country (approximate, tonnes CO₂-e per person per year)
Data: approximate per-capita figures drawn from international emissions datasets used in the lesson; figures rounded for comparison.
(a) Using the graph, describe how Australia's per-capita emissions compare with the global average and with the three European countries shown. Quote at least two values.
(b) India's per-capita emissions are about 2.5 tonnes, far below Australia's 16. Explain why looking at per-capita emissions, rather than only a country's total share of global emissions, changes the way responsibility for climate action is judged.
(c) Australia's NDC aims for 43% below 2005 emissions by 2030 and net zero by 2050, yet its electricity sector (~32% of emissions) is still largely coal-based and it earns about $100 billion a year from coal and gas exports. Analyse one tension between Australia's climate commitments and its export economy, and suggest one way the country could begin to resolve it.
Evaluate the claim
Someone claims...
"Scientists still disagree about whether humans are causing climate change, so Australia shouldn't wreck its economy chasing net zero. And anyway, if Australia stopped exporting coal, another country would just sell it instead, so it would make zero difference to the climate."
(a) Identify the scientific error in the first sentence. Refer to the level of scientific consensus and the IPCC.
(b) The second sentence is the "someone else will sell it" argument. Explain why this reasoning is logically flawed and what it would imply if every coal-exporting country used it.
(c) Distinguish clearly between the parts of the climate debate that are settled science and the parts that are genuine policy choices for governments and citizens. Give one example of each.
Wrap Up
In one sentence, what was the main idea of this lesson?
For teacher / self-marking use. Accept reasonable equivalent wording and well-justified alternative positions.
Warm Up, Read the data
(a) Australia's per-capita emissions (~16 t/person) are more than double the global average (~7 t) and far higher than each European country shown, Germany ~8 t, the UK ~6 t and France ~5 t (so roughly 2 to 3 times the European figures). Only Canada (~18 t) is higher among the countries shown. (1 mark for the global-average comparison, 1 mark for the European comparison with at least two quoted values.)
Analysis questions
(b) Per-capita emissions divide a country's total emissions by its population, so they measure how much each person emits on average. A populous country like India can have a large total share but a low per-capita figure (~2.5 t), while Australia has a small total share (~1.3%) but a very high per-capita figure (~16 t). Judging by per-capita emissions therefore reframes Australia as a heavy emitter per person rather than a minor contributor, and it counters the "we only emit 1.3%" argument by showing each Australian emits well above the global average. (1 mark for defining per-capita, 1 mark for the India vs Australia contrast, 1 mark for how it changes the responsibility judgement.)
(c) Tension (any one, clearly explained): Australia commits to deep cuts and net zero, yet its electricity is still largely coal-based and it earns ~$100 billion/year from exporting coal and gas whose emissions (when burned overseas) are 3 to 4 times its territorial total; cutting exports threatens income and mining-region jobs (Hunter Valley, Latrobe Valley, Bowen Basin) but continuing them undermines global emission cuts. Resolution (any one): accelerate the shift of electricity to renewables; reform the Safeguard Mechanism so large emitters cut intensity; invest in a managed "just transition" for fossil-fuel workers; develop green hydrogen / solar export industries to replace fossil export income. (1 mark for stating the tension, 1 mark for explaining it with data, 1 mark for a sensible resolution.)
Go Deeper, Evaluate the claim
(a) The claim that scientists still disagree about human causation is false. Studies of the scientific literature find 97%+ consensus among actively publishing climate scientists that recent warming is primarily human-caused, and the IPCC's AR6 (2021) described human influence on warming as "unequivocal." The appearance of debate is largely "manufactured doubt." (1 mark for citing the 97%+ consensus, 1 mark for the IPCC / "unequivocal" point.)
(b) The "someone else will sell it" argument is flawed because: Australia is the largest or second-largest coal exporter, so reducing its supply would raise global prices and could lower total consumption; and the reasoning proves too much, if every exporting country argued no individual action matters, no country would ever act and collective global action would be impossible by definition. (1 mark for the market/supply point, 1 mark for the "if every country argued this" point.)
(c) Settled science (example): that human greenhouse-gas emissions are the primary cause of recent global warming, and that more warming brings greater risk, this is supported by overwhelming consensus and the IPCC. Genuine policy choice (example): how fast Australia should cut emissions, what its 2030 target should be, whether to keep exporting coal, or how to support affected workers, these are value-based decisions for governments and citizens, not scientific questions. (1 mark for a correct settled-science example, 1 mark for a correct policy-choice example, 1 mark for clearly explaining the distinction.)