A guest post by Bernice.
Overnight, Turnbull, Federal Environment Minister, announced plans to spend $200 million, aiming to stop deforestation in Asia.
Mr Turnbull says a global response is needed and the $200 million project will be used to plant trees and reduce illegal logging in South-East Asia.
“The funding will go, given the nature of our geography, will largely go to South-East Asia,” Mr Turnbull said.
“The biggest deforesters in the world or the places where the most deforestation of tropical forests is occurring are in Brazil and Indonesia, they’re the top two so naturally our focus is going to be on our part of the world but we’re not limiting it to that.”
Timing is everything in politics, as The White Rabbitt knows. In a week where the issue of David Hicks has been neutralised, his government suddenly pulls this out of the hat. On the same day that Howard met Nicholas Stern. On the same day that Howard demonstrated his continuing skepticism regarding the impact of climate change. His comments about Stern were at the best patronising, at the worst downright insulting, but more importantly, he again demonstrated he simply doesn’t get it. It’s the environment, stupid.
His continual bleating about not costing jobs in areas of say, coal mining, are either misinformed or intentionally misleading. Coal contributes via its export earnings, but its employment to profitability ratio is much lower than service industries or manufacturing. And much of that employment is not ongoing, but occurs during construction and start-up of new mines, new facilities.
But it’s the breathtaking hypocrisy of this announcement that particularly draws my ire. Firstly Turnbull is fudging the issue as regards deforestation – yes the worst offenders in terms of tropical forests are Brazil and Indonesia. But in terms of deforestation anywhere on the planet, Australian agriculture is a world beater, despite posturing by state and federal governments over the last ten years.
And let us examine our own forest industry utilisation record. We could start with appalling and devolve to unscientific, short-sighted, brutish and reckless. We need look no further than the current state of play in Tasmania for a fine example of how we manage our forests.
Gunns, whose enmeshment in Tasmanian politics takes us back to the good old days of Eric Reece & the HEC in the 60s, is proposing a pulp mill to be sited toward the mouth of the Tamar River, at Bell Bay. The Premier, Paul Lennon, is an enthusiastic supporter of the mill. A very very enthusiastic supporter. To the point where he has happily abandoned the Resource Planning & Development Commission’s process of assessing the mill, a process intended to ensure that Gunns meet even minimum environmental standards.
Lennon in a press release of the 14th of March stated:
“The pulp mill assessment process started in November 2003 when the Government asked the Resource Planning and Development Commission to establish emission guidelines.
“Most people would have reasonably expected that this process would have concluded more than three years on.”
As members of the RPDC have pointed out, Gunns have been refusing to provide the Commission with the technical details concerning the mill’s outputs & instead has indulged in bullying the members, attempting to force the development through despite the fact that it is patently clear that Gunns current plan can not meet the most basic of requirements of emission controls regarding dioxins & air pollution, let alone the environmental devastation that removing FOUR AND A HALF MILLION TONS of woodchip ANNUALLY from the state’s forests would cause.
Gunns upped the ante earlier in the month, stating that unless they had full approval for the project by the end of June, they would pack up their ball & bat & go – where? John Gay, Chair of Gunns reckons Victoria would love them better. I think not. He’s bluffing – the battles between greenies and loggers are a thing of the past – they are now forming alliances as the loggers discover they are being exploited by the timber companies with no long term industry security. Pulling his 4.5 million tons out of Victoria is simply not possible. He has nowhere else to go, and Lennon would know. Or he’s extraordinary stupid.
Lennon’s response – sack the RPDC, draw up legislation to allow the development, rush it through the lower house. But its now lodged in the throat of the Legislative Council, where it is by no means certain it will automatically pass. The environmental standards & assessment processes laid out in the bill are laughable, breaching both state and federal legislation and practice.
Not only is Lennon willing to impose upon his state the horrendous environmental consequences of such a reckless and unregulated development, he is also more than prepared to undermine due democratic process to achieve this. If you can’t come to grips with the damage that that level of deforestation will cause, then the spectre of a government overturning due process with more than a whiff of corruption in the air should ignite your interest.
As it should to the Federal Minister for the Environment. Where is Turnbull’s statement demanding that Lennon follow due process? Where is Turnbull’s statement of concern at plans to accelerate deforestation in Tasmania? Where is Turnbull’s statement of concern as to the impact upon water catchments in a state currently drought-stricken? Or the plans to water the mill’s greedy water requirements by piping potable water from Trevallyn Dam to Bell Bay? At tax payers expense. Where is Turnbull’s statement of concern at the levels of dioxin emissions into the marine environment?
