Gunns Pulp Mill - 3 Conditions yet to be approved

[girliejones]

Peter Garrett has approved 13 of the conditions for the go ahead to the Gunns Pulp Mill but has requested detailed impact studies for 3 remaining conditions, related to the marine environment.

The Forest Industries Association of Tasmania (FIAT) said it was disappointed with Mr Garrett's decision

Comments

[flinthart]

It's not just the goddam effluent hazard. It's the stated fact, from Gunns own material, that the mill will require as much fresh water per annum as is used by both Launceston and Devonport put together. In a state where rainfall has been declining and the hydroelectric scheme is in trouble due to low storage, one has to question how the fuck they're going to source the equivalent of a city of a hundred thousand people or so from the water supply system.

In perspective: the whole state has about a half million people. The pulp mill is going to use roughly as much fresh water as a full twenty percent of the population.

Where's that coming from?

[girliejones]

That's not one of the conditions waiting for approval though is it? I've been part of the process of something very similar to this and ... I don't hold out much hope.

[flinthart]

No. It's not. It's already a given. It's just accepted. Which makes me shudder.

[crankynick]

Leaving aside this particular instance (which is a special kind of nasty, all on its own), I don't think the precautionary principle is particularly good science.

I think it's an excuse NOT to do things - I fundamentally think that's a bad way to do science or progress society, and represents a kind of conservatism I really don't like.

The precautionary principle asks people to prove that something new cannot do harm - rather than weighing the potential risks and potential benefits and making a balanced decision about whether it's a good idea or not. I'm OK with policy decisions being made when the line is drawn on the conservative end of risk/benefit analysis - but I think requiring proponents to prove something can't do harm before approving is a shithouse way to develop public policy.

[girliejones]

Well no ... I think it's important to own our decisions and motives. The precautionary principle directs you to act within the realm of known effect. If we want to do something for economics or political reasons *despite* not being able to predict whether it will fuck up the environment or the world, lets just be honest about why we do things, is all.

The condition that the mill would be being asked to meet would probably be to show the effects or potential impacts of the proposal so we can properly weigh that up against the benefits, But we should at least be able to do that maths.

It would be nice to think this was an exceptionally different case. But it's not.

[girliejones]

And not that I am on a soapbox or anything but these companies expect to be allowed to earn billions of dollars in profits but baulk at spending relatively small amounts in comparison to do the proper environmental reporting that they are required. In this case, they *could* have paid more money to get proper hydrodynamics modelling done so that there would be information upon which to make a decision but they didn't so they could try and push this through quicker and with less information and commitments to have to meet. They will miraculously produce the information on time and deal with this I reckon within 18 mths

The use of the precautionary principle here is code/subtext - you don't want to do the work and show the information, then the PP demands we stand on the side of caution. Or .. you know .. do the work and answer the questions.