Letter to the editor
Dear Sir
I trust Gunns for wanting the "World's Best Practice" pulp mill because "world's best practice" means using the latest methods dictated by commercial constraints.
As such, it doesn't mean the best solution for all concerned but the best way for a modern company to maximise profit and minimise risk to that company. For example, the "Totally Chlorine Free" process, while better ecologically, would reduce profits so companies don't use it.
Another successful advertising claim, used to comfort the masses, is "best available technology" (BAT), which neglects better environmental technologies which have poorer commercial outcomes.
As most of the "World's Best Practice" mills (with BAT), to this date, have not been able to live up to their environmental expectations, one has to wonder about building one here -in the world's best place to live.
Eric Ollier
Uploaded by Admin
"World's Best Practice" letter to MP's and councillors
Dear Councillor , Member of Parliament,
Many people commend Gunns for wanting the "World's Best Practice" Pulp Mill. But what do these words mean? Sounds good for everyone ,so who could complain? But the "World's Best Practice" doesn't mean best solution. It means the processes involved have to be commercially viable whereas other factors like environment, health and social issues are secondary. That is, the latest practices must maximise profit and minimise risk to that company.
If the processes can be done in a more ecologically sound way but it would reduce profits then companies don't have to do it and won't. The only exceptions to this is where a strong government can force companies to do the right thing.
As most of the "World's Best Practice" mills to date have not been able to live up to their environmental expectations one has to wonder about putting one in the world's best place to live- here in Tasmania. It seems to me that they think that they can appease anyone of concerns by using these three words.
Another successful advertising claim, used to comfort the masses, is "best available technology" (BAT), which is a misnomer, as, in this context, it neglects better environmental technologies which have poorer commercial outcomes.
The State Government assures us of independant assessment although I don't believe that a company like Sweco Pic, who is dependant on the company chosen to make the Pulp Mill, is going to be unbiased.
The same biased State Government, being true to form, asks for a benefits analysis without a risk analysis. Can a government be any more blind to anything it doesn't want to see?
I plead that parliamentarians, of all parties, open their minds to the risks of this project, both enviromental and economic, before committing to this project.
Because once approved, no matter what party is in government, Tasmania will be absolutely under the control of Gunns.
Eric Ollier - Concerned Tasmanian Voter
Uploaded by admin