Bill Hare

Our submission to Australian Senate Select Committee on the Taxation on Gas Resources focussed on the importance of taxing export fossil gas in the need for Australia to decarbonise its economy to meet the Paris Agreement's 1.5˚C limit. 🧵/n #auspol climateanalytics.org/publications...

Government policies should tax gas exports to maximise public returns within a closing window for a profitable exploitation of Australia’s fossil fuel resources, including for the purpose of more quickly scaling up zero emission solutions.

Our submission to Australian Senate Select Committee on the Taxation on Gas Resources focussed on the importance of taxing export fossil gas in the need for Australia to decarbonise its economy to meet the Paris Agreement's 1.5˚C limit. 🧵/n #auspol climateanalytics.org/publications...

The growing ability of battery storage, grid transmission, and demand management technologies to affordably firm renewables further undercuts arguments in favour of fossil gas being critical to the energy transition.

Our submission to Australian Senate Select Committee on the Taxation on Gas Resources focussed on the importance of taxing export fossil gas in the need for Australia to decarbonise its economy to meet the Paris Agreement's 1.5˚C limit. 🧵/n #auspol climateanalytics.org/publications...

Our own modelling shows the volume of natural gas “needed”, rapidly declines with time, despite the claims of fossil gas industry members and supporters, who are promoting a sustained role for their product.

Our submission to Australian Senate Select Committee on the Taxation on Gas Resources focussed on the importance of taxing export fossil gas in the need for Australia to decarbonise its economy to meet the Paris Agreement's 1.5˚C limit. 🧵/n #auspol climateanalytics.org/publications...

Last week PM Albanese ruled out a new levy on gas exports. In our follow-up reply, we noted any decision against a gas levy a missed opportunity to progress climate change mitigation, ensuring Australians receive a fair return for the resource they collectively own ca1-clm.edcdn.com/publications...

What fossil fuel companies paid to Australia’s political parties in 2025 federal election and what they seem have gotten in return. cheekmedia.substack.com/p/dirty-data...

“Australia’s largest oil and gas company, Woodside, donated $53,775 to the Australian Labor Party and $40,140 to the Coalition prior to the 2025 Federal Election. Just 25 days after the election, the government conditionally approved extending the company’s North West Shelf LNG plant out to 2070.”

A commentary in @nature.com argues the 1.5°C temperature limit has “outlived its usefulness” because we’re headed towards overshoot and should be replaced by a “clean-energy shift” metric. That’s the wrong diagnosis. Here is why. www.nature.com/articles/d41...

As @joerirogelj.bsky.social put it "the PA’s goal to pursue efforts to limit global warming to 1.5°C therefore endures as the legal and ethical imperative to secure a safe and livable planet for present and future generations." www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...

A commentary in @nature.com argues the 1.5°C temperature limit has “outlived its usefulness” because we’re headed towards overshoot and should be replaced by a “clean-energy shift” metric. That’s the wrong diagnosis. Here is why. www.nature.com/articles/d41...

In all this that should not be forgotten that since 2015, the Paris Agreement has provided quantified targets at national and global levels consistent with limiting warming as close as possible to 1.5°C.

A commentary in @nature.com argues the 1.5°C temperature limit has “outlived its usefulness” because we’re headed towards overshoot and should be replaced by a “clean-energy shift” metric. That’s the wrong diagnosis. Here is why. www.nature.com/articles/d41...

The Paris Agreement provides the basis to design critical clean energy benchmarks to limit overshoot as low as possible and get warming back below 1.5° by 2100. Without the 1.5C limit it is unlikely that the right benchmarks would be calculated or chosen.

A commentary in @nature.com argues the 1.5°C temperature limit has “outlived its usefulness” because we’re headed towards overshoot and should be replaced by a “clean-energy shift” metric. That’s the wrong diagnosis. Here is why. www.nature.com/articles/d41...

This scenario shows the time bound actionable targets needed globally to strictly limit overshoot and reduce warming below 1.5° by 2100. For example, renewables capacity needs to grow significantly, with a 3.5-fold increase by 2030 – ahead of the global tripling goal agreed at COP28.

A commentary in @nature.com argues the 1.5°C temperature limit has “outlived its usefulness” because we’re headed towards overshoot and should be replaced by a “clean-energy shift” metric. That’s the wrong diagnosis. Here is why. www.nature.com/articles/d41...

This work shows how to minimize overshoot and return to well below 1.5°C by 2100 with renewables, electrification, efficiency, methane cuts, deforestation reduction—reaching net zero around ~2060 if governments deliver.

A commentary in @nature.com argues the 1.5°C temperature limit has “outlived its usefulness” because we’re headed towards overshoot and should be replaced by a “clean-energy shift” metric. That’s the wrong diagnosis. Here is why. www.nature.com/articles/d41...

If implemented the @cop28.bsky.social energy transition goals and benchmarks *** actionable targets *** would actually bend the emission curve. So we already have science actionable targets that would actually work if implemented. climateanalytics.org/publications...

A commentary in @nature.com argues the 1.5°C temperature limit has “outlived its usefulness” because we’re headed towards overshoot and should be replaced by a “clean-energy shift” metric. That’s the wrong diagnosis. Here is why. www.nature.com/articles/d41...

The Paris 1.5° limit provided the rigorous basis for @cop28.bsky.social in 2023 to agree 1.5C aligned clean energy targets - tripling renewables, doubling efficiency, reductions in methane and deforestation by 2030, and transition away from fossil fuels. www.cop28.com/en/global-re...

A commentary in @nature.com argues the 1.5°C temperature limit has “outlived its usefulness” because we’re headed towards overshoot and should be replaced by a “clean-energy shift” metric. That’s the wrong diagnosis. Here is why. www.nature.com/articles/d41...

Overshoot management isn’t “wait until 2100 and see,” as the article suggests. The Paris Agreement climate goals provide the indispensable scientific basis for what benchmarks for clean energy, energy efficiency, methane reductions and deforestation action are needed and by when.

A commentary in @nature.com argues the 1.5°C temperature limit has “outlived its usefulness” because we’re headed towards overshoot and should be replaced by a “clean-energy shift” metric. That’s the wrong diagnosis. Here is why. www.nature.com/articles/d41...

First: yes, we’re heading into overshoot @wmo-global.bsky.social 1.5°C in the next 5 years. This is not a geophysical accident. It is the result of policy failure. Now what's needed is action to limit the magnitude and duration of overshoot to drive temperatures back down. wmo.int/news/media-c...