Mark, I empathise with your being vilified by arguing on the basis of evidence rather than emotion and disinformation, which I suffered for years in the Queensland Public Service. A classic case was the Australian Magnesium Smelter, which failed with losses of $400m, most of it from the Queensland and Commonwealth governments. In Queensland Treasury, I directed economic and financial analysis which demonstrated that the project could never be viable. This echoed other assessments made over the previous 25-30 years and by the preferred customer for the magnesium metal, Teksid. Departments backing the project were unable to refute our analysis or make a case. At one meeting, they fell back on calling us "ivory-tower economists." I pointed out that I had worked for the UK Central Electricty Generating Board, my economic modeller had worked for BHP Steel and my financial analyst had been for eight years a project analyst for CRA's copper smelting arm - highly relevant experience. Our opponents were career public servants, with no business or industry experience whatsoever.

But they prevailed, were praised and promoted, because their focus was on playing the please-the-minister career advancement game, while ours was on soundly-based policy in the public interest.

Of course, no Minister or public servant was ever held to account for the disastrous decision to back the smelter.

I agree that the Gunns pulp mill is not only about native forestry, it is also about contaminating the sea with a raft of noxious chemicals, the air with a similar brew, taking a huge amount of a dwindling water supply, costing the taxpayer a lot of money building and maintaining roads for the logs trucks, causing congestion and danger on the roads for other users, affecting the livelihoods of all the businesses that depend on tourism, agriculture, effect property prices of those unfortunates that live in the proximity, affecting the health of an unknown number of residents on the Tamar valley .
All this for a bigger profit for the shareholders of one company and a quite small amount of associated jobs and as a conduit to subsidise this same company by injecting taxpayers money into forestry Tasmania to bail it out at regular intervals.
The forest industry should and will survive but in a Vastly modified form. The Greens and all of the population are usually misquoted and accused of wanting to stop ALL forestry operations. This is just not true.
Selective logging even of exotic species providing it is for a realistic use. Building, boat building, furniture, even plywood and veneers is OK but not to convert into pulp or to ship millions of tons of good timber away for pulp.
The Gunns and Forestry Tasmania spin doctors do a good job of misinformation about This but the truth is there for anyone to find and it is seeping out into the public domain.
It could have been a smaller mill in a suitable place that did not impinge on the enviroment and used only plantation timber but the delusions of grandeur of one man has seen the end of that scenario.

Richard Flanagan's original opinion piece was poorly researched and overly emotive. Before offering their unqualified support the likes of Maurie Schwartz, Geoffrey Cousins, Charles Wooley and Martin Denholm would do well to remember to think critically, never assume, always question and scrutinize, and to research.
It would appear that we need to introduce special classes on critical thinking into our educational system as this skill just doesn't seem to be naturally intuitive to the masses.