In a move that's sure to spark conversation, the Albanese government has unveiled a 'future gas strategy' aimed at keeping the home fires burning without burning a hole in your wallet.

As we all know, energy costs can be a significant concern, especially for those who are often on a fixed income.

The plan, which has already caused controversy, is designed to shore up the gas supply and make it more affordable for millions of Australians.

The strategy outlines Labor's support for new gas projects, including the development of new gas fields and import terminals.

The goal is to ensure that as Australia strides towards a net-zero future, we don't find ourselves in the dark or out in the cold due to power shortages or unaffordable bills.

The government released its ‘future gas strategy’. Image source: Shutterstock

Resources Minister Madeline King has been vocal about the necessity of this strategy, stating that there are 'uses for gas we can't substitute' just yet.

She explained: ‘We hope to (find a substitute for gas), but we don’t know when that will be possible. In the meantime, we can’t have wishful thinking without backup.’

‘The five million households across the country that rely on gas for their heating and energy while we transition to electrification, that gas needs to be affordable, and to be affordable you need reliable supply,’ she added.

As Minister King pointed out, the difficulty is predicting exactly how much gas will be needed to meet Australia's energy needs over the next two to three decades. However, what's clear is that gas will still play a role, particularly in industries that are hard to electrify.

The 'future gas strategy' is not just about keeping the lights on; it's also about supporting the economic transition to net-zero emissions and bolstering industries that are part of Labor's 'Made in Australia' agenda.

To address potential shortages, the strategy suggests that Australia could tap into new gas fields such as Scarborough off the Western Australian coast and Narrabri in northern New South Wales.

But it's not all about drilling and digging. The government is aware of the environmental concerns and the backlash from the Greens, teal independents, and even some within Labor's own ranks.

To mitigate these concerns, the strategy includes measures to reduce emissions from gas production. This includes promoting carbon capture and storage technologies and minimising methane release during extraction.

Furthermore, the strategy aims to prevent companies from hoarding untapped resources, encouraging them to increase gas extraction responsibly.

This is a critical point, as it's not just about finding more gas, but also about using what we have efficiently and effectively.

Before the ink is even dry on the strategy, it has been met with criticism from environmental groups.

NSW Senator David Shoebridge has called the decision to push for new gas mines 'criminal’, citing the urgent need to address climate change.

The debate over gas and its role in our energy mix is complex, and there are no easy answers.

However, it's crucial that we stay informed and engaged in these discussions, as the decisions made today will shape the world we leave behind for our children and grandchildren.

The gas strategy was briefly discussed in this video:

Source: ABC News (Australia)/YouTube​

Key Takeaways

• The government is set to reveal its 'future gas strategy' aimed at bolstering support for new gas fields and import terminals to ensure affordable energy supply.
  
• The plan is in response to predictions of potential gas shortages within four years if Australia's supply isn't reinforced.
  
• The strategy is part of the economic transition to net-zero emissions and includes measures to reduce emissions from gas production.
  
• The announcement has already led to backlash from environmental groups and political parties like the Greens, who argued it contradicts efforts to reduce climate impact.

We'd love to hear your thoughts on this new strategy. How do you think this will affect your energy bills and your comfort at home? Share your opinions in the comments below!

 

[Rob44]

Funny how this inept bunch of fools that pretends to be in government created the cost of living crisis, created power shortages, set unrealistic targets that they called net zero, exacerbated homelessness and numerous other displays of incompetency. Now they are trying to look like saviors, trying to make us think they have solved problems and being generous. Not buying any of it. There is no climate crisis, no need to stop using coal, no such thing as green energy. Coal, gas and oil are renewable sources of fuel. CO2 is a trace gas essential to life but levels are much lower than they should be. We need to produce more CO2 for the sake of plant life and food production. The clowns in the left wing are what is threatening our existence. They are what we need to save the planet from.

You really believe this government is not useless and inept? Oh that is so precious. Anthropogenic global heating? ROTFLMAO

 

[Rob44]

You make me laugh. It is not I who has need to explain myself more clearly. It is you who needs to read properly and pay attention when facts are presented to you. I am very confident that this is not the first time you have been rebuked for that. It is very convenient and commonplace for climate warriors like yourself to quote events and align them with changes in weather patterns. It is also very common for climate warriors to cherry pick timelines and concentrate on post industrial revolution or post war scenarios simply because it is easy manipulate data to support your agenda. CO2 levels have historically followed temperature rises for millennia not vice versa. CO2 levels have been in the order of 1500PPM and we are still here. You will note that global maximum temperatures have not varied as much as global minimum temperatures have, again, taking long term samples rather than just the last 100 years. There is much crap posted on the internet that has no basis in fact. Consensus is not scientific proof or validation. The science is far from settled and never will be settled. The climate warrior brigade censors any disagreement with AGW and many scientists and engineers have been defunded, discredited and fired in this cancel culture regime that is AGW. BTW I am an engineer.

An engineer. An interesting profession. Geologists argue that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was as high as 4550ppm a few hundred million years ago. 4550ppm: that grew a lot of coal, ultimately, hence the term Carboniferous. We weren't around then and it probably didn't matter if a couple of hundred million of us were, although we could have cut down a lot of tree-ferns etc had we invented axes back then. I am surprised that as an engineer that you don't trust graphs and that you can't comprehend that the global population has expanded from 750 million at the beginning of the industrial revolution (approx . 1700) to 8.5 billion or so now, via about 1 billion people just before WW1, and that our concomitant use of energy has increased accordingly, and that has involved burning hydrocarbons in exponentially increasing amounts to raise atmospheric CO2 from 270ppm to today's 420-425ppm.

Percentages are interesting numbers: 150/425 expressed as a percentage is roughly 35%. That's the increase in CO2 from 270 to 425ppm expressed as a percentage of how many ppm CO2 there are in the atmosphere now. 150/270 expressed as a percentage is 55.5% recurring which represents the percentage increase when compared with 270ppm pre-industrial ppm CO2. I don't believe the ant population has increased overmuch since 50 million years ago when ants began to populate the world, and barring such rare events as the at least 60 000 year-long Siberian Trap event back around 251.9 million years ago, CO2-producing global volcanic activity may be regarded as a reasonable constant given that our tectonic plates have been doing more or less the same old thing since at least 800 million years ago. As no doubt have sunspots. What's the variable that could have operated to produce that extra 150 ppm CO2 in the last 200-300 years? Human population growth and our exponentially increasing consumption of fossil fuels.

It's a simple argument.

Oddly enough I hope you are correct and that Anthropogenic Global Heating is not happening as H sapiens is rather handy with an AK-47 when the going gets nasty. We'll wait and see.

 

[Rob44]

You make me laugh. It is not I who has need to explain myself more clearly. It is you who needs to read properly and pay attention when facts are presented to you. I am very confident that this is not the first time you have been rebuked for that. It is very convenient and commonplace for climate warriors like yourself to quote events and align them with changes in weather patterns. It is also very common for climate warriors to cherry pick timelines and concentrate on post industrial revolution or post war scenarios simply because it is easy manipulate data to support your agenda. CO2 levels have historically followed temperature rises for millennia not vice versa. CO2 levels have been in the order of 1500PPM and we are still here. You will note that global maximum temperatures have not varied as much as global minimum temperatures have, again, taking long term samples rather than just the last 100 years. There is much crap posted on the internet that has no basis in fact. Consensus is not scientific proof or validation. The science is far from settled and never will be settled. The climate warrior brigade censors any disagreement with AGW and many scientists and engineers have been defunded, discredited and fired in this cancel culture regime that is AGW. BTW I am an engineer.

An engineer. An interesting profession. Geologists argue that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was as high as 4550ppm.some long time ago. 4550ppm grew a lot of coal, ultimately, hence the term Carboniferous.We weren't around then and it probably didn't matter if a couple of hundred million of us were, although we could could have cut down a lot of tree-ferns etc had we invited axes. I am surprised that as an engineer that you don't trust graphs and that you can't comprehend that the global population has expanded from 750 million at the beginning of the industrial revolution (approx .1700) to 8.5 billion or so now, via about 1 billion people just before WW1, and that our concomitant use of energy has increased accordingly, and that has involved burning hydrocarbons in exponentially increasing amounts to raise atmospheric CO2 from 270ppm to today's 420-425ppm.

Percentages are interesting numbers: 150/425 expressed as a percentage is roughly 35%. That's the increase in CO2 from 270 to 425ppm expressed as a percentage of how many ppm CO2 there are in the atmosphere now. 150/270 expresses as a percentage of 55.5% recurring which represents the percentage increase when compared with 270ppm pre-industrial ppm CO2. I don't believe the ant population has increased overmuch since 50 million years ago when ants began to populate the world, and barring such rare events as the at least 60 million Siberian Trap event back around 251.9 million years ago volcanic activity may be regarded as a constant as that is caused by what are effectively constant geological processes, plate tectonics.

The main variable has been human population growth especially since the industrial revolution began and that matches the rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution began.
Oddly enough I would hope you are correct in that Anthropogenic Global Heating is a furphy, as H sapiens is too handy for its own good with its AK-47s when the going gets tough.

