Pulp mill

[tasadam]

A lot of views are out there about the pulp mill. As bushwalkers, I would well imagine many of us have strong views about it.
I remember the first time I went to Dip Falls, for example, there was farmland half way down then it turned into what appeared to be pretty pristine forest.
Now it's plantation almost all the way in.
Every bit of old growth that gets logged, it seems gets replaced by these "eucalypts on steroids". I say that because I have never seen any plant grow so fast as these mutant eucalypts they put in the plantations.
More and more, we climb a mountain to look out on forestry activity.
And with the proposed mill, and an appetite of a log truck full of logs every 75 seconds, 12 hours a day, every day (assuming 20 tonne net trucks), I only see the problem getting worse.

I have a number of views on all of this, but I feel a good hearty polite discussion is not possible because, strictly speaking, the pulp mill would be more a political topic than a bushwalking one.

Therefore, what I am proposing is a discussion on the this subject, meeting all of the other rules of Controversy Corner (as well as general forum rules of course).
I have locked this topic for now, with two possible outcomes - for site admin to either unlock the topic (and clarify any guidelines), or just delete the topic.


I will clarify, posts must comply with -

Controversial topics have the potential to get nasty. Do not let that happen here. Keep all content polite and friendly. Abuse or attacks of any kind against any persons (forum members, politicians, or otherwise) are not permitted. Eg, discuss the policies, not the politicians or the other posters.

[Son of a Beach]

I've already allowed some discussion on this topic elsewhere (where you can see my own opinions, which are a bit both ways, for various reasons). So I've no problem with discussing it. As I said in the other topic, the pulp mill is related to forests and forests are related to bushwalking, so it's vaguely on topic.

My quick guidelines for discussion of controversial topics is this: Discussion of policies is OK, negative discussion of people (whether public figures or forum members, or otherwise), is not. Good luck.

The topic is unlocked... for now.

[the_camera_poser]

I come from a town in the US where the economy is dominated by a pulp mill. You can't even begin to imagine the environmental devestation these things cause. We'd be better off with a few more copper mines.

My mother is an lawyer specializing in environmental law with the US Army, which deals with pulp mills by way of it's authority over inland waterways. The stories she can tel lyou would cur your toes.

Kiss your shellfish goodbye- they'll be ridden with Hepatitis in no time flat- Savannah, where I'm from, had the world's most sought-after shellfish before the mill, now they are all toxic.

The ground water is laced with dioxin- the region has the highest stroke rate,and one of the highest cancer rates, in the US.

The air stenches- I mean it reeks like rotten eggs. I understand they have scrubbers now, but you can still smell it, and I'm talking about 20-30 miles away one a good day.

And has anyone thought- how sustainable is this thing going to be with the cost of diesel hitting $2/litre? When it hits $3 will it still turn a profit?

[corvus]

Rhetoric and innuendo ,what I require is fact positive and with respect not my "Mom is" ,show me the proof , how do shellfish get Hepatitis ?? what documentation have you for "the highest cancer and stroke rates in the US " perhaps the highest ingestion of "FAST FOODS " has a contributing factor towards this . As I said show me the proof
Pulp Mills are in operation throughout the World and I don't doubt that some are suss however try wiping your bum with????
Yes all commercial paper comes from pulp mills and our books ,magazines and newspapers would be non existent without it ,I get so peed off with anti pulp mill rhetoric (and I am not convinced that Bell Bay is the best choice being that Hampshire seems the most logical ) however clever use of our ability to grow a cash crop ecologically must be surely be preferable to unemployment in marginal areas and lets face it NIMBY wont save our Forests,clever use will.
corvus

[tasadam]

Hey Corvus. You want proof?
What sort of proof are you after?
I could offer proof to my argument, but one could argue to discredit the authors of any information I provide as proof.
If someone chooses to do that, then I have no argument left unless I go and find another source of information for someone to discredit.
So I will offer information as I see relevant to support my points.
However, all my proof comes from the perceived "experts" - people that are supposed to know what they are talking about.
The only real proof is retrospective - like if it gets built and it turns into an environmental and financial disaster, there's your proof.
And if it is as clean and green as Gunns might want us to believe, then there will be your proof on the other hand.
So until it is done, there is no hard and fast "proof", only facts and figures and claims by "experts".

OK but first off, let's get something straight.
Value adding to any Tasmanian product is, generally speaking, a good idea.
The way it is done may not necessarily be so.

