A national election campaign is days away and the focus in Canberra is on a federal budget that wasn’t going to happen until a tropical cyclone threatened southern Queensland a fortnight ago. The climate crisis and environment are expected to get passing mentions.

But there is a strong case that they should be at the forefront of debate over the next six weeks, understandable cost-of-living concerns notwithstanding.

There are glaring questions about major environmental decisions due in the months and years ahead that remain unanswered. Here are some of the big ones that Australians should expect answers to before they decide the next parliament.

How will more gas lead to lower prices?

Gas appears to have replaced a far-off proposal to build taxpayer-funded nuclear plants as the main focus of the Coalition’s public messaging on energy. On Monday, the Nationals leader, David Littleproud, argued a Peter Dutton-led government would “flood gas into the grid to give Australians some hope about bringing down their energy bill and to bring down their food bill”.

Small problem: nobody from the Coalition has coherently explained how burning more gas would lower power bills. Or why – given there is claimed bipartisan support for reaching net zero emissions and scientists say deep cuts are needed now – the country should not be taking steps to limit its use.

Littleproud fell back on high school economics: that more supply means more competition means lower prices. It’s a simple truism, but doesn’t always hold when there are complicating factors – and with gas, there are several.

About 80% of the gas extracted in Australia is exported or used by the export industry, and the local price is largely driven by the international prices. There was a big hike in costs after the Gladstone liquefied natural gas export (LNG) hub opened more than a decade ago, and another when Russia invaded Ukraine. The result is gas is the most expensive major energy source in most of the country. Opening a new basin or two years from now does not change this equation.

The ABC has reported the Coalition plans to introduce a domestic gas reservation policy – requiring companies to carve out a proportion of gas for local use – for new offshore developments as a quid pro quo for reducing climate and environment regulations. This sort of policy has had an impact in Western Australia but the situation in the east today is quite different. Experts say the cheapest gas sources have already been tapped.

Currently, the Coalition’s lines about the need for gas largely echo industry talking points. But how about some public-focused evidence?

How will Australia’s broken environment laws be fixed?

Anthony Albanese has made a remarkable U-turn on protecting nature. A year ago he was backing his environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, to revamp the 25-year-old national law and create a national Environment Protection Agency (EPA) to make key decisions and impose beefed-up penalties.

But the rewrite of the widely criticised Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act was indefinitely delayed, and Albanese intervened to stop a deal between Plibersek and the crossbench on the EPA legislation following industry pressure. Now the prime minister plans to amend the EPBC Act to protect the salmon industry in Tasmania’s Macquarie Harbour, a step that “apoplectic” conservationists say will weaken the laws.

Albanese’s response is that the government backs jobs and estimates suggest the population of the endangered Maugean skate – which scientists say has been affected by the salmon industry – may be back at 2014 levels. Which sounds OK, but leaves out that in 2014 the skate was already an endangered species, considered at risk of extinction.

The government says it wants better laws and supports introducing an EPA – though not the model it proposed this term. A specific policy is still MIA, let alone answers about what it would mean for new fossil fuel developments in environmentally sensitive areas or native forest logging.

For Peter Dutton’s part, he has claimed that nobody can argue Australia’s existing environment protection system is inadequate.

It may shock the opposition leader to learn that many people do argue that. The obvious places to start are the Samuel review of the EPBC Act – released while Dutton was a cabinet minister – and the 2021 state of the environment report, which was so damning the Coalition refused to release it before the 2022 federal election.

Has either leader read these reports? Do they consider it inevitable that the current course is likely to lead to many loved Australian species going extinct? If not, why not?

What evidence is there that gas exports are cleaner than coal?

Back on gas: MPs from both major parties have argued expanded Australian gas exports are justified, in the words of Labor’s strategy, “to 2050 and beyond”. They argue this in part based on a claim that LNG is lowering global emissions by displacing coal overseas.

No significant evidence has been produced to demonstrate this is the case. A recent US study found the emissions from producing LNG, from extraction to burning in an overseas power plant, were significantly higher than from burning coal.

Is there any independent evidence on whether this is the situation in Australia? If not, shouldn’t we know if we’re heading down this path?

How rapidly will Australia cut emissions at home?

Remarkably, both major parties plan to go to the election without answering this question.

We know the Coalition plans to scale back the legislated national 2030 climate commitment – a step at odds with the global Paris agreement, the goal of reaching net zero emissions in just 25 years and, according to polls, the wishes of most Australians.

Labor will be more ambitious, but it missed a February deadline to set a 2035 goal. It has an explanation – it is waiting on advice from the Climate Change Authority, and that advice has been delayed until after the election, in part due to the changing global landscape following the US election. Fair enough, to a point. But the government could move faster if it chose.

There is a view among some climate-focused professionals that the delay may be a good thing. It reduces the risk of a damaging climate scare campaign infecting another election. And a future in which a minority Labor government has to negotiate across the parliament could lead to a more ambitious goal. Which may be true. But it is not guaranteed – or the point. It’s a pretty basic principle that people should know what they are voting for in advance.

Does anything about the Coalition’s policy add up?

At the time of writing, the Coalition has no policies to cut emissions before the mid 2040s, and it is talking about winding back several Labor policies to allow more pollution.

Meanwhile, Dutton’s nuclear policy is one of the biggest issues hanging over the upcoming campaign. He hasn’t yet explained how it would work in any detail. Some have argued that the proposal to build taxpayer-funded nuclear plants isn’t genuine and should be ignored.

Dutton could be prime minister by May. There is credible evidence that his proposal to slow the rollout of renewable energy, use significantly more fossil fuels and eventually build nuclear plants could lead to higher power bills, a less reliable electricity grid and far more emissions.

If true, it suggests a pretty reckless approach to ensuring Australia’s energy security and climate, not to mention cost-of-living concerns, over the decades ahead.

But in the spirit of short-term electoral politics, let’s focus on the next three years. What does the Coalition propose to move the country towards an economically and politically sustainable low-emissions future between now and the 2028 election? Voters might reasonably want to know.

• Adam Morton is Guardian Australia’s climate and environment editor