The link between the CIA, Greenpeace and anti-mining activism in Oz might be a long bow however; the anti-mining activism alone is enough of a nightmare for the ALP/Greens.

The ALP/Green candidates in the QLD election will hope that “it’s all about State issues”. Whilst they field candidates that support this anti-QLD activism?

Several groups named in a secret Greenpeace-led coalition 'Stopping the Australian Coal Export Boom' targeting the destruction of Australia’s coal industry, have received almost $750,000 in federal funding to block 13 mining projects in QLD and 7 in NSW?

http://www.miningaustralia.com.au/news/anti-mining-activists-received-taxpayer-funds

The authors are;

John Hepburn (Greenpeace Australia Pacific)
Bob Burton (Coalswarm)
Sam Hardy (Graeme Wood Foundation)

Yes, this is the same multi- millionaire Woods that funds the Greens ($1.6m) and has ownership of the Global Mail.

Environment Victoria and the Conservation Council of WA confirmed to The Australian they had backed the anti-coal campaign. Environment Victoria was designated to fund $60,000 of anti-coal campaigning expenses in VIC and also bankroll a $90,000 protest in Melbourne.

The Australian reports the Nature Conservation Council, Environment Victoria, and the Conservation Council of Western Australia have received Government grants of $211,000, $213,215, $319,420 respectively since last December 2011 alone.

Prior to December 2011, the Weekend Australian (19/03/2011), reports an investigation by The Institute of Public Affairs, revealing other Government funding to NGO’s and Activists Groups.

The Australian Conservation Foundation $2.9m
The Wilderness Society $125,000
Environment Victoria $4.0m
Total Environment Centre $450,000
Environmental Defenders $1.2m
Conservation Councils, VIC.QLD and W.A Grants under GVEHO schemes, $$?
Friends of the Earth $65,000

A total of $10.85m in taxpayer’s money paid to the same activist NGO’s threatening our industries. Then our complicit treasurer last week slammed the Greenpeace plans as "deeply irresponsible" and "completely irrational and destructive", yet he is paying members of the group?

The Greens not only support this campaign, they want it extended to Gold and Uranium. Yes, the same Greens funded by Woods who is one of the key drivers of this campaign?

Why would QLD vote for any of these dangerous hypocrites?

Actually, if the Stop Coal Export was successful they would be doing
us a favour. We are going to need as much coal as possible to enable us
to transition to the new energy regime, whatever that turns out to be.
Likewise with natural gas we should not be exporting it. We will need it.

Consider this;
In Eastern Australia we no longer refine petrol.
Our petrol is imported from the Singapore market.
Caltex Sydney & Brisbane refineries are to be closed.
Shell Sydney refinery closed some time ago.
A shortage of exports from Asia for any reason whatsoever, outbid,
Middle East problems, refinery breakdown or shipping accident and we
will be queing for petrol.

We are now paying $1.56 a litre, some $1.60 a litre.
Co-incidence ?

So I support this particular green initiative, although my reasons
are very different to theirs.

Barry, spin Doc
Any relation to arjay?
Bazz coal seam gas mate, it will fill your gap , we are about to become the worlds largest producer.

Think so Belly ?
Read this;
http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2012-03-21/peak-oil-crisis-parsing-bakken

Granted this article relates to shale oil and gas but the fundamentals
are much the same.
I believe coal seam gas is more beneficial to us than shale gas & oil.

Still, now that we do not refine petrol we are much more exposed and
perhaps the pump price is the result.

I guess the thrust of this post is about the QLD election this weekend and what might motivate Queenslanders to vote for ALP/Greens when their policies, as outlined, are contrary to the interests of Queenslanders.

These policies may well affect other States however; it is QLD that will decide next.

How will Queenslanders view the Federal funding of those activist groups? How will they view Greens policies that take these activist views even further? To what extent might voters punish the ALP/Greens because of the CO2 and Mining Taxes?

Bazz, I personally suspect that it won’t matter to voters what the energy mix will be in the future, although there is rural opposition to CSG at the moment. The main issue is the across the board opposition to mining of anything from groups outside Queensland. Since these sectors are crucial to our economy, jobs and infrastructure, there is a growing resentment against those trying to inhibit what we currently do for a living.

I also think that Queenslanders will embrace a transition to different energy mixes but we will not be bullied into abandoning one thing without replacing it. Transition is one thing, smashing what we currently before a viable replacement is in place? No.

I may be misreading sentiment locally however; I sense that Federal Politics is both a stronger influence than normal in this election and a significant drag on ALP/Greens aspirations. I guess we will know for sure by Sunday?

Definately Spindoc, we will not allow existing energy sources to be
abandoned to suit any green agenda.
The first time a power station shed load or there was a "No Petrol"
sign displayed there will be such an uproar that any green
agenda will be thrown aside.
The greens do not seem to understand what an enormous project it is to
change the whole worlds source of energy. Some believe that it cannot be done.

It is just that these enthusiasts do not understand how long it will
take to manufacture a new system whether it is something totally new
or a mixture of solar, wind, tide, geothermal etc etc.
Also we will need plenty of energy to build the plant.

I have read a number of studies on that particular problem and some
believe it will take 50 years to complete the transition.

Another associated problem is obtaining the enormous amount of credit needed.

An update in The Australian today reveals the admission by Greenpeace campaign manager, John Hepburn that they did indeed apply for and receive a grant of $70,000 from the Rockefeller Family Fund for “research into the environment damage caused by the coal mining industry in Australia”.

Mr. Hepburn further admits that Greenpeace used the money in part to “draw up a strategy to undermine the local coal industry”.

We now know that in addition to this foreign funding for this campaign, it is also funded in part by our own Federal ALP government through the NGO’s listed, by Australian multi-millionaire Woods and by the Australian Greens who also wish to broaden the scope of this camapaign against ALL mining.

