Now we the people - logo

Home Page

Australia's Political Police

Seminars / Rallies

Letters

Book Reviews

Articles

Forums

Tim Thorne's Views

Links
 
Tasmania

Gunn’s Mill and Poisons from Chemically Dependent Monoculture Plantations

Max Bound

To read the paper, to the 20th March Rally against Gunn’s Mill, of Peter Brenner helps to give one confidence that the developing movement for positive alternative approaches to forestry issues is gaining ground.** Likewise the report, from people at the March 20th Rally, that Vica Bayley, of the Wilderness Society, “was heckled from the crowd about plantations” underlines that more and more people have come to understand that the Gunns ‘Common Ground ‘proposals for a water poisoning, chemically dependent monoculture plantations future for Tasmania is not a solution. Rather it is a dangerous proposal that, as well as spelling more economic losses for the Tasmanian public, is an ever greater ecological disaster in the making.

Dr Andrew Lohrey, a former Labor Party Minister for the Environment in an article, on Tasmanian Times titled ‘Panel report dubious; designed to stifle debate’ wrote of a report by John Ramsay, head of the Tasmanian Environmental Protection Authority : “This is one of the most dubious reports I have read in a long time. It appears to have been written and made public with one aim in mind – to stifle community debate about water quality in the George River.” (1) Dr Lohrey was referring to a Tasmanian Environment Authority (EPA) report on the research findings of Dr Alison Bleaney and Dr. Scammell. The Scientific investigations of Bleaney and Scammell had revealed that there were poisons in the Georges River water.

Some environmental figures who were part of the ‘Common Ground’ with Gunn’s fiasco that brought Paul Lennon and Gunn’s Mill a new political life are now, making statements against a Gunn’s pulp mill. They are however still failing to voice any opposition to poison in our water systems. It is of major concern that Green’s leader Nick McKim appears so divorced from the real issues. To wit he is reported on Tasmanian Times 21-03-11 “The Tasmanian Greens today said that the Forest Principles Agreement process provides an historic opportunity to protect high conservation value forests and to diversify and strengthen Tasmania’s economy”. (2)

It is to the credit of Green’s MP Kim Booth that he is associating himself with prominent opponents of the Gunns Common Ground movement for a poison plantations future for Tasmania. It should also be said, in fairness to Vica Bayley, that he has on previous occasions joined long term environmental activists in calling for proper examination and attention to the poison in our water issues. But his recent public statements are confusing the issues.: “Mr Bayley said Gunns commitment to base a pulp mill on only plantation timber was a welcome step in the right direction, but key issues about environmental impacts of a mill and lack of community support remained unresolved"(3) This statement ignores the fact that chemically dependent monoculture plantations for pulp exist in nearly all of Tasmania’s river catchments, including those supplying water to Tasmania’s major urban centres.

Pressures within the Wilderness Society to comply with the ‘Common Ground‘- Gunn’s plans for a poison plantation future for Tasmania - create a complicated political situation. It is obvious that Vica Bayley’s and the Wilderness Society’s support for the movement against Gunn’s Mill is very important and could tip the balance against the people hired to try and substantiate that the Mill has a social license. On the other hand failure to take up the poison in our water issues robs the movement for change in forestry practices of what could be, for most Tasmanians, a very persuasive argument for that change.

This takes me back to an article by a prominent leader of the anti pulp mill movement Robert McMahon,when he wrote “The simple formula of ‘out of native forests into plantations’ has been an ideological position held in the green movement for the last 20 years. It was put on ice for a while, when the detrimental effects of plantations were big in the national consciousness.” (4)

It is worth noting that on page 9 0f ‘The Great Forest Sell Out, An Australian Conservation Foundation Viewpoint' published over 35 years ago when the founder of the Green Movement in Tasmania, the late Dr. Dick Jones was the most influential figure in the mainstream environmental movement the following was written:

“When costs for adequately maintaining and restoring other forest values are taken into account, there is little doubt that the woodchip industry makes a negative direct contribution to the public treasury through forest service costs.” This publication then goes on to point out that; “public expenditure on restoring wood chipped forests may well exceed the public revenue obtained”. Despite the obvious truth of what people like Dick Jones had already pointed out a decade earlier the obsession with plantations emerged later when different people took over from Dick Jones and those around him.

