boycott gns and amp cba and friends , page-13

No I have an honours degree and 10-years exp in env management (managing native forests) - not saying i am a know-it-all, just pointing out that I am not ignorant to facts and logic as per the previous poster's suggestion.

And yes I would support a smaller scale pulp mill in a different location (but still in Tas), that was assessed fully under the usual/standard RPDC assesment criteria. Including vital issues such as timber supply, forest impacts, toursim impacts and social issues.

The planned pulp mill is in a stupid location - the area is reknown for inversion layers that develop over the Tamar Valley so pollution can't escape (ever been there in winter?). And I also don't think putting a pulp mill in a tourist area makes sense either.

But my main gripe is with timber supply - which hasn't been assessed at all (is meant to be done by State gov - but they omitted it from their special fast track assessment!). So what happens if down the track they realise timber supply is becoming a problem - do you think they will stop using the massive (over sized for Tas) 2billion$ pulp mill. No way! Too big an investment. They will simply log more native forest to feed it. That is my main concern and should have been assessed in the State Gov approval. One of CSIRO's top forest scientists is on the record with the same concerns. And it is not an area that the Feds are allowed to rule on (i.e. a state issue - but the state removed it from the assessment!)

They should have jsut had a full state assesment and all these issues could have been addressed. Instead we are now left in fear of the unknown which is not good enough - especially for such a major proposal of this scale!