“The proposed pulp mill at Bell Bay in Tasmania should go ahead if it meets environmental guidelines” said Don Burke, chairman of the Australian Environment Foundation [AEF].
Mr Burke was commenting after discussion at the AEF annual conference in Melbourne on the proposed pulp mill.
“This is best practice pulp production. We believe that it is essential to support best practice industries. Encouraging improvements in environmental behaviour of companies is the best way forward.
To refuse the mill a permit and continue to export wood chips to mills overseas that are not up to the standard of the Bell Bay mill is to show a breathtaking disregard for the environment” said Mr Burke.
“We have looked at Gunn’s operations in Tasmania, we have looked at the data and we have listened to the needs of the Tasmanian people. Based on the available science AEF supports this project as an example of best practice sustainable forestry.
Decisions on the environment must be based on science and evidence – not emotion – if we are to achieve the best possible result for the environment and the people that are part of that” concluded Mr Burke.
The AEF conference was addressed by Gunns Ltd Resource Manager, Calton Frame prior to discussion on the proposed mill.
———————–
The Australian Environment Foundation (AEF) is a not-for-profit, membership-based environment organisation having no political affiliation. The AEF is a different kind of environment group, caring for both Australia & Australians. Many of our members are practical environmentalists – people who actively use and also care for the environment. We accept that environmental protection and sustainable resource use are generally compatible. For more information about the AEF visit www.aefweb.info .
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jennifer
Shouldn’t you disclose that you are a Director of AEF? Are there any links between AEF and the IPA? So Gunns Resource Manager addressed the conference. Anyone opposed to the mill get invited to address the conference?
Rossco,
I am a director of the AEF – that is well known. I work of the IPA – that is well known. Both bits of information are disclosed at this site.
Don Burke made the announcement and he is the Chair of the AEF and doesn’t work for the IPA and is not a member of the IPA.
He makes his money out of television and cares about the environment.
Rossco, We invited lots of people to the conference -and many declined the invitation.
There was a real effort to try and get those wanting to lock up the red gum forests to the conference – but they declined the opportunity to attend and speak.
The speaker from Gunns was a very late addition.
But in the end, if you have information about the pulp mill proposal that you think we should know about … send it to me and chances are I will post it as a new thread from Rossco.
“The proposed pulp mill at Bell Bay in Tasmania should go ahead if it meets environmental guidelines”
Well Don; it cannot as it stands but that is not my argument here.
This federal election is sure to be muddled by cries from the Cinderella state and the incoming government of whatever makeup will have a mess on its hands after a premature decision on the “science”. It was always a practical versus economic problem for federal state relations not some exercise down in the CSIRO labs.
People have also forgotten that it is all about pressure cooking rotting chips regardless of the bleach and its recovery. Only when steam is blasted dose the process work. Primary effluent from any wood pulp mill is a vast smelly cloud of steam and caustic. Such pulp mills are a dime a dozen. The other bits dare I say are beyond Don and most others including Gunns.
Turning common pulp into fine paper is another vital step that must be fully understood by this exciting timber company. I suggest readers sharks really start biting from here on.
“Reading into the pulp mill fictions” See Canberra Times – “Opinion” today
“Economists are needed to resolve the Tasmanian saga” Judith Ajani from ANU writes. See also her work “The Forrest Wars”
From what I read in her latest article today, Judith is a bright lady. It means I too can throw down a similar hand.
Jennifer: Lets start by looking at pulpwood concessions beyond the control of the RFA.
Gavin,
Give it up. Yours is only one opinion that says it cannot meet the environmetnal requirements. There are many others that say it can. Pulp mill processes are well understood, not only in this country but world wide. If they weren’t then the technological changes that have occurred over the past decade or two would never have occurred. These changes have resulted in cleaner production and improved efficiencies, for examples look to the Scandinavian countries.
By your argument Gunns should never have been allowed to progress beyond being a low technology timber miller because they would never have understood the new technologies involved in modern sawmilling and timber drying.
Judith Arjani (or Clarke as she was until recently) has a decade or more of anti-forestry analysis to her name. The greens parade her work at ever election and I have been wondering when we would see her name in print this time around. Unfortunatley she is still failing to understand the basics of forest growth and yield modelling, wood utilisation and inherent species characteristics and as result her central thesis lacks credibility.
Interesting, Peter, is this the same Judith Clarke who, in the early 90’s was flogging the bullshit that there was already enough plantation timber to supply all of Australia’s needs?
As if pine and blue gum dipped in carcinogens was a viable and sustainable alternative for our Bloodwood and Iron Bark fence posts, bridge girders, yard rails and playground structures.
As if 18cm pulp poles would be a good source of 6×2’s. The bimbo is as dumb as two dog $hits. And the fact that Gavin thinks she is a clever cookie just abour says it all.
Peter: ‘if you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it’ (borrowed from Jennifer’s website) applies to pulp wood in private or state forests and to pulp mills. However, pulp making science is not the only risk.
With Gunns proposal there is no pilot plant to run the figures on expected performance either way. With our RFA there is no independent umpire on the ground. With private plantation development scattered in Tasmania beyond Gunns there is no long term alternative processor other than a few farm based sawmills.
This is bound to be disputed by the local TCA, but I just ask them who is currently making tables and chairs for national distributors like Harvey Norman? We could follow the Hume timber mill example and get every government under the sun subsidize continued saw milling of remote resources after major fires in ACT plantations.
Unfortunately, for the ALP Peter Garret and his mates can’t win in either Bass or Braddon with an offer of a subsidized stressed timber table & bench factory so its wood chips forever for that more knotty twisty hardwood stuff.
BTW I’m told that in China they moisture test every board before making solid furniture for our rather drier mainland climate. Rough sawn or polished solid timber is virtually indestructible as we see now in the better traditional furniture showrooms. Only the dining table legs are easily removable and it all comes with a five-year guarantee. Paper and particleboard were never that durable.
I could add Jennifer “if you can’t process it manually, you can’t automate it” as the fundamental in modern process design but that hardly helps small investors left holding the bag with a swag of useless blue gums or pines out on the fringe. The guaranteed wood supply price like Comalco’s electricity needs to seen by all taxpayers.
Note: Tasmania still has many small farms operating in the richer soils with numerous denuded gullies with high stream flows. Shifting the goal post for a moment, mainland based political advisors must review all Tasmanian deforestation soon as part of our attempts to combat “global” warming and climate change.
For a quick look at the resource, try dragging this low-resolution tool east to west and coast-to-coast in strips. Thanks to Graham Young for the tip!
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=bell+bay+tamar+valley&sll=-41.090842,146.812711&sspn=0.001561,0.003648&ie=UTF8&ll=-41.170901,146.918278&spn=0.09252,0.233459&t=k&z=12&om=0
Given the abundance of wood in Tasmania, it’s been my opinion for a while the state in the long term needs several decent sized “new technology” pulp mills based in the best regions for commercial plantations. Obviously, Hampshire beyond Burnie is one and the somewhere in NE could be another. However, Tasmania needs various independent operations and Gunns need a paper manufacturer with strong ties to the Australian domestic market to secure their position. Otherwise, Gunns as a whole is at risk from growing to big too quickly on borrowings. Australia does not need white elephants parked on estuaries.
Gavin,
Your concern for Gunns corporate wellbeing is indeed touching. Gunns will not be the only manufacturer of pulp in Tasmania. There exists a number of other pulp and paper mills at present so is all of your concern focused on the Gunns mill only. I do not see you calls for best practice technology for the existing mills.
As for the competitive ability of Australia’s manufacturing sector there have been numerous inquiries into the decline of that sector and what is required for Australian manufacturing to be competitive. Scale and cost of production are critical for all manufacturers, including furniture manufacturers and pulp mill operators.
Ian,
You betcha, she is the one and the same Judith Clarke/Ajani. And yes she is to my knowledge still asserting those same things.
Lets bust a few myths on this one. The whole of Tasmania is covered by a Regional Forest Agreement including all forest regardless of tenure.
Forestry must be conducted under the Forest Practice Code supervised by the Forest Practices Authority and in accordance with the RFA, the performance is reported and reviewed every five years by an independent assessor after seeking public comment based on sustainability and detailed reports co authored by the State and Federal Government.
The National Forest Policy Statement, the RFA and the Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement places 47% of native forest in reserves due it it conservation value including one million hectares of old growth forest. The land reserved in Tasmania includes 97.5% of high quality wilderenss.
Outside these areas of high conservation value; pulpwood is produced as part of integrated sawlog harvesting or from specifically grown plantations. Currently much of this pulp wood is wood chipped and exported to pulp mills in Asia, to be returned as value added paper to Australia.