1. Pulp mill too big for Tasmania
2. Pulp mill too expensive compared to mills in other places
3. Pulp mill site in the Tamar valley in wrong location.
That will do for now.

1. The amount of timber required to feed the mill is staggering.
Let's do the maths together. And for accuracy, we'll use figures from Gunns.
http://www.gunnspulpmill.com.au/faqs.php

How much wood will be processed in the proposed pulp mill?
The pulp mill will not require additional intensification of forestry operations. It will instead divert resource that otherwise would have been exported in chip form to the pulp mill for value-added processing. In the initial stages of operation, about 3.2 million green tonnes of pulp wood per year will be processed

3,200,000 divided by 365 = 8767.1 tonnes a day. Let's assume they only run in daylight - on average, 12 hours. Less in winter, more in summer but call it an average 12 hours per day.
730.6 tonnes an hour, 12 hours a day, every day.
Now let's assume a 20 tonne log truck. 36 trucks an hour. Or one every 36 seconds.
Remember, from their own words "initial stages".
And reading that link further,

How much pulp will be produced?
The proposed pulp mill will, in the initial stages, produce about 820,000 air dried tonnes of pulp and will have the capacity to produce up to 1.1 million air dried tonnes of pulp for domestic and international markets.

So assuming the same percentages of raw product are required to produce this increase from "initial stages" to "capacity", we multiply our earlier figure of 730.6 tonnes an hour by 1.341 (take 1.1 million, divide by 820K and we have our multiply figure).
980 tonnes of logs an hour, 12 hours a day, every day.
Even if they run on the roads 24 hours a day, that's a 20 tonne truck every 73 seconds.
You get the idea? Too big for this state.
Oh, but that's right, we needn't fear, as nothing will change, they're doing it already - as already quoted...

The pulp mill will not require additional intensification of forestry operations. It will instead divert resource that otherwise would have been exported in chip form to the pulp mill for value-added processing.

And, don't forget,

The primary wood source for this project will be plantation-grown eucalypts, regrowth forest eucalypts and a small proportion of plantation pine. No old growth logs will be used in the pulp mill.

There in their own admission is that there is no current need for old growth logging, yet still it continues.

The proposed mill will continue to need to be fed in part from sources other than plantation. This means areas of regrowth. Places that have been logged before, but have re-established into what the uninitiated may believe to be an area of original forest.
Ref - http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/conten ... 039730.htm
(That's an interesting and enlightening read, though a little outdated and the latest report seems to be in my attachment)

At start up the pulp mill is using 80 per cent native forests. Gunns only pays $12 to $15 a tonne for that wood. If Gunns wants to use plantation wood it's going to have to pay $30, $35 a tonne.

So at start-up, 4 out of every 5 trucks on the road will be carrying native forests. Lots of em.
I know how big a log truck is, and one every 73 seconds is a LOT of wood.
And if they do run only 12 hours a day, that's one every 37 seconds.
Thinking about it, it's a pretty serious operation they have at the end that can cope with that much wood.

So what happens when the native forests are harvested and replaced with plantations?
Won't happen?
http://www.echo.net.au/archives/20_12/pdf/p13.pdf

The second vision, the one that Tasmanians are actually getting, is the 2020 Vision which is destroying native forests including old growth and replacing them with plantations.
‘It is a mad rush to actually clear as much land and plant out as much of it as possible, regardless of the consequences.’

2. Too expensive.
My argument for the Tasmanian mill being too expensive compared with mills in other places can be read in the attachment in this post.

3. Wrong location.
This post has already grown beyond what I initially intended. So I will leave it at that for now. Go read the facts and make your own conclusions. I've made mine.
I feel it a shame that the state is missing out on revenue because of the inability to value-add to this raw product. But at what cost?
There are better ways for the state to make a buck.
As you mentioned, "clever use" of our resources.
One of them would be for Forestry to revise the way they charge Gunns for the forests.
http://www.echo.net.au/archives/20_12/pdf/p13.pdf

the outstanding fact that in one year while supervising the clearing of over 17,000 hectares of public forest, the government through Forestry Tasmania made a profi t of only $3 million. At the same time Gunns [Timber Company] made a profi t of $104 million. Basically Gunns are getting access to Tasmania’s public forest very cheap and the people of Tasmania are earning virtually nothing from it,’

Another might be for the whole package to be considered, not just making pulp for export.
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/conten ... 039730.htm

But with its Japanese woodchip market in decline, the company is being forced to take a step up the production line to make its own pulp. Unlike every other pulp mill in Australia, it won't run its own paper mill. Instead it will sell its pulp straight onto the world market and therein lies the risk.

