Letter to Penny Wong

Hon Penny Wong
Minister – Climate change and water
28 November 2007

Climate and water threats presented by the pulp mill

Dear Minister,

Congratulations on being returned to government. Your position is of vital importance to Australia, and the world and we wish you success.

Our organisation, A Better Australia, has been representing a number of community-based groups in understanding the impacts and costs of the pulp mill proposal. If the mill is to go ahead, we believe that all of its considerable implications need to be known prior to it being built. We write to ask that you commission a complete study of the climate change and water impacts of the proposed pulp mill so that effective decisions can be made about our future. None of this information was studied during the Howard/Lennon collapsed process.

Contrary to the claims of the mill operators, it is clear that the mill would have a massive impact on carbon storage. The proposed clearance rate for pulp alone is about 200 sq km per year (20,000 ha) to be clear felled and napalmed. Additional clear felling for chip production will add another 100 – 150 sq. km/yr of clear felling and burning. Smaller trees will be used as fuel for the mill’s own power station, assuring that all stored carbon in that 200 sq km will be released except what is retained in the pulp.

Note that the community in Tasmania does NOT see the mill as an issue for the Environment Minister. That appears to be an orchestrated perception to dismiss opposition as ‘Green’, and also because only the Wilderness Society and Greens have the funding to argue the case publicly. The community’s tax money has been used by Paul Lennon to help fund the mill proposal leaving the community with no resources and without a voice.

The socio-economic issues alone should have stopped the proposal dead in its tracks except for the gross corruptions of process and representation that have left over 70% of impacts out of consideration. The State’s method has left out all costs, impacts and risks and only explored the positives which is an absurd methodology that most people wouldn’t even apply to the purchase of a car, let alone a massive industry. It exposes everyone to far too many risks.

We do not propose a mill at Hampshire either because it does not address socio-economic, water and climate concerns. Any such proposal would also violate due process yet again.

I trust that you find the materials useful and informative. We can answer queries and supply further information should you require.

Sincerely,

A Better Australia