Last year the Tasmanian Parliament and the Australian Government approved the pulp mill for the Tamar Valley.
They did so after the developer, Gunns Limited, published an Integrated Impact Statement comprising 7,500 pages of social, environmental and economic analysis representing a planning investment of more than $11 million and in excess of 350,000 hours of research, study, modeling and reporting.
A report that was debated examined and generated even more studies, reports and media attention.
Yet despite this, the general public throughout Australia is being asked to oppose the mill.
The latest campaign is to rally against the ANZ bank because the pulp mill will “be a disaster for climate change, It will be 80% native forest-based”.
This is despite the IIS and the shed full of additional information showing that the majority of timber used during the mill’s life will be from plantations (64%) and that the reports detail that over 1 million tonnes of CO2 emissions will be saved each year in reduced shipping and the generation of renewable power.
With the passage of time, much of the information is hard to find, so a new web site has been started to look at the claims being made in the Media and to get to the facts behind the headlines. The Web site will link to a range of reports and information on the Mill and Tasmania’s sustainable forest management.
You are invited to bookmark my new web site http://www.tasmaniapulpmill.info/home and visit it regularly as it will be updated frequently. If you have a question or issue that you want more detail, there is a contact section.
Alan Ashbarry
Hobart.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
So, “environmentalists” oppose lumber production that goes to build hospitals, homes, and schools.
On a forest tour in southern Tasmania a few years ago I noticed all the huge tree stumps throughout the forest area. These huge tree stumps are what is left of the original trees.
The tour guide casually mentioned that there was no old growth forest left in Tasmania. It was all cut down over 100 years ago by the original settlers. All forest in Tasmania is “new growth” dating from the settlers period. You can occasionally see the odd ancient tree.
I can’t help thinking that the term “old growth forest” is misused by the green fraternity.
Oh Alan, get real! For a start, that 7,500 page report contained incorrect information on emissions. Secondly, it contains nothing about the impact on the forests, the water, or the community. And thirdly no public input was permitted. And if you care to read Dr Raverty’s comments, who DOES know what he is talking about, you will learn that the report was considered by the RPDC as entirely inadequate for the purpose it was intended. And the reason Gunns pulled out of the RPDC was because they knew it would not be approved. So is it any wonder that the pulpmill is considered the biggest dirty drain of lies, deceit, and whitewash? As for “modelling”, what modelling? Tas Uni has done more than Gunns, and already disproved what the report stated.
As for old growth forest, yes lots of Tasmania has been logged. And before that, the Aborigines were burning the bush! That is how our environment has evolved. But you try walking the South Coast Track, or other areas where logging has not happened for a long time, you will find a lot of litter, dead trees, and a very mixed variety of trees – not a monoculture. There will also be animals, though they might not be obvious because so many are nocturnal.
There cannot be a patch of entirely untouched, virgin bush, because then the varieties that rely on fire to germinate would not have occurred.
I lived in an area of bush which had been logged 60 years before, and there was a huge variety of trees, devils, wombats, wedge tails, possums, quolls, orchids etc, plus all the dead trees which provided homes for them and insects.I have also walked through an aerial planting of monoculture eucalypts, and a monoculture is what it was!
Tell me Alan, where do you think all the plantation timber will come from? From plantations that have not been planted yet, of course! Gunns are busy acquiring land (as at Lilydale currently) and clearing native forest, for just that purpose. Where else will it come from? The moon?
You say you want facts, well take the blinkers off first and you might see them!
The need for a web site about the Tasmania pulp mill where you can get accurate and referenced information is reinforced by the post from Sal Everett. Whilst Sal might genuinely hold such beliefs they need to be fully examined based on facts.
Facts like the Lilydale plantation issue, that is related to a company called FEA, that is a competitor to Gunns, the firm that proposed the pulp mill. Sal also needs to get up to date on the facts that the pulp mill will not use logs from old growth forests, by the way the 2004 Federal election set a target of 1 million hectares of old growth ( that the pristine untouched variety) to be reserved. This includes over 100,000 ha of tall forest in the SW Wilderness Area. An area off limits to harvesting and the location of the bush walk mentioned from Cockle Creek to Melaleuca. It also confirms the need for the latest statistics on plantations and to restate the public commitment of both Forestry Tasmania and Gunns not to convert native forest to plantation.
Thanks Sal for providing lots of topics (such as the information that led Australia’s chief scientist to conclude that emission levels from the mill were unlikely to be of any adverse environemtal impact “there’s a
very strong prospect that the mill will operate with an environmentally neutral footprint”) to be examined in more detail on my web site. Please check back as it is updated.
Alan (aka Cinders)
It seems your website about a pulpmill has to decide what side of the fence it is sitting on before it can be built! There is masses of information out there, but if it doesn’t support your argument then you won’t like it.
Try http://tapvision.info/node/199 for No
or http://www.gunnspulpmill.com.au/faqs.html for Yes – and make your own decision.
That’s just a start – both were easily obtained by a search on google. There’s heaps more.
The Lilydale plantation is an eg of the public opinion being considered, because they did not want a plantation – regardless of the company it is owned by. After other councils being instructed by state gov. that they are not allowed to block plantations, it makes a nice change.
Forestry have repeatedly stated that ‘old growth’ will not be harvested – trouble is, the specifics of what constitutes old growth has changed. But it’s not just old growth, all native forests are at risk.
The ‘neutral footprint’ is because the pulp mill is to be powered by burning waste – which will add to the pollution. And it is not proved – as this mill alone is to emit 2% of Australia’s greenhouse gases.
I would also include a quote from Malcolm Turnbull who expressed “grave concerns” about Gunns pulpmill.
Gunns info is what is put out by the main vested interest – they want the mill to go ahead so they make everything rosy.
Try looking beyond that.
A single search on google produced:
http://www.gunnspulpmill.com.au/faqs.html (note this covers Gunns and government = matching views)
http://www.tamarpulpmill.info/
Tasmanian Times
http://www.gunnsinvestors.blogspot.com/
http://tapvision.info/
This PLENTY of info out there, and it takes no time to find.
My beliefs are based on facts, from scientists and experts who know a lot more about emissions, dioxins, forestry, sustainability, marine life, pollution, air inversion, tidal flow, finance, and economics than I ever could.
If you don’t want to believe them, that is your choice, and not my problem. But don’t try to tell me that I am basing my arguments on incorrect data or fantasy.
The’neutral footprint’ is a nice fantasy, but it is based on the mill using timber waste to provide power, which will add to the pollution. As the mill is predicted to produce 2% of Australia’s greenhous gas emissions, I think there will be enough pollution already.
There have been many statements that the mill will not use old growth forests. But old growth has been reclassified by Forestry Tas, and anyway it is the entire native forests that provide the biodiversity, animal habitat, convection, etc that we need for a healthy environment.
You have not mentioned the poisons to be delivered into Bass Strait – poisons which will accumulate in the food chain. With humans at the top. These poisons not only kill, they sterilise. They are the deadliest poisons known so far. Doesn’t sound very tasty does it.
Lilydale is an area where for once local gov. listened to the public, who did not want a plantation. As far as I know that is the first time in Tasmania that such a decision has been made. Doesn’t matter who the company is, it is a victory for democracy and for the people’s right to choose the type of activities that happen in their local area, if those activities may adversely affect their lifestyle.
Nor have you mentioned the wildlife – currently being shot by Tas Forestry when they leave private land in the evening, to feed in the plantations. I guess fencing is too expensive.
Michael Turnbull approved the pulp mill – John Howard supported it. But Turnbull did state he had grave reservations about it.
Try UTAS for their inversion, and I believe, tidal flow studies – very different from Gunns version of the ‘facts’.
Gunns are giving us old technology, of the type that is being phased out elsewhere as inefficient and expensive without subsidies. The only way this mill can go ahead is with monumental subsidies, millions of dollars every year.
That does not make a profitable, sustainable industry.
We haven’t got carbon credits yet, and there is no risk assesment for any of the disasters that can happen in an industry.
This could be an extremely expensive business for the state.
Gee, Sal you don’t even pause for an apology even though you admit you are wrong on the Lillydale plantation issue. My research shows that you are also wrong on the 2% emission claim from the biomass power station fueled by both by-product from the mill and harvesting residues (Renewable energy only, no GHG emissions). Your 2% figure is meant to somehow relate to the timber harvesting, but it is a figure made up by a (former?) staff member of Senator Bob Brown, so not likely to be independent.
Why not ctake a bit of time and check out Alan’s new web site about Tasmania’s pulp mill (www.tasmaniapulpmill.info ) you will find the following statement:
“As the pulp mill has been approved by both the Federal Government and the State Parliament it is not intended that the site convince the reader to be pro-mill or anti – mill but to provide a balance of information and resources to allow the reader to either make up their own minds or to provide a pathway to find out more about the mill to be able to make an informed opinion on what this approval means to them.”
Gee, Sal you don’t even pause for an apology even though you admit you are wrong on the Lillydale plantation issue. My research shows that you are also wrong on the 2% emission claim from the biomass power station fueled by both by-product from the mill and harvesting residues (Renewable energy only, no GHG emissions). Your 2% figure is meant to somehow relate to the timber harvesting, but it is a figure made up by a (former?) staff member of Senator Bob Brown, so not likely to be independent.
Why not ctake a bit of time and check out Alan’s new web site about Tasmania’s pulp mill (www.tasmaniapulpmill.info ) you will find the following statement:
“As the pulp mill has been approved by both the Federal Government and the State Parliament it is not intended that the site convince the reader to be pro-mill or anti – mill but to provide a balance of information and resources to allow the reader to either make up their own minds or to provide a pathway to find out more about the mill to be able to make an informed opinion on what this approval means to them.”
Gee, Sal you don’t even pause for an apology even though you admit you are wrong on the Lillydale plantation issue. My research shows that you are also wrong on the 2% emission claim from the biomass power station fueled by both by-product from the mill and harvesting residues (Renewable energy only, no GHG emissions). Your 2% figure is meant to somehow relate to the timber harvesting, but it is a figure made up by a (former?) staff member of Senator Bob Brown, so not likely to be independent.
Why not ctake a bit of time and check out Alan’s new web site about Tasmania’s pulp mill (www.tasmaniapulpmill.info ) you will find the following statement:
“As the pulp mill has been approved by both the Federal Government and the State Parliament it is not intended that the site convince the reader to be pro-mill or anti – mill but to provide a balance of information and resources to allow the reader to either make up their own minds or to provide a pathway to find out more about the mill to be able to make an informed opinion on what this approval means to them.”
I have just looked at the site mentioned. It does not say who is sponsoring the site, it is not dated, in fact it is one of the most hopeless sites I have come across. Given all the press regarding this company in the last few weeks the site has not even been updated with this news. If this is the best Ashbarry can come up with God help Gunns and Timber Communities. I hope they didn’t pay for this crap! With helpers like this Gunns don’t need to have oponents. Maybe the news of the last two weeks has been so bad they have given up on the site. Timber Jack has gone quiet too. Down here we know who he is and we know why he’s gone quiet, something to do with Scottdale mill closing no doubt.