* * *“I think we are headed for major societal disruption within the next five years,” said Gretta Pecl, at the University of Tasmania. “[Authorities] will be overwhelmed by extreme event after extreme event, food production will be disrupted. I could not feel greater despair over the future.”
Next day Madeleine King bounced out of bed, feeling net-zero despair, promoting more fossil fuels. Very strange: Most of the world’s scientists say we’re heading for disaster because of the burning of fossil fuels, yet the government is promoting them.
I can’t see what’s in it for them, beyond wedging the Opposition by stealing their ideas.
But the impact of it on Australia’s emissions reduction project will be disproportionate, and devastating.
William of Ockham's standing behind my shoulder, muttering something about donors and lobbyists.So the dominant purpose of the Future Gas Strategy is exports, but this is not a very important export industry.
The industry employs 20,000 people – one-sixth as many as Coles – and pays little in taxes and royalties.
If it was a country, WA would be the world’s third largest exporters of natural gas, but according to the Australia Institute, the royalties paid by the gas industry to the WA government, totalled $670 million in 2023-24, or just 1.5 per cent of the state government’s revenue. Motor vehicle registration contributes almost twice as much; iron ore royalties nine times as much.
The Australian Taxation Office considers the oil and gas industry to be “systemic non-payers” of tax. The four biggest LNG producers operating in WA – Chevron, ExxonMobil, Woodside and Shell – made combined income of $55.2 billion in 2021-22 and paid $1.7 billion in corporate income tax and petroleum resource rent tax. ExxonMobil paid nothing. Exxon, Woodside, Shell and Chevron contributed less to the Commonwealth government than Australia’s beer drinkers, who raised $2.5 billion through the beer excise.
Domestic dilemma
As for its importance in supplying domestic energy, and specifically the transition to net zero by 2050, Madeleine King said: “Ensuring Australia continues to have adequate access to reasonably priced gas will be key to delivering an 82 per cent renewable energy grid by 2030, and to achieve our commitment to net-zero emissions by 2050.”
Really? The obvious key to delivering 82 per cent renewable energy is more solar and wind, with adequate storage – mainly battery and pumped hydro – so you would think words of encouragement and/or money should be applied to that.
In fact, it’s agreed by scientists that we need to electrify the nation’s homes and turn off the gas in them as quickly as possible along with those industries that use gas.
https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/finance/ ... ate-change
