I have the evidence. My complaints, unsurprisingly, were ignored. I had been asked to apply and definitely should have been shortlisted in any merit-based process. One of my referees was Will Steffen, to whom I co-dedicated my third relevant edited book www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/book/10....

Australia should just get on with the energy transition (at least attempting to). I hope the COP selection committee sees through this, but they probably won't. Net zero is a mix of scam, delusion, desperation & wishful thinking. www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.116...

"360 million tonnes [mt] of emissions could be negated by a mix of green exports". Word "negated" is objectionable. "Saving" 204 mt of CO₂ is not same as sequestering 204mt (another pipedream btw); hole we are in wouldn't get shallower; the GHG emissions aren't cancelled.

Also, this is not net zero. Energy from renewables will (hopefully) replace energy from fossil fuels. But it will NOT lower GHG levels, it will only slow GHG growth. M/time, just as with old fashioned net zero, it creates moral hazard, this false equivalence could paradoxically delay the transition.

However I can see why he would get employment with denialist governments; they must love arguments like this.

Their argument: Australia should do zero to curtail its bad energy exports (like heroin) instead increase its export of good energy (like heroin therapists). No. We should definitely increase the export of good energy- but we should not think this gives us license to profit from planet poisoning.

The lead author is from one of my ANU affiliations - whose just retired director recently wrote to tell me there is no climate change "emergency" because it's "expected". I applied as his replacement, naturally was not short listed. Sophistry and denial - both examples. Very sad.