Talk:Energy policy of Australia

message: This page is being established with the first data entered 14 Feb 07. All additions and corrections gratefully received. dinghy 13:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Energy Policy of Australia page 

message: I am really worried that there is a lot of cutting and pasting going on and therefore copyvio breaches may exist.  The topic is worthwhile but ...--Golden Wattle  talk 20:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio issues 

message: I'm concerned about the slow progress being made with this article.  It's been in such a rudimentary state for so long.  I've added some material on renewable energy but there is very little coverage of non-renewables.  It seems rather one-sided so I'm adding a POV tag to alert readers.  -- Johnfos 04:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: I've been reading some more of Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy and notice that subsidies for fossil fuels are summarised in a Table on pages 290-291.  This is the type of thing that would be useful here -- a summary Table, with a short discussion, rather than having the issue spread over many sections. -- Johnfos 21:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsidy summary Table suggestion 

message: I have removed the undated Cleanup-Rewrite tag added to the Fuels section of the article by an anonymous user and without any supporting discussion on this page dinghy 08:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this tag should be replaced too, as it helps editors identify what needs to be done to improve the article. -- Johnfos 08:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of anonymous undated cleanup-rewrite tag added without discussion 

message: I read an article recently which made me think of this page, and include a link to it here in case anyone is interested... Energy superpower – or sustainable energy leader Johnfos (talk) 10:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ecos article 

message: One thing I notice about this article is that is full of nonsense. Analyses by Greenpeace and Mark Diesendorf, widely criticised  in mainstream sources as being logically and factually flawed, are referenced to provide much of the information. A common alternative view is that Fossil fuels are subject to heavy _net_ taxation in Australia, amounting to tens of billions of dollars annually, resulting in a cross-subsidy _from_ fossil fuels _to_ renewable energy forms.
Although there may be a place in an encyclopedia article for a mention of extreme minority views, the fact that Diesendorf's analysis is presented within the body of the article as though factual, without even a mention of the fact that his analysis is controversial or not widely accepted, is clearly a problem.
POV is too mild a tag for this material, frankly.
Ordinary Person (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you to some extent, and have said before that there is far too much emphasis in the article on this report: ENERGY AND TRANSPORT SUBSIDIES IN AUSTRALIA  However, I think you are being a bit hard on Mark Diesendorf, who is someone who has taken the time to articulate his views in many refereed journal articles and books such as Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy.  Many of Diesendorf's views are echoed around the world in publications such as State of the World 2008, The Clean Tech Revolution and Plan B 2.0.  I would not call his views "fringe" as they are now part of mainstream thinking about energy policy.  Johnfos (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Subsidies and incentives can come through structural and indirect or direct methods.  The problem is, one persons view of that structure may differ to another depending on what assumptions are made and where boundaries are defined.  Johnfos is correct in saying that Mark Diesendorf's opinions are hardly fringe.  Mark's assumptions, I suspect, are not shared by many participants in the development of Australian energy policy. Neutrality in point of view is precisely the problem because this article does not reflect the range of views that exist both in the Australian community nor even the developers of Australian energy policy.  The article talks about the PRRT keeping oil prices artificially low.  That may well be the case, but the statement as found in this article does not provide any credibility.  What about the PRRT keeps the oil prices low?  Who's research came to that conclusion (ie a citation would be good)?  Intuitively a resource rent tax increases the cost of extraction/production of the resource, and a resource extraction company could either pass it (and its cost effects) on to consumers or consider the resource unviable.  If the resource is a globally produced and traded undifferentiated commodity (like crude oil), but the taxation regime being national to Australia, then the price of the resource product (petroleum) could be essentially unaffected by a national resource rent tax on resource fields.  But is there value in the existence of and operational knowledge of petroleum resource production to the taxing organisation (Australian government and the community it represents)?  What society costs (such as lifestyle addictions) come with using a commodity that will ultimately need to be paid for by the Australian government, such as if production capacity for the commodity becomes scarce (Peak Oil)? These two drivers pull the taxation lever in opposite directions for a resource rent tax such as the PRRT.  Regardless of the pump price, does consumers of Australian petroleum resources pay too low a total price for using petroleum? As consumers, what rational reason would they want to pay a greater price if they don't have to?  So what is it about the PRRT that keeps oil prices low? This article needs to communicate these policy specifics along the diversity of views in order to improve quality to Wikipedia recommended standards. 124.170.236.124 (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article full of fringe views 

message: This article is in a bit of a mess, and it struck me that with the recent inclusion of the State Energy Templates at the end of the article, we could eliminate the Energy policy of Australia#State policies section.  The Queensland sub-section could be split to a new article Energy in Queensland and the remaining State coverage (mainly dot points about subsidies) could be deleted.  This would allow the article to flow a lot more and make it more readable, without losing much useful content. Johnfos (talk) 05:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds logical. Beagel (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I object to the proposed deletion. This is not to say taht the article is as good as it could/should be. With respect, what it does is fragment the article which is not about energy policies of the Commonwealth. It is an overview of the energy policies pursued within Australia having particular regard to the evidence of the actual policies pursued by focusing on taxes levied and subsidies provided and regulations imposed/exemptions given. The templates now referenced are more about the physical assets rather than the policies that have lead to them dinghy (talk) 13:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The separate states having each their own navigational templates is turning this page into a real mess. Does someone want to create an Australian wide navbox for this page and others like it, rather than having several state boxes? Wiki ian 04:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am fine with there being new pages on the energy policies in each state as there is for Queensland with a very short summary included in this principal article (as is commonplace within Wikipedia) and the state pages could then have the  state navigational templates. In the absence of that for all states I am against the deletion of the sate navigational templates in the absence of a comprehensive national navigational template. Cheers dinghy (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to remove "State policies" section 

message: "Energy policy of Australia is subject to regulation and fiscal influence of the three levels of Government in Australia"  How much influence does the council level of government have on energy policy? Lumberjack Steve (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Sentance 

message: Dont we need to create a page like Electricity sector in India for Australia? There is a page for Green Electricity in Australia and Wind Power in Australia, but what about Electricity in Australia? 116.240.160.188 (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of that is covered in state based articles due to historical development (eg. Energy in Queensland) as well as Energy policy of Australia. Isn't that suffice? - Shiftchange (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electricity in Australia?