Pulp Mill Protest

[acropolite]

Just returned from a protest rally in Launceston over the proposed pulp mill to be sited in the Tamar Valley. In case any of you are not aware, the Tasmanian state government has basically dumped democracy, due process and the law to pass a bill which will allow the building of a pulp mill in the most environmentally unsound location within our state. The Tamar valley is the proposed site for the mill and already has the worst air quality in the country due to the inversion layer characteristics of the valley. The bill passed a few days ago in parliament allows for assesment of the proposal by a consultant of the government's choice, rather than evaluation by the governments "independant" body the RPDC. 3000 people turned out to demonstrate against the building of this mill and the associated abuse of parliamentary power. Highlight of the rally was a speech by Peter Cundall of Gardening Australia fame, who gave up his time today on his 80th birthday to speak against this process to the crowd. Shortly after Peter taking the stage the crowd burst in to a spontaneous song of "Happy birthday to you", followed by a standing ovation on completion of his speech.

[Astroman]

WOW that would have been a sight to see. Hope it makes a difference, nothing worse than a government that wont listen to its people.

[GrahamL]

Good luck phil , the local media reported forestry tasmania is
virtually exempt from any public scrutiny of there operations on many
levels like no other industry anywhere..??

[xelasnave]

It wont go anywhere we are on the verge of the paperless society...
It is unfortunate that in the interest of a few bucks the law is bent to suit certain vested interests.
But given the land that is going over to growing trees where will it be in 20 years time.
They may beat you but do not let them think they will have a walk over.
And how wonderful Peter gave support I hope this gets some coverage as a result.
Thanks for bring in the story.
alex

[acropolite]

Apparently part of the legislation that was forced through includes sections that specifically prevent halting of the pulp mill process (by legal action) if any illegal activity is found to have occurred during the process(e.g. bribery etc). It is by any standards a corrupt piece of legislation and an affront to our democracy. I would remind any users that the TOS ask us to avoid topics that are political, but I felt it important that people are aware of the injustice that has been done to the Tasmanian people by this Government.

[Miaplacidus]

If only if it were true. We use more paper now than we ever have. And with the government giving a massive tax fillip to managed investment schemes such as Great Southern Plantations and Timbercorp, this isn't a trend that's going into reverse any time soon.

Tasmania is such a hot bed of nepotism it doesn't really matter which side of politics is momentarily in power. One can't factor in the future when deciding conflicts of interest in the present, but just look at Gunn's board of directors. Not hard to figure out that after an election or two a few of the present MPs will end up there too. Pulp-mill profits will merely represent the almond icing on their already fruity superannuation.

[rogerg]

Wouldn't that be nice. Unless the earth runs out of trees to chop down (not hard to imagine) I can't see the use of paper decreasing in my life time (and I'm 27).



I was aware of this, and it makes me very mad. It frustrates me that Tassy and Qld continually deforrest their states, which will have a national and global impact, but the rest of us can't do anything to stop it, only voters in those states have a chance, and with things like this hapenning even they don't ahve a chance. I just don't understand why people don't realise we need trees to live. If we cut down all the trees on the planet we won't exist, it's that simple. Similarly, if we destroy the diversity of the eco system it won't function, and we can't live with an imbalanced eco system either. We die. It's that simple. But they just don't get it ! and keep turning forrest in to desert (or a poor substitute for forrest with no eco system).

ARRRGgh!

Humans: If you destroy your natural environment you will die. That's just how simple it is.

:screwy:

[xelasnave]

The paper less society was a joke "then" that why it is now a joke.
Sorry I should have added smilies like I promised when attempting humour.
Interesting that apparently one can get a tax deduction to grow paper pulp trees and yet not in food growing. There was something about that recently but I have not followed it up.
Does anyone know the price paid for timber going for pulp? per ton or cube I mean ..the value of a tree is not much.. a lot less than the impression you get when you buy stakes for the vegie garden. I think it is less than fire wood at approx $65 a ton.
Geez there is so much paper in the world now we could get by recycling that I reckon.
alex

[acropolite]

