I agree about the misinformation and misrepresentation of studies like this. It is drivel, and yes, dribble too.
The problem I have with hydrogen and everything else in the energy transition is that it doesn't exist yet. It'd be great if it did, but it doesn't. There is no green steel, hydrogen fuel use is miniscule. And even if we had solved the problems of hydrogen transport and how to make steel with it, where would we get the electricity to make the hydrogen? Solar panels and wind turbines and all the rest are made in China, out of materials created by burning coal and gas. China has an explicit plan to increase its carbon emissions in coming years, and to build new coal-fired power stations to do it. So the very first thing we need to do to reduce emissions is to, erm, INCREASE emissions?
Even when you look at modest plans like Labor's 43% by 2030, it doesn't stand up. Firstly, it's too little too late, we are on a highway to climate hell and that figure, if it were achieved globally, won't stop us. Also, even the inadequate 43% is not going to be achieved. It includes lots of cheats, like saying we'll use non-existent carbon capture technologies. It also assumes best-case scenarios, for example satellite data shows that the mining industry vastly underestimates its methane emissions, but the government takes the industry figures and not the ones from NASA. I haven't seen a single proposal for an energy transition that doesn't include magical thinking.
No, the only way to avert a catastrophe of biblical proportions is to stop burning fossil fuels right now, even if we don't have the means to replace them. We just have to get by with less energy. No-one in power is proposing this. Putting the fire out is much more important than keeping the lights on, but we won't act until it's our pants that are on fire.
(20min delay)