However, our kids will just have to wait and see as H sapiens is all too handy at demanding to preserve its luxurious lifestyle (even when compared to when I was a young'un). However, it is comfortable to dream that CO2 (and other gases) are not greenhouse gases and even if they are they have merely a miniscule effect; and even to dream that the measurements of ppm of such gases are utterly wrong. That's some peoples' Dreamtime; not mine.

 

[I'm Mal]

An engineer. An interesting profession. Geologists argue that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was as high as 4550ppm.some long time ago. 4550ppm grew a lot of coal, ultimately, hence the term Carboniferous.We weren't around then and it probably didn't matter if a couple of hundred million of us were, although we could could have cut down a lot of tree-ferns etc had we invited axes. I am surprised that as an engineer that you don't trust graphs and that you can't comprehend that the global population has expanded from 750 million at the beginning of the industrial revolution (approx .1700) to 8.5 billion or so now, via about 1 billion people just before WW1, and that our concomitant use of energy has increased accordingly, and that has involved burning hydrocarbons in exponentially increasing amounts to raise atmospheric CO2 from 270ppm to today's 420-425ppm.

Percentages are interesting numbers: 150/425 expressed as a percentage is roughly 35%. That's the increase in CO2 from 270 to 425ppm expressed as a percentage of how many ppm CO2 there are in the atmosphere now. 150/270 expresses as a percentage of 55.5% recurring which represents the percentage increase when compared with 270ppm pre-industrial ppm CO2. I don't believe the ant population has increased overmuch since 50 million years ago when ants began to populate the world, and barring such rare events as the at least 60 million Siberian Trap event back around 251.9 million years ago volcanic activity may be regarded as a constant as that is caused by what are effectively constant geological processes, plate tectonics.

The main variable has been human population growth especially since the industrial revolution began and that matches the rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution began.
Oddly enough I would hope you are correct in that Anthropogenic Global Heating is a furphy, as H sapiens is too handy for its own good with its AK-47s when the going gets tough.

However, our kids will just have to wait and see as H sapiens is all too handy at demanding to preserve its luxurious lifestyle (even when compared to when I was a young'un). However, it is comfortable to dream that CO2 (and other gases) are not greenhouse gases and even if they are they have merely a miniscule effect; and even to dream that the measurements of ppm of such gases are utterly wrong. That's some peoples' Dreamtime; not mine.

Not sure what you are trying to achieve by posting the same message twice. In response though yes engineering is an interesting profession. I will not waste my time dealing with the majority of your drivel, trying to impress me, other than to say that if I receive graphs and other data from credible sources, I am interested to read them. As you have blown the modicum of credibility you might have had, three times in fact, I have no interest in any articles, graphs etc you would like me to read nor any attempt you make to try to correct me. My original point stands: the current mob of incompetents pretending to run this country are out of their collective depth and sending the country to ruin.

 

[Rob44]

Same message twice; no idea how that happened. As for those who rely on personal abuse to make a point, I regard it as rather unprofessional. If you receive graphs from sources you agree with, you find them credible; and if you receive graphs from source showing what you don't like, you find them not credible. Ah well; some engineers make mistakes .

 

[I'm Mal]

Same message twice; no idea how that happened. As for those who rely on personal abuse to make a point, I regard it as rather unprofessional. If you receive graphs from sources you agree with, you find them credible; and if you receive graphs from source showing what you don't like, you find them not credible. Ah well; some engineers make mistakes .

Think whatever you like. I have not abused you in any way but if you want to take that way or if the cap fits. Twisting things that other people say to you, and that you don't like is highly unprofessional. If I receive graphs from a credible source, then even if I don't like their message, they are still credible. In your case, anything you offer is not credible because you have lost credibility. For a man who strives to want to appear as intelligent, you seem to struggle to understand basic mathematics. I had to explain it to you three times and each time you tried to twist it and argue ad hominem. Even now you do not seem to be inclined to cease and desist. Ah well, my mistake was trying to be patient with you. No doubt, you will want the last word so give it your best shot.

 

[Rob44]

In your case, anything you offer is not credible because you have lost credibility with the majority of your drivel.

You make me laugh. It is not I who has need to explain myself more clearly. It is you who needs to read properly and pay attention when facts are presented to you. I am very confident that this is not the first time you have been rebuked for that.

 

[IAN3005]

Not sure what you are trying to achieve by posting the same message twice. In response though yes engineering is an interesting profession. I will not waste my time dealing with the majority of your drivel, trying to impress me, other than to say that if I receive graphs and other data from credible sources, I am interested to read them. As you have blown the modicum of credibility you might have had, three times in fact, I have no interest in any articles, graphs etc you would like me to read nor any attempt you make to try to correct me. My original point stands: the current mob of incompetents pretending to run this country are out of their collective depth and sending the country to ruin.

Touché