After two days of howling Sou-Westerlies, the wind finally subsided today, but with another front due tomorrow, I've decided to stay put in Malacoota. A clean 4 foot swell breaking on the back beach at Malllacoota had nothing to do with it of course, and I caught the tail-end of an epic surf-session with the local crew. The waves here certainly have more power than up north, and barrel with far less provocation - yeehah
I'm also on a roll with the "serious" side of the campaign, and have spent the last two days writing to people who are in a postion to replace the currently proposed pulp mill with more sensible, sustainable alternatives.
As you'll see, I'm serious about the philosophy of not criticising unless I have a better alternative, and have provided suggestions which will bring about a better long-term result for the recipient of the letter as well as society as a whole.
Here are extracts from my first letter, written to Mr Gary Nairn, Federal MP for Eden - Monaro, following our lengthy and revealing chat. It covers the Federal Issues relating to the pulp mill. Of particular interest to readers will be the information on Climate Change. This certainly is an issue that effects us all...
The Hon, Mr Gary Nairn, MP
Member for Eden–Monaro
22nd January 2007
Dear Mr Nairn,
Thank you for your call on 19th January. I enjoyed our discussion and found your views both useful and thought provoking. I promised to follow up with some facts and figures, which I now do. As you recall, we discussed three issues:
A) The Federal Government’s $5 million grant to Gunns Ltd
B) The current review of MIS schemes
C) The Eden Woodchip Mill
A) the $5 million grant to Gunns for its proposed Bell Bay Pulp Mill
I believe that there are two major problems with the grant
1. “Putting the cart before the horse” It is not the role of government to fund individual companies to develop their businesses. It is the role of government to determine which industries and directions are best for the country and/or a State. This evaluation should incorporate economic, social and environmental metrics, and inform the government to make decisions for the optimum long-term benefit to society and the economy. After that has been done, it could be appropriate to offer a grant/subsidy to the industries which need to be stimulated. However, in this case, the government has provided Gunns with a very significant grant prior to this analysis being conducted, and therefore, without any confidence that the pulp mill is in fact a good direction for Tasmania.
It has now emerged that:
the proposed mill will be devastating for Tasmania’s natural environment pollution from the mill could negatively effect so many industries that it creates a net economic loss
the Tasmanian government has been far from objective in its treatment of Gunns proposal (I refer to Julian Green’s resignation amongst other things)
2. Fairness: While the point above will concern those interested in due process, the thing that is going to upset the average voter is the unfairness of giving a $1 billion company an extra $5 million to develop its business. If the mill is as profitable as Gunns claim, surely they should fund their own business development? Should a company which made nearly $100 million last year be given a massive grant when small businesses are struggling? Finally, while Gunns were bring assisted to spruik the mill, the burden of bringing its deficiencies to light was shifted to those who can least afford it - the public. I believe that the decision to provide Gunns with a $5 million grant will come to be questioned. I believe the Federal Government will wish to distance itself from Gunns and the Tasmanian Labor government.
It would certainly be appropriate for the Federal Government to fund projects to identify directions that will truly benefit the Tasmanian people, such as the Launceston Environment Centre’s “Round Table” Initiative
B. The review of the MIS
I understand that the Government is reviewing the tax-subsidies granted to MIS schemes. My understanding of MIS schemes dates back to 2000 when a company that I was co-Directing began assisting the MIS industry to communicate with investment advisers. There are two problems with the MIS Industry. The first is that some operators are simply taking too much profit, and this has placed the credibility of the entire industry at risk. It appears that the government is dealing with this sensibly by setting limits on the profit that MIS operators can take.
The second issue for the MIS industry is forestry practices. Once again, some operators are doing the right thing and have adopted best practice in forestry management. Others pursue forestry practices which, as you pointed out yourself, might be legal in their state but would be illegal in others, and are certainly contrary to public opinion
Just as the “shonky:” MIS operators who are taking too much profit are putting the entire industry at risk, the sub-standard forestry practices employed by some forestry companies also put the entire industry at risk.
It will inevitably come to public attention that the Federal Government is providing huge subsidies to clear-fell high value and old growth native forest and replace it with plantations. It would make sense to make FSC certification a pre-condition of MIS approval, pre-empting a public backlash which could not only damage the government, but the rest of the forestry industry.
3. The Eden-Woodchipping Mill
I think we both agree that there needs to be a balance between jobs and the environment. While we are not far apart on this issue, I think our opinions may differ as to exactly where this balance lies
On that point, I offered to get back to you with some figures on the Climate Change effects of the woodchipping operation:
The Eden mill processes 1 million tonnes of woodchip per annum. Based on ANU research clearing this much forest releases 12 million tonnes of C02 per annum.
These figures take into account the carbon ”sequestered” in the wood and paper products from the forestry operation. This is a massive amount of carbon, equivalent to
3 million cars on the road (there are only 14.4 million cars in the whole country)
At $5 per ton, a carbon cost of $60,000,000 every year.
You commented that this carbon will be re-absorbed as the forest re-grows, but I believe this is besides the point. If it takes the forest 40 years to re-grow, then the “average” period that the carbon stays in the atmosphere is 20 years
When staying at the Tathra SLSC I met the committee who were spending their evening talking about their Wharf to Waves swim this Sunday. As you know, they are going to enormous trouble to make the event “carbon neutral” – the first carbon neutral sporting event in the country. This is a significant and laudable show of leadership. However, the actual volume of carbon that they will be offsetting is but a tiny fraction of what is being produced as a result of the woodchip operations.
It makes no sense to allow such massive carbon emissions to continue in an electorate that is fast switching on to the need to address Climate Change. In fact, projections show that Australia will be one of the countries worst effected by Climate Change, and the effect that we will suffer most is loss of rainfall.
Your electorate is already suffering one of its longest droughts in history, and the cost of that drought is far higher than the profits generated by the woodchip mill.
Prior to becoming aware of climate change effects, I thought that the Eden chip mill was a finely balanced equation. For me, this new information well and truly tips the balance. It is simply not worth preserving 73 jobs at the expense of $60,000,000 worth of carbon emissions per annum, nor is it worth favoring a Japanese owned company over farmers and other family owned business who will suffer as Climate Change sets in.
Industries are born and die all the time, and it seems that wood-chipping is fast approaching its end. People may not wish to face these fact, but the facts remain.
It is incumbent upon our leaders to have the courage and the foresight to address these issues. I believe that the best thing you can do is assist your electorate to make a gradual, voluntary and planned transition to more sustainable industries rather than a sudden and forced transition at a later date
In Conclusion
I hope you accept all of the above in the spirit in which they were intended, as the thoughtful comments of an informed, concerned citizen who would like to see the current government take steps to preserve the wellbeing of all Australians, now and in the future.
I look forward to your response,
With thanks and regards,
Simeon Michaels