Gunns Limited approached me to comment on how they were doing with their draft plantation harvest residue burning policy (burning their waste).
You can read my response here:
Gunns have now formalised their response and it seems they, “…were a little disappointed by the tone of [my] feedback.”
What did they expect? Gunns want to burn.They want to produce toxic emissions that I and others are forced to breathe.
Gunns has no control over the smoke from their low intensity smoky burns once they are lit.
The harmful effects of particulate matter (PM) are published the world over. The many people I speak to do not want to be exposed to these and nor should they have to be in 2011 and beyond.
Whether a burn is lit in the open, or whether their waste is burnt in wood fired boilers in Tasmania, Gunns proposed burning policy has, I believe, the potential to significantly harm my health.
I just wonder who the other interested stakeholders are that are about to give their approval for Gunns to burn wood? In discussionI was only advised ET were asked for their input.
If in fact there are anyother stakeholders,I feel they should stand firm and reject ‘the need to burn’on such a scale, for very strong health reasons that can be found or linked to at http://www.cleanairtas.com
Further, I believe Gunns acknowledges its policy can be changed at any time.
Earlier, Bob Hawkins: Mushroom time again
Any proposed burn policy must comply with our principal environmental protection act, EMPCA – 1994 and Gunns are not exempt.
There is no bargaining as far as I am concerned. I do not have to accept the proposed burning practices by Gunns.
How can Gunn ssay it will formally approve and distribute a plantation waste burning policy that does not in my opinion have a social licence?
