Paul Oosting Pulp mill movie premiere this week, Hobart on Thursday evening, and Launceston on Saturday evening.
EIGHT reasons why the Tasmanian Government’s assessment of Gunns’ proposed pulp mill is a farce: information to help you overcome the government’s pro-pulpmill spin.
MOVIE PREMIERE
This week in Hobart & Launceston
Tasmania’s Clean Green Future: Too Precious to Pulp?
Directed by Heidi Douglas, launched by Roger Scholes
Thursday evening, 6.30pm, State Cinema, Hobart
Saturday evening, 7.00pm, Princes Theatre, Launceston
Just as the film An Inconvenient Truth exposed the truth about climate change, this documentary uncovers the truth about the impacts of the proposed pulp mill. We hope that in showing this film and in encouraging people to show it to others, we can help build the growing groundswell of opposition to the pulp mill.
The Franklin River Blockade by Roger Scholes will also be screened.
This 1983 film of the Franklin Blockade includes compelling footage of the arrival of the first bulldozer on the lower Gordon River. The film was shown widely on the mainland during the 1983 Federal election campaign and contributed to the protection of the Franklin River.
FREE ENTRY
6.30pm, Thursday 26th July
State Cinema, North Hobart
Doors open at 6pm
7pm, Saturday 28th July
Princes Theatre, Launceston
Doors open at 6.30pm
Bookings: 03 6331 7488
Eight Reasons Why the Tasmanian Government’s assessment of Gunns’ Proposed Pulp Mill is a Farce
In July 2007, the Tasmanian Government released the reports by Sweco Pic and ITS Global into the proposed pulp mill. The Government claimed that the reports give the pulp mill a clean bill of health and commenced a $300,000 advertising campaign using taxpayers’ funds to promote the mill. The Government has also allowed Forestry Tasmania to pay its workers to attend the pro-mill rally organised by the CFMEU.
However, the assessment has been a farce and these reports fail to provide adequate reassurances about the environmental, social and economic impacts of the mill.
The failings are as follows:
1. The reports are not independent.
Whereas the RPDC had an obligation to consider the interests of Tasmanians, the two consultants merely had a commercial relationship with a client (the Tasmanian Government) that wants the pulp mill to proceed. Sweco Pic says it ‘specialises on serving the pulp and paper industry’. Some of Sweco Pic’s past clients (and therefore future potential clients), such as Andritz, Gunns’ chosen supplier for most major pulpmill equipment, stand to benefit financially if the pulp mill goes ahead, through provision of technology, construction or services. ITS Global is a company that has carried out advocacy work for Rimbunan Hijau, a company with a notorious track record in southeast Asia and the Pacific when it comes to illegal logging and human-rights abuses. The founder of ITS Global is also a well-known ‘climate-change sceptic’. The reports carried out by Sweco Pic and ITS Global are therefore not independent.
2. The reports are not comprehensive and independent expertise is sidelined
Sweco Pic visited Tasmania for only two days. Its report is largely a desk-top study that assumes most of Gunns’ claims are correct. The reports and the claims on which they are based will not be subjected to independent scrutiny, as would have occurred in the RPDC’s public hearings. This has sidelined the expertise of critics such as Dr Andrew Wadsley (mathematics and engineering), Dr Stuart Godfrey (oceanography), Dr Paul Sandrey (oceanography) and Dr Graeme Wells (economics).
3. The reports fail to properly address the impacts of the pulp mill on forests, fresh water, wildlife and climate
Despite the pulp mill’s 4.5-million-tonne-per-annum appetite for logs, its impacts on Tasmania’s forests have not been assessed. That means that the impacts on the wildlife and water resources that rely on those forests have also been ignored. This is despite the fact that the proposed level of pulpwood extraction will increase from about 3.5 million tonnes per annum to nearly 7 million tonnes per annum. Note that Gunns plans to continue exporting woodchips even if the pulp mill proceeds. This is the most likely reason for Gunns’ adamant refusal to build the pulp mill at Hampshire, where the majority of its own plantations are centred, and which does not have the air-quality issues of the Tamar. The massive exploitation of native forests that will occur if the pulp mill proceeds will also exacerbate climate change – another impact not adequately assessed.
4. The reports addressed the wrong guidelines
The Sweco Pic report assessed the pulp mill against the 2004 emission guidelines which were drawn up for a pulp mill using technology certified by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) as being Accepted Modern Technology in an unpopulated area. The RPDC’s Final Scope guidelines were drawn up specifically to assess the impacts of the pulp mill on the Tamar Valley. They took into account the valley’s susceptibility to air pollution, the relatively stagnant nature of Bass Strait near the mouth of the Tamar, the health and amenity of the Tamar’s population and industries. The pulp mill was not assessed against these Final Scope guidelines which were not even included as reference material in the Sweco Pic report.
5. The pulp mill fails to meet the narrow environmental guidelines against which it was addressed
Sweco Pic says that the pulp mill fails to meet eight of the narrow environmental emission guidelines against which it was addressed. Areas where the pulp mill fails to meet guidelines include ocean discharges of effluent, emissions of nitrous oxides, contingencies for accidental spillages of chemicals, and Gunns’ proposed method of producing chlorine dioxide for the mill. These are highly significant impacts of the mill. Failure of the pulp mill to meet these guidelines breaks a government promise as well as the pledge by Liberal and Labor candidates in the 2006 state election. While Premier Lennon claims that Gunns has agreed not to use its proposed means of producing chlorine dioxide, there is no firm proof as yet that Gunns will use reliable, well-tested UNEP-accredited technology to produce the bleaching chemicals for the mill.
6. The pulp mill will pollute the sea and the beaches near the effluent outfall
Sweco Pic says there has been insufficient modelling of the ocean movements in the vicinity of the effluent pipe’s outfall. That means the ,000-tonnes-per-day of effluent will probably pollute part of Bass Strait and the beaches in the vicinity of Low Head. Yet the report fudges this issue by saying it will be dealt with using ‘permit conditions’. This suggests that the guidelines will in fact be re-written by government bureaucrats on the sly. Oceanographers believe that pulp mill effluent which contains dioxins will wash on to the shore and be carried up to 25 kilometres up the Tamar Valley when the wind is from the north and by the ‘whirlpool’ that frequently occurs at the mouth of the Tamar estuary. The environmental effects of this will be exacerbated if Gunns fails to use UNEP-accredited technology for production of bleaching chemicals, thereby creating more dioxins and furans in the effluent.
7. The problem of fugitive emissions of odour has not been adequately addressed
The Sweco Pic report claims that the pulp mill satisfies guidelines that deal with odour. But former RPDC panel member and pulpmill expert Dr Warwick Raverty says the report has failed to adequately assess ‘fugitive emissions’ of odour. These emanate from the hundreds of pipes, seals, drains and pumps in the pulp mill and are likely to have a major impact on nearby communities. The CSIRO says that ‘a full assessment of TRS (odour) impacts should also include the possibility of fugitive emissions from the proposed pulp mill’ – in other words, this crucial issue has not been adequately addressed. 97% of potential pulp-mill odour will come not from the mill’s stack, but from these fugitive emissions. Swedish pulp-mill experts told the RPDC ‘there is no such thing as an
odour-free pulp mill.’ Experience shows that Australians expect better air quality than is delivered by state-of-the-art pulp mills.
8. The reports and the Government have failed to adequately assess the impacts of the pulp mill on other industries in the Tamar valley
The ITS Global report says that the pulp mill’s impacts on tourism in the Tamar Valley are negligible because tourists will simply go elsewhere. These statements are an insult to the people who have invested millions of dollars – and their lives – in building up businesses that rely on a clean environment and a good reputation in the Tamar. The Tourism Industry Council has also entered the debate and was reported in the Mercury (17 July 2007) advising Gunns CEO John Gay to stop making ‘trite’ comments and start listening to legitimate concerns by tourism operators or risk inflaming tourism-industry opposition to the mill. The ITS report fails to adequately address the proposed pulp mill’s likely impacts on the wine, agriculture and fishing industries because it assumes
that environmental guidelines will be met. In fact, points 4, 5, 6 and 7 above show that this assumption is unjustified.
The above information will help you to overcome the government’s pro-pulpmill spin. Get involved in the public debate. Write letters to newspapers, call talkback radio, talk to your family, friends and colleagues.
For further information about the pulp mill and the pulp mill campaign click here to visit the website, or contact our pulp mill campaigner Paul Oosting on 03 6224 1550 or by email [email protected]
