Maybe by reducing societal costs and lets not forget direct and...

Maybe by reducing societal costs and lets not forget direct and indirect government subsidies. Bear in mind that the AUD1 Trillion you quote is over a developmental period. You know, transition. There's that word again.

https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subsidies-a-closer-look-at-tax-breaks-and-societal-costs

" ... There are many kinds of costs associated with fossilfuel use in the form of greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution resulting from the extraction and burning of fossilfuels. These negative externalities have adverse environmental, climate, and public health impacts, and are estimated to have totaled $5.3 trillion globally in 2015 alone.

Subsidizing an industry with such large, negative impacts is difficult to justify. Public subsidies should be consistent with an overarching, coordinated, and coherent energy policy that not only considers the supply of affordable, reliable power, but also public health impacts, climate change, and environmental degradation.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/global-fossil-fuel-subsidies-reach-5-2-trillion-and-29-billion-in-australia-91592/

The under-pricing of fossil fuels, particularly coal, was found to be the largest source of effective subsidy. When the wider social and environmental costs of fossil fuels were taken into account, the IMF found that price paid for coal was typically less than half of its true cost.

The report found that if fossil fuels had been priced appropriately, global carbon emissions would be reduced by 28 per cent. Significantly, effective fossil pricing would also lead to a decrease in air pollution deaths by up to 46 per cent. The elimination of fossil fuel subsidies would also increase global government revenues by 3.8 per cent of GDP.

The upward trend in global fossil fuel subsidies echoes similar analysis by the International Energy Agency that came to the same conclusion, particularly in relation to direct government support for fossil fuels.