Pauline Hanson asked for 3 new coal fired power stations

Again the National Party have tried stealing another One Nation policy.During the last sitting of Parliament, I put to the Government that North Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria all need a new coal fired power station built to drive electricity prices down.I was told NO quite soon after that discussion took place.I wasn't shy about my plans either - I made sure people in Canberra knew I wanted them. Clearly that's where the National Party picked up the idea and ran with it today in the Australian. Perhaps the National Party can come and have a meeting with me and I'll share a some additional policies they can help me drive. Let's start with the Cane Growers Code of Conduct. Forget more reviews, there's been a Prime Minister's Inquiry under Abbott and a Senate Inquiry too. Both recommended a Code of Conduct. Review after review are simply time wasters, designed to stall the process.#Auspol #CaneGrowers #PaulineHanson #Labor #Nationals #LNP #OneNation

Posted by Pauline Hanson's Please Explain on Tuesday, July 3, 2018

National Party Steals Another One Nation Policy – Coal Fired Power Stations

Again the National Party have tried stealing another One Nation policy.

During the last sitting of Parliament, I put to the Government that North Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria all need a new coal fired power station built to drive electricity prices down.

I was told NO quite soon after that discussion took place.

I wasn’t shy about my plans either – I made sure people in Canberra knew I wanted them. Clearly that’s where the National Party picked up the idea and ran with it today in the Australian.

Perhaps the National Party can come and have a meeting with me and I’ll share a some additional policies they can help me drive.

Let’s start with the Cane Growers Code of Conduct. Forget more reviews, there’s been a Prime Minister’s Inquiry under Abbott and a Senate Inquiry too. Both recommended a Code of Conduct. Review after review are simply time wasters, designed to stall the process.

15 replies
  1. Beverley Burdon
    Beverley Burdon says:

    A much better idea. Use our own coal in purpose built power stations so that we can minimise the emissions instead of selling our coal resources overseas, to countries without the ability or desire to reduce the emissions.

    Reply
  2. Cheryl Ford
    Cheryl Ford says:

    Of course, there needs to be the replacement for anything that closes down especially when it provides Energy usage why have the Government not started Recycling plastics that provide Energy the Netherlands have some brilliant ideas in place and don’t have any issues/ long-term ideas must be started immediately and put in place Councils cannot keep using landfill to curve the Recycling problem this may be the cheaper way to go when providing Energy I would like to think that my Rates are going towards a Recycling Plastics Plant every council should have their own.

    Reply
  3. Robert B
    Robert B says:

    It’s pure common sense to keep the coal fired power stations going, the transition from coal to green energy needs to planned over a far longer period to keep Australia financially viable, decommissioning all of our coal firered stations will lead to more companies pulling up stakes and moving off shore.

    The loss of jobs, less money for our economy, increased pressure on all the spectrum of our society due to price increases in manufacturing let alone all industries that relies on power, refrigeration the cost of lighting, air conditioning for retailers will be all passed on back to the working family causing hardship.

    I’m absolutely guttered that our elected governments are taking this approach about becoming the green machine while we are selling coal to countries that are building more and more coal burning stations, there is more in it than meets the eye, I believe our government ( and I mean both the major parties)is selling us out to the big boys (deals behind closed dooor) whom financially stake both the party’s ( two way bet) and then when it suits calls in to collect, sadly they are depleting the chances of our’s and their own siblings a chance of a future to build on.

    We are becoming a third world country, a minority of greedy individuals that are taking us all down, the cancer is set in, but I still have my hope in people like Pauline.

    Reply
  4. Trevor Maddock
    Trevor Maddock says:

    keep up the pressure Pauline ,,, I agree with soooo many of your views regarding many subjects ,,,,, you relaying many concerns of the general population who don’t have a voice ,,,,, in my opinion your highly regarded ,,, and as regarding the coal fired power stations which I feel we need ,,,, but not forgetting why cant the coal fired generators be assisted with methane gas from decomposing tip sites that process was happening from thiess tip site at swan bank to the swanbank power station over 5 yrs ago and most likely longer

    Reply
  5. Helen Wain
    Helen Wain says:

    When will the other parties fully accept Pauline Hanson’s as a person of merit? When will they stop ridiculing this poor woman and give her the respect that is her due? Years ago she warned Australia that Asia was planning to take over this country. What happened? She was labelled ‘racist’. Now what is happening? It’s all coming true. Shame on our other politicians. This woman is a credit to this country. Thank you for fighting for us Pauline. You are our only ‘true’ hope. Others say what they think is best for us while you talk to us and listen to what we say. Keep going Pauline. The ‘thinkers’ amongst us are following you.