If you feel that way, Alex, and others who are alarmed at this practice, should write letters to your local and federal MP's. For those who are not aware, the Federal government offers Tax incentives, correct me if I'm wrong, to the tune of $4500 per hectare for planting private forest. It's your money and my money and it's basically encouraging and fostering the destruction of what little old growth forest that still exists as well as luring (and in many cases forcing) many farmers off their land or out of conventional agriculture in to tree farming. As well as destroying any biodiversity in the area, the burnoff pollutes the air (and ruins your seeing) adding massive amounts of C02 (an estimated 17-40% of Co2 emissions worldwide are from forestry burnoff). The plantation forest that replaces the old growth is a sterile place, weed (or any plant other than the tree planted), insect and animal are not welcome and are vigourously displaced with herbicides, insecticides fungicides and poison baits. One of the chemicals used is Atrazine, banned in many parts of the US and Canada, recently traces have been found in Tasmanian rivers. If you are interested in one man's opinion of the destruction that's occurring here check out
http://www.discover-tasmania.com/ , it's one man's passionate expose on what's happening here. The site is a bit disjointed, but has a wealth of information and some graphic images. The state government tried unsuccesfully to have the site shut down and the domain name de-registered in the courts but failed.
Once again, I'll ask that if you're concerned with what is happening in Tasmania, please, put pen to paper and write to your local member, we desperately need any support we can get.

[xelasnave]

Phil it gets to me real bad:) .
Up North land that does not need to be irrigated goes over to this racket:) . I see these up close and can not see how there is any real money to be made if not for the grants. AND who ends up with the land when the harvest is complete..the share holders in the company ..mmm I doubt it ..you can bet the freehold is vested in someone else.

Dont be surprised at the end of the run the "tree" company goes into liquidation, creditors not paid, share holders loss their savings but we find the directors have had a pay out for a job well done.

But will the land figure in the asset distribution..oh no that was "rented" from a holding company. It is a land grab of major major proportion.
I cant see how to beat it. Think about the fact that guy you mentioned was taken on in court ..big money ..big money.

Like Pauline H do you think the pollies were concerned about her views on race.. never! and they would in fact probably be worse in the privacy of their mates..no we all missed the economic platform.. 2% turnover tax to replace all taxes..replace all taxes:eyepop: ... but where would the money come from?:shrug: answer that and you can understand why she was taken out.. simple.A two party effort how dam curious;)

AND if you stand between big money and its target you get bitten real bad as she did:) .

As much as I think protest is good I do not think for a moment this can be changed..we need trees to stop global warming:) ..how can you counter such an emotive ploy..we need desalinators because of global warming:) ..we need nuclear power because of global warming:) ... we have global warming pushed at us simply because it supports the sale of stuff we dont need and to rip off prime land:) .. I say that and I am a fool:screwy: and anyone who points out what is going down is held up for ridicule:thumbsup: rather than the facts looked at in an unemotional context:) . Global warming is a fact it seems but the push is to have all believe it is man made and can be turned around is nonsence:) .. it cant be stopped man made or not:) .. but money is spent, invested etc to stop it with nuclear power, desalinators, CO2 removal etc etc..the trees are part of the scam:) ..
The politicians are not in our control, the control of the people, they are in the control of vested interests and drawing flack is part of what vested interests pay them for:) so I doubt if all the protesting in the world will change a thing:) ..particularly when up against "global warming sky is falling you are a fool not to see the science" movement:) .
I want to see pollution reduced for decent reasons as does everyone but the game has been hijacked in my view.
Post a letter to the editor watch who comes in to make out you are a fool rather than debate the facts, see how the media favours on side ..money it is all about money:thumbsup: ... and I have enough sense not to say more than I have said here:) ... and am happy to remain a live fool simply having a grizzle:lol: :lol: :lol: . I am a fool so you are not to worry about me and I am not going to sttick my neck out for the conned fools to turn on me:) .. I am staying out of it and simply observe:) .
Tree planting sounds so good but it is so bad..who do you think will not think tree planting is not a good thing. I reckon it is too late:) .
Total up the land in Tassy alone that is now owned by "holding companies".. the Greens have been sidelined by the global warming thing and can see the forest for the trees.. some greens are even pro nuclear such is the good sell they have fallen for.. sorry it really really upsets me:) . and both sides of politics are only concerned with vested interests we the people have little influence:) .. we think we do but we do not. We have absolutely no say because we control no money..it is that unfortunately simple:) .
alex:) :) :)

[Dujon]

Phil, the term 'old growth forests' when applied to most Australian woodland is a misnomer. With few exceptions - parts of western Tasmania could well qualify - we simply don't have 'old growth forests'. Most species of the genus Eucalyptus have relatively short life spans (i.e. grow quickly and die). This results in what I would term a 'continuously renewing forest'.

