Dear Sir
The latest Gunns Pulpmill adverts tell us 2 things, but both are myths.
The first, is that the Pulpmill will produce lots of money for the State. This really means investors, because all the negative costs of the project have been omitted from the economic analyses. The costs, to the taxpayer, of extra roads, railways, associated extra road deaths, pollution health impacts, loss of jobs and sales in tourism, fishing, wine industries, extra hospital costs, infrastructure costs, rises in water and rent costs, as well as environmental monitoring and possible cleanup costs have not been taken into account. Nor has the costs of extra police, social workers and drug councillors, concerned with the 800 construction workers who will be visiting Launceston for “a good time” every weekend. The biggest cost to taxpayers will be guaranteed government forestry subsidies if woodchip and pulp prices fall, as well as government payouts to staff if the Pulpmill has to close.
The second myth is that it would not be built unless it is safe for the environment. This assumes trust in the government to ensure non compromised assessment. Well, since bypassing the RPDC process, because it’s safety concerns couldn’t be met, the compromised SwecoPic report couldn’t even pass the Mill on all safety details. Yet we are still told the Mill is safe. Is anyone that gullible to trust them?
Eric Ollier -Concerned Tasmanian
