It seems to us that the argument made in this post by Graham Readfearn in The Guardian could be made for any number of fossil fuel exporting nations - including our own.
...could it be that all that digging, burning and exporting [of fossil fuels] is coming back to bite the Minogue/Fosters/crappy koala souvenir homestead?
Australia had its biggest and longest heatwave on record in January creating perfect conditions for hundreds of bushfires. For seven days straight, the average maximum temperature across the country topped 39C.
Then there were the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires, which killed more than 170 people. The 2011 Queensland floods caused $5bn of damage after an area the size of France and Germany was declared a disaster zone.
Of course these extreme events, like others being shared around the world of late, had absolutely nothing whatsoever, not even in the slightest, how very dare you even contemplate it, to do with man-made climate change.
In the United States, just as in Australia, we've had historic drought and highly destructive storms (e.g., Superstorm Sandy), all of which fit the pattern of "loading the climate dice", as NASA climate scientist James Hansen has suggested. In sum: continue burning fossil fuels, continue emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and continue making it more likely that countries from Australia to the United States will see more heatwaves, more bushfires, more floods, etc. If this doesn't sound like the kind of future you'd like to see, the answer is obvious: transition away from carbon-based fuels and into clean energy -- as rapidly as possible.