There are some big questions that require much more from the main stream environmental movement and Green MP’s. These questions include: How can they justify their silence on a major environmental issue, namely the poison in our drinking water? Poison in drinking water systems is a vital issue of direct personal concern to the overwhelming majority of people in Tasmania. It is the issue, if properly explained and given real publicity, that can change the wide-spread ignorance and there-fore apathy about the way Gunns and Forestry Tasmania with their clear felling and chemically dependent plantations focus are destroying Tasmania’s future.

When Doctor Alison Bleaney and her associates succeeded in getting exposure of poisons in drinking water on National Television they added a great deal of weight to the exposures by Dr David Leaman of the massive effect on water availability by chemically dependent monoculture plantations. Taken with the exposure by Dr Andrew Lohrey and Dr Peter Hay (5) of how plantations, that are in virtually all of Tasmania’s water catchment areas, are poisoning drinking water these exposures leave little doubt as to the serious threat that chemically dependent plantations and over use of poisonous chemicals in Agriculture represent.

That is why Gunn’s and the major political parties and their hacks, local and national, have spent so much energy in trying to hide the truth of what Dr Bleaney, and other serious scientists along with several long standing environmental activists, are seeking to have brought into the discussions on a future for sustainable forest practices in Tasmania - namely that the Gunn’s 'Common Ground’ monoculture plantations fiasco spells yet more poison in the water we drink, even more high quality soil being destroyed and continued public handouts to an ecologically and economically destructive industry. (6)

This as well as ongoing public subsidies to an industry that has been kept alive with well over $60 millions of public money per year over the last twelve years. (7) Currently the situation looks grim indeed What the major political parties at State and National levels are doing is giving still more $millions of public money to Gunn’s. Our Governments ,and senior public servants, have lost the plot and simply do as the large corporations, wish. In several respects the main stream environmental movements have responded to this situation by also losing the plot.

To explain Clive Hamilton in a paper published on Crikey (8) suggests: “… the penchant for wishful thinking, political incrementalism and the professionalization of NGOs … came to together to enable ACF, WWF and the Climate Institute to endorse a policy that, as a response to the gigantuan threat of global warming was a mockery.” The organizations Hamilton is referring to here are major non government environmental organizations or NGOs.

I suggest the same might be said of the position taken by the Wilderness Society and some prominent Greens in relation to forestry issues in Tasmania. Further on Hamilton claims, I believe with good reason, that “…much of the environmental movement has no real political understanding of the world . They mistake superficial argy-bargy dished up by the daily news media for political analysis, and do not truly comprehend the forces they are ranged against."

I think that what Hamilton is saying here describes the actual situation within large sections of the mainstream environmental movement. At the same time I think that his solution - namely more people being willing to put “their bodies on the line” - is only part of the solution. Physical courage is necessary but investigation, creative thinking and developing positive alternatives for a decent human future is also essential. Energy and effort to develop and implement a new way in our forests, in our social expectations and economy as a whole is needed. At present most of the leaders within the mainstream environmental movement are failing the people whose bodies are already on the line.

Hamilton was addressing the national situation. In Tasmania many prominent environmental figures are refusing to admit that poison in our water is a major problem. This refusal to publically acknowledge that plantations are associated with poison in our water systems is a gift to the destroyers of our forests. The overwhelming majority of people do not want to be party to exposing children to serious risks of cancer and other health problems. If made aware of the reality that this is what chemically dependent plantations actually do, they would actually support actions to change current forestry practices. Another spin off would be more questioning of use of chemicals in farming.

Pursuing a political course that ignores the ecologically and economically suicidal practice of clear felling of forests and encouraging chemically dependent, monoculture plantations needs to be replaced with a positive alternative set of forestry and general economic practices.

