We make so little money out of exporting timber and there are relatively so few jobs in the timber industry, the 30-year fight over old growth forests could have been avoided by simply giving the workers a redundancy package out of the public purse.

Where is the money to come from? We seem to have no shortage of splurge money. Here is one current example. Three warplanes on order at a billion dollars each. Can you believe that? A billion each and thay could crash in training.

I believe that climate change is gradually transforming Tasmania's forest from 90m giant trees with fern understorey to more open woodland. That drying out may release carbon dioxide and methane so that tropical not temperate forests become the remaining carbon sink. It also means regrowth is unlikely to have the productivity of old growth. Nonetheless extensive patches of old growth need to be locked up to let nature take its course for better or worse. I agree with the previous commentor; instead of marvelling at the wonders of our own backyard we ogle like schoolboys at foreign military toys. Yet we sell the wonders for a pittance and pay top dollar for the toys.

In to days world of profit and shareholders value you need to show that in the longer term old growth forest has a commercial value greater than logging.
You then have to show that this longer term value is of benefit to those whose jobs are threatened.
You then must show that the Tasmanian governments chances of being re elected are not diminished by such saving.
You then have to show that Gunn’s can remain as a profitable enterprise by looking at the longer term prospects.
You might wish to show the effort will cause damage but this may be hard to demonstrate in legal terms.

You purport to show how jobs can be made but do not show that such come at no cost to incumbents whose current job will need to change.
In other words in an uncertain world you do not offer security in the current term.
Governments are one would suppose obliged to plan for continuance of the state. Hard when one is periodically subject to election.

What there for do we need to change?
The conduct of business denying them profit made from short term expediency?
The politicians, of all levels and stripes, arranging, somehow to have people of integrity committed to the long term future?
Devising means of isolating from political patronage those elements that are basic to the countries continuance?
How does one define such?
Who will then ensure such remain sacrosanct in the light of recent evidence that the protection given by separation of powers can as happened in Queensland, and is happening now, be ignored, changed

The Tasmanian old growth forests are sacred to me. The Earth has so little old growth forest left that what we have should be preserved. Both Labor and Liberal parties are wrong on this issue.

Sadly the average Aussie is so apathetic this is allowed to go on, if Gunn's want timber use plantation timber.

I don't think that Gunn's should be able to remove the last remaining old growth native forest. Australia hasn't been a frontier economy for 50 years and if we want to have a any standard of living in 50 years time we had better start managing our environment sustainably for a long term horizon.

You get what you stand for
For me will be running as an independent in the seat off charlton.

Why

Well I tried to get The Australian Peoples Party going but interest just wasnt the case so now you are winging about the majors. They will tell you what they will do and just like kelly hoare will use a large knife to stab you in the back, if they have the effort to put it in.

www.tapp.org.au

Stuart Ulrich
Independent Candidate for Charlton

Keep up the good fight for sustainable forestry and environment protection Don.

But when are you and the ACF going to start addressing overall sustainability in a genuine manner, with emphasis on population growth and the continuous growth paradigm that still lies right at the core of our society??

in the end ludwig, you and every other ozzie, says "when are those pollies going to do the right thing?"? never, mate - gotta do it yourself.

Isn't the forestry commission supposed to find a balance between the aesthetic values of old growth forests and the requirements of a modern society.

If not then why not?

Does Gunns have a measure of undue influence over forestry policy in Tas?

Having visited the Southern forests recently and asc well as over the past 20 years, the biggest problem to my eye has been the excessively large coup size as well as too small stream side reserves. But these decisions are planning decisions made by the commission are they not?

Another interesting thing is the the small saw-millers I talk to say that they cannot get any logs-even scrap from coups about to be fire bombed. The commission simply forbid it.

I think we should revisit the choice that we had before us between Mark Latham's Labor Party on the one hand and John Howard's Liberals on the other in the elections of October 2004 and the indifference that some in the environmental, in particular the Greens, treated that choice. This indifference manifest itself in:

* The Greens not declaring to which major party their preferences would go until very late in the election.

* Days before the election, Bob Brown telling the media that he would contemplate entering an accord with a re-elected Howard Government (the same Howard Government that he predicted in 2003 would not be forgiven by the Australian public for having participated in the invasion of Iraq)

* A general failure to alert the Australian public of the mortal threat posed by the re-election of the Howard government to Australia's and the world's environment, not to mention to democracy, social justice and world peace

This attitude on the part of the Greens, and some in the left and the Trade Union movement, helped to sow confusion in the minds of the Australian public and, in a perverse way, complemented the anti-Labor propaganda of the Australian newsmedia.

Certainly there were many good reasons to be critical of Latham, but his policy towards Tasmania's forests was as close as we have ever got to a perfect policy from either of the major political parties, and even before Latham belatedly fully declared his hand on Tasmania's forests, it should have been obvious even to blind Freddy that the choice between Labor and Liberal was an important one.

Had Latham won, the terrible betrayal of Tasmania's forest that we are facing today from Kevin Rudd would not have been possible, but this opportunity was stupidly thrown away.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

In spite of Rudd's appalling mimicry of John Howard on Tasmania's forests and other policy issues, I believe the choice we face in 2007 between Labor on the one hand and Liberal on the other is still an important one. The best way to get the environment back up on the agenda is for environmental vandal John Howard to be roundly defeated on a two-party preferred basis and for there to be a high first preference vote for the Greens and for other parties which stand for something better than what either Labor and Liberal stand for. (Of course a better still alternative would be for the Greens to win government outright, but that is just not a realistic prospect, at least in 2007.)

It's time that the Greens and other minor parties finally got around to properly educating themselves about the nature of Australia's preferential voting system and began, in turn, to educate the Australian public about it so that it can be used to the advantage of the environment and themselves.

Australia ratified the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants which includes dioxin and furans, formed when chlorine enters the industrial process, particularly in pulp mills.

All international health forums now express great concern over the desecration to global eco-systems, animal and human health from the release of dioxins and furans.

Australia along with scores of other nations represented at the Stockholm Convention pledged to:

Eliminate or make every endeavour to prevent the formation of dioxins.

Australian governments and their industry aligned environmental agencies are actually permitting industry to increase their emissions.

The largest polluters of dioxins in WA have no condition of licence to cap dioxins or furans. Despite the universally endorsed threshhold, recommended for the release of dioxins, Australian industries are spewing this stuff out with gusto where companies do not even have to test for dioxins.

Why is Gunn's permitted to use chlorine based chemicals in their operations when chlorine has the potential to form dioxins and furans?

Gunn's commitment to mitigate their hazardous emissions rings hollow. Their laboratory testing of pollutant emissions will be conducted only when conditions are "ticky boo."

After all, if you invite someone to dinner, you usually clean the house first!

Un-announced inspections of pollutant industries, by environmental officers, do not happen in my region! No no no!

Tasmanians are clearly dealing with yesterday's men whose primary motive is the protection of pollutant industries.

Those concerned for Tasmania's eco-systems or public health will have little joy from the final outcome.

Old growth forests were young regenerating forests once.

Forests are a transient item.

We have seen lots of forests literally go up in smoke over the last few years and me thinks it's alot better to use some of these forests sensibly and utilise this great resource.

I too, would like to see the return of the pre-European habitation of the apple isle so that the pristine forests and ecosystems can return....but hey Don.....it's not going to happen so we must get realistic.

I'll leave it up to our Democratically elected government to make the policy. I'm sure that they wouldn't allow a big company like Gunns to establish there unless they were a responsible entity that would ensure we utilise all the resource on their logging coupes and protect the water quality.

The worst thing we could do is to do nothing and sit back and watch our old growth forests go up in smoke. and with this climate change thing; it seems even more probable. Then we would be angry at these "preservationists". They would then be the enemy of the people. I won't get personal and say that you are what your initials allude to.

So Don, we elect the government so we get what we deserve. If we don't like 'em, we boot 'em out. Simple as that.

While I support maintaining high conservation value forests in Tassie, and would like to see more of Tassie's old growth forests protected, I think that the focus on Tassie is slightly misplaced.

Much of Tassie is already protected, partially due to efforts of a strong and well organised environment movement down south. However, in Victoria and southern NSW (and to a lesser extent, south-west WA), much of the pristine, old growth forest remains unprotected. Indeed, logging operations are partially responsible for the near extinction of Victoria's fauna emblem, the Leadbeater's possum.

Tasmainia's forests are important, and should be further protected. But much of the region is already safe from loggers. Meanwhile, environmental degradation occurs in NSW and Victoria, and people seem not to notice.

"So Don, we elect the government so we get what we deserve. If we don't like them, we boot them out."

That's after they've done irreparable damage to the environment and human health. An additional problem is that currently, both major parties are environmental vandals. That's been proven in the state of WA.

The giant Alcoa refinery in WA has destroyed people's lives. Already 200 hundred families have applied to have their homes bought out by Alcoa to escape a mix of some 260 chemicals pervading Yarloop in the once beautiful south west. The vandals in the West Australian government are permitting Alcoa's expansion which will double the current operations.

Don would have been heartened to learn that US public health crusader, Erin Brockovich is currently in WA and set to sue Alcoa over allegedly poisoning communities for a decade, near Alcoa's Wagerup refinery. She is working with a legal firm that is looking at taking a class action against the mining giant.

Only last week, the premiere of "Something in the Air" was shown in the polluted area of Kwinana where some 75 dignitaries attended, though the most ignorant invitees, namely politicians, were notable by their absence.

Well-researched environmentalists have claimed that Kwinana citizens have the highest rate of cancer in the state from industrial pollution and that a Health Department graph showing this to be the case, had mysteriously "disappeared."

Currently in WA a parliamentary enquiry committee,over the lead poisoning of Esperance residents and their environment, is set to bring down their findings over this ignominious affair where "regulators" and industry, in their quest for profit, knowingly failed to protect citizens and their eco-systems.

Our regulatory standards in this developed nation are of a third world standard. Current federal and state politicians are simply short-termed, ill-informed administrators!

Keep up the good work, Don. Those who oppose you, are simply asleep at the wheel.

Those who threaten job losses in a bid to further pollute and desecrate, have little knowledge of history where jobs losses have always occurred.

When one door closes, another opens!

Yeah thats the problem with these idiots in canberra, only come out when it is to benefit themselves and their party.

they are there for us the people and they should be accountable and come out and see what happens in the real world.

These are problems that we know but our pollies just shy away.
They say enviroment but then they talk jobs, either way you can lose unless balance is found.

Stuart Ulrich
Independent Candidate for Charlton

if you don't like the results this political system continually generates,and you are too lazy, or too ignorant, to change the system- shouldn't you be silent,lest people laugh at you?

In Western Australia Alcoa has spent a great deal of time and effort into rehabilitating the landscapes that are degraded through mining operations. The mining industry conclusions were that you can rehabilitate virgin forest or bush to farm land but you can't rebuild virgin forest.

Academic foresters are on record saying that forestry research has been undertaken over too small a timeframe and too small an area for any real conculsions to be drawn. When you realise that forest can be redefined as low preservation value at the stroke of a pen you absolutely must question the actions of Gunns and other foresters in Australia's old growth forests

So the perennial issue of protecting old growth forests has arisen yet again. In 2001, the Gallop Labor government was elected with a policy of stopping the logging of old growth forests in WA. True to their word, they immediately protected the remaining old growth that was outside existing reserves but, sad to say, that's virtually been the end of their commitments. Now we have a serious problem of under-resourcing the forest management agencies who are supposed to protect and enhance the values provided by old growth forests.
Sure, we're had millions of dollars thrown at tourist roads and other tourism-related activities, so now Perth people can drive through south west forests in their airconditioned cars and think everything's OK. But the reality is different: feral pigs are widely spread throughout the forest reserves and doing significant damage, including the spread of jarrah dieback disease; illegal firewood removal is widespread; forest close to urban areas is being damaged by trail bikes, rock removal for domestic gardens, rubbish dumping, dogs, cats, etc; and areas of previously logged but poorly rehabilitated forest that now require silvicultural management to allow forest to regrow are being ignored.
I don't know Tasmania's forests well but anyone who talks only about protecting old growth forests without also demanding tens of millions of dollars needed for subsequent forest management is selling our forest short.

Demos
as not sure if you where talking to me, but

Lest the people laughing at me, well that is ok as this does really say what the people deserve.

Our forests should be national parks, and is there not enough space to grow more trees in other areas.
About cleaning up afterwoods, well the greenies are there to make sure that if it falls it stays or goes back into the ground. With this we do lose jobs from being able to recycle the waste into another product, but hey lets just add more pollution into the air.

I will keep fighting and standing up even there are those here that have just given up to get the right thing done.

Stuart Ulrich
Independent Candidate for Charlton

The article seems totally out of touch with the situation in Tasmania, and locked into the glory day’s of the 2004 Federal Election when ALP leader foolishly adopted the forest policy of the ACF and Wilderness Society. A policy that not only was overwhelmingly rejected, but according to most commentators cost the ALP it’s election victory.

It gives the impression that its “Open season on Tasmania’s old growth forests” yet fails to state that it is the policy of both major parties to protect one million hectares of old growth in that State. Perhaps a check of Tasmania’s Sustainable Forest Management report (available from the Forestry Tasmania Web site) to find out some facts.

There is also gobbledygook claims about high conservation value forest, (despite failing to define HCVF) like the Blue Tier, an old mining site that had the HCV bits reserved ten years ago, and now it’s a dispute about regrowth!

The article then goes on to attack the proposed pulp mill. This is despite the fact that no logs from old growth forests will be used as feed stock.

It fails to acknowledge that the proposed pulp mill will use an Elemental Chlorine Free bleaching that even the World Bank agrees that “the levels of dioxins discharged are below the level of scientific significance”.

The claims on the scallop industry ignore the fact that scallops are not caught any where near the effluent outfall. A map of this year’s commercial catch shows that the catch is off the North East Corner of Tasmania over a hundred kilometers from the outfall in block 5F2C, the map is available from the DPIW Commercial scallop fishing web site.

Tasmania does highly value its old growth forests and has created a balance between production and conservation. It is using innovative techniques to manage and harvest these old growth forests (less than 770 ha was clear felled on State forest in 2005/06) and to value add the timber produced from its old growth forests

Cinders

I understand that in other developed countries, pulp mills are operating under a totally chlorine free (TCF) method.

TCF methods could alleviate the concerns of Taswegians over the release of organochlorines and since Gunns purports to be environmentally "friendly", why haven't they adopted the TCF method?

ECF's do reduce the formation of dioxins and furans - they do not entirely eliminate them.

The fact that this plant will release its pollutants to air, sea and land is not comforting, particularly when the pollutants have the potential to affect marine life in Bass Strait.

The proposed disposal of 24 thousand million litres/pa of effluent into Bass Strait justifies Taswegian's concerns over contamination particularly when dioxins and furans (no matter how minute) are bioaccumulative and transboundary in nature.

In addition, Nox emissions will not meet the environmental guidelines.

From memory, Gunns need only submit emissions' reports to the EPA on a six monthly basis. What happened to the obligation where most states until recently, instructed industries to report every three months?

Governments and their Departments' of Environment in Australia have been effectively captured by the industries they are employed to regulate.

An example is the documented evidence from the DOE in Brisbane where between 1995-1996, the DOE and local government departments received 4,481 complaints on pollution. Authorised officers numbered 503 and a mere 2 prosecutions resulted. Has anything changed?

Communities throughout Australia are now vigorously objecting to governments, (who,in their quest for "economic progress")are wilfully permitting the destruction of eco-systems and human health. Surely not all these communities can be wrong? Taswegians have every right to be concerned!

The rank and file of he Labor Party are furious with Kevin Rudd in supporting the raping of the old growth forests. What is the point of subsidising Malaysia and Indonesia financially so that they do not cut down thir old growth forests and then condone Gunns in logging in Tasmania. Rudd is electable and argues for the wrong policies such as logging old growth forests, expanding uranium mining, funding private schools to the detriment of Government Schools supports negative gearing while the negative gearing investors are queueing up to bid for housing before the homeowner can make a bid and the wealth is going to the Wealthier in tax concessions. When will we ever have a Democratic Socialist Government.

The pulp mill will not have any impact on the management of the Tasmanian forests, the actions of Governments over the last 15 years means that the forests are managed according to the National Forest Policy Statement, the Janis criteria, the Regional Forest Agreement and Tasmanian Community Forest Agreement.

This means that 1,465,000 ha of native forest is reserved. The reserve system also includes 97% of all high quality wilderness. The comprehensive reserve system and the forest management practices due to the policy of both major parties means that natural and cultural values are maintained regardless whether Tasmania exports woodchips or value adds them by turning them into pulp.

The factory to do this value adding is being assessed by both the Federal Government and the State Parliament, there are a whole range of reports available from the Developer and the State Government (www.justice.tas.gov.au/justice/pulpmillassessment) that deal with issues related to factory emissions, transport, raw materials, smell and social and economic benefit.

Issues of concern raised are addressed by these reports, yet some critics choose to ignore the evidence within the reports, take for example the 2004 report of the Resource Planning Development Commission.

Section B.14 of the Recommended environmental emission limit guidelines for any new bleached eucalypt kraft pulp mill in Tasmania states:

“Pulping processes using elemental chlorine free (ECF) bleaching and totally chlorine free (TCF) bleaching are both considered [Accepted Modern Technology] AMT (Beca AMEC Ltd 2004). Studies have shown that releases of dioxins and furans are non-detectable or very low in TCF bleach plant effluents and are of the same order of magnitude as in ECF bleach plant effluents. Pulp produced using ECF bleaching has 75% of the world market share of total bleached kraft pulp production; pulp produced using TCF bleaching has 5% of the world market share.”

Thus the Tasmanian guidelines as well as the World Bank consider TCF and ECF to equal in environmental performance.

The bottom line is that Tasmania can have a strong economy with a modern and safe pulp mill and maintain our unique environment and quality of life.

Cinders

I am familiar with "Guidelines." They are unenforceable and not worth the paper they are written on.

The exception is when "guidelines" are incorporated into the company licence under "Conditions of Licence." They are then enforceable and open to prosecution from breaching that condition, though, in my state, prosecutions rarely occur anyway.

You did not address my assumption that NOx emissions from the Gunns' proposal will exceed "guidelines." Can you confirm that for me please?

Just for Dickie, Sweco Pic, the Government’s independent consultants found 8 areas of non compliance out of 100 assessments made against the 2004 emission guidelines.
Guidelines that must be addressed prior to the Parliamentary approval of the pulp mill, a pulp mill that will only use pulp wood from the integrated and sustainable harvesting of regrowth native forest or specifically grown plantations.

There is no need to assume what these areas are as they are laid out in the report published by the State Government in a completely open and transparent manner.

One area of non compliance is the in- stack (chimney) level of NO2 emission being 1.5 kg per air dried tonne of pulp rather than the Tasmania guideline of 1.3 kg per ADt.

However the ambient levels in the general environment for NOx will be met.

The reason for the increase that now equals the guidelines of the World Bank, EU and US EPA is the selection of gas firing of the lime kiln rather than oil firing.

Sweco Pic concluded that the “Proposed emission rates are considered to represent accepted international best practice for a project of this nature and scale and ambient NOx values are predicted to be well within guideline design criteria.”

Of the remaining seven areas of non compliance, one has been actioned by selecting a chemical processing option that now meets the Guidelines, five will be the subject of regulated conditions of the licences and another one, stack height, was regarded as not significant by SWECO Pic.

For those interested the Sweco Pic report and its reasoning is available from the Tasmanian Government web site.

The regulatory authorities in Australia have a practice of manipulating stack emission levels to "ambient" or "ground" level estimates by their "you beaut" computer modelling.

Should the stack emissions for NOx or any other chemical be in breach of the licence, the manipulation to "ambient" levels will always favour the polluter.

Regulators appear to be oblivious to the fact that there is an upper troposphere. Reducing stack emissions levels to ambient levels will baffle those who object to the pollution (unless they have a degree in chemistry!) and this is a totally irresponsible method by authorities who are captured by the industries they regulate.

It reveals an authority which has no respect for the atmospheric releases of pollutants or the damage to the environment.

An example is an appeal where the appellant objected to the release of dioxins which was 0.38ng/m3, far in excess of the international guidelines of 0.1ng/m3. It was also revealed from emission reports they had previously emitted dioxin levels at 0.9ng/m3. "No worries" says the department - it's not a licence condition!

However, the department, under pressure, chose to manipulate the 0.38ng/m3 of dioxins to ground level readings which resulted in a reading of 0.014 pg/m3. End of story.

This is ridiculous since dioxins are bioaccumulative and transboundary which means that the emission could have landed thousands of miles from the source invading eco-systems and even someone's dinner plate! Who knows where they ended up? You cannot reduce dioxins!

So when a condition of licence places a limit on "stack emissions", it should mean just that - and not reduced to "ambient" or "ground" levels to shut appellants up, unless ground levels are stipulated in the licence - which they never are!

It is reassuring to find Taswegians insisting on transparency prior to the final approval for this proposal. It will be too late after the horse has bolted!

Ill-informed governments and their environmental agencies have continued to dupe most of the people most of the time but I believe that's no longer sufficient!