Stop CSG Rally video report - Government fails people of NSW

17 March 2012 | Permalink | comments: 0
By Hereward Fenton

Share |

Truth News covers the stop CSG Rally at Parliament House NSW, 15 March 2012.

In the morning a motion was put to the NSW Upper House by Jeremy Buckingham of the Greens – to place a moratorium on all coal seam gas (CSG) projects in the state, other than the Camden production field. It was lost 16-19, with the Coalition, Shooters and Fishers and Christian Democrats against; and Labor and The Greens in favour.

In the afternoon a petition with over 20,000 signatures was presented in Parliament.

Protesters assembled outside Parliament at 4:00pm, then entered the building to continue their peaceful protest. After barely 10 minutes, the protesters were ejected from Parliament, allegedly because of the wording on their T-shirts.

Report from Stop CSG Illawarra follows:

Thursday March 15 2012 was a big day for the coal seam gas issue in our state parliament.

In the afternoon it was the turn of our petition, YOUR petition, to be debated. Over 20,000 signed, calling on the Government to put in place an immediate moratorium on all CSG projects; a royal commission into the full impacts of CSG; and an immediate ban on fracking. Gareth Ward and Lee Evans spoke against, and Ryan Park and John Robertson spoke in favour. You can view the “debate” video (including its descent into chaos) in full online.

In both Houses Coalition members showed absolute contempt for the people of NSW. The Coalition called a moratorium irresponsible, saying that the Government must wait for more facts. But it is completely irresponsible to develop an industry before getting the facts.

Gareth Ward spoke against the petition – defending Coalition plans as adequate. Lee Evans spoke against the petition, then admitted to signing it. But he can’t have it both ways. He either stands with his community, and the 74% of people in NSW who support the call for a moratorium, or he tows the Coalition line and acts on behalf of the CSG industry. Yesterday, he chose the latter.

Actions speak louder than words. The Liberals opposed the petition. The Coalition voted down a moratorium. Barry O’Farrell did not even show up. CSG wells are being drilled in our drinking water catchment and the Government is not stopping it.

Yesterday, the vital role of community campaigns could not have been clearer. The Government is failing to act for the people of NSW; so we must. As the Coalition scrambles to defend the indefensible, we must launch a people’s moratorium and lock the industry out of our communities.

See you at the CSG Community Conference on Sunday March 25.

Comments

In order to leave a comment you may need to register and sign in.

Recent Comments

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/dane-wigington-on-infowars-4-4-13/#comment-33658

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 11 - 09:31:03
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 11 - 09:28:20
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

http://www.soldierhugs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Geoengineering.pdf

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 11 - 09:19:23
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Leonard Clampett,

the video you linked is a really old conglomerate of all sorts of claims that have been debunked ad nauseam.

What do you think is the ultimate proof for the existence of chemtrails?

Why should we have to assume there is such a thing like chemtrails? How are they different from contrails?

By Josh on 2013 04 10 - 06:59:34
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

http://realnewsworldwide.com/2008/09/10/chemtrails-ultimate-proof/

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 09 - 16:31:36
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

If you open the link you will see the reference to chemtrail area forecasts. The other link I wish to post is refused by the “Truth news” which claims it may be SPAM and “will be moderated”, probably because it mentions chemtrails in the link. However, I will try again by separating the words. http://www.chemtrail forecast.com/main.html

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 03 13 - 09:02:16
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

about the link you posted - where is the relevance in the discussion about persistent contrails?

By Josh on 2013 03 13 - 08:50:08
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

http://www.haarpstatus.com/status.html

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 03 13 - 08:44:15
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

after you consistently refused to accept the fact that fuel combustion generates more water than the equivalent of fuel burnt - even when a Qantas pilot confirmed this - I am highly skeptical of your “aviation life experience”. I hope you understand that.

So there are more explanations needed before your claims can be taken seriously.

1. How did you determine that the ambient conditions at the upper troposphere were not conducive to the formation of contrails this summer?

2. How did you determine the causal connection between trails and lack of rain?

3. How did you determine the altitude of the low trail that you saw? How can you be sure it was below the cumulus? Why not above (remember: 3D viewing up to 160m max)? Any pictures maybe?

If you want to do REAL research on the Internet, I strongly suggest to repeat every search query that you issue with the word “debunked” appended. That is the way to do proper research because you see both sides and their arguments. Don’t just fall for sensational claims.

Unfortunately, the Internet is loaded with bunk.

By Josh on 2013 03 02 - 18:06:10
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Josh Anonymous,

You apparently do not do much research. Notice how, over the Eastern Australian summer, there have been many chemtrails coincident with usual weather patterns where obvious rain should have been the outcome had the chemtrails not been laid, and it was not, and this during the season when ambient conditions are not conducive to the formation of contrails. Chemtrails are entirely different to what you term “persistent contrails” as you would know if you had sufficient aviation life experience. You may try to explain how there was recently, and I have observed the same many times before, a chemtrail below a layer of fair weather Cu at 8,000 ft and how this could possibly occur without the laws of physics and thermodynamics being turned on their head. I suggest that you do an Internet search for the activities of Bill Gates and geoengineering.

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 03 02 - 13:51:00
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.