The only problem with oil alternatives is the big oil companies will buy the patent and company doing the research and then sit on anything that will effect there PROFITS.

.....The only problem with oil alternatives is the big oil companies will buy the patent and company doing the research and then sit on anything that will effect there PROFITS.

Unless of cause governments buy the patents, build the infrastructure and create the jobs.

rehctub - Highly unlikely, Government you mean the idiots that privatized the Commonwealth bank and outsource border surveillance etc.

Australia's big four banks - Westpac, Commonwealth, ANZ and National Australia - collectively made $94 billion in profits over the past four years.

The Commonwealth banks share could have helped Australians.

Philip I have long held the belief that we should own all our infrastructure, our super could have funded it all, had it not been released into the hands of profit makers and risk takers.

Oh what could have been!

Phillip/rehctub,

I share both your concerns but these fall into two distinct sets of issues. The first is how we capitalize on the resources in the first place and secondly, how we distribute the benefits to achieve social equity.

I am personally more disposed to direct investment by companies in the resources and energy sectors. They are the business end and should be the ones to provide the capital investment required rather than the public through subsidies and tariffs. The level of investment is huge but the potential profits are also huge, it’s risk/reward for them but that’s what they do for a living.

Social justice and equity is a different issue. By that I mean the fair distribution of benefits to the community. IMHO this should be through the normal, existing structures of taxation.

We have seen what happens when governments distort markets; the cost to the community has been horrendous. Much better in my view to use the normal mechanisms of both the “market” and the “tax system” to make sure that companies invest in their own future but to also make sure that jobs are created, profits are made and the wider community benefits.

Government has two distinct roles, front end and back end. Front end is to legislate for growth. This refers to enabling legislation rather than disabling legislation. They must create a business and productivity environment through legislation.

The back end role should be to ensure equitable distribution of the wealth created. I disagree with Phillip that this would benefit from public ownership because government does not have a strong record on running businesses; in any event public ownership is a substitute for failed government regulation.

So government needs to stand back from market interference but be on the front foot with wealth distribution but all through normal government and commercial instruments. Both entities are good at their core functions, they fail when they step into each others domains

spindoc - The critical part with big business is the tax they pay regrettably the bigger an organization, the less tax they pay by comparison to huge profits, thus leaving the tax burden on average taxpayers, who don't have access to tax havens, off shore accounts or charity status.

The above also applies to very rich people who have access to various tax avoidance schemes.

Only recently are Governments worldwide going after these people and organizations, but very slowly.