I rest my case. For now.

[tasadam]

How easy it is to find flaws in the pulp mill policy when you start looking.

Gunns say

No old growth logs will be used in the pulp mill.

and

The pulp mill will not require additional intensification of forestry operations. It will instead divert resource that otherwise would have been exported in chip form to the pulp mill for value-added processing.

And in their own fact sheet,

No old growth timber will be used

Why, then, would they need to do ANY old growth logging?
The answer could lie in this report - http://tas.greens.org.au/News/view_MR.php?ActionID=2632

“There we have it, no end to native forest woodchip exports shows once and for all that the so-called down-stream processing purpose of the proposed pulp mill is a sham.”

“Vague reported projections by Forestry Tasmania that old growth woodchip exports will continue until 2016, then maybe end by 2026, is not a reflection of a planned phase out and transition, but is more of a reflection of when the accessible old growth runs out.”

“It is madness in this era of growing concern over climate change and shrinking fresh water supplies to allow the continued logging of our high conservation value native forests, let alone to then sell those forests for virtually half the price per tonne of plantation timber on the grounds that the native timber provides less pulp – getting the native forest half of the pulp feedstock at a discount price clearly only benefits Gunns, and not the taxpayer to whom the state asset belongs,” Mr Morris said.

I suppose it makes sense - stick to their word, don't use any old growth in the mill. Instead, sell it off cheap so they can turn the land where the old growth WAS into PLANTATION and use the resultant product in the mill.

[corvus]

G'day tasadam,
Good argument as usual with many valid points

[the_camera_poser]

Corvus- nasty nasty. They way I know is because I was helping her with a case- as a lawyer myself, I was giving my dear old Mum a bit of an hand with her caseload. As for the science- it's there- go find it yourself. I know about it. I know about the science, but then I don't really need to know, because I have seen the effects with my own two baby blues.

As for the Hep-carrying shellfish- my understanding is that shellfish acquire Hepatitis when weakened by pollutants. In the case of the oysters in the Savannah region, this occured shortly after the fire up of the paper mill, and was directly linked to the pollutants discharged by the mill. What was worse was the dioxin-laden waste water, produced as a by-product of the bleaching process. This was deep-well injected into the aquifer. What else do you do with it? We're not talking about little bits of it. As for the sulpher dioxide gas- well, ever meet anyone that's been to Coastal Georgia? You don't need anymore evidence than that.

Corvus, I don't know you from Adam, and have NO interest in a heated conflict, but as the owner of a Masters Degree in Environmental Management with a specialization in natural resource management and environmental law, and a Doctorate of Law, I do know something of the way these things happen. My masters thesis was on the intentional masking of environmental risk-taking, threats and degradation through the use of bureaucracy in application processes. When employed as an environmental scientist in Queensland I had the opportunity to repeatedly witness the way that industry and government collude to establish the appearance of propriety in application processes.

Example: the application of Gunns for the mill. Now, I've not followed it at all, but my understanding is that Gunns has been allowed to compartmentalize it's appication by restricting the developent application to the immediate mill itself, and not to the waste lines, power grid, transportation routes and so-on that support the mill. I could be wrong here- I'm just basing this on what I've heard on the ABC and in the Tassie Papers. The result of this is that there's a micro-cosm view of an industry that has a real impact on the entirety of the state. Now, in cases I have been involved with and do know personally, this is allowed by the extreme level of specialization in the application processes involved in development. For instance, if the actual impact of the mill was to be ocnsidered, then a vegetation management, wildlife management, cultural resource impact, noise impact, etc etc etc study should have been conducted not only for the immediate area of the mill, but the entire region that it will be impacting upon, which is much of northern Tassie. Now, while a bit of looking into that has been done, its my very uninformed opinion that the whole tihng hasn;t been done, as this has been allowed to be passed as a "local" development. As a "local" development (not an official designation, just my way of referring to it), it triggers far fewer environmental impact statements and other safeguards. What it did trigger would have been considered by a large number of governmental departments, each specializing in their own area and in general not looking at the big picture. In other states, over 50% of the employees of these departments who are in supervisory roles wil lseek out private employment with the same firms they are supposed to be controlling within something like 7 years of their entry into a managerial position. (This thesis was like 8 years ago, so my figures are a bit shaky). There is therefore a close relationship between these agencies and the business world. What you don't have is a lot of people leaving those agencies and going to work for the Green Party. At least, not in Queensland.

