Pulp the other one!

Of course, that is not going to happen. More conspiratorially minded Tasmanians believe that it was never intended to happen by either Gunns’ chief, John Gay, or Premier Paul Lennon. This peculiarly close “two-headed” Tasmanian duo speaks with but one voice on the majority of occasions, and is referred to by many electors as “John-Paul”. John-Paul runs the Gunnerment in Tasmanistan.

If this mill is so crucial to Tassie’s timber communities, and since Gunns seem to have been the cause of all significant delays and difficulties, why are Timber Communities Australia, FIAT, NAFI, ETC. still so critical of the RPDC and the Tasmanian public rather than of Gunns’ sloppy approach to assessment, and Lennon’s undercutting of the RPDC?

Why are TCA and the Tasmanian Branch of the powerful CFMEU so averse to the possibly-less-disastrous Hampshire site? Are both the TCA and CFMEU executive so deeply in the thrall of Gunns that they are acting contrary to the best interests of their members, or just in accordance with direction from the only “member” that counts?

Another reason might be that Gunns projected high transport costs and fuel usage at Hampshire - likely from driving timber through their massive plantation estate as it is intended for export woodchipping, rather than pulping with natives. In Tassie, at the end of the day there is an elephant in the room - an Asiatic elephant that is sure to remain hungry for under priced woodchips even once the mill is built.

With government subsidies, the pittance paid for native forests, and chip supply contracts all kept from public scrutiny, there necessarily is speculation involved. Gunns still claim that a new Tasmanian facility processing three to four million tonnes of wood each year won’t cause a single extra tree to be knocked down. The pulp mill demands an amount of woodchips roughly equal to Gunns’ current exports … and there has been no announcement by Gunns that woodchip exports are stopping any time in the distant future. It’s the kind of thing they’d mention - if they were even thinking of doing it.

As for the whole “dioxin is virtually absent” angle, well - no. Knowledge about dioxins and their regulation moves almost as fast as a Tasmanian Premier trying to avoid a 60 Minutes interviewer. According to a detailed scientific submission on Malcolm Turnbull’s provisional determination, the approval as it currently stands will permit dioxins to elevate to 224 times background levels in sediments in the area of Bass Strait where emissions will be released.

Scandinavian experience, resulting from comparable increases in dioxins during 1960-1985, is of significant biological impoverishment of many areas of the Baltic Sea. Because dioxins take at least several decades to biodegrade, this impoverishment continues to this day. The 47 Swedish mills now (operating) generate only 20% more dioxin than Gunns mill alone would be permitted. Drs Godfrey, Raverty & Wadsley (PDF 3MB).

Despite industry-spin currently seeking traction, many commercial shellfish, such as scallops and abalone do filter feed from these sediments and dioxins are notorious for concentrating in the fat tissues of animals that feed on contaminated materials. Significantly larger quantities of these long lasting endocrine disrupters and carcinogens will also be dumped into landfills near the Tamar wetlands.

Scientifically and legally, that creates complex issues only now emerging from a counter-productive war of words. We can’t all grasp complex science. Many scientists are themselves genuinely incomprehensible. And even the identities of many of the toxicants in treated pulp mill effluent have yet to be determined by science, as Wadsley explained at a press conference just this week. Acceptable effluent quality is in fact a moving target as experienced industry participants well know.

So when respected scientists review a significant matter and find data to be incomplete, inaccurate, or poorly modeled - TCA welcome better testing methods the way a Bush campaigner might treat a Florida recount. A diligent proponent might have submitted credible modeling by now, but such a thing is still absolutely necessary for Environment Minister Turnbull before he can fulfill his responsibilities in the important Federal assessment process.

Ashbarry also waves the industry’s new flag - the Maryvale mill in Victoria - claiming as Julian Amos, Chairman of FIAT, recently did that Maryvale proves dumping dioxin into Bass Strait causes no harm. However, oceanic flushing off Victoria’s 90 Mile Beach is about 40 per cent quicker (similar to that off Burnie) than the 180 days off Five Mile Bluff/Tamar. The operators have six decades experience in pulp. And the Victorian EPA says that a new mill would not be permitted to be built in the Latrobe Valley if an application was made in 2007 (mainly for atmospheric reasons).

The dioxin-dishmoxin argument is essentially without scientific, factual, or even relative merit. Ashbarry fluffs the reasons for delays, the scientific merits of the mill, and flails a blunt-heavy-object argument that it was somehow all fair, transparent, inclusive, and now that it’s all over you throwbacks-to-the-80s can just shut-up. It’s the kind of tunnel-visioned belligerence that characterises the log-at-any-cost disconnect.