WHILE a rally which packed Albert Hall with over 2500 people showed the breadth of community opposition to Gunns’ current pulp mill proposal, it also drew a barrage of finger pointing and greenie bashing from representatives from major political parties and the pro-pulp mill lobby.
The huge turnout sends a clear message that widespread community opposition to this pulp mill proposal is strong and mounting. It also showed that the community was willing to stand up and be counted. It showed that public concern over forthcoming pulp mill-driven forest destruction and pollution of the air and marine environment, was enough to overcome rain, a late change of venue and a revitalised effort by pro-mill politicians and front groups to discredit conservationists.
As organisers, The Wilderness Society was at pains to ensure each and every speaker was a community representative. As such, the crowd heard justified opposition to the current pulp mill proposal from representatives from Tasmania’s indigenous community, conservation community, academic community, youth community and local residents community.
Another attack by Lara Giddings
Yet Liberal leader Rene Hidding’s press release claims that all these community representatives are part of an election-motivated political agenda. He uses words like “disgraceful and cynical game plan”, “peddling misinformation to frighten Tasmanians” and “hysterical, mindless and deceitful propaganda” to describe the campaign that opposes the current pulp mill proposal.
Another attack by Labor’s Lara Giddings described the rally as part of a “divisive and sensationalist campaign ” and an “unfounded fear campaign”. Emotive words but again, lacking either reference or substance.
When considering these words, observers of this debate should remember one thing: Gunns publicly announced this pulp mill project just days after issuing a writ against 17 conservationists and 3 organisations, including the Wilderness Society. The writ now claims a total of $6.8 million dollars. “Fear” is not a word misunderstood by individuals campaigning for environmental change in Tasmania.
While politicians and pro pulp mill lobby groups hide behind terms like “world’s toughest environmental standards”, opponents of the pulp mill suffer derogatory, unqualified and sometimes defamatory assults.
The three main environmental concerns attached to this pulp mill proposal — forest destruction, and air and marine pollution — are well described by The Wilderness Society. They are also substantiated by reference to official documents published by Gunns and the “stringent guidelines” themselves.
The impact of this scale of logging on Tasmania’s native forests will not be investigated or reported on by Gunns
The facts are contained in Gunns’ own documents and the RPDC guidelines, and our information is well referenced as follows.
The pulp mill will drive ongoing forest destruction in Tasmania.
Gunns’ Revised Project Scope states that the pulp mill will process “up to 4 million tonnes of woodchips each year” (section 5.5, page 4) and need secure access to native forests “over a period of at least 30 years.” (section 6, page , 6).
The impact of this scale of logging on Tasmania’s native forests will not be investigated or reported on by Gunns. The so-called “stringent guidelines” do not require it.
The pulpmill will pollute the marine environment of Bass Strait.
Gunns’ Revised Project Scope states that the pulpmill “will discharge up to 30 GL (30 billion litres) of treated effluent into the sea” (section 6, page 6). This is likely to include “organic materials resulting in biological oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand and colour” (section 7.3, page 7).
Gunns proposal to the Federal Department of the Environment and Heritage states “Chlorinated organic compounds will form part of the effluent discharge…the pulp mill project may result in a change in water quality in the immediate locality of the ocean outfall” and “a significant impact on Commonwealth marine areas is possible”. (section 4.2 — page 14).
RPDC Environmental Guidelines (vol 2) allow an annual effluent discharge of:
— 220 tonnes of organochlorines
— 2 860 tonnes of total suspended solids
—
Whether dioxin and furan levels within that effluent discharge can be detected is irrelevant in this debate. Detection is dependent on both ability and motivation to look. The reality is, these chemicals will be there and nobody has argued otherwise.
The pulpmill will pollute the air.
“The types and quantities of the mill emissions … are likely to include the following:
Gaseous-oxides and other compounds of carbon, nitrogen and sulphur,” (Gunns’ Revised Project Scope- section 7.3, page 7).
The RPDC Environmental Guidelines (vol 2) allow the mill an annual discharge into the air of:
— 440 tonnes of Sulphur
— 1,430 tonnes of nitrogen oxides
Bleached eucalypt Kraft pulp mills have been specifically exempted from aspects of the Environmental Protection Policy (Air Quality) 2004 Guidelines. Any limit on the emissions of Hydrogen sulphide and Methyl mercaptan “does not apply to bleached eucalypt Kraft pulp mills” (page 21).
The logging industry’s existing exemptions from laws that apply to all other activities are generally well documented and include threatened species laws, local planning scheme requirements and freedom of information provisions.
The truth resonates with those amongst us with eyes open enough to see and ears listening to hear and, as a result community opposition to the mill grows. That same truth also hurts those with no comeback other than vitriol and abuse. All Tasmanians who have questioned this pulp mill should feel insulted by comments claiming they have been “suckered in by the hysterical mindless and deceitful propaganda campaign”.
Consider also Gunns refusal to accept a formal request to meet with the Wilderness Society
The Wilderness Society is not opposed to a pulp mill in Tasmania but any proposal must be 100% based on existing plantations, Totally Chlorine Free and appropriately located.
The Wilderness Society has been an open and inclusive participant in the pulp mill debate since it was announced. The Pulp Mill Trailer project has been travelling the state visiting agricultural shows, sporting events, senior citizen and community group meetings, public markets and schools. This mobile display is personally staffed with Society representatives, available to answer any questions. The Launceston Campaign Centre was opened less than a month ago. It is a public space with an open door policy happy to receive members of the public and address any issues relating to the pulpmill.
Less than 2 weeks ago we co-organised a symposium, giving the Tasmanian public the unprecedented opportunity to hear about, and investigate through public forum, issues from both sides of the pulp mill debate. Despite inviting all vocal pulp mill advocates, including Gunns, the TCCI, Timber Communities Australia, , PLANT, FACTS and the Pulp Mill Task Force, only one representative (to his credit) attended.
Can our commitment to even handed debate and equal opportunity at a community event truly be considered part of a “divisive and sensationalist campaign designed to deliberately instil fear in the community through misrepresentation of the facts about the proposed pulp mill”, as described by Economic Development Minister Lara Giddings?
Consider also Gunns refusal (4/10/05) to accept a formal request to meet with the Wilderness Society to discuss wood supply issues surrounding the pulp mill and their written refusal to address groups of more than 4 or 5 people.
Informed debate is about dialogue. Conflict resolution is dependant on dialogue. Mutual understanding and considered compromise are reliant on dialogue. When effective dialogue is stymied by blanket refusal to talk, refusal to participate and unsubstantiated and abusive accusations, true debate is dead.
Vica Bayley is forests campaigner, The Wilderness Society
