findingtruthmatters.org

In recent times these discussions with Gunns and various community groups has 'culminated' in my involvement being the subject of an ABC Television Four Corners interview with Liz Jackson (to be aired Monday July 23rd 8:30PM). As my considerations of these issues has continued it has brought to light more reasons for Christians to be concerned about this Pulp Mill and ask- Is This The Pulp Mill John West Would Reject? Here's why...

.

A RECAP OF CONCERNS

1. The proponent originally asserted that the world's "greenest" pulp mill would be chlorine-free and use plantation timbers only.

The proponent changed two key criteria in what it had originally constituted argued needed to be included to be considered "the world's greenest pulp mill" when it officially submitted its proposal. Les Baker, the Pulp Mill General Manager, has responded to this concern as noted in my original report.

.

2. The proponent originally said that it would submit to the rigorous testing and evaluation of the Resource Planning and Development Commission (RPDC).

The proponent was funding this evaluation process being undertaken by a panel of experts. One aspect of its assessment commenced July 26th 2006 and was known to require at least 10-12 months to test the air emmission data. This meant that the proponent would have always known that the RPDC assessment process would have taken a minimum of 10-12 months to complete just this one aspect. Yet despite this, after only 6 months into the evaluation by the RPDC the proponent pulled out of that process citing delays and spiralling assessment costs. The new assessment process will only evaluate the existing data that the RPDC had.

.

3. Because we are stewards of God's earth, sustaining the earth and its resources is critically important for us to fulfil the Biblical mandate of the original commission. Therefore the three pillars of sustainability really matter to Christians. These include (i) Environmental Sustainability, (ii) Economic Sustainability, and (iii) Social Sustainability.

(i) Environmentally Sustainable?

The Australian Medical Association conducted its own independent air pollution modelling of the proposed Pulp Mill and found that the proponent has understated air pollution by 500%. Professor Wadsley of Curtin University has examined the proponent's effluent figures and found that they understate water pollution by 1400 times. The resultant emissions from the Mill will be the equivalent of 11,000 wood heaters burning continually in a temperature inverted Valley that already has an air pollution crisis due to domestic wood heater smoke.

(ii) Economically Sustainable?

The proponent has done no cost-benefit-analysis for the affect of the Mill on the surrounding economies. Several economists have highlighted that while the Mill will have some gross economic benefit, its nett benefit will more likely be negative. For example, Naomie Edwards of Deloite Touch Tomatsu estimates that for every dollar the Mill might inject into the economy it could take out $3.75 in loss of earnings for the others businesses and industries.

(iii) Socially Sustainable?

At a recent protest march, over 10,000 people voiced their disapproval of this proposal. The Pro-Pulp Mill Mayor of Launceston suggested that they were all just "misinformed". When faced with informed objections to this proposal, both the State Government and the proponent have been quick to label this as "scare-mongering" or simply state "we stand by our IIS", rather than engage these various community groups with reasoned replies. These types of responses have not led to social cohesion on this issue.

FURTHER REFERENCES