And before the Feds begin to bleat about Federal & state separations, let us remember that Howard has overseen a greater concentration of control and power in the federal sphere than any other Prime Minister in Australian history. But perhaps, just perhaps, we can make this play out to achieve the logical and sustainable result. Perhaps Howard could intervene, using his handy ministerial mouthpiece. He gets to slap a miscreant LABOR state government for abuse of parliamentary power and process, and he gets to trumpet his environmental warrior persona. Ripping up the Forestry Agreement woven with the Tasmanian Trades Hall would not be a problem for Howard.
This mill would be a disaster for the entire state as logs will have to cut & moved from all over the island. Gunns are insisting that they must have access to a minimum log harvest and future state governments will not have the power to adjust in any way the quotas demanded by Gunns. The figure of 2000 new jobs is highly dubious – Tasmania does have a problem providing long term semi-skilled employment. After construction, as pointed out elsewhere, a pulp mill employs engineers & technicians, not the unskilled or semi-skilled. And Gunns’ own record of dealing with their logging contractors is dreadful. But note the word long term. Gunns themselves are saying the mill has a likely life of 15 years before Tasmania’s forest resources are so depleted the mill become redundant. And that ‘s long term economic planning Mr Lennon?
This mill will also be a disaster for democracy, community and governance. A failure to intervene on the Feds part will be a tacit approval of corruption, mismanagement, poor planning and clear breach of duty on the part of public officers and elected officials. I look forward to Mr Turnbull’s statement of concern.
TAP · Tasmanian Times · RPDC · Save the Blue Tiers · McGunns · The Wilderness Society · Trees Not Gunns
Cross-posted at Bernice Balconey’s Baloney
Great post Bernice. I’ve been averting my eyes as I couldn’t bear to think about what was going on.
You’ve captured the hypocrisy of Howard and co very well. Have Rudd and Garrett indicated a position yet? (I told you I haven’t been paying attention).
We need look no further than the current state of play in Tasmania for a fine example of how we manage our forests.
That’s absolute tosh. Everyone in forestry knows that Tassie is a rogue state and that Gunns are a rogue company. Gunns is the worst example and is not reflective of forestry across the board.
Good post
The Howard/Turnbull “contribution” to forest conservation is laughable, given the (relatively tiny) amount of $$ involved ($200 mill.), and that it is destined for areas “such as Indonesia”.
That ratty and co. are proposing to spend such money in a country where they could not intervene to stop the slaughter of E. Timorese without the permission of Indonesia, on curtailing activities that constitute one of the major funding sources of the Indonesian military, beggars belief (unless one was aware of the previous record of ratty and co.)
WRT the Gunn’s proposal, it should be remembered that Robin Gray, an ex – Premier (Liberal), and foundation “anti-greeny” of the Franklin Dam era, is on the board of that company, and that he lost Government attempting to impose a poorly designed pulp mill based at Wesley Vale on Tasmania, a few years ago. Gray has a history of fostering divisiveness, and was personally implicated in a bribery scandal where a prominent businessman attempted to bribe a labour member to cross the floor – although no evidence could be found to prove he knew of this attempt, of which he, and his legislative program would have been the prime beneficiaries.
So I’m not holding my breath for any Federal govt. intervention.
Lennon is cast from a similar mould as Gray, but from a union background, and his actions and demeanor suggest that he has always acted as a “standover” merchant to bully his way whenever possible.
Two commissioners (including the chair) resigned from the original RPDC evaluating the Gunn’s proposal, and the new chair (an ex judge) threatened to do so when approached (improperly ?) by Lennon, only agreeing to continue when Lennon’s threats were withdrawn. Then Gunn’s “pulled the pin”, in effect realising Lennon’s threats.
I am of the opinion that the Gunn’s pulp mill proposal has never been designed to succeed by the proponents, but rather intended as a device to further inflame divisiveness within the Tasmanian community, in order to feed the pathological hatred of the Greens which sustains much of the power arrangements in this state.
Why do I believe this ? If the proposal for a pulp mill -
1. Was located in an area of low population density
2. which was not subject to temperature inversions and associated smog
3. incorporated “world’s best practice” (chlorine free) in its design
4. did not require enormous amounts of potable water (proponents rejected the use of recycled water)
5. was situated centrally with respect to the supply areas
6. did not require native forest “feedstock”
then it would have been welcomed by a broad cross section of the community, and the RPDC assessment would have presented few problems to the proponents.
