Two reasons why Australia should reduce emissions; firstly to get an early mover advantage on depletion as we see with east Australian gas. It would be insane if we ended up importing LNG. Second we should be a leader not a follower. We can hardly ask China and India to cut back when we have been profligate emitters for decades.

A simpler criticism of the RET is that it costs billions but does not reduce emissions. Look at the lower table here
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/sep/14/australia-on-track-to-miss-paris-climate-targets-as-emissions-hit-record-highs
For the financial years beginning September 2001 and ending June 2018 electricity sector emissions increased from 180.4 Mt to 184.0. They were supposed to nosedive and drag down the all sectors total. The RET is simply not fit for purpose.

Can we restore the affordable, reliable power we once had in a NE'G'-free world?

Yes. But it will take decades. What is needed is:
• Legislation to ensure fair competition
• Level playing field
• Truly technology neutral.
• No picking winners
• No subsidies or favourable regulations for some technologies and penalties for others – other than on the basis of their relative health impacts.
• Repeal the RET and feed in tariffs for renewables
• Repeal the legislation that bans nuclear power in Australia
• Do not allow any foreign country to control our key infrastructure: electricity, gas, internet, etc.

What's the best way to reduce anthropogenic global emissions, if these are a problem?

GHG emissions are not a problem. They are a net benefit. Global warming would be beneficial, not detrimental. Global cooling would be damaging. To maximise benefits of warming and minimise the potential severe consequences of cooling, polices to reduce GHG emissions should be discontinued.

Taswegian we have about 300 years supply of shale gas alone. That is not counting traditional gas or coal seam gas. We have a couple of hundred years of coal, surely you don't believe we will not move onto a yet untapped fuel in that time.

Well we will if we don't allow the ratbag green fringe to destroy our civilisation with their continual kibitzing.

From a purely economic standpoint. Doing nothing is not an option. And if we have superior technology? what prevents us from deploying/developing it. Could there possibly be any link as reported this morning, between political donations, outcomes and the surprise sacking of the ABC's CEO, also front and centre in this mornings news? Possibly for allowing the studies findings to be publicised? But here I digress.

If the is a way to produce cheap clean safe reliable dispatchable power for less than 2 cents per KwH? Why haven't we embraced it? Could it possibly have anything whatsoever to do with the coal lobby and their political donations, and the reason some pollies are very slow in accepting reform and up to the minute transparency in this area?

And behind the fact that we have an energy crisis our manufacturing sector disappearing with all the jobs and overall prosperity that used to be ours? Now lost as our representatives represent the interests of powerful vested interests above the national interest and or that of the dummies who elect them?

We are but a minnow economically! But if we were first and hit the ground running with energy costing the average mug voter and industry alike, less than 2 cents per KwH? There'd be a veritable tidal wave of high tech energy dependent, manufacturers queuing to gain entry. TBC.
Alan B.

From the economic standpoint alone, there're two things we need to do to set Australia and Australians up for the most prosperous future possible.

One is affordable reliable dispatchable energy. MSR thorium! Creating an economy the envy of the world that even the emerging economies/biggest emitters have no other choice than to emulate! That's how we affect outcomes!

Not by the usual blather or megaphone diplomacy!

And years overdue tax reform! Real reform rather than Clayton's tax reform or tinkering at the edges. Has to be an unavoidable flat tax that every boy and his dog pays, always providing they earn above the accepted tax-free threshold!

Given actual dollars, the high tax paid by any corporation for the year ended 2018, was 13 cents in the dollar, and the highest salary earners are so able to manage their affairs so as not to pay more than 15 cents in the dollar?

Top tax anybody needs to pay is 15% and at 15% 2% more in real company tax dollars than those who paid their "fair share" paid?

Moreover, given there were no permissible deductions or exclusions!?

Able to avoid the averaged 7% currently ripped from the bottom line by current compliance costs! Meaning the effective rate for Australian corporations would be just 8%.

Or if you will, 5% less in real terms than that which the top taxpayers paid in actual surrendered dollars. Even so, much more money for internal revenue minus the current costly, massive money churn!

Furthermore, there're considerable savings to be made on the expenditure side if we once again fund public health and education(all of it) via a means-tested education and or health endowment that the client or parent directs.

The age of entitlement is over! We can't afford to carry indolent drones/unearnt privilege/entitled leaners! Time for a real change we can all believe in! And pollies (all of them) able to make all their (costed/financially validated) promises attached to space age lie detectors!

Given the influence of big money, big media etc! Alan B.

All that is needed to be able to formulate a rational energy policy is straight arithmetic and an understanding of the scope of the problem. Ideologically driven arguments from the Greens and their fellow travellers are simply a waste of space as well as a waste of energy. Great article Geoff.