Pulp Mill Forests and Water

Max Bound 2007

“… the modern market economy (in the now- approved terminology) accords wealth and distributes income in a highly unequal, socially adverse and also functionally damaging fashion."
Galbraith J.K. p60 “The Good Society” 1996

“…we are not inescapably dependent on this flood of commodities which our our economic system is designed to produce.”
” Coombs H. C. p 165 “The Return of Scarcity” 1990

“ We are taking more resources from our continent than its natural systems can replenish. That, by any definition, is unsustainable.”
The Wentworth Group of Australian Scientists, Nov 2002

Lack of openness by governments and concentration of power in the hands of a few corporations focused on their own bottom line and power regardless of the economic, social and environmental costs has given near free reign to economic rationalist (or more for the rich) ideologies and practices. In Australia both major political parties compete to grant virtual monopoly controls over public forest and other resources to privately owned corporations. We face major environmental crises on several fronts and the gap between rich and poor grows apace.

It is worth looking at the Gunns' pulp mill issue against the background of the collective wisdom reflected in the above quotes. The mill proposal, and the modern market system itself, is currently driven by greed and expanding operations and the control of resources to the end of short term profit and even more power for a powerful few. If it gets up, the proposed pulp mill will bring into serious question all but a quite limited future for Tasmania. It will contribute quite substantially and in a variety of ways to making our planet uninhabitable. Water is one of the central issues involved. It is water for the State not just for the Tamar Valley. It is increased pollution of our ocean systems as well as our air and fresh water.

The proposed mill is not ecologically sustainable. In serious economic terms - as distinct from short term profit and power for a few, economic rationalist or neo-liberal economic reckoning - neither is it economically sensible or even viable.

The bottom line reality is that making paper from wood fibre is to say the least questionable. It can be argued that the paper from wood project needs to be phased out over a period of time, rather than extended. There are economic as well as ecological issues, including energy and resource waste indications that require serious examination. There are age-old alternatives for paper making, including hemp. The more recent and probably even more economically and ecologically viable alternative is paper from banana trees.

Paper from banana trees –“According to Johnson and Azer, paper produced from the banana plant is 300 times stronger … , is grease proof, waterproof and fire resistant yet totally biodegradable. No water. chemical glues or dyes are used in its production. Banana paper manufacture on a global scale can make use of the five trillion banana stems left to rot each year in banana plantations around the world.” (Sonja Anderson in Austalian Horticulture, October 2004)

Why have so few people had access to the above information? The information was learned from publicly funded tests. Why is it not part of the public discussion on the need for, usefulness etc. of a pulp mill ???? The questions raised are indeed multiple and involve the role of governments, the media and almost certainly the power of the corporations to control and suppress information as well as controlling governments and what happens to publicly funded research outcomes. This all suggests that a very real issue before us is either short term private profit for a few, or a decent future for all.

For a variety of reasons how we make paper is a very important issue for us in Tasmania. We can not avoid the fact that, although there are gross exaggerations and outright lies about the level of employment in forestry based industries, jobs will be affected. There is need for big changes within the industry. Jobs have been/are still being lost because of use of energy and polluting technologies that are designed to replace workers and increase profits. These jobs can be replaced by different and sustainable uses of an essential but threatened resource.

A problem in the way of developing a serious discussion on these sorts of issues is the negative effect of a long running dumbing down process. Widespread acceptance of the nonsense that there is no alternative to our present economic practices is an important aspect of this dumbing down process. Given the suppression of information on alternatives in the media and by governments and the level of misinformation and outright lies being widely circulated, activists understandably tend to focus on the less complex, less difficult aspects of problems. Experience in the forestry debate, in which to date, despite important partial short term victories, the forests continue to disappear at an alarming rate suggests it is time to tackle the more complex aspects head on.

There can be a different way and different forms of sustainable development.

The possibility for turning the tide in the whole forestry debate is real if Gunns' mill can be stopped. False figures used by the corporations and their friends in governments and elsewhere tend to cover up the massive increase in resource use per job and the substantial decline in employment in forest based industries.

Serious work to develop and project programs and policies that can make real the prospects for alternative approaches and jobs is necessary to make possible unity of purpose between unionists in the forestry industry and environment activists. The cop out phrase “it's too cerebral” needs to be relegated to where it belongs.

The reality is if most people, given the information and opportunity, are incapable of thinking on complex issues and getting their heads around the essential fact that there is a real connection between ecology and economics then humanity has had it. Of course these complex issues need to be projected in a way that can be understood by very large numbers of people. And that suggests a need for not just communication skills but a deep understanding of what needs to be communicated.

There is need to front up to the challenges of examining and demonstrating the role of the ‘free market’ in contributing heavily to global warming -- and how Gunns' mill is part of that process. Further there is need to recognise and demonstrate that it's not the existence of markets but how and to what purpose they function and who controls these markets that is the centre of the problem.

Some people associated with the environmental movement argue that environmental sustainability can be separated off from equity and social justice. This position is, in my view, at best nonsensical and at worst mischievous.

In her “Re-Energising Australia” paper Senator Christine Milne writes of the changes in our economic approaches that Climate Change (Global Warming ) makes necessary “…this transformation also gives us the opportunity to create enormous economic benefits in sectors hitherto neglected, which can make us happier healthier and more secure in the knowledge that our children inherit a world that is a joy to live in.” At the top of the chapter on “Why Australia needs a new economic direction” there is the following pertinent quote from Raymond Williams – “To be truly radical is to make hope possible, rather than despair convincing.”

The above words of wisdom, like the quotes at the beginning of this paper, are a welcome encouragement to reject the negative criticism of serious analyses of our problems and projection of serious, if difficult, possible new directions as being “too cerebral.” We need not neglect - but do need to go beyond - single aspect approaches and get on with the task of testing our mental and creative capacities in unraveling complexities, understanding interconnections and developing micro solutions as part of the bigger picture of radical change.