For those who care to know officially, average global warming of below 1.5 °C looks to be a thing of the past.

The International Energy Agency forcefully states that the pathway to net zero by 2050 is a very narrow one and requires that no new oil and gas fields get approved.

And yet, despite the Australian public voting for Labor’s pledge to aggressively reduce emissions, on the day after he was sworn in as Australia’s 31st Prime Minister, Albanese was at Kantei in Tokyo making a contrary pledge of “better energy security” for Japan.

Recent Freedom of Information (FOI) releases, and close examination of a mosaic of evidence, have shed new light on who’s been convincing the Government to back away from turning off the gas tap.

The Barossa project is key to the future profits of Santos. The project involves piping gas from the Barossa field north of Darwin for onshore processing. Its output is intended for export to Asia.

In terms of carbon emissions, Barossa is the dirtiest of projects. Some experts have described it as a carbon emission project with LNG as a by-product. To deal with this, the company intends to bury the unwanted CO2 output in the now commercially depleted Bayu-Udan gas field in Timor-Leste waters.

Energy cannibalism, or energy self-use, is the necessity to spend energy in order to extract additional energy from the environment. This publication estimates that by 2020 the production of oil liquids, including Diesel fuel, costs 15.5% of the energy from this high energy quality resource. This fraction is growing at an exponential rate. By 2050, the net-energy fraction will be around half. Unconventional oil liquids are reported as continuously replacing higher quality conventional ones. A review of energy analysis literature and history highlights industry predictions about future supply, and evaluates several models to conservatively predict long term decline of net energy. Global heating by emissions is accelerated by the rise in gross production of oil liquids, peaking maybe in 2035, if no other dynamic factors intervene. There are a lot of caveats and assumptions listed.

For biosphere and climate integrity, and survival of other species, we cannot run out of low cost, net energy fast enough. For economies, declining net energy is the fast disappearance of the temporary carrying capacity of fossil fuels to power all the requirements of sustaining our industrial civilization, and must end our enormous population overshoot of over-consuming humans.

The "Honest Sorcerer", B on substack, presents irrefutable logic that this age of mining must reach an end, as mining ability requires energy and mineral supply, and this declines with depletion. The fully dependent renewable energy transition cannot prevent a global energy and minerals supply crunch.  The end of mining brings our all-consuming, destructive industrial civilization, to its natural biosphere-breaking end.

Now calibrated with current datasets, an updated Limits to Growth model shows collapse in global industrial output is already happening just about now. Collapse is from resources depletion, particularly oil. Human population reduction will follow later. Persistent pollution is indexed to accumulated industrial CO2 emissions, which will continue grow to badly plague us later. 

Global climate models have been underestimating the rates of polar warming. What is missing? This paper says that thin, high polar clouds may be responsible. They form in the stratosphere, with water vapor created from methane breakdown. This amplifies the greenhouse effect of the methane itself.

A little bit of climate honesty could go a long way.

Can Juice media give a gut blow to our fossil fuels bound Australian Government? Our "climate leader" politicians are an unbelievable easy target.

"Have we finally broken our favorite planet?" 

Global environment appearances can be deceptive, and Australian politicians appear to have collectively sworn not to be deceived by them. Judging by results, COP for climate action are nothing more than yearly fossil fuel corporate trade shows, designed to produce agreements to burn more of their products every year.

Yet another federal government budget floods media attention in Australia.  Discussions in the media tend to be about small matters of Surplus or Deficit, Taxes and Welfare. Meanwhile our petty domestic politics are overshadowed by a global polycrisis of risks, which keep looming ever larger and nearer, as listed in this World Economic Forum report.

A standard political response to preparing any of these, is the equivalent of filling a bucket with sand, and sticking one's head it. Or to start talking about incremental policy changes, or smearing the opposition party.  All elements of this polycrisis are made worse by pushing for continued growth, in population, wealth and consumption.  In facing these risks, Australia plans to give up nothing.  This is loss aversion and fear of economic collapse. We cannot keep it all.

Notice how "Geoeconomic confrontation" risk drops from near the top, to near the bottom, over the ten years. Keep this in mind when considering that Australia's most expensive future spending plans over the next decades, are for investments in high tech weapons in support of the military industrial complex of the USA, which is rapid social and economic decline.

Notice that "rapid collapse of the USA global military empire" is not included in the risks list. This is because western media deny its existence while at the same time drumming hysterical support for its latest war and weapons business venture.