Open Letter to the Members of the Legislative Council, Tasmania. August 23, 2007
Dear Legislative Councillors,
Tasmania does not need this pulp mill at Longreach.
The mill has been cleverly but misleadingly portrayed to represent a clean, green economic future for the state. It is not.
Please do not believe the propaganda that has been deliberately circulated by proponents of the mill, or the inaccurate information suggesting that the mill can proceed with ‘conditions’ that will make its impacts ‘manageable’.
My family and I, and according to recent polls, many other Tasmanians, urge you to vote against this mill. This isn’t just because we live within 10km of the mill site, and fear for our future. Many independent perspectives against the mill are substantiated with evidence: they are intelligent and convincing.
This is not a debate being led by the Greens or some anti-development lobby. There is widespread community, industry and political protest over the mill and the government’s handling of the entire development. This includes outspoken members of the RPDC and the medical profession, business leaders and agriculturalists, university professors, members of the fishing industry, independent scientists and free-thinking members of state and federal parliaments.
Please do not believe the inadequate and flawed Sweco Pic report and Government/Gunns information that is misleading Parliament and the Tasmanian Community. There is sufficient independent information to raise serious concerns about the mill, the process being used to fast track the mill, and the potentially damaging effects on our magnificent island state.
The costs of the mill are unacceptable. It is not appropriate to overstate the economic benefits, without counting the true costs to communities, our environment, and other industries. Careful consideration of these impacts suggests that the mill may not be the economic ‘savour’ that it is touted to be.
The economic costs may easily outweigh any direct financial benefits to the Tasmanian economy from the mill. There will be impacts on the fishing industry in Bass Strait, impacts on agriculture, viticulture, tourism and property prices. There is an economic cost in the loss of recreation opportunities, anticipated additional road deaths, environmental impacts and the loss of fresh water to the mill when Tasmania can ill afford to squander this precious resource. Our clean and green image will be tarnished forever. This is not worth the risk.2
There are additional losses in the significant government hand-outs already provided to Gunns. Tax incentives and government subsidisation would be an ongoing necessity to keep the mill open as the mill competes with cheaper-running mills in developing countries. This locks Tasmanian forestry into continued poor economic performance with over-dependence on the monopoly wood buyer Gunns.2
Unlike the deliberately misleading suggestion that effluent into Bass Strait would be simply ‘salty water’, there exists factual information about the pollution that the mill will produce.
The toxic cocktail of pollutants to be pumped into Bass Strait is much worse that just salty water. The long term impacts of organochlorines such as dioxins and furans has caused severe restrictions world wide: these are amongst the most harmful chemicals known to humans. Bio-accumulation of these persistent organic pollutants in the marine environment is unacceptable at any level, let alone with the knowledge of poor flushing characteristics of Bass Strait and the impacts this would have on marine life and subsequently the fishing industry.4 1
Little has been said of the buoyant mill effluent that is not likely to disperse easily as suggested by Gunns: this brown-stained, low density contaminant that will cause detrimental impacts on marine life. Or the potentially toxic river sediments that should not be disturbed by the dredging required for the wharf to be built.
It isn’t just the political fast-track process that smells. There should be no doubt that kraft pulp mills smell. You don’t have to be an expert to know that, just as you don’t have to visit Antarctica to know that it’s cold down there.
While taxpayer funded pro-mill world tours seem to be a popular pastime, fortunately MLC Ruth Forrest has reported the truth about the health impacts of sulphurous fugitive emissions.6 Not only will fugitive emissions impact on surrounding communities, they will severely impact on our children, our frail and aged and medically ill. In a highly populated area such as the Tamar, this is unacceptable.6
The AMA has warned of the toxic pollutants to be emitted into the Tamar Valley airshed. Particulate emissions such as PM 10 and PM 2.5 are harmful to humans, let alone the Class 1 pollutants that will be released such as sulphur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, inorganic chlorinated and reduced sulphur compounds. With known problems of air quality and poor dispersal within the Tamar Valley, any form of additional air pollution is again unacceptable.
Please do not compound the mistakes already evident in the government’s handling of the mill, and the government and Gunns flawed and misleading reports. Please do not believe that the impacts are ‘manageable’.
Tasmania can have a clean and green mill, a choice perhaps similar to South Australia of a mill that is chlorine free, closed loop, and uses one-tenth the amount of water as the Gunns mill. A mill in a different and more suitable location: not one that only suits the profit-driven motives of Gunns.
Say no, and our future choices are endless. Our economy will not die without this mill. We will be free to continue to be healthy, prosperous, creative and competitive on the back of our magnificent environment and clean and green world image.
Say yes, and our future is grim. We will not be able to turn back the clock once the impacts become reality. The mistake will be a very long lasting legacy for future generations.
Please consider the mounting evidence against this mill.
Yours truly,
Linton Kerber
REFERENCES
1. Wadsley, Professor A. W. (2007), Review of Sweco Pic assessment report, http://tapvision.info/
2. Edwards, N. (2006) Too much risk for the reward – an analysis of the pulp mill returns to the people of Tasmania, Submission to the RPDC.
3. Sandery, P. (2006) Hydrodynamic modelling studies which form part of the IIS for the proposed pulp mill development by Gunns Ltd at Bell Bay in the Tamar Estuary, Tasmania. Submission to the RPDC, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.
4. Bell, L. (2007) Pollution, risks and non-compliance, National Toxics Network analysis of the Sweco Pic report on Gunns pulp mill.
5. Nowak, B. (2006) Review of the report on toxicity assessment of a pulp mill effluent for the proposed Tasmanian pulp mill, prepared for the Tasmanian Fishing Industry Council, Northern Tasmania Development and Dorset Council.
6. Forrest, R. MLC (2007) Report by Ruth Forrest MLC following visit to Nueva Aldea Mil in Chile, South America.
7. Australian Medical Association (2006) Position statement – Proposed Tamar Valley Pulp Mill, prepared by the AMA Tasmanian Branch Pulp Mill Committee, Launceston
