Letter to the editor
Dear Sir
I try yet again (3rd time lucky) to get my letter published. If this can not be published, could you give me a reason why.
Could you explain to me why the Examiner has a pro-mill viewpoint, as expressed in your Sunday's editorial (26/8/07). I agree with what you say re the Hampshire site. It still wouldn't solve a lot of the problems from a mill of this size.
However, because of the federal plantation tax concessions, haven't we already got a viable long-term forestry industry already. Wouldn't it be better to aim for a broader use of forestry resources, rather than depending on a monoculture chip and pulp industry.
World wood chip prices are falling and hence the recent rise of pulpmills in the world. Inevitably, world pulp prices will be the next to fall. The economics are the only thing that advocates can say for the pulpmill and yet independent analysis show this to be not the case.
Considering all the negative impacts of this proposed mill, I find it reprehensible that the government has not done a risk analysis of a project of this size. How can you have so much faith in this project? Please explain to me the "bigger agenda" to which you allude.
I hope you will be able to include this, without selective modification, in 'Letters to the editor'.
The latest Gunns Pulpmill adverts tell us 2 things, but both are myths.
The first myth, 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
