Despite being an environmental disaster, the Gunns pulp mill was at least supposed to make lots of money for Tasmania. But it turns out it won't even do that.
With Gunns putting themselves under the financial spotlight by potentially misleading the Australian Stock Exchange, now is a good time to have another look at the economics of the proposed pulp mill.
As the global financial crisis begins to bite in what commentators are quaintly calling the "real" economy, any big project that promises to create jobs might, on the face of it, be a shoo-in. But it's not hard to see why the majority of Tasmanians oppose Gunns' pulp mill when it offers only illusory new jobs to Tasmanians while jeopardising our $3 billion tourism industry and our priceless environment.
If anything, it is at difficult times like these that we most need to do proper cost-benefit analyses of any proposals. Instead of simply promoting the supposed benefits of a project, as Gunns is doing, we need to weigh those benefits against not only the direct costs we will incur by going ahead but also the lost opportunity costs — what else could we be doing that would be more beneficial to more people?
Read the full story at The New Matilda