Sadly the point is swamped by the emotional rhetoric and self serving logic at the end. The key issues as I understood it from this piece are:
• This project is being kept alive by political interests than commercial ones. Isn’t public pressure part of if not the purest example of capitalism in action?
• One should be concerned by the level of financial subsidies from government.
• I would like to see an objective and complete cost benefit statement for the project as a stand alone without subsidies. Rather than reports based on narrow legalistic defined parameter investigations that yield statements like ‘world’s best practice’. Given the state of the world a vague statement like that is hardly comforting.
• Millions of acres of fir trees are hardly ecologically sound. Heightened fire risk etc. Given the short growing cycle as opposed to the long cycle (nutrient cycle.) of native hard woods one is entitled to ask how long before adverse effects on the soil etc.
• Then there’s the political evaluation (as opposed to the scientific one) that to off set dirty industries we start a sunset extraction industry that adds toxic pollutants to the environment and its compete carbon footprint hasn’t been fully evaluated. Will the inputs really net meaningful results?
• Will the project really benefit the country to whereby the investment (subsidies etc) is worth the investment and priority not political ones?
This is not or should not be a politically manipulated issue. It should be determined by objective facts and take fully the displacement and impact on the locals and the environment. Then and only then should the project proceed.

Examinator, as one who has been closely following this issue for years, I'd say without fear of contradiction, that there is no "emotional rhetoric" involved; rather a dispassionate summary of the reality, thaat could have been fleshed out with extra space to explain the role of a motley constellation of vested interests across the Tasmanian and national political and commercial spectrum involved in the whole sale looting of Tasmania.
Secondly, the political parties are undeniably indoctrinated in laissez-faire neolib political theology, although the more opportunistic see its real role as an an alibi for rank expediency. The likes of Abetz, Gillard, Brumby and Robin Gray valorise "whatever it takes", in the cause of obtaining support from powerful local and offshore commercial interests, regardless of whether the schemes damage other Australians and Australia or not.
I hope the scales fall away from Mill proponents eyes before its too late. Another disastrous, toxic white elephant foistered on Australians for the sake of a few greedy, criminal
rent-seekers, is the LAST thing that interelative ecology /economy needs at this time in global history in its attempts to provide us with a sustainable, civilized existance.

Paul I think you have a good point. The "Neo Liberal" philosophy is no such thing. It is just an umbrella term for "expedient and self-serving".
Like Jonny Howard and his "dog whistle" speeches, most neo-liberal acolytes use the dishonest rhetoric of straw men and "everyone knows".
Back to Gunns: I saw my local creek and hills trashed by plantation pine. My favorite yabby holes turned stagnant and the bushland ecosystem trashed for the lifeless monoculture of pine. After two crops the land will be worthless because the soil is ruined by pine trees. This was in North East Victoria. All of this for tax free "investments" for the elite. Yes this is an emotional thing, but there is no way I'd support this happening on a much larger scale.

From where I sit, it sounds like a lot of activist opposition to me, rather than public.

Paul Walter.
The last four paragraphs were pure rhetoric and the last well, any more emotion and a bucket of water would have been needed.

Having said that I clearly stated that I understood the point and advocated accordingly.

The combative approach could have been avoided but that is what you get with a government that has too little to deal with. I would like to see objective reason prevail.
I further criticise the Federal Government for not earmarking/encouraging for more sunrise industries to Tassie.

As a resident of SW Tasmania I haven't really been on the wavelength of Tamar Valley people until today's shenanigans in the Florentine Valley. It is now clear to me that the forestry industry is deluded and corrupt. Corrupt because they use the police force to protect environmental vandalism and deluded because they think what they are doing is sustainable and carbon friendly. In my opinion those old growth forests will never go back to what they were and the damage is irreparable. The plantation industry seems better at generating tax deductions and inflated carbon credits than in creating replacement timber. Their win-at-all-costs mentality is going to backfire on them

Lets not labour any further with the fantasy that reason will prevail, here we are locked into battles of egos. Where egos battle all avenues that might gain leverage are pursued consciously and unconsciously. Defensiveness will only evaporate with self awareness.

Perhaps a more productive strategy is to compassionatley lay open the self alienation of the proponents of these idiocies. Humor and pathos I would suggest be the tools of choice; step up artists, poets, cartoonists and dramatists.

When will onlineopinion stop republishing such poorly researched and biased articles from Tasmanian Times?

Its credibility is severely tested when you only have to look at the Tamar Valley and realise the Pulp Mill site is hardly Wilderness let alone having the Cultural Value of Bennelong point and the Sydney Opera House.

This nonsense claim has been exposed before almost as many times as the false claims that wilderness or old growth forests will be impacted by the approved value adding environmentally neutral pulp mill.

To check on the mill’s location just check the blog of Online Opinion’s Graham Young at http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/002259.html

For a detailed rebuttal on outrageous and unsubstantiated claims in the rest of the activist’s article check the Age at http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/forget-emotion-what-will-the-pulp-mill-achieve-20090111-7ecn.html?page=-1

Another good opinion can also be found in the Canberra Times at http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/environment-safe-and-good-for-jobs/1403224.aspx

You could also look up Launceston on google Maps to find that it is 36 kilometers from the pulp mill site and that is where the vast majority of the people of the Tamar Valley live. A CSIRO scientist told the ABC Four Corners Program

“I’ve seen a fair bit of press that’s frankly just scaremongering. The best modelling data that we’ve seen and can do is that there won’t be an issue in Launceston at all due to the pulp mill. Launceston’s got far more concern, should have far more concern over the local domestic wood heaters and motor cars and smoking. They are far more important issues for the public in Launceston than this pulp mill, 36 kilometres away.”

Australia’s Chief Scientist has concluded the pulp mil will be environmentally neutral.
Lets consign this vilification of a Tasmanian company and its employees to the editor’s bin.

Examinator, I suspect that we have more in common than with someone like Cinders, for example. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Crossed wires?
F'rinstance, I'd go along with the idea that comments like Cinders'( apt name given the incinerating of logged forests ) are more likely "emotive" than the protests of those drawingg attention to the corruption of the EPA process involved in objective study of the pulp mill.EPA's are themselves components of a real cost benefit analysis that includes costs to the comunity thru environmental damage and loss of biodiversity and productivity, as well as subsidies for another white elephant. Issues that go beyond mere divis thru paper shuffling etc for the vested interests trying to "sell" the pulp mill as a front for accounting tricks and speak to the well being of the Australian community.

In these times I would imagine a new mill in the Tamar valley with all its jobs would be most welcome, and I would bet that the residents of the area would overwhelmingly welcome it.

The mill if built as designed would be as close to zero emmission as possible, and probably considerable less than most small businesses in the area, and still be profitable.

The failure of the Gunns' engineers to fully answer the questions posed are due almost entirely to the rapidly moving goal posts and technically illiterate nature of the questions.

The fact that the forests are already being logged for pulp mills overseas means that this would have no impact on the logging, and in fact would significantly reduce the pollution world wide compared to the less restricted mills overseas.

When the issues are not clouded by the emotional drivel spouted by the greens, there is very little reason not to proceed.