So who needs a “foreign power bogeyman” to blame when we have our own coalition government working against Australian interests?

It seems that Clive Palmer’s case for our government to resign has some merit. Will Queenslanders endorse that perspective or will the vanquished claim “it’s all about local issues”?

Not a good idea quoting from the Australian, they are proved to be biased and untruthful.
Tony is not in favor of supporting the auto maker, that is a surprise isn't it.

Well 579, I believe that maybe the grant to Holden is cheaper than the
dole that would have to be paid out if GM packed up and left as did
Mitsubishi. However is there ever an end to it ?
What about clothing and footwear manufacturers ?
If we could employ 100,000 people that might save a lot also.
We have got off stream but it is related to the stop exports.

Many years ago I half joking made the suggestion that we should saw
off the rest of the world and make everything here, except those
obvious items such as large jet aircraft.
We could use the money from food exports to pay for such items.
The trend to buying local has already started and will increase over the next 20 years.

I was laughed out of court of course, but not so many are laughing now.
In any case in the new energy regime, large jet aircraft will only
be conveying the very rich and politicians.
The era of mass international tourism is coming to an end.

CIA, sounds like arjay has been at it again. So what harm does an environmental assessment do. Doesn't the miners have to do their own independently.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/following-the-mining-tax-leader-20120323-1vp69.html
This link may well add to my view Palmer and his like, the Federal opposition, and too much of our self interested rich,lie to us.
A view I also hold about carbon tax and climate change deniers.
Ten years after Labor falls what will we make of this?

great amusments abound
blight has resigned[without a final vote count]
surely thats a simple default[lnp win]

clive looks like getting his free railway
the new lnp leader cant be seen being tied..any further by clive
recall ana blight got him a china contract worth 65 billion[but only under threat of courts

is there a list of
this serial pests complaints and collusions?

how rich was he?
before peter/wayne and blighty
gifted him fortunes?

recall when howard gave the new gst tax to the states
the states didnt need increase their mining royalties
now its time they were doubled

*just to prove lnp isnt his puppy
[lap dog..like the alp became]

a by election on ana's seat
NO WAY*[she resigned before what she said she wouldnt do]

how can a new alp[lap leader get the press attention
its the nat scam al ove4r again[only last time the nats [beurocrats]..took over the alp
now they took over the lnp

cause fat clive palmers daughters
are just too greedyfor money and power

remove gst
restore true royalty rates[and stop building them free pipelines and warves and rail etc[make them built their own export link]

cause where is that link leading
once the export stops

stop these rich fools
before they steal the lot

in twenty years
what has all the infastructure to nowhere got[for the kids]
railroads to no where[or a nice easy acces point
for invaders]

bah
the lot of em
BRING BACK BOTH HOUSES!

sack every public servant
not directly serving the public!

stop these
two party beuro-rock-rats

What a bizarre comment by Palmer, one that I see he is already backing away from quick smart and for good reason. It is a nonsense probably designed to get the conspiracy theorists blood up to divert attention from much more powerful vested interests.

Think about it, how many times has an environmental campaign won over industry interests. Very few. The extremists are clearly on the industry side of this argument.

'A total of $10.85m in taxpayer’s money paid to the same activist NGO’s threatening our industries. Then our complicit treasurer last week slammed the Greenpeace plans as "deeply irresponsible" and "completely irrational and destructive", yet he is paying members of the group? '

That amount pales in comparison to taxpayer money paid out to industry. Funds given to NGOs is usually about outsourcing social responsibilities to the non-government sector and thus being seen to care about the environment.

There is much hysteria about the Greens threatening certain industries but very little concern about the impact of these industries in relation to environmental degradation.

If we are still so primitive that we cannot see the relationship between environment and human wellbeing and survival it looks like it might only take a disaster for the world to wake up.

Those destructive industries don't seem to consider their own threats to other industries including tourist based industry, when going about their business.

There is room for a balance including some thoughts about the energy mix and changes to consumption. There is no doubt that with a growing population and economic development in the developing world that people will have to start being more careful in their consumption. It is really not that difficult.

pelican,

yep, I have to agree with most of your comments here and your reference to <<Funds given to NGOs is usually about outsourcing social responsibilities to the non-government sector and thus being seen to care about the environment>> is valid.

The point being made however, was not about the funds being directed to NGO’s, it was about the hypocrisy of the Treasurer in condemning the actions of those groups, whilst at the same time funding them.

It is fine to build dream castles in the clouds; but a mistake to move in and take up permanent residence? Clive Palmer is clearly wealthy enough to live wherever he chooses or follow any conspiracy theory?
I'm not adverse to the occasional conspiracy; given there is always someone in charge, who knows what he or she is doing, what the objective is and precisely how to achieve at it?
Which is arguably more than one can say for most politicians?
A well known Victorian Premier, Sir Edward Henry Bolte, [you can always tell a Victorian, but you can't tell them very much,] used to tell this story.
Some time in the distant future, we will be able to transplant any organ including brains. A foreign Journalist, was being shown around a new brain bank; and noticed that the brains all looked much the same; but, those on the left were much more expensive than those on the right!
How come, he asked.
Well, replied the curator, those on the right are Liberal brains and are completely worn out; therefore much cheaper; whereas, those on the left are Labour brains; and are almost brand new or hardly used at all, hence the much higher price!

'The point being made however, was not about the funds being directed to NGO’s, it was about the hypocrisy of the Treasurer in condemning the actions of those groups, whilst at the same time funding them.'

Point taken spindoc.

It does seem hypocritical on the face of it. I am not sure if it is worse than John Howard's policy of reducing funds or withdrawing funding (particularly of Aid groups critical of the government) in the event of a parting of ways