** Pulp mill NO – modern forestry policy YES! Peter Brenner Picture: Swiss production forest: biodiversity, uneven age, public access 21.03.11 7:25 pm “Battle weary as we are – we are here! – And we continue to fight this monstrous pulp mill. We have heard enough good reasons for our strong stand against this gigantic chemical factory. And we are filled to the brim with negativity. Time therefore to scan the horizon for some encouragement! And here it is. It’s about modern forestry policy and management. Bear with me! Ladies and gentlemen, It is not normal in responsible societies that old growth forests get flattened and much of what has been cut gets burnt with the help of napalm.”

NOTES

(1) Tasmanian Times 02-07-10: Dr Andrew Lohrey, a former Labor Party Minister for the Environment in an article, titled ‘Panel report dubious; designed to stifle debate’

(2) Tasmanian Times 21-03-11: Main article Title “What’s in the black box, Mr L’Estrange?” - What Nick McKim says about the moratorium..’

(3) Tasmanian Times 05-3-11: Vica Bayley Wilderness Society

(4) Tasmanian Times 8-11-2010: Robert McMahon

(5) One of Tasmania’s and Australia’s top scientific experts on water related issues, Dr D.E. Leaman, wrote in the Sunday Tasmanian (March 21st, 2010, p. 45):

“A conclusion like that of Bleaney and Scammell’s was drawn several years ago but, because the government panel considered the toxin natural, nothing more was done. A toxin is a toxin and we need to know all about it and its risks. Because this toxin might involve the forest industry, any review must be fully independent.

We should thank, not accuse, Bleaney and Scammell for their concern and effort, while observing that our government has yet to match that care and concern.” Much of the antagonism expressed towards current forest practices is directed towards its effect upon water quality, particularly in the catchments, where massive hydrological changes are seen to be taking place. Some people are scornful of industry and government scientists, who are thought to turn up to do their studies and take their measurements at precisely the times when they can be sure of not finding anything in breach of the Forest Practices Code. ‘There are people up here can’t read and write’, said one person, ‘and none of us are scientists, but we’re here all the time, and we see things - dead wombats in the creeks and that, the creeks foaming like anything - stuff that the bloody scientists never see because they aren’t here when it’s there in front of you." (from a paper by Dr Peter Hay, delivered to a Search Round Table held at the University of Tasmania’s Hobart Campus on April 12 2008.)

A photo of a large cable logged area published in a brochure, authorised by Dr. Andrew Lohrey, who was a minister in past State Labor Governments, vividly illustrates part of what is happening in Tasmania’s water catchments as result of deeply faulted forestry practices. The caption under the photo reads: Above: South Esk catchment: this steep terrain was cable logged of all vegetation and is now used for plantation forestry – run off from chemicals will enter the water supply.

This same brochure reveals, “In the last four years alone, these rivers have been contaminated with poisonous pesticides: the Duck, Inglis, Bird, Jordan, Montagu, Prosser, Rubicon, South Esk, George, Little Swanport, Macquarie, Great Forester, Brumby Creek, Derwent and Liffey” This brochure makes the point that pesticide poisons come from farming and forestry land uses. And that forestry plantations are now “growing in 44 of the State’s 48 water catchments.” Further… “Water testing by our state government is done sporadically and pesticide detections rarely result in investigations to find their source.”

(6) see footnote 5 above plus for example Deputy Mayor of Meander Valley Council, Bob Loone’s paper “Pulp Plantations No more Please”. May 30 2010

(7) See Senator Christine Milne Tasmanian Times 02-6-2010: “Where has your Money gone” Also, follow up articles on Tasmanian Times from Professor Graeme Wells. These open rather than behind the door discussions, on Tasmanian Times in particular, have produced hard evidence that the Tasmanian and for that matter other Australian taxpayers have already lost hundreds of millions of dollars as inept or corrupt government practices have channelled large sums of public money into the bank accounts of forest corporations and investors in forestry tax dodges. The latest estimate by Professor Graeme Wells is $766 million over the last twelve years. See Beware of Politicians Bearing Gifts - Tasmanian Times

(8)Hamilton: A new brand of environmental radicalism by Clive Hamilton - Crikey-Tuesday, 22 February 2011

  Back to Articles