Pulpy things
Aug. 19th, 2005 07:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
xenithGunns wants to build a pulp mill up near the other end of the Tamar Valley. We remember Gunns, they're the timber company who are trying to sue a bunch of environmentalists & conservationist because they're bad for business. (Update on that if anyone is interested.)
A new pulp mill is one of those issues that pops up in every few years. Back in the late 1980s, a little town, well, locality, up up the north west coast was to the site for a similar pulp mill. It wasn't and at the next state election, each of the five electorates elected a Green rep, which meant neither of the major parties had enough to form government in their own right (Labor & Greens eventually formed a coalition government). That might give you an idea of the attitudes towards pulp mills in the state.
But that's all right, because Gunns' new mill will be a green pulp mill! The greenest in the world (it says so on their website). And it will be, because they are going to paint it green! Seriously.
Anyway, last night, we went to a public meeting at the Uni about it. Which was interesting. Their were four speakers, who addressed various issues.
The leader of the Green Party who presented a quick version of the Green's forest vision which included alternatives to a pulp mill which use less money & wood but allow for value adding & diversification (both desirable for long term economic health), are more environmentally sound (relying on plantation rather than clearfelling of native forests), are better for tourism and (!) create more jobs within the timber industry.
The speaker addressed health issues, which is a major concern. Launceston actually has a smog problem in winter (does that blow the 'clean & green island' image?). Being in a valley, it's prone to bad fog, add in an over-reliance on poorly used wood heaters and you've got a lethal combination. Not as bad as it used to be, fortunately. But healthy air (and water!) are big concerns.
The third speaker addressed the economics of a pulp mill. In many ways he echoed the Greens' leader. There are better alternatives, that would bring much greater benefits to the state. Including a 'boutique' pulp mill, producing environmentally sound pulp. One objection to the pulp mill is that the timber it uses will come from native forest rather than plantations. You see, Gunns has trouble selling woodchips from the native forest to overseas companies because they don't want them (seems it's not an environmentally sound practice to turn native forests into piles of woodchips). So Gunns are going to use said woodchips at home instead.
Which brings us to the final two speakers, from the Wilderness Society, who showed which native forests are at risk from clearfelling if the pulp mill goes ahead, you know the temperate rain forests, the world's tallest hardwoods, the habitats of many endangered species and some places that are just plain incredible to see (should come visit before they get cut down!).
So, it's not good environmentally, the economically, healthwise or employmentwise. What is it good for -- Gunns' profit margin? :\
A new pulp mill is one of those issues that pops up in every few years. Back in the late 1980s, a little town, well, locality, up up the north west coast was to the site for a similar pulp mill. It wasn't and at the next state election, each of the five electorates elected a Green rep, which meant neither of the major parties had enough to form government in their own right (Labor & Greens eventually formed a coalition government). That might give you an idea of the attitudes towards pulp mills in the state.
But that's all right, because Gunns' new mill will be a green pulp mill! The greenest in the world (it says so on their website). And it will be, because they are going to paint it green! Seriously.
Anyway, last night, we went to a public meeting at the Uni about it. Which was interesting. Their were four speakers, who addressed various issues.
The leader of the Green Party who presented a quick version of the Green's forest vision which included alternatives to a pulp mill which use less money & wood but allow for value adding & diversification (both desirable for long term economic health), are more environmentally sound (relying on plantation rather than clearfelling of native forests), are better for tourism and (!) create more jobs within the timber industry.
The speaker addressed health issues, which is a major concern. Launceston actually has a smog problem in winter (does that blow the 'clean & green island' image?). Being in a valley, it's prone to bad fog, add in an over-reliance on poorly used wood heaters and you've got a lethal combination. Not as bad as it used to be, fortunately. But healthy air (and water!) are big concerns.
The third speaker addressed the economics of a pulp mill. In many ways he echoed the Greens' leader. There are better alternatives, that would bring much greater benefits to the state. Including a 'boutique' pulp mill, producing environmentally sound pulp. One objection to the pulp mill is that the timber it uses will come from native forest rather than plantations. You see, Gunns has trouble selling woodchips from the native forest to overseas companies because they don't want them (seems it's not an environmentally sound practice to turn native forests into piles of woodchips). So Gunns are going to use said woodchips at home instead.
Which brings us to the final two speakers, from the Wilderness Society, who showed which native forests are at risk from clearfelling if the pulp mill goes ahead, you know the temperate rain forests, the world's tallest hardwoods, the habitats of many endangered species and some places that are just plain incredible to see (should come visit before they get cut down!).
So, it's not good environmentally, the economically, healthwise or employmentwise. What is it good for -- Gunns' profit margin? :\