If such a scenario seems a trifle petty, remember, it was Tasmania, under a Liberal government. which constructed the (in)famous “road to nowhere”, at the cost of millions of dollars, through the Tarkine wilderness in an effort to remove its World Heritage values.
Great post,
AnnaBernice.All that needs to be added is an observation on the hypocrisy of Howard’s concern for coal miners’ jobs when the coal industry bosses have, with Howard’s support, been throwing everything including the kitchen sink at coal miners’ jobs, wages and conditions.
“he (the rodent) again demonstrated he simply doesn’t get it. It’s the environment, stupid.”
In RattyWorld, pesky issues like the environment can be outsourced to the Indonesians the same way Australia’s Foreign Policy is outsourced to the Washingtonians.
Robin Gray isn’t the only Gunns board member to have strongly criticised in the final report of the Carter Royal Commission into the 1989 Parliamentary Bribery scandal but so too was David McQuestion who was in fact charged, found guilty, then later aquitted on appeal to the Supreme Court of Tasmania.
& I wish that Gunns were simply a rogue corporate Godzilla in Aust. forestry, but the practices in WA jarrah & kauri harvesting, or the SE NSW forests don’t bear close scientific scrutiny either. Adherence to Endangered Species regulations & minimum vegetation cover along water courses are both frequently breached. But the relentless pursuit of low grade single species plantations, and a failure to develop agro-forestry techniques to produce high grade cabinet grade timbers is nationwide.
Again – not my post. It is a guest post by Bernice.
“WA jarrah & kauri harvesting”
If any vile foreign Kiwi trees are befouling the purity of beloved south west, I for one say chop ‘em down! Booo, hisss!
I shall not spell karri as kauri
I shall not spell karri as kauri
I shall not spell karri as kauri
Yep, great post. Howard promoting himself as some kind of enviro-warrior who sees the environment as a high priority is laughable and insulting at best. Unbelievable.
Apologies to FDB. I inadvertently deleted a post of yours that had got caught up in the spaminator. I forgot to click the “de-spam good guys” button before hitting the “delete spam” button.
Sorry.
Good policy.
Since no evidence can be found that CO2 affects the climate one way or the other this amounts to a positive thing for biodiversity.
To maximise biodiversity at the least cost we want to maximise the extent of the rainforest.
Not to prevent the use of resources within mind you. A single train line here. A single road there. A paddock in the middle somewhere engulfed by the surrounding jungle.
It is not these things which wipe out biodiversity.
Rather it is the practice of one mans property running flat up against another without a nice wide nature corridor in between.
They ought let exploitation go on within and buyback the equivalent amount of land on the fringes.
Never let anything more then 100m X 100m be cleared in any one place and have a four hundred metre buffer of jungle around that.
No burning ever.
“some kind of enviro-warrior”
In which case he might look something like this:
http://warriorlibrarian.com/PIX4/johnny2.jpg
And with such an hilarious pun, too!
Comedy’s loss I say.
No end in sight for my spamification – every single time I go in moderation, then someone has to fish me out, and akismet doesn’t seem to be learning.
Boo hoo.
Great post.
I think there ought to be some kind of overseeing body that could withdraw the operating charter of corporations behaving badly. Gunn’s should be wound up.
I haven’t heard anything from Rudd and co about the Tasmanian matter but on the deforestation initiative they have followed Bob Brown in calling it hypocritical.
Listening to parliament they were not given a copy by Turnbull’s office until after the beginning of Question time.
Top post Bernice.
I’m really angry about this. If Turnbull and Howard somehow imagine they’re capturing the votes of greenies like me with such a cynical exercise (Outsourcing environmental policy to Indonesia, FDB, that’s a great way to describe it), they are sadly mistaken.
TOOLS.
Sorry, it was Enemy Combatant who said that about outsourcing. Might be my next post title…
The photo in that link, Fatfingers, has made my skin crawl!
From: [email protected] 29th March 2007
That would indicate that anyone under 40 is not on Mr Turnbulls radar.
The quote shocked me when I heard it. Does anyone know if he is Rapture Ready?
Trackback
(Yes, EC, I stole your inimitable description of Turnbull’s stupid policy.)
Moderator: link fixed – tigtog
HOW BIG A DAM WOULD $200 MILLION BUILD?