Pulp Mill Controversy

One of the hottest topics in Tasmania is the proposed construction of a pulp mill in the north. Almost everyone is opposed to the idea, excepting people involved