Dear Aiden,

It was called a mining tax. However they lost that argument didn't they and now we don't reap the benefits we should.

"Over the next few years, on similar LNG export volumes, while Qatar collects $26 billion in royalties — not including income tax and proceeds from state-owned companies — Australia will collect absolutely zero in PRRT from the booming offshore gas industry."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-01/tax-credits-for-oil-and-gas-giants-rise-to-324-billion/10959236

Just imagine if that 27 billion dollars were to be used to subsidise gas prices in this country? How much cheaper would energy be for our manufacturing and how much more competitive would they be as a result?

Aiden, well you have certainly missed the plot.
100% renewables IS the aim of the left of Australia's political scene.
They say it often enough and they want to do away with coal, gas and oil.
They also are totally opposed to nuclear energy.
Whats left, pedal generators ?

Steele,
Was there ever a serious suggestion that the PRRT should be used to subsidise domestic gas supply? I don't think that was ever meant to be its purpose.

The problem should have been sorted by reserving a proportion of gas for domestic use, as the USA did with there gas. Or it could have been sorted by locking in a supply contract before the prices went up, as the foreign consumers who are now paying peanuts did. But neither side of politics was convinced of the need to do anything. To be fair though, nor was I. Few anticipated how quickly gas prices would rise.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Bazz,
>100% renewables IS the aim of the left of Australia's political scene.
Yes, and it's an aim the right and centre should be trying to match.

But trying to do so with wind alone is utterly stupid, as it varies a lot whereas solar is quite well anticorellated with wind. And there's also hydro in use already, with the potential to make much better use of it. Then there's battery storage, which is likely to become a lot more common in future, particularly if (as seems likely) batteries using cheaper elements are developed.

>They say it often enough and they want to do away with coal, gas and oil.
That doesn't mean immediately reducing all consumption to zero. Gas turbines will still be an important part of our electricity generation infrastructure, though they will be less frequently used and eventually the gas will be from non fossil sources.

>They also are totally opposed to nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy is just too expensive at the moment. It would have made sense twenty years ago, but renewables are now a cheaper solution for Australia.

Where can we get all the raw materials from to build renewable energy facilities if we're to get away from using oil ?

Yes renewables are ridiculously expensive, & only exist with huge subsidies paid by government & the consumer, but there rare other costs & fallacies.

Former NASA Climate Scientist, James Hansen, writing in the Boston Globe last year, argued that "the notion that renewable energies and batteries alone will provide all needed energy is fantastical. It is also a grotesque idea, because of the staggering environmental pollution from mining and material disposal, if all energy was derived from renewables and batteries."

Continued attempts to power the world with renewables will result in bankrupt western nations, & a darkening world.

Dear Hasbeen,

Well blow me down with a feather. Is it really you quoting James Hansen? The father of climate science? Well done old cock I'm impressed.

Yes I am certainly on board with most of what James has said and agree lithium storage to fulfill bulk energy needs is pie in the sky and environmentally questionable.

James has always supported a price on carbon, a carbon tax, to get proper results and so do I.

Here is a link to his article in full;

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/06/26/thirty-years-later-what-needs-change-our-approach-climate-change/dUhizA5ubUSzJLJVZqv6GP/story.html

And here is a link to the Citizen Climate Lobby which is attempting bipartisan action on carbon pollution;

http://citizensclimatelobby.org/energy-innovation-and-carbon-dividend-act/

This is the policy;

How does it work?

1. Carbon Fee
This policy puts a fee on fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas. It starts low, and grows over time. It will drive down carbon pollution because energy companies, industries, and consumers will move toward cleaner, cheaper options.

2. Carbon Dividend
The money collected from the carbon fee is allocated in equal shares every month to the American people to spend as they see fit. Program costs are paid from the fees collected. The government does not keep any of the money from the carbon fee.

3. Border Carbon Adjustment
To protect U.S. manufacturers and jobs, imported goods will be assessed a border carbon adjustment, and goods exported from the United States will receive a refund under this policy.

4. Regulatory Adjustment
This policy preserves effective current regulations, like auto mileage standards, but pauses the EPA authority to regulate the CO2 and equivalent emissions covered by the fee, for the first 10 years after the policy is enacted. If emission targets are not being met after 10 years, Congress gives clear direction to the EPA to regulate those emissions to meet those targets. The pause does not impact EPA regulations related to water quality, air quality, health or other issues. This policy’s price on pollution will lower carbon emissions far more than existing and pending EPA regulations.

Glad to have you aboard.