When a good becomes scarcer, the logical response is to reduce its demand and increase its supply.  The “solutions” that are being floated to the recent surge in gas prices would do the exact opposite.
...
To begin with, even assuming the schemes were workable, the assistance they provide would be completely untargeted. Far from rewarding firms that had economised on the use of gas, the largest benefits would flow to the firms that had cut back least; as those firms used the subsidies to displace more efficient rivals, overall productivity levels would fall, and living standards with them.

Nor is that effect likely to be trivial: in his classic study of broadly similar schemes, Yale’s Paul MacAvoy found those misallocations meant that each dollar in mandated sales cost the economy two.

Compounding the damage, artificially low, capped, prices would encourage gas to be used instead of other energy sources, whose prices would remain more volatile. Domestic demand for gas would therefore rise, slashing national income both by forcing gas producers to forgo higher-priced export sales and by promoting a use of resources that took no account of relative costs.

And as firms locked in gas-intensive methods of production, repealing the scheme would become ever harder, perpetuating the damage.

Last but not least, retrospectively imposing the proposed mandates on the gas exporters would deter new investment by directly reducing their profits and increasing sovereign risk.

The proponents of these schemes strenuously deny that investment would be chilled. But as far back as 1980-81, assessments by Treasury, the Industries Assistance Commission and the OECD all concluded that the two-price schemes had (in the words of the OECD) helped precipitate the “sharp decline in exploration activity throughout the 1970s”. To believe reinstating them in new form would not undermine the development of desperately needed supplies is as inconsistent with decades of careful analysis as it is with common sense.

As a result, were the proposals adopted, we would find ourselves in the worst of all possible worlds: greater demand, lower supply and pervasive inefficiency.
Henry Ergas



Naturally, Bowen and Albo, being 60s and 70s style comrades, are going for the worst of all possible solution. Ideology must triumph, comrades.

lee wrote on Nov 6^th, 2022 at 4:52pm:


Just so.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 7^th, 2022 at 10:50am:


No back of the envelope calculations?

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 7^th, 2022 at 10:50am:



So please tell us to whom you defer for this "accepted fact".

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 7^th, 2022 at 10:50am:



But you only included countries that print their own money. The rest just starve?

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 7^th, 2022 at 10:50am:



Not with renewable energy. Please find one that does it.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 7^th, 2022 at 10:50am:


But you already said you only want them until renewables magically take over. You can't have it both ways. Supply AND demand innit.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 7^th, 2022 at 4:14pm:



Then why can't you provide them?

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 7^th, 2022 at 4:14pm:


Which ones  be specific? All of the scientists? Some of the scientists? 

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 7^th, 2022 at 4:14pm:


BIS and the IMF will not fund free money.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 7^th, 2022 at 4:14pm:


And then when the current generation  need replacingf having already closed fossil fuel production?

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 7^th, 2022 at 4:14pm:


Nope. You leave a big hole in your argument when fossil fuels have been shut down and renewables need replacing.  Just dial up unobtainium.

Your lack of science reaches new lows.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 7^th, 2022 at 5:12pm:


Ah yes. The one where the top dam when emptied will over flow the bottom dam. And they are supposed to be engineers?

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 7^th, 2022 at 5:12pm:



All of them or merely some of them?

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 7^th, 2022 at 5:12pm:



But its already supposed to be Thermageddon.  How much more time?
67805120]replacement will be progressive, as with exhausted fossil deposits. (ie a global economy of a million GWs  can cope with 1 GW replacement, even if possibly requiring nuclear back-up (remains to be seen).    [/quote]

Ah only with exhausted fossil fuels. So never.-

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 7^th, 2022 at 4:14pm:


Poor petal. Can't even point to a timeline. Sometime.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 7^th, 2022 at 5:12pm:

You haven't refuted anything. Renewables can't make more renewables. Otherwise countries would already be doing it. I mean they are so cheap aren't they?

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 7^th, 2022 at 5:12pm:


And since you don't do science you wouldn't know anything about engineering.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 8^th, 2022 at 11:43am:



Except they haven't been able to make them with renewables.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 8^th, 2022 at 11:43am:


And you haven't shown any type of critical thinking to this "timeline" of yours. thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 8^th, 2022 at 11:43am:


See above.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 8^th, 2022 at 11:43am:


And the infrastructure need a reliable energy supply. Renewables are not it.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 8^th, 2022 at 11:43am:


So a non sequitur about your inability to mount a cogent argument on engineering to overcome renewables shortfalls.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 8^th, 2022 at 2:32pm:



Oh dear you ;lost the argument again.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 8^th, 2022 at 2:32pm:


More drivel from a lost argument.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 8^th, 2022 at 2:32pm:


An empirical exercise that has not been proven.

Empirical - Relying on or derived from observation or experiment. 

Future fact, If they come to fruition, are not empirical.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 8^th, 2022 at 2:32pm:


Still more drivel.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 8^th, 2022 at 6:01pm:



No petal. no ad hominem. You haven't even tried to explain how the top dam of Snowy2.0 will generate all the energy cliamed.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 8^th, 2022 at 6:01pm:


Once again you have disproved nothing. To disprove something you must first prove something different.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 8^th, 2022 at 6:01pm:


The discovery is by observation or experiment. Neither of which have been shown.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 8^th, 2022 at 6:01pm:


Yes. So tell me about this empirical "evidence" that you have.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 8^th, 2022 at 6:01pm:


So we haven't had this observational approach yet. Thanks for that. Will - future perfect., hence no observational data.