Gunns are proposing a ECF Kraft pulp mill, there are many of these type of mills around the world, including six recently completed. Many have been converted from using elemental chlorine to ECF. This conversion has resulted in a dramatic decrease to below scientifically significant levels of dioxin in the treated effluent, in the marine animals and fish and in the sediment.
Even the Department of Environment and Water have advised the Minister “Overseas experience
demonstrates that conversion from the existing old elemental chlorine processes to
ECF pulp mills has resulted in a dramatic reduction of dioxins and furans levels in
sediment and animals including fish.”
Perhaps a quick read of the TCA web site might bring Gavin up to date!
Great article by Cinders at OLO:
The recent call for public submissions on the Tasmanian Elemental Chlorine Free (ECF) Kraft pulp mill highlights the need for even more myth busting, to enable the mill to be given a “fair go” by the Commonwealth Government.
The approval of the mill is fast becoming a major election issue for John Howard’s Coalition Government and Kevin Rudd’s Labor alternative. Electors deserve to know the facts before casting their votes or forming opinions based on myths.
Nowhere is this more evident than when the Federal Minister, Malcolm Turnbull announced that he received over 30,000 submissions on the pulp mill: most would have expected well informed comment, yet according to activist web sites the majority were form emails (PDF 313KB). A total of 31,323 submissions came from just two web sites: 25,773 standard emails from the activist web site Get up; and 5,550 submitted from the Wilderness Society.
keep reading here: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6382
Gee what a surprise!!!! But what credible weight does AEC carry? Mmmmm crapola and milk for breaky.
Are AEC policies transparent & peer reviewed? If not, what is their standard of evidence and how is it verified?
I second this request:
Can somebody please give me a list of the “practical environmental” achievements of the AEF?
Posted by: melaleuca at September 11, 2007 12:08 AM
What significant real results does AEF deliver? What is it doing that’s so DIFFERENT from the achievements of other hardworking groups (who perhaps lobby less publicly but just get down to hard work on the ground)? Show us it’s not just more spin.
Pinxi,
What credible weight does any environmental organisation have? Do any of them have transparent peer reviewed policies? Do any employ standards of evidence or verification? Among the activist groups seeking to influence policy can any provide a list of “practical environmental” achievements? Do any deliver significant real results?
The questions you raise are not really relevant to the nature and purpose of these kinds of organisations. They amount to a straw man.
What makes the AEF so DIFFERENT is that they are an environmental group trying to bring a more holistic perspective to environmental issues. In doing so they are considering the needs of human ecology, not just that of nature devoid of human involvement. This entails employing available scientific knowledge to evaluate and mitigate human impacts rather than simply seeking to use it as evidence to support opposition. A further distinction of the AEF is that its members are overwhelmingly comprised of persons with high level professional experience in relevant industries and academic diciplines. This is certainly a distinct difference from the mainstream environmental organisations wherein both members and staff seldom have any relevant qualifications beyond a desire to “save the environment” and a surfeit of self righteousness.
How successful the AEF will be remains to be seen. They are still new, small, and have little funding but they are raising matters that deserve consideration. Without such voices of opposition environmental concerns have tended to become a mindless rush from one poorly perceived “problem” to the next with no regard for actual consequences and no direction beyond some ill-founded notions of eco-correctness.
If you disagree, state your case. Robust debate leads to better understanding. Sniping is only a bid for attention by those with nothing to say.
pinxi and Munn – and Rossco, who requests a defence of a falsehood
do your own digging.
Contrary, its reasonable to ask the AEF to explain its claim that “The AEF is a different kind of environment group, caring for both Australia & Australians”.
Recall that Jennifer kept claiming that there was a need for good evidence-based environment policy, leading to her role in this capacity at the AEF and leading to the establishment of the AEF (using the office facilities of the IPA which is a covertly funded lobby group). Hence if evidence-based policy is a point of distinction of the AEF as we were originally led to believe, and as is supported by Walter’s claim that ’employing available scientific knowledge’ is one of the differences, then it’s reasonable to ask about this.
Hence these are valid questions to ask, especially on this blog. Having established that, let’s look at HOW the AEF differs from other groups. Walter made a bunch of motherhood statements on what makes the AEF a different kind of environment group.
