Al.

What's needed is bipartisanship on the ground level. That's true equality.
It was once Nationalism, and an homogeneous population. Add in aspiration, and the train is rolling down the tracks.

All of that past cementing of the population is gone. United we stand, divided we fall.
This country is highly vulnerable because of the collapse of the unity it once had, and is plundered by a new breed of politician. (It's been outlined on these pages many times).

We could have the negative it is to the citizenry, ameliorated to a large degree by a redistribution of electoral boundaries, into a more inclusive mix, to include in each electorate, a more homogeneous cross section of the population.

Divide electorates up like slices of a pie for example.
This would force potential politicians to encompass all walks of life and their thinking, into their election campaign.

There's one idea Al

Dan

Great Steeley, but what about emissions, the whole point of the exercise?

As it stands the gas brings a dividend to gov't coffers. If we reserve we should charge out the gas to domestic retailers at international spot prices plus a carbon-price on its combustion for electricity.

Gov't delivering a service to consumers efficiently flies in the face of experience. It'll become another union feather-bed and a tax-base.

Geez I'm glad socialists don't run the country.

Dear Luciferase,

Firstly gas is rightly deemed a transition fuel. It is markedly less CO2 emissions per unit of electricity produced, doesn't have to sit there in constant baseline mode and is a far better fuel than coal for evening out spikes and dips in renewable energy production.

Secondly the amount of revenue we get from our gas exports is minuscule compared to those of Qatar which exports about the same amount of gas. Something about Abbott and shooting down a mining tax.

Finally you say “If we reserve we should charge out the gas to domestic retailers at international spot prices”. What? Even the most lassire fare capitalistic country on the face of the planet wasn't stupid enough to do that. By ensuring virtually all their production was reserved for domestic use it drove down the price and their manufacturers were the beneficiaries. Instead you want our manufacturers to pay top dollar for our own gas and be uncompeditive as a result.

Mate I happen to care about this country, its manufacturers, and its workers. You seem to only care about the profits of global resource companies. Tell me where I am wrong on this and I will listen but right now you would appear to be unAustralian.

Steeley,

I'll put aside the facts of total life-cycle fugitive gas emissions, methane's potency as a GHG, and that running gas in open cycle turbines to backup renewables is inefficient so doesn't deliver the 50% reduction on emissions (over a HELE plant, I'll presume) you claim.

The people "deeming" gas to be a transition fuel hold faith in miracles. Without a staggering storage discovery, there is no "Transition". It's the figment of vivid imaginations used to justify the path of countries like Germany, which is building gas reticulation and coal-mines rather than investing in storage that's just not feasible or economically viable for a modern civilization.

I love my country enough not to want it to embark on a similarly stupid path that will and destroy Australia's competitiveness and impoverish our children.

As for your flatulence about being un-Australian, pass your wind as you will but I won't pass comment.

PS. What's with this 'mate' stuff anyway? Passing yourself off as being more 'strayn than another doesn't strengthen your argument but highlights its vacuity