    Reply
  6. Graciela v
    Graciela v says:

    If the liberals don’t derived the coal power station why you are giving them your preferences and how the one nation will derived when they are sharing our votes???
    Please explain Pauline I love your work and respect your love for the country but we are confuse, I’m sorry if you’re not feeling strong on your own, but we love you and I will Vote for you if you run independent! Australia must have border because a country is not a country if there is no border, Australia is changing and why can we change the immigration legislation no more asylum, and refugees status ban from our law new rules in immigration….

    Reply
  7. Joseph Galea
    Joseph Galea says:

    Labour, Liberals have screwed us long enough, I would like for us to run our own country without any interference from the United Nations, we must get out ASAP from the corrupt UN

    Reply
  8. Lindsay Hackett
    Lindsay Hackett says:

    Presently, Australian Governments are acting towards impoverishing the people of Australia by enforcing unnecessarily high energy costs, and emasculating Australia’s ability to compete in the global market, all based on superficial beliefs about carbon dioxide emissions. I object to paying exorbitant electricity charges because of Government pandering to pseudo science and the vocal activists who speak from ideological viewpoints, not facts. I object to the destruction in Australia, both potential and real, of manufacturing and indeed all businesses that need reliable, secure and affordable power.

    The only sources of electricity generation that can meet the need are fossil and nuclear fuels, both of which Australia has in varying and relative abundance. All renewable sources like solar and wind, and batteries, are neither reliable or secure. Certainly they are not cost-effective and need subsidies to make them appear so.

    The root problem is the general belief that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. Many people conflate the sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury and aerosol particle pollution from burning coal with carbon dioxide emissions. The former are problematic pollutants that can cause serious atmospheric pollution and health issues. However, modern coal-fired generators essentially eliminate these pollutants.

    Carbon dioxide emissions are another story. Many people believe these emissions are causing global warming to an extent that will become critical for Earth’s ecosystems. This belief is where the real problem lies. Notwithstanding the pronouncement of the IPCC and others, carbon dioxide emissions by man have not been proven to be a problem. Many scientists and others agree it is not a problem but, in today’s politically correct world, they are ignored or shouted down by the ignorant and by politicians and activists with other agendas. Many scientists dispute the claims of the IPCC but generally are not allowed to be heard. Do keep in mind the 31,487 American scientists who have signed a petition to this effect. In part, the petition states “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate”.

    Do not be fooled by the popular myth that 97% of scientists believe mankind is causing climate change. This extrapolation to a belief by all scientists is based on a survey of studies of by climate scientists, 97% of whom claimed that mankind was responsible for some climate change. If you look at the literature, the specific meaning of the 97% claim is: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause; meaning humans are over 50% responsible. The IPCC go slightly further, but is still non-specific, by stating that “It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together”. (Note: GHG means “green house gas”.) These other forcings are due, for instance, to vegetation clearing and growing population impacts on the “heat island” effects in cities. According to the IPCC, these other forcings contribute about 20% of the temperature change, noting that all of the IPCC data have large uncertainties. Keep in mind, also, the funding sources and the terms of reference for all of these studies.

    We know with better certainty that Earth’s temperature and its changes are caused, for example, by its internal radioactive processes, solar activity coupled with the Milankovitch Cycles (orbital, inclination and precession effects), and cosmic rays. We know that the Earth’s atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide results from natural processes like vegetation respiration, weathering of carboniferous rocks, dissolution of shellfish, and the warming of oceans, as well as from made-made sources. We do not understand well enough the carbon cycles operating on the Earth. So, the whole question about man’s impact on the Earth’s climate is fraught with uncertainty.

    The situation is that the contribution of man-made GHG emissions to global warming is uncertain and likely small. The total warming has been approximately 0.8 degrees over the past 150 years, a warming that has tapered off to essentially nothing in the last decade and a half, and only about half of that temperature rise is attributed to all of mankind’s impact, with only part due to carbon dioxide emissions.

    True science has to be the basis of this country’s decisions about the causes and effects
    of Climate Change, not pseudo-science or vested interests as at present.

