Fester
You are missing the point of this thread.
Regardless of your thoughts on renewable energy sources this thread is about lost opportunities for Australians.

Norway has shown that it is possible to tax natural resource extraction at a substantially higher rate than Australia.

Australian's are being short changed here and subsidies for oil and gas producers, farmers and miners at the expense of all Australians is a flawed business model.

Where you see less tax-payer dollars for a few I see more revenue for all.

WTF,

I've seen this article before, the activists deliberately and deviously confuse tax breaks (which are given to every single business) with subsidies which they are not. The prime one is the right to depreciate capital expenses against income. The complete inability to demonstrate actual subsidies shows that this is complete bullsh1te.

When you see that oil and gas companies already pay about 40% royalties then 30% company tax, wage taxes, paye on wages, GST etc. there is not much of a difference between Norway and Aus except that Norway puts the revenue in a wealth fund and Labor just spends it.

WTF?

A few years ago people like Bob Brown were declaring coal dead and renewable energy capable of replacing it. The coal price dropped and many fossil fuel companies did it tough whilst renewable energy companies did very well with the subsidies and investment. I don't remember calls for super taxes on renewables at the time, nor calls on other industries when they had good times. But as the reality of renewables became apparent and Russia's unprovoked war spiked prices of natural gas and consequently coal and oil, people were pretty damn quick to call the profits obscene and demand super taxes on the windfall. Where is the consistency in this when so many industries are cyclical?

"I care that billions of tax dollars in subsidies have gone to Australia’s oil and gas industry for little result."

Some people never read the fine print.
It's a business tax rebate on the cost of fuel.
The government still charges a fuel levy.

There's no financial gift to fossil fuel companies, it's simply a case of 'we didn't screw your businesses as badly as we could've' in this instance, because "boosting the economy as a whole works out better in the long run".

There's no money going to fossil fuel company executives and shareholders pockets it goes to Aussie businesses for the sake of the 'economy';

- But we gave billions to QANTAS to burn aviation fuel.

Whats the point of any of us even being here and trying to have a discussion, when people completely the bs they are fed?

It's a battle just to clear out the bs, just to get to the facts.
- And most of the time we don't even make it that far.

If you want to whinge about financial gifts to large businesses that burn fossil fuels, try picking a shoe that fits.

The other items in that group of claimed subsidies for fossil fuel companies include 'port upgrades' - that is the government wants to help EXPORT MORE, so it makes more in tax receipts for itself and the company earns more too.

You think democracy is of the people and by the people;
- But forget that political donors are higher up the food chain than voters.

And the people, contrary to popular climate change narrative;
DON'T LIKE PAYING HIGHER FUEL OR ENERGY BILLS.

All you need is a few idiots and a corrupt media to loudspeaker the voice of the few to screw over the many.
You don't need 50% consensus, all you need is a few individuals and groups in the spotlight presenting themselves as popular opinion, while they stifle (maybe I should use cancel instead) any voices of dissent.

Democracy is a joke.
- Even more so when the two contenders and their parties are both crap.

Hi AC,

If we all thought alike (Heaven forbid!) then authoritarian rule would be a very sensible idea. Because every individual sees a different world, democracy at least gives the chance that decisions of government might meet with the approval of some voters, but it also puts the onus on people to speak up lest they not be heard.