1. trying to bring a more holistic perspective to environmental issues, incl. the needs of human ecology
— loads of env groups claim the same. eg some enviro groups support a pulp mill in Tassie for local benefit (just not this closed book Gunns version)
2. employing available scientific knowledge to evaluate and mitigate human impacts rather than simply seeking to use it as evidence to support opposition
— Can you give an eg? eg: how does the AEF’s support of the pulp mill ‘evaluate and mitigate human impacts’? It seems the AEG just wants to oppose community concerns.
What ‘scientific knowledge’have you based that pulp mill policy on? On what scientific or industry standard does the AEF base it’s claim that this is a best practice operation? Gunns makes this claim but it’s had its share of expert oppositiob. Still on ‘scientific knowledge’ as something that differentiates AEF, what of the AMA’s view of the impact on human health from the inversion & air pollution in the valley? On what basis do you ignore that scientific input? Some other environmental groups have proposed an alternative vision for a pulp mill in Tassie that they feel mitigates human AND environmental impacts – what is the AEF’s response on that scientific basis for that policy?
3. high level professional experience in relevant industries and academic diciplines.
— Ahhh, meaning its closed membership is cut from the same cloth? You forget go to mention the high alliance of political purpose. If this is a valid point of distinctin then it suggests that other citizen activist groups shouldn’t have the right to be heard unless they have the same make-up as the AEF. The AEF says it cares for Australians, so that does that extend to right of say from non-scientists and non-industry heads too?
To uphold this supposed distinction then you need to demonstrate that the majority of other environmental groups have inadequate input by Industry and Scientists. The options remaining are Arts, Government and Religion. Do the bulk of environmental groups only employ poofs, politicians and popes?
4. new, small, and have little funding
— describes plenty of groups
The AEF is still new, ok, it can’t point to achievements but it’s had long enough now to set its goals. What practical, real achievements does the AEF plan to achieve over the next 12/24/36 months (whatever your planning horizon is)? OR don’t you have any plans for specific practical outcomes because you simply want to issue public utterances to drive your political agenda as issues arise in current affairs?
A next event for AEF Chairman Don Burke will be a book launch in the Macquarie Marshes on Wednesday 26th September.
Land rehabilitation by an AEF member will be on show… this is an opportunity to see the sort of thing AEF members support and participate in.
There will be buses leaving from Warren which is not far from Dubbo.
Community concerns about any project not just pulp mills are important, and need to be addressed.
In the case of concerns expressed about location, marine and air pollution as well as human health, and the impact on commercial fishing, vineyards and tourism all have been addressed and information available at the web site of the developer, by the State Government, Department of Justice and the RPDC, the Federal Government on its EPBC page and many of the myths relating to these concerns been summarised on the http://www.tca.org.au.
Yet from reading the media release of the Australian Environment Foundation, the AEF has also done its separate due diligence on the project, by visiting the site, talking to people and getting up to speed on what represents best practice environmental management.
For those wanting a crash course on pulp mills the World Bank’s environmental health and safety (EHS) guidelines are recommended at http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/policyreview.nsf/Content/EHSGuidelinesUpdate_Comments
In contrast if you check the Wilderness society annual reports you find that in 2004 only 160k was spent on scientific research despite an a budget of $9 million, in 2005 the dollars went up to $295k but so did the budget increase by $2 million to $11 million. No wonder they don’t know the difference between bleaching pulp with elemental chlorine and the modern and safe method of ECF.
Cinders: IFC investment guidelines can be read in various ways
Top Sessons by Sector – Timber, Pulp & Paper
5. “Technology: State-of-the-art technology may not be appropriate to the country’s resource base or workforce. Vague performance guarantees in equipment supply contracts can be dangerous. Base sensitivity analyses over a period that accounts for technological change”.
http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/oeg.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/Timber%2C+Pulp+and+Paper/$FILE/Timber%2C+Pulp+and+Paper.pdf
When suggesting Lib Lab pollies look at subsidising a big chair factory or two as the natural alternative to pulping all the pulpwood available in Tasmania I ‘m sure we could all avoid lots of other little problems down the track like the lack of experienced welders and electricians.
TWS could then have a field day counting stressed look chairs as our chips went to Asia.
Conclusion: the AEF’s claim to be a different kind of environment group is unsubstantiated spin. It pushes a barrow full of vested interests. It only focuses on issues that arise in the media that affect a well-funded lobby group or the profit-making abilities of well organised, asset flush industry groups. Cite any action of the AEF that proves me wrong!!