A complete list of the reasons ...

[jethro]

A bit unfair on Australia. Although its certainly large in land mass terms, the population is just over 20 million. That's smaller than most European countries and under a tenth the population of the USA. So as a sparsely inhabited continent with zillions of bits of non-human flora and fauna I'd say it has less to be ashamed of than most.

Perhaps, but according to the National Energy Foundation Australia come second to the USA in terms of CO2 emissions. Followed by Norway...

[shuggee]

Since over 95% of Australian electricity is made from coal-fired power stations, it's not that surprising. Unbelievable how little sustainable energy generation there is in Oz - and with deserts and all that sunshine...

[The Penguin]

I take it all back then. The Australians are certainly not a superpower state, but they do appear to be a dirty little bunch of muckers.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Since over 95% of Australian electricity is made from coal-fired power stations, it's not that surprising. Unbelievable how little sustainable energy generation there is in Oz - and with deserts and all that sunshine...

Very true; I imagine there'd be a lot of potential for solar power generation over there!

[Nick F]

Australia has quite large coal reserves in the East, so naturally they've used it produce much of their electricity, and I believe they export cheap coal, along with the US, to the UK despite us having some reserves left.

However, I have had a few aussie friends when I was studying, and they always used to boast how eco-friendly they were compared to the Poms, hang-on a minute?

[Stratos Ferric]

An occasionally cited argument in these parts is "man shouldn't be so arrogant as to suppose he can buck nature" i.e. any warming is entirely natural. There are variants on this line, where individuals then attribute other potential sources (moonbeams, sub-oceanic vulcanicity, cows farting etc.).

A lot of it also comes down to imperceptability; I can't see it therefore it cannot be true, in many instances tainted by "I don't want to believe it either", which leads to people citing equally partisan sources such as "Ice Age Now".

I remember an amusing experiment a few years ago where people were asked two questions: 1-if I have a red dice and a black dice, is double six more likely, less likely, or as likely as a red 3, black 5 combo; and then 2-do you believe in astrology. There was a strong correlation between people who could figure the maths and those not believing in astrology. Awareness of data, and ability to process the data rationally and objectively are key factors in any obscured or ambiguous situation.

Finally, and this is also wrapped across other answers already given, short-termism. The price to be paid for benefit (or reduced cost) later is action now, and that probably means a degree of sacrifice. This amounts to selfishness.