Did you know that the best way to debunk something is to look at the thing that is being linked to?

My friends....it's time for a quick , explaining why the report the two gas lobbyists below are linking to nicely disproves exactly what they're saying.....

First of all.....has there been an increase in gas generation?

This is *pure* Taylor. Between 2018 and 2019, there was, but when you view in the context of generation from all fossil fuels, you can see how minuscule it was:

The share of variable renewable energy - wind and solar - has been growing steadily (nowhere near fast enough) over the past decade. Over that time, gas has stayed pretty much the same, in terms of share:

^^ this is in line with exactly what we know: you can get up to around 50% share of VRE in an existing system without needing to build any new stuff (with exceptions for low system strength regions) or change operations: https://twitter.com/KetanJ0/status/1182202400309940224

AEMO's recent 'Renewables integration study' has found something similar: prepare for very high shares, but don't pretend that anything less than 50% requires fleets and fleets of big new fossil fuelled power stations

Read more on that here ->> https://twitter.com/KetanJ0/status/1255742299432267778

This is borne out too when you zoom into regions. Let's go through them, because it's interesting. First, SA, where the broader trend holds, with new renewables simply being balanced using pre-existing fossil-fuelled power stations (which would have existed without that RE)

Queensland is similar, but the share of both renewables and gas is small. Coal still dominates QLD, and the grid there actually seems to be getting worse in recent years:

In NSW, it is clear that the growth of renewables is actually eating into the share of gas, rather than the share of coal. In fact, wind is likely to generate more than fossil gas there soon.

Victoria is the only region in every state and territory where the share of gas has actually increased alongside the share of variable renewable energy:

And in Tas, RE and gas are both a small %'age too, because the state is mostly dominated by hydro - which has obviously served as the better option to balance increasing RE, resulting in a decrease in gas share:

And finally, both WA and NT demonstrate a really, really important thing: there are many places where there is high fossil gas output with barely any renewable share. What happened to the 'perfect pairing'? Shouldn't gas companies there be urging more renewables? (they're not)

There is no coupling between the growth of VRE and the growth of gas. If there ever is, it is an artificially created coupling, because it means people like Angus Taylor and APPEA have got their way, and suckerfish-attached an extremely polluting fossil fuel onto climate action.

It is increasingly clear that Australia can transition to a much higher share of VRE while simultaneously *reducing* fossil fuel usage, of all kinds.

Don't believe me? Look at Taylor's department's own projections, and how they have changed from 2016-2019:

Still skeptical? Well, the grid operator modelled a least-cost snapshot of the future of Australia's National Electricity Market, and the results that got spat out show only a minor role for gas-fired power in all scenarios.

It is far cheaper to:

- Match demand to generation
- Build (relatively small) quantities of distributed and large-scale battery storage
- Build RE in carefully planned 'zones'
- Build interconnections to link up high wind/sun to people

...that's *before * you consider emissions

AEMO's ISP isn't a prediction or a forecast. Nor are the government's, and nor is this thread.

This all depends on how we collectively react when someone says "the more expensive, more polluting option where more money goes to an increasingly risky industry is the best"

Fossil gas only makes decarbonisation "easier" because it is offsetting the harm caused by the emissions it creates onto us - the people who live on Earth but don't see any of the profits from the extraction and burning of fossil fuels.

That isn't 'easier'. Not for us.

It is no small thing that Australia's government is proposing here. It is a serious repudiation of climate action. It is severe and significant. It contradicts what we know about the integration of zero carbon options, it conflicts with our yearning for a safe home.

What's happening is a big deal. Next time you want some insight into how big the deal is, just click on the link and look at the data. You will always be enlightened.

The end! (pending appendices)

Augh, Appendix 1 - I accidentally posted SA's chart for QLD's share %'ages. Here's QLD

Appendix 2 - this great @BillHareClimate piece showing how Woodside Energy's new Burrup Hub fossil gas extraction scheme would eat up 7-10% (!!!!!) of Aus' 2018-2050 carbon budget. Jeez. Some eye-opening stats here:

https://theconversation.com/a-single-mega-project-exposes-the-morrison-governments-gas-plan-as-staggering-folly-133435?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=organic

Appendix 3 - Does everyone remember Transition Smartphones?

Appendix 4 - @sophvorrath's great write-up of the @LucyTurnbull_AO vs @ScienceChiefAu on the future of gas in Aus --->> https://reneweconomy.com.au/finkel-vs-turnbull-gas-vs-big-batteries-are-we-really-decades-away-from-transition-65288/ in @renew_economy