Thanks @yungenchee.bsky.social - glad you liked it! I’m still skating on the surface myself.

Perhaps it’s a question about the language used. If you talk outcomes instead of methods then donut sounds attractive. Use the wrong language and you might be branded a socialist

Oh, and that 17% doesn’t involve burning any of the gas or coal - it’s purely the emissions involved in getting it out of the ground! And it’s going to be underestimated because we don’t require proper measurement of “fugitive” emissions from venting and leaks

Here’s Energy Australia’s admission that offsets don’t work, elicited thanks to @parentsforclimate.bsky.social’s landmark legal action. www.energyaustralia.com.au/about-us/med...

There are dozens of gas and coal projects licensed to operate beyond 2050. Several indovidual facilities produce millions of tonnes worth of emissions per year on site. Will they be able to reach zero emissions by 2050 without using bogus offsets?

Coverage in the AFR: www.afr.com/companies/en...

In fact, the top 3 industrial facilities in terms of local carbon pollution are all gas giants. Gorgon, Inpex’s Icthys plant, and Woodside’s NW shelf. Collectively spewing 4.9% of Australia’s domestic emissions before any of the gas is burnt.

The biggest industrial climate polluter in terms of its local emissions? That would be Chevron’s Gorgon gas behemoth. You know, the one with the multi billion $ carbon capture and storage plant. Even with it, that one facility produces 2% of Australia’s domestic emissions! Annoyed? Call your MP!