|
March 23, 2007
I'm picking up on this post over at junk for code about Gunns, the pulp mill and dioxins in Tasmania. As Gunns is refusing to guarantee to abide by guidelines agreed to by Tasmania and the Commonwealth and the State Government has engaged in political interference in the Resource Planning and Development Commission's assessment of the $1.4 billion pulp mill project.
Premier Lennon's legislation, which was drawn up to create a new process as an "approval process" rather than an assessment, is a fast-track assessment that removes any further public hearings from the pulp mill assessment and dumps the RPDC expert consultants and puts the onus on Tasmanian MPs to decide the project's fate.
In getting Gunns off his back by abandoning any semblance of proper process, Premier Lennon effectively tossed the assessment of the mill back to Canberra. It must now go through the federal government's environmental approval process conducted in accordance with the EPBC Act.
Zap + e-collegiate network, how self-regulation works
Gunns can’t argue that dioxins are among the most toxic chemicals known. They can’t argue that the mill won’t release any dioxins. What Gunns could argue is that the pulp mill will release what they could call ‘negligible’ amounts of dioxin. But the sticking point is that dioxins accumulate in the food chain. So they need to counter, dismiss, or fudge the bio-accumulation of dioxins in the food chain.
The bulk of research shows dioxin loads in seals, and the accumulation of dioxins in invertebrates, fish, birds and other animals in the food chain. There are also concerns about air pollution and odour emissions as well as toxic effluent.
I notice that federal Labor is rather quiet on the issue. We know they have abandoned Latham's attempt to save Tasmania’s forests at the last election, and under Beazley and Rudd, the ALP have to the same position as the Howard government. So where do they stand on converting old growth native forests into toilet paper in an election year?
Has the federal Labor position to the Dick Adams position, which holds that Tasmanians forests are to be fed into the export woodchip process or a pulpmill, whatever the industry believes is best for it? Senator Kerry O'Brien, from Tasmania, reckons the Gunns' pulp mill is world class.--the world's greenest mill. Gunns, apparently, is to be trusted. O'Brien, who has the Forestry portfolio, is pro-logging. But what about the dioxin? "World class" implies little to no dioxin. Is Gunns building a world class pulp mill when it is using chlorine dioxide in the bleaching process?
Where then is Peter Garrett on the politics of dioxin? Is he, the shadow environment spokesperson, in favour of the Gunn's mill? Does he support the current process under Lennon state government which the environmental impact would be approved by politicians who go along with the pro-logging Premier?
What we do have a media release, which confirms that the ALP supports downstream processing of forest products, with the proviso that:
The Commonwealth assessment of the pulp mill must examine the impact of the proposal on matters of national environmental significance, including the impact on threatened species and marine ecosystems.
The ALP is in a tough spot. Rudd cannot support Lennon's actions and court green voters across Tasmania. On the other hand, Rudd needs the logging votes to win back seats in Tasmania.
However, Malcolm Turnbull is also in a spot:--he cannot fall in behind Lennon's dubious process, due to the threat of legal action by the Greens to ensure a full and proper inquiry under the EPBC Act. Currently, he is playing his cards close to his chest.
|
What a disgusting, evil, cowardly bastard Garrett is.
When Judas betrayed Christ he at least had the decency to go and hang himself as atonement.
Will Garrett go and spend his thirty pieces on a new recording studio to turn out more protest songs?
His soul will freeze in the worst inner-most circle of hell, reserved for traitors.