There is a significant difference between the two. For example: It's not that many years since the whole escarpment between Emu Plains and Glenbrook was virtually denuded when the railway line was laid. To walk there today (and I have done so on many an occasion) you would hardly know. The only clues are some unused railway cuttings, the main road and the current railway road.

Is it different now to when it hadn't been raped and pillaged? I cannot answer that, but I can say that we still have the kangaroos, wallabies, snakes and other fauna and flora that I imagine were there prior to the 'nefarious' deed imposed upon the area by our greedy, industrialist and expansionist forefathers.

You speak not of some form of wholesale clearing of the land (or do you?) just a selective process of, for want of a better word, culling. Surely Mother Nature would do that in due course anyway? Certainly there would be less timber left to rot and form humus but, given my above example, does it matter all that much?

[JethroB76]

The concern is not just with the logging of forests John, but with the building of a pulp mill in the valley, the proponents of which (Gunns) have withdrawn from the independent approval process because it wasn't 'working' for them and our very honourable Premier has taken it upon himself to push legislation through for a new (and improved haha) approval process.

[xelasnave]

So its about efficient legislation not a money matter:eyepop: .. how silly of me to see it any other way:lol: :lol: :lol: .
alex:) :) :)

[Miaplacidus]

Significant forest reserves in Tasmania are unquestionably "old growth". The method of harvest is not selective logging. It is clear-felling. Even Forestry admit this.

Once an area is clear-felled, nothing is left. Whatever remains on the forest floor is burnt. Later, saplings of a single rapid growing non-endemic species are planted. Poison baits are laid to kill any native animals that might move in from surrounding areas and eat them.

The burning itself is probably carbon neutral, since the replacement trees absorb carbon as they grow.

But the issue here is the pulp mill assessment process. The state government has quashed the independent assessment panel, and by throwing out many of the pre-existing environmental guidelines it has effectively circumvented input from most of the relevant stakeholders. It looks dubious, and it almost certainly is dubious, if not frankly obscenely corrupt. I'd say that Paul Lennon, by riding roughshod over the existing processes, has forfeited the trust of many Tasmanians, to say the least.

But that's okay. He never had mine.

[xelasnave]

I heard a number of concerns relating to "special meetings"where it appeared to me that the Government were attending upon Gunns as errand boys .. all in an effort to get the process taken out of "the system" seemed more than strange to me.
It is the old problem some wish to be above the law and then when there is a protest..the last resort of offended folk..it is the protesters that are the criminals.. geez leave the law placed there to review these applications and there would not be a problem..as I understand it Gunns held a gun and the government put their hands out er I mean up.
alex
alex

[JethroB76]

its all about money, no need to be sarcastic just read between the lines. I've already said what I really think about the situation but it was deemed a bit too risque for the site (I agreed) and it was removed

[acropolite]

The mushroom clouds have already appeared on the horizon, the air will be polluted for the next 8 or more months as non stop burnoff activity occurs. The only time we have clear air is in the hottest and driest months when it is unsafe to burn and for very short periods immediately after heavy rain. The people of Tasmania are fed up with being bombarded with spin, spawned by big business and a corrupt media and government, extolling the virtues of "sustainable forestry".
Dissent is not tolerated, those expressing opposing views are persecuted, often by legal actions or verbally in the print media.

To get a further insight in to the mind of our Premier it's worth reading these interview transcripts.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1574375.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2004/s1134211.htm

These links are also worth reading particularly the sections regarding the make up of the Gunns board.

http://www.wilderness.org.au/campaigns/corporate/gunns/whatisgunn/

http://treesnotgunns.org/about_gunns/forests/

[xelasnave]

I am sorry if you thought I was directing the sarcastic remark in your direction for I was not:) ... I thought I was simply following your lead which I interpreted as a sarcastic observation of the situation.
But I make no apology in respect of it being made in respect of what is going on with the special treatment and the way the government down there makes out it is about a better legal process.
It appears to me a simple matter of a vested interest seeking to be placed above the law and finding the current law unsuitable calls in the folk who can change the law.
I meant no offence either by seemingly being flippant about such a serious matter but to me it is laughable for the government to suggest in the circumstances that it is a matter of better legislation.
The whole issue is a grave concern and it seems the wishes of the people is being disregarded:shrug: .
alex:) :) :)

[xelasnave]

Phil reading the links does not make me feel any better. Easter Island tells us nothing I guess other than Easter Island tells us nothing.
alex

[JethroB76]

Fair enough Alex. You are certainly right though, its an absolute farce what is happening down here.
In regards to the new legislation being better, that was probably more sarcasm from me, the Govt hasn't really suggested that, though Lennon says he's doing it for Tassies' future...the new process only benefits one party:mad2:

[acropolite]

IMO (and in the opinion of many others) forestry is not an environmentally sustainable practice. The claim that Tasmania's forestry practices are "worlds best" are farcicle. Claims that forest that has been logged previously no being old growth are simply wrong. Past logging used the old practice of entering a forest with minimal damage and taking the best trees for sawlogs leaving almost no footprint. Clear felling and burning, that is taking everything, then napalming what's left, INCLUDING the animals and other fauna that lived there, is not comparable. NASA recently stated that they have noticed a link between burnoff and drought in the amazon basin, worldwide the C02 produced from burnoff is estimated to contribute between 17 and 40% of emissions depending on location. I can't find the source but I have read a figure of 36% for Australia. The trees that are planted to replace those destroyed (and in much larger quantities in plantations) take up huge amounts of water in their growth phase, drying up our water supplies. While the government are asking you, as a taxpayer and voter, to change your lightbulbs, buy a more efficient car, use less water, big business is being allowed to continue to pollute, and consume obscene amounts of our resources. In the case of forestry the government is giving your Tax dollars to aid and abbett these polluters. In the case of this proposed mill a log truck will arrive at the mill every 1 minute and 6 seconds 24 x 7 x 365. It will be powered by the mother of all polluters and C02 emitters, a wood fired power station, and will consume 30 Billion litres of water per annum from Launceston's water supply, a supply that is already stretched over the past few years. The effluent (Including dioxins) laden water will be pumped in to Bass strait directly affecting the marine ecosystem as far away as Victoria. Chlorine dioxide will be manufactured on site and exported to other parts of the world to contribute further to pollution globally.

If you think this won't have an impact consider the Tasmanian Devil, facing extinction from facial tumour desease and more recently our platypus populations which are succumbing to an ulcerating desease, the causes of which have been suggested as chemical exposure.

Before closing this thread I'd like to make some final points. We can argue till the cows come home on the effects of some industry practices on the environment. Posting an argument on the subject takes time and thought, if you object to these practices and the way your governments are handling them, then instead of posting a reply, send an email to the appropriate minister, here... I've even listed their contact details. Click on the email link and you email client will open, it doesn't get any easier than that.

Federal Environment Minister, Malcolm Turnbull.
PO BOx 1840
Bondi Junction NSW
1355
his email (//Malcolm.Turnbull.MP@aph.gov.au)

Federal Labour Leader, Kevin Rudd
PO Box 476A
Morningside QLD
4170
his email (Kevin.Rudd.MP@aph.gov.au)

Shadow Minister for the Environment, Peter Garrett
PO BOX 249
MAROUBRA NSW
2035
his email (Peter.Garrett.MP@aph.gov.au)

P.S. It was announced on National Television by Liberal MP Don Wing that Gunns lawers played an active role in drafting the legislation that was forced through parliament. Ironically. Don Wing voted for the bill in line with his party's wishes. Now that's Running with the foxes and hunting with the hounds at it's best.