So now- these agencies consider the potential impact of the development based on the information given to the agency by the applicant (the agencies rarely if ever gather their own info) by seeing if the development follows guidelines. Who's guidelines? Where do these come from? From the IUCN or WWF or even from the scientific community? No- they often are set by consultants commissioned by the agency for that purpose. But who do the consultants work for when not owrking for the Government? I wonder. Having written the environmental noise guidelines for two of the fastest-growing shires in Australia under exactly this circumstance, and as a former employee of the consultant who did the same for basically every local government in the state, as well as the EPA, I'm in a pretty good position to pass comment on this. And who, other than the government, could afford our services? Well, let me tell you, we didn't do a lot of work for the Aussie Battler, and we were definitely supporting the interests of our corporate clients. And there was little doubt that this was what we were expected to do.

So if you think you know everything there is to know about this Mill, think again. If you know the truth, then you must be a Gunns environmental manager, because I'd bet the farm that they haven't even told the CEO what the truth is. He doesn't want to know- that way he can deny it in 10 years time.

Does this all seem awful to you? Shocked by the cancer stats, the stroke rates, infected shellfish, etc etc? Wondering why it hasn't made more of a splash? Well, let me ask you- how many Aussies really know about paper mills? Do we have extensive experience with them here? Long-term, down-the-road experience- that comes from seeing and studying the effects of these mills on the environment for 20, 30, 50 years?

Well, we all know that corporate Australia tells us the truth, same as the government. Heck, surely if they passed the mill, then it can't really be a risk to us.

As for the facts- well- start here, and work through them for yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_pollution

[the_camera_poser]

http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/v9933e/V9933E00.HTM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_pulp

Here's some hard evidence for you:

http://www.nps.gov/history/history/onli ... /chap6.htm

[slick41st]

Wowsers this is getting controversial!

My only 2c worth (which I posted on another thread):

If the forestry industry is so sustainable WHY do they have to even touch anything old growth?

Can anyone answer this? Can't say I have ever heard the party line on this question.

Cheers, Damien

[the_camera_poser]

Clear-felling of old growth forest is never sustainable- period. It takes hundreds if not thousands of years to replace the old growth ecosystem, if it can be replaced at all. Australia doesn't follow the rest of the world's definition of Sustainable- we have a spin on it here- we leave out the fourth principle of it- Precautionary Principle- which states that if you don't know the impact of something- don't do it. We don't know the impact of logging old-growth forest, and therefore, shouldn't do it. We left that one out though.

Interesting point- I wonder if there'd be any luck with a Tasmanian-dam case approach seeking ot force the Tassie gov't to meet it's obligations as a default signatory to the International Convention on Biodiversity, or any other international convention which specifies that governments have to act sustainably, in accordance to the UN meaning of sustainable? That'd be an interesting question for a law class.

EDIT: I HEREBY VOW TO NEVER DISCUSS POLITICS ON THIS BOARD AGAIN, PAST THIS POINT.

[Son of a Beach]

Hi guys,

It's good to see some more in depth discussion of this issue, and people are generally keeping it polite and friendly. This is just a friendly reminder to keep it that way, and make sure it doesn't get personal.

I think Corvus may have been playing devil's advocate there (but I'm not sure). In any case, he does have some valid points. I don't entirely agree with the perspective he was representing (I am personally against the mill for other reasons), but for everyone that uses paper and other products (ie, everone I know): The world has to have more pulp mills to cater for the increasing demand, and if it is not built here, it will be built somewhere else (by someone else).

By this argument, it's more a matter of how 'clean' the mill is, and where it is that matter.

Then there's the issue of whether or not the correct processes have been followed in allowing the mill to be built (ie, the whole RPDC fiasco, etc).

[tasadam]

Then there's the issue of whether or not the correct processes have been followed in allowing the mill to be built (ie, the whole RPDC fiasco, etc).

Oh boy, don't get me started on that one...
I was thinking last night as I was going to sleep, about the staggeringly huge number of submissions that were put forward to the RPDC in response to the pulp mill application / proposal.
And all the time and care that it would have taken for everyone that submitted to the RPDC.
And for every one of those man hours to be WASTED when the RPDC was canned by the government.
You can try and tell me that it was Gunns that pulled out. I seem to recall that there was a huge amount of questioning there and a royal commission was even suggested / requested by many. But of course it didn't happen. My perception of why not was that it would be the Government tying their own noose. But this line of discussion is possibly getting too political for the purpose of the bushwalking debate.
Suffice to say, the RPDC was canned so the government passed special legislation to allow things to continue.

Now there is another interesting aspect of the development process.
The pipeline that was to be built and funded by the taxpayer, to get water from Trevallyn to Bell Bay, was going to be a State Government project.
But now we have a new Premier and he has already canned that idea (of being a state gov't project).

If it were a state gov't project, the state could use special powers for compulsory land aquisition for "essential infrastructure" to get the land to put the pipe on.
Now that it is going to have to be constructed by Gunns, I wonder how many land owners between Trevallyn and Bell Bay will refuse to allow the pipeline to proceed, or at least, make things difficult?

More on the pipeline story -
1. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008 ... 181548.htm

The Government is considering stepping into the breach after Gunns lost its right to compulsorily acquire land for the mill's infrastructure in March last year, when it quit Tasmania's independent planning process.

2. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008 ... 178336.htm

The Tasmanian Government is considering paying for the pipelines that the Gunns timber company needs for its controversial new pulp mill. The company estimates that the construction would cost $50 million and the State Government says the pipelines would have community benefits. But those landowners who have refused to give Gunns permission to run the pipelines through their land say the State Government is using its power to force them into it.

3. http://tas.greens.org.au/News/view_MR.php?ActionID=2968

“The pipeline infrastructure arrangements for the mill are obviously well advanced, yet Tasmanians have been told nothing about this key public interest issue since it came to light that the government was in secret talks with Gunns and had set up a steering committee to look at public subsidy and ownership of the pipeline.”
“There was a huge public outcry when it was revealed in March that the government was secretly considering plans to help Gunns out by taking over and paying for the pipeline, and now the government is ignoring the public interest by refusing to release these crucial documents.”
“Tasmanians are horrified that a secret deal to seize private property to facilitate Gunns’ pipeline is even being considered, let alone acted upon behind closed doors with one of the Lennon government’s major political donors.”

4. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 88,00.html

NEW Tasmanian Premier David Bartlett has scrapped plans for taxpayers to build, own or fund a vital $60million water pipeline for the Gunns pulp mill.
Under former premier Paul Lennon, the Government had secret and well-advanced plans for taxpayers to own and subsidise the 35km pipeline to supply water to the Tamar Valley mill.
Mr Bartlett yesterday told ABC Radio that government ownership of the pipeline would not occur.
"I would rule out the Government owning or building such a pipeline," Mr Bartlett said.
Mr Bartlett's refusal to consider any government involvement in the water pipeline makes it far less likely landowners refusing to allow the pipeline on their land could be forced to do so.
One of the main benefits of government involvement for Gunns would have been the ability to use its powers of compulsory acquisition to obtain access to private land in the pipeline corridors.
Several landowners have refused to agree to terms at any price with Gunns because they bitterly oppose the mill, proposed for Long Reach, about 35km north of Launceston.
The Wilderness Society has a legal opinion that land for the pipelines could be easily compulsorily acquired if it is owned or built by a government agency.
The only other option would be for an act of parliament to declare Gunns an acquiring authority under the Land Acquisitions Act, or parliamentary approval to compulsorily acquire land on Gunns behalf.

Hey, isn't that what I said?

EDIT.
So that it is clearly not my words (it's already been said by many before), I thought I had better add...
5. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008 ... 181548.htm

For obvious reasons the Lennon Govt refuses to set up an independent commission against corruption and the only way for them to be brought to account is for a Royal Commission to investigate their actions.

[corvus]

G'day Everyone,
Many thanks for the full on replies which I expected ,I love a good argument and will be happy to stir in any future controversial subjects after all what would controversy be without an opposing point of view which on a Bushwalking Forum regarding Pulp Mills Trees and Plantations would generally be hard ,to come across,as a Parthian shot we do know about pulp mills in Tasmania the City of Burnie thrived for many years on the "Pulp" and in my humble opinion its prosperity today is because of it.
This is my last open posting on this subject and I can only ask that members with passion to keep it up but remember that it always takes two "to tangle"

[Joe]

................ hard to come across,as a Parthian shot we do know about pulp mills in Tasmania the City of Burnie thrived for many years on the "Pulp" and in my humble opinion its prosperity today is because of it.
)

Bit of a derailment of thread...but it is on topic towards the end of my thoughts... I wholeheartedly object to this above statement by Mr Corvus. Burnie would be fudged (see what i did there ) as a result of the mill that was there if it wasn't for an incredibly efficient council and of late the boom on the West Coast. Burnie is the gateway to west coast and with the mining boom the Burnie economy has rocketed.

The old pulp mill was without a doubt the biggest employer in the Burnie region. When it closed it had a devestating effect on employment and as a byproduct of this the economy of the area. Its through many of the initiatives set up by Burnie council that the town was able to reestablish and transform itself into the vibrant place that it is today. I wouldn't ever live there...its bad enough working there...all the council schemes in the world will never change the 14 year old single mums and Shorewell folk coming into town to do some stabbing ...but I really do take my hat off to the Burnie Council.

Now...this is the result of the Burnie Mill closing down...It left a whole town floundering. If it wasn't for Citylink, Advance Burnie and the other commities like these set up to bolster tourism and economic growth in the area then it could have been devestating. While the new mill is not likely to have any effect on Georgetown if it closes down after starting, you cant tarnish a turd, but the huge investment our state government is injecting into the mill is at stake.

[corvus]

Oh shees ,
TWF you are snapping off the hand that feeds you Burnie thrives and what a snobby type answer , I reiterate that Burnie only survived because of the "Pulp" where else would the money have come from to build the "Civic Center" and the "Council Chambers" and the "multi storied car park" and pay for someone to commute from Smithton to Burnie every day except Tuesday, oh shees ! the Pulp got shut down.
corvus

[Joe]

Snobby? Meeee!?!

Haha I stand by my above sentiment. I totally agree that the pulp generated a lot of money for Burnie area whilst it was open. BUT it certainly raped the economy when it shut. Im not snapping any hands, I was just pointing out that it is somewhat obtuse to say that Burnie is only successful because of the mill. And I think you will find the Multi-story to be weeeee-heeee-heeeeeeellll and truly funded with non mill money...damn it had to have been built about 5-10 years after the closure.

[corvus]

Don't pick out Shorewell people then !!!! and where do you think surplus funds came from? as an educated person you should know that forward planning is what Governments do so that's where the money came from ,gees you are you so out of date TWF ,and you were somewhere else ( as a baby) when the "Pulp" was shut down- I may reiterate which set Burnie going back in population so what do you propose to enhance progress in Burnie now
corvus

[Joe]

Haha thats why you called me snobby. I get it now. Well if they didnt do so much stabbing I wouldn't cast aspersions.

As for "Forward planning is what governments do" Im not even going to justify that with a laugh...its on similar vein to "Military Inteligence" or on a more bushwalking note the new Keen "100% Hybrid" Sandals.

[Joe]

And as a baby...I was born in Burnie...my family worked at the pulp.

[tasadam]

I'm having a good laugh at this, but thought I might point out that Corvus and Taswaterfalls.com do actually know each other, and although there are somewhat opposing views, isn't that what controversy is?
So if you're a bystander, don't be afraid to jump in with your point of view.
"polite and friendly" could also be taken as a friendly dig in the ribs so to speak, which I am sure is what the banter is about.

And by the way, Burnie still stinks!

[Joe]

Yeah...It should be known by now that Im pretty much never serious. Thought of another good oxymoron too....Microsoft Works. No wonder it was never that popular in comparison to Office

[Son of a Beach]

I know you guys know each other, so I assume you're not actually getting as personal as it looks.

The '14 year old single mums and shorewell' comment was a bit out of line though. I don't even know where Shorewell is (I assume it's a Burnie suburb?), but I think this might be offensive to some residents and mums, so please tone it down there.

Do people who live in Burnie get offended by the phrase, 'Place Without a Postcard' (Midnight Oil)?

[Joe]

heh I never know how controversial I can be in my corner. Point Noted.

[Joe]

Do people who live in Burnie get offended by the phrase, 'Place Without a Postcard' (Midnight Oil)?

"Burnie" Is a pretty weak song as far as oils go (I just went back and listened to it then...Id forgotten about it until you mentioned it. Got it on vinyl at back of cupboard somewhere)...and that album wasn't their most popular. I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of Burnie-ites have either forgotten, or never knew, about it.

[walkinTas]

It was really only a matter of time before I said something controversial. So OK, time to offer another opinion, or to take a different tack... ....yep tack, not tact.

I get a little jaded by arguments that assert that the Forestry Industry in general and Pulp Mills specifically have never done any good in the state. (edit)ForestryThe Forestry Industry has made, and still makes, a big contribution to this state. You can read about the most recent report or listen to an interview - a mp3. There are a least two sides to this argument. As for bagging Gunns just because it is in vogue, Tasmanians should remember that two decades ago the majority of our privately owned timber resources where in the hands of international companies, not a home grown company, and most of the profits left the state.

If you don't want (edit)Forestry the Forestry Industry, and you don't want Pulp Mills, then stop using timber and paper. If you don't like pulp mills that are based on bleaching processes then stop using white bleached paper. It is hypocritical to sit around and *&%$#! about these things and then go to work and shove a truckload of bleached, white paper through your photocopier to produce reports that will be incinerated or shredded a week later. ...but of course environmentalists don't do this! Think of all the paper you use every day. Office paper, newspapers, tissue paper - toilet tissues, Kleenex, paper towels, paper napkins, coffee filters . . . Australians use just under 200kg of paper per person per year which is high, but not the worst in the world (compare here). Where does all this paper come from?

I also think that many of the discussions about planting trees on farmland are very one sided. When discussing this you should remember that 200 years ago a lot of the current farmland was native old growth forest. Planting native trees on farmland does not ruin the land or mean that it can never again be farmed. Nor is there any empirical evidence that forests next to farmland increase the number of native animals to pest or plague proportions. Native herbivores generally eat (edit) grass a range of herbaceous plants, not [older] Eucalyptus, and abound where food is plentiful and predators are few. (I know that there are a lot of other social and community based issues around plantation establishment, and I don't propose to discuss these here - but you can if you wish.)

I really get jaded by people who live in cities and who tell others to be more environmentally responsible. Cities are the least environmentally responsible examples of human occupation of this planet. No-one who lives in a city and contributes to the environmental irresponsibility caused by cities has any right at all to preach environmental responsibility. Clean up your own land-fill contribution, your own wasteful energy consumption that contributes to fossil fuel consumption, your own wasteful land use that contributes to endless urban sprawl and subsequent destruction of farmland, and your own wasteful water consumption. (This paragraph is particularly aimed at the 50% of Australia's population that live in the major mainland cities. Glasshouse dwellers who constantly throw stones at Tasmania). Some or our cities, for example Burnie and Devonport, are surrounded by some of the richest farming land in the world - krasnozem soils (edit - link added). It would be tragic (not to mention terribly irresponsible) if these soils were to be lost to urban sprawl, but how many people think about issues like these before they buy their dream home or building block.

IMHO what Tasmania needs is a single comprehensive land use and land management authority. Instead of speculating reactively about where people can build or where forestry companies can plant trees, or what land can be mined, or what is the best use for this or that farm, we should take a more proactive and more scientific look at the use of land. Soil type, local climate, conservation value, flora and fauna preservation, historical and heritage values, aesthetic appeal, economic return and a range of other factors should be considered to determine some sort of land usage index for all of Tasmania.

It is not Forestry that is the problem, but rather the logging of the remaining examples of native old growth and virgin forests. This country has a 200 year tradition of logging native forest. When I was a kid on our farm near Burnie, there was one old hollowed out tree stump that we could nearly park two cars inside. I can only imagine the forest that once stood there - less than 150 years ago. Some of the local north-west history books describe logging Eucalyptus and Myrtle forests and the huge amount of wood, from massive trees, that was shipped to Melbourne to feed the gold rush needs.

Fortunately this state has also managed to reserve or protect a lot (comparatively a lot - compare to other states) of forests. To put it in perspective, 38.2% of land in Tasmania is private property, 21% is National Parks, Conservation Areas cover an additional 8%, Forest reserves, Nature reserves, and nature recreation areas make up about 3.5% and State Forests cover 19.2% (ABS, May 2003). By contrast, only about 11% of NSW land is used for forestry (7%) and nature conservation (4%) and 68% for live stock grazing. Some people get all of this terribly confused in Tasmania and *&%$#! about any forestry practice whether its on private land, regrowth and regenerated forests or native old growth forest. It really is time to stop harvesting old growth forests, but even that article lumps old growth and regrowth forests together as if they were the same thing. Focus people, stop old growth logging. Win one fight at a time.