    We are looking at too small a timescale and missing the bigger picture. The science is not
    settled:
    a. Many scientists have been saying there is insufficient evidence to prove
    how much of the CO2 in the atmosphere is anthropogenic in origin, as opposed say to that
    released by the oceans because of warming.
    b. Science does not understand well enough the carbon cycle to be sure that Earth
    cannot cope with our emissions in the longer term. Similar uncertainties apply to other
    “green-house” gas cycles, some more potent than CO2.
    c. There is evidence on geological timescales that warming precedes increasing CO2
    rather than the other way around. We need to be sure that we are not reacting to the
    wrong signals.
    d. We know the actual atmospheric CO2 concentrations and temperatures today
    because we can measure them directly. Our knowledge of past data is from proxy
    evidence only, like ice cores, pollens, sediment cores, etc, and then only averaged over
    about 300 years. There has been little discussion to show how closely this proxy evidence
    might equate with fact. What will the proxy evidence say about the CO2 and temperature
    levels in the year 2018 when looked at in 1,000 years time?
    e. We know that the present temperature of the earth is well inside the range
    experienced within the present interglacial period; the last 10,000 years. Only now is the
    temperature in Greenland approaching that during the medieval-optimum, about 1,000
    years ago; the coast of Greenland could become green again as it was when farmed by the Vikings.
    f. Only once before in the last 600 million years, as determined from proxy data, has
    the atmosphere been so depleted of CO2 as now and roughly correlated with a low earth temperature; about 300 million years ago at the end of the Carboniferous Period. The CO2 was depleted also at the end of the Ordovician, about 440 million years ago, but with no correlation to temperature. Over the last 600 million years, there has been essentially no correlation between temperature and atmospheric CO2.

    Many more questions remain to be answered.

    While mankind does need to be careful with our planet, we should not be swayed by people
    manufacturing scenarios wherein they can profit. Rigorous science should inform our
    actions.

    Notwithstanding all of the above, Australia contributes about 1.6% of global CO2. The big polluters are China (massive), the US, Russia and India. None will reduce their emissions in the near future, if at all, under the Paris Climate Accord. So, what is the reason for Australia’s lemming-like rush to energy oblivion by turning its back on the only reliable sources of power, fossil fuels and nuclear?

    Reply
  9. Lindsay Hackett
    Lindsay Hackett says:

    Correction to my post of 7 July, 2018 at 4:59 pm.

    Subparagraph f. above states: The CO2 was depleted also at the end of the Ordovician, about 440 million years ago, but with no correlation to temperature. Over the last 600 million years, there has been essentially no correlation between temperature and atmospheric CO2.

    The wording should be: The temperature was at about today’s level for a short time also at the end of the Ordovician, about 440 million years ago, but with no correlation to CO2 concentration. Over the last 600 million years, there has been essentially no correlation between temperature and atmospheric CO2. Note that the temperature of the Earth has been about 22 deg C for most of the past 600 million years, while presently it is about 12 deg C.

    Reply
  10. Peter Rees
    Peter Rees says:

    Australia emits 1% of the world’s total carbon dioxide and the government wants to reduce this by 20% or reduce emissions by 0.2% of the world’s total CO2 emissions. What effect will this have on existing CO2 levels?

    Reply
  11. ELGAR ESOTS
    ELGAR ESOTS says:

    Why is there no mention whatever regarding a nuclear power plant
    or perhaps several in the north of SA and western Queensland and
    NSW. There is sufficient fuel at Roxby Downs and other places to
    last for the next 100 years. Why export it ? Why export coal and gas ?
    Currently there are some 400 nuclear plants around the world
    creating no emissions or danger.
    Accidents may happen but if the plants are located in distant
    remote areas the risk is minimal.
    Let’s have one National Electricity Retailer with as many
    contributors willing to sell power to the national grid –
    coal, solar, wind etc.
    Equipment for renewable source generation is manufactured
    overseas and requires energy to produce it !
    Perpetuum Mobile ????

    Reply
  12. Spencer Gear
    Spencer Gear says:

    Pauline,

    You are talking sense and I support your policy of new publicly owned coal-fired power stations. Congratulations on supporting this move.

    However, some of your facts were false.

    You state that you made it known in Canberra you supported new coal-fired power stations. Then you added: ‘Clearly that’s where the National Party picked up the idea and ran with it today in the Australian’.

    This is false! Do you know who promoted coal-fired power stations in Qld? Who built the existing publicly owned coal-fired power stations here?

    You are copying what the National Party premier, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, did and Bob Katter supported it. It was Katter who was engaged in arranging for coal to be delivered from Blackwater to the Gladstone power station. My understanding is that half of the power from coal was generated during the Bjelke-Petersen era.

    Which parties are going to the Longman by-election with policies in support of coal-fired, publicly owned power stations? To my knowledge, they are The Australian Country Party, The Labour-DLP, and Pauline Hanson’s One Nation . Will the LNP follow the Nationals?

    The Nationals didn’t steal the coal-fired power station idea from One Nation. Could One Nation have adapted it from the Nationals of the time when Joh was Premier of Qld, 1968 to 1987.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *