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.