Plantations are not filled with mutant "eucalypts on steriods". They are not mono-cultures of cloned misfits. The species used were chosen from plantation trials conducted in the 1960 and 1970. The trees are mostly grown from seed. On-going selection and breeding will allow the development of superior trees in the same way that breeding and selection improves any crop (and when you are growing 8 million trees a year you have a lot of choice). The genetic diversity of a eucalyptus population in a plantations is not significantly different from the genetic diversity of a stand of eucalyptus in any other forest (ie. there is not measurably less or more genetic diversity in the Eucalyptus population). Given that we need to harvest trees, then growing trees in plantation is a superior alternative to harvesting native forests. Plantations grow faster for a number of reasons. The trees are evenly spaces to avoid crowding, competition from other species is limited, fertilizers are used, and the tree species has been trialled and selected for plantation forestry.

While I'm discussing alternatives to logging native forests I should really comment on the fact that we seem to insist on making paper only from trees. Everyone knows that Tasmania is a very good place to grow hemp, but does everyone know that you can make paper out of hemp. Imagine replacing 40% or more of our paper with paper made from hemp. Now that would be a nice high.

It is environmentally irresponsible not to support sustainable forestry in the temperate regions of the world. What are the alternatives? Well there are two, either stop using forestry products, or obtain those products from tropical rainforests. Rainforests cover only 2% of the Earth's surface, or 6% of its land mass, and tropic rainforest are already being lost at an alarming rate. However, paper manufacturing is not the only cause of rainforest destruction. "Over 400 billion cups of coffee are consumed every year and every cup of coffee consumed destroys roughly three square centimeters of rainforest, making coffee a leading cause of rainforest destruction" (Merchants of Green Coffee). Perhaps we should stop drinking coffee. Perhaps the argument about the Pulp Mill is not about paper or our use of paper, but rather a selfish argument about "just not in my backyard". Like we know about the destruction of rainforests for coffee, we know that poor forestry practice and lax law is other countries both pollute and destroy (edit - link added). We'd love to make a difference, but just not here.

With proper planning Tasmania can support a sustainable forest industry. For many reasons it is environmental irresponsibility not to build a clean, sustainable pulp mill in Tasmania. If they don't think the current offering is clean or sustainable, then rather than opposing it outright, maybe environmental groups should have worked to ensure a clean, sustainable mill is built in its place. The problem with antagonistic debates is that they tend to polarize around the extremes. Hardly conducive to balance management of resources, environment and economy. The current debate seems to me to be a polarized all or nothing debate.

Well that should do it. Thats got a whole bunch of people upset. Think of all the trees saved if all those people don't send me a Christmas card. And on the subject of Christmas Cards.......... no, no, thats another debate (I think).

[tasadam]

It is not Forestry that is the problem, but rather the logging of the remaining examples of native old growth and virgin forests.

But isn't it Forestry that is responsible for the management of these old growth / virgin forests?

Sorry I do not have the time for a detailed reply.
I'll look into the coffee one, but the question must be asked, "why". There's a lot of bold statements by that site but no justification of / reasoning for the comments and no suggestion as to what can be done about it. My guess is management issues.
Perhaps they need a body similar to Forestry to manage the coffee plantations of the world? Perhaps not!

[Son of a Beach]

Maybe you could say that it's not forestry that's the problem, it's Forestry that's the problem.

[walkinTas]

It is not Forestry that is the problem, but rather the logging of the remaining examples of native old growth and virgin forests.

But isn't it Forestry that is responsible for the management of these old growth / virgin forests?

Maybe you could say that it's not forestry that's the problem, it's Forestry that's the problem.

I didn't word that very well did I? (the lowercase "f" would have been preferred). Fixed the other two examples too.

Its not the practice of harvesting forests per sae, but rather the practice of harvesting the remaining examples of native old growth and virgin forests. And yes it is a damn {something awful} shame that those charged with the role of being the custodians are the culprits. Forestry (big F intended) does seem to have a Jekyll and Hyde sized problem with regard to their role in the management of old growth forests.

[walkinTas]

Sorry I do not have the time for a detailed reply.
I'll look into the coffee one, but the question must be asked, "why". There's a lot of bold statements by that site but no justification of / reasoning for the comments and no suggestion as to what can be done about it. My guess is management issues.
Perhaps they need a body similar to Forestry to manage the coffee plantations of the world? Perhaps not!

I'll be interested to read whatever you come up with. It would be good to know the "true" story of coffee.