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
Federal Labour Leader, Kevin Rudd
PO Box 476A
Morningside QLD
4170
his email
Shadow Minister for the Environment, Peter Garrett
PO BOX 249
MAROUBRA NSW
2035
his email
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.
