No Pulp Mill - Talking points

ANZ is party to the \'Equator Principles\'. That means they\'ve agreed to not finance projects that are not socially and environmentally responsible. You may like to tell the ANZ:

- financing the pulp mill is not an ethically, environmentally or economically responsible decision, and would be against the spirit of the Equator Principles
- if you are an ANZ customer, shareholder or staff member and how this decision would affect that (your views are equally valid as a member of the public also)
- the bank has an opportunity to create a good image for itself by not financing this unpopular development

Below are the original talking points for submissions to the government inquiry, which you may also find useful:

Federal Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull allowed ten days for public comment on his interim decision to allow Gunn’s pulp mill, before making a final decision on whether or not to approve the proposal and, if so, under what conditions.

The ten-day period ended on the 31st August.

Gunns is an incredibly powerful lobbying voice that has largely influenced the Tasmanian Government for the past two decades. At a Federal level, politicians are concerned any action against Gunns will cost them Tasmanian votes. That’s why it’s vital we remind them that they answer to us, and no-one else.

What’s wrong with the pulp mill?
The proposed pulp mill is a major threat to Tasmania’s pristine environment and economy. It will wreak havoc on the tourism, fishing, agriculture and wine industries in the area, and do untold environmental damage. Independent economic analysis even shows, contrary to Gunns’ claims, that the mill will destroy more jobs and wealth than it creates. It will substantially increase greenhouse gas emissions and mean more clear-felling of Tassie forests.

What should I say?
The Minister is required to consider whether a proposed development will have a significant impact on matters of national environmental significance, and his interim decision focussed on the threat to threatened, migratory and marine species. You may also like to comment on:

• the environmental impact of the mill, including:
  • the poisoning of Bass Strait from the 64,000 tonnes of daily effluent containing harmful dioxins and furans;
  • the air pollution (including carcinogenic pollution and odours) from the plant and its damaging health effects on the local population and industries;
  • greenhouse gas emissions, both directly from the mill and as a result of the logging that will feed it
    
    
• effects on local wildlife, including wedge-tailed eagles (which nest in the area), Tasmanian devils, Swift parrots, bandicoots and quolls. Marine life affected will include fish, lobster, abalone, scallop, sharks, whales, seals, and dolphins
  
  
• the approval process has been completely inadequate, with heavy interference and pressure from Gunns, who ultimately walked away from the process
  
  
• the proposed conditions on the mill are equally inadequate – with no fines or shutdown in the case of a breach of the conditions
  
  
• the economic impact on the tourism, agriculture, fishing, organic farms and wine industries. Tasmania’s economic future depends on its ‘clean, green’ image, and economic analysis even shows that the mill will destroy more jobs and wealth than it creates.

the mill is moved to the more suitable Hampshire site

the mill is fed entirely by plantation timber

the plant uses a closed-loop system for effluent, not dump it into Bass Strait

the mill is entirely chlorine free -- not simply Elemental Chlorine Free as Gunns is proposing

Further reading:

Department of Environment and Water Resources invitation to comment --
http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/notices/assessments/2007/3385/invite-comment.html

The Australian – “Pulp fiction”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22290468-28737,00.html

The Monthly – “Gunns: Out of Control”
http://www.themonthly.com.au/excerpts/issue23_excerpt_002.html