The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Deadlines just don't seem to apply to Gunns > Comments

Deadlines just don't seem to apply to Gunns : Comments

By Peter Henning, published 14/11/2008

The federal government has granted the Gunns pulp mill an extension until January knowing that Tasmanian permits will end on November 30, 2008.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Another article filled with the inaccuracies we have come to expect from this author when it comes to the timber industry and his bete noir, Gunns.
Bartlett's only commitment to Gunns is the sovereign risk agreement - which is just an insurance contract. All the permits are approved (bad luck on that, looks like the mill can go ahead...).
The fact that the author writes about the environmental approvals "whatever that means" shows his appalling lack of knowledge, let alone balance.
And as for "no hope of attracting a JV partner" perhaps the author should read the Fin Review - Gunns has got at least two knocking down the doors.
The author should back this mill - it's in a heavy industrial estate, will use 100% plantation timber and will actually REDUCE carbon.
Posted by hagar, Friday, 14 November 2008 9:58:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hagar

It is prudent to provide links to support your claims when you declare: "The author should back this mill - it's in a heavy industrial estate, will use 100% plantation timber and will actually REDUCE carbon."

Your claim is in contradiction to Gunn's spokesman, Don Burke's advice in the following:

"The giant mill plans to be 80 per cent reliant on the island's native forest for its 3.2 million tonnes of feedstock at start-up.

"Mr Burke said he understood that in five years the feedstock would be 60pc plantation timber."

And no sign of a JV partner here Hagar:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24579425-5006788,00.html

Hagar, The people of Australia are finding the contradictory spin from the pro-Gunns' lobby, tedious, which only makes their claims more unbelievable!

Could you please supply me with more accurate and up to date information. Thank you.

http://fw.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/burkes-new-backyard-at-gunns-pulp-mill/1330161.aspx
Posted by dickie, Friday, 14 November 2008 12:12:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
With apologies to those introduced in Gunn's, I want to reply to Dickie's ill-informed onslaught on Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalis (TSE) on the ‘Stay rational on climate change’ thread earlier today. Having used up my post limit on that thread, I’ll deal with Dickie here.

He scoffs at Lomborg for claiming that ‘the Amazon forest still retains more than 80% of its cover in 1978.’ Wrong. Lomborg said that 86% of the forest remained intact in 1999, compared with 95% in 1978 (p. 114-5).

In 2005 Peter Dougherty, Managing Editor of Princeton University Press, commented as follows on an article in which Chris Harrison of Cambridge University Press (CUP) explained the considerations that led CUP to publish TSE:

“Harrison's account reflects a high degree of professionalism on the part of Cambridge University Press.

“In the first place, Cambridge drew on the experience of its social science and natural science editors to pick four peer reviewers ...—not two, as is usual, and is usually adequate, for most university presses … Harrison and his colleagues took every reasonable measure necessary to ensure the quality of their publishing decision—and this decision, made on the basis of four positive reviews, was to recommend to the academic Syndics of the Press that they accept this book for publication ... The reviewers were chosen from excellent academic departments, represented a variety of disciplinary perspectives, and three were chosen from a list of scholars used to advise the Press on its environmental science publishing program ... The Cambridge staff then took an important step in enlisting endorsements from a broad spectrum of well-known authorities in launching the book into the world ...

“If Harrison's well-documented account is taken seriously, and it is by this reader, then it is hard to challenge his claim that Cambridge accepted and agreed to publish this book not in spite of peer review, but rather because of it” (Environmental Science and Policy, vol. 8, no. 2).

Who do we trust - Dougherty or Dickie (whoever he is)?
Posted by IanC, Friday, 14 November 2008 3:19:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I meant to say, "With apologies to those interested in Gunn's.'
Posted by IanC, Friday, 14 November 2008 4:11:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
IanC,
This article virtually dripping with emotion and according to the other side is full of inaccuracies. While the author is less than objective he still raises point’s that need explanation.
• Has the deadline been moved? Why?
• Are the stories (plural) on the ABC accurate or not if they aren’t why hasn’t Gunns gone for the big guns?
• Will Gunns ever be able to appropriately regen areas devastated by logging?
• Given that old growth forest has taken 100’s of years if not 1000’s in some species. Will the high growth pine really equal or compensate carbon or environment wise?
• How much greater is the fire risk with pine than OG?
• Do Gunns have undue influence in Tasmania?
• Have they abused their power by serially ignoring or breaking regulations?
• Are they getting the environment at bargain prices? Do their delinquent practices reflect this.
Dickie both parties are afraid that if they stand in the way of this project they’ll lose power. As simple as that. Gunn’s have similar attitudes to the banks in Wall St. They and the project are too big to fail.

“World’s best practice” doesn’t mean squat. Prove that this mill doesn’t put toxic sewerage into the environment. Can science guarantee that the cumulative effect of “safe level” chemicals won’t combine and create a “Gotcha” as they have in incidents around the world.
I ask what is the real cost to Australia for this project how much are we paying for each job? Is this the best use of our $’s?

Is this a case of that Gunn’s is the problem not the mill per se? I suspect it is.
I don’t object to a pulp mill just this one.
There is enough doubt and unanswered questions to wonder if isn't a a better way to employ 3000 people?

Finally the culture argument is emotional rubbish. It could’ve been applied to everything from wig powder makers to buggy whip manufacturers.
Posted by examinator, Friday, 14 November 2008 6:18:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When will onlineopinion stop republishing such poorly researched and biased articles from Tasmanian Times?

It's credibility is severely compromised by "Are we to believe then, that the federal government has granted Gunns an extension until January 2009 knowing that Tasmanian permits will end on November 30, 2008?

The Tasmanian permits will not end on the 30 November and if readers want to check the permits they are available at http://www.justice.tas.gov.au/justice/pulpmillassessment/pulp_mill_permit

The author is confusing the permits with a sovereign risk agreement on wood supply that appeared to be a requirement of the ANZ bank when considering finance. As the ANZ bank has withdrawn and the mill will be predominantly plantation based, the need for such an agreement seems to have passed.

The project received approval by the then Environment Minister under the EPBC act on 4th October 2007
“My decision followed the recommendations of the Chief Scientist’s report and took account of advice from my Department and over 36,000 public submissions received through the three consultation periods over the five month assessment period..."

“The Chief Scientist advised me …The panel accepted that the proposed mill was likely to conform to world’s best practice, and the panel considered that this was a strong argument that equally high standards should be expected of the interaction of mill operations with the environment.”

Again the author appears to be confused with packages of the Environmental Impact Management Plan (EIMP)

Current Environment Minister Garrett said in announcing the extension "The EIMP requires thorough and rigorous examination and an extension will enable Gunns to address the issues raised by my department to date and will also give my department, the IEG and me an opportunity to ensure that every finalised module fully addresses all of the relevant environmental matters set out in the 48 approval conditions for the proposed mill."

Garrett’s extension has nothing to do with Tasmanian permits, or agreements at all. The article should only be treated as pure speculation!

If you are concerned Gunns received an armchair ride check the Commonwealth approval of the Victorian ECF mill at http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/epbc/epbc_ap.pl?name=current_referral_detail&proposal_id=223
Posted by cinders, Saturday, 15 November 2008 8:02:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy