In an effort to source the root of the issue with TWS, I looked at the policy provided by Paul Oosting.
See Wilderness Society: Where we stand
To me, it reads like a magic pudding. Two mutually exclusive positions in the TWS policy don’t add up. The debate will continue whilst opponents and protagonists can select from either position to support their case.
I am still confused and only Paul and the TWS can clarify this.
Quotes from the TWS policy:
“Plantations have been established in Tasmania at a huge environmental, social and economic cost.”
“… in relation to the current pulp mill debate, we have publicly held a position of support for a 100% plantation based, TCF pulp mill in an appropriate location” (with provisos).
“The Wilderness Society believes that a transition away from logging native forests and into reliance on existing plantations is possible with minimal disruption and massive environmental, social and economic benefits.”
Mike
