Pulp Mill Submission

Brenda Rosser

Dear Sir/Madam

I have sent a submission on the proposed Gunns Ltd pulp mill before to the EPBC Referrals unit. Only to have it completely ignored. This was despite the fact that my assertion that "the proposed mill will feed off monoculture tree plantations and native forest in Tasmania which are not managed on a sustainable footing. Their management consistently breaches the RFA and a multitude of other Acts, regulations, guidelines, agreements and provisions to do with protection of the environment and human health." was factually and legally correct at the time, and still is.

"Meaning of ‘protect’ - Wielangta Ruling, December 2006
240 An agreement to ‘protect’ means exactly what it says. It is not an agreement to attempt to protect, or to consider the possibility of protecting, a threatened species. It is a word found in a document which provides an alternative method of delivering the objects of the EPBC Act in a forestry context. ..241 The method for achieving that protection is through the CAR Reserve System or by applying relevant management prescriptions. Does that mean the State’s obligations are satisfied if, in fact, the CAR Reserve System or relevant management prescriptions do not protect the relevant species? I do not think so..."

Links:

Logging Turned Legal
http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,21277796-5007221,00.html

Protected Areas of Tasmania
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_areas_of_Tasmania

RFA changes skirt Wielangta court ruling
http://www.examiner.com.au/story.asp?id=386254

The Wielangta Ruling of December 2006
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2006/1729.html
http://www.on-trial.info

Again, the public find that there is insufficient time to present their submissions. I am writing two days to go before submissions close.

Apparently, the EPBC Act and the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement have been changed since the time of the above Wielangta ruling to accommodate the continuation of an industry that has polluted our families drinking water with a residual and toxic chemical (and appears to be continuing to do so) and chokes my lungs with heavy plumes of toxic smoke for months each year in Autumn and Spring.

Could you please incorporate the entire contents of my website (at: www.geocities.com/rosserbj) as part of this submission and the contents of my previous submission to your office on the same topic (proposed Gunns Ltd pulpmill) as both documents details our family's personal experiences as well as their provision of an outline of the systematic abuse to public and environmental health in Tasmania generally.

At this stage I'm absolutely stumped! What can a member of the public actually say to this referral that would actually result in REAL 'protection' in the true sense of the word? After all the referral document states:

"This referral does not include the impact of forestry operations undertaken for the supply of pulpwood to the pulp mill. . ."

AND

"The majority of pulpwood will be sourced from forests managed in accordance with the Australian Forestry Standard which is endorsed under the international forest certification system PEFC (Program for Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes)..."

But Gunns Ltd does it's own assessment under the Australian Forestry Standard and there is, within this document, no definition of ecologically-sustainable forest management. It's all very flexible.

In relation to climate change well, after all,the Governments acknowledge the need, identified in the National Greenhouse Response Strategy, to manage forests so as to maintain or increase their 'carbon sink' capacity and to minimise the emission of greenhouse gases from forest activities. (National Forest Policy Statement, 1992). Yet what has the department of environment done whilst many hundreds of thousands of hectares of native forest has been clearfelled, most of the biomass including hundreds of years of stored carbon in the forest floor humus has been released to the air by piling up and burning the debris. The more carbon released from soil that is roasted then tilled to plant a single species. And the process repeats after 10-20 year tree plantation rotations. Why are you there? What is your responsbility?

Currently the population of bees in the US, Canada and parts of Europe is being decimated by something called Colony Collapse Disorder or CCD. Apiarists are finding that bees are either vanishing from their hives or just dying in them. No one know why at this point. Threatened North American pollinators now include 115 species and subspecies of 57 butterflies, 2 moths, and 55 bees. Bees don't just produce honey. Around 1/3 of food comes from the pollination that bees perform. That is most fruit, vegetables and even the alfalfa that cows need.

The agro-industrial practice of planting huge monocultures has been implicated in this frighteningly recent and unheralded development. So has the use of insecticides. GM crops have been developed that implant a gene for BT that kills insects. So scientists are wondering if this might also be partially behind the deaths.

Link:
http://www.fulldisklosure.org/forums/index.php?topic=7227.0;prev_next=next#new

I'm no Einstein but I also figured out that " "If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe, then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man."

I know that you guys may figure that you're eminently practical. That blind eyes need to be turned so that any means whatsover can be employed. It's necessary, you say, that business can carry on making a profit. It's just that I have this hangup. I want to live and I want my children and grandchildren to live also. If it means that we need to change the way we live and live with less (in the way of material wealth) then we are happy to do this. Maybe we could hold a referendum on this issue. Ask the public whether they would choose material wealth over life itself.

At least give us a choice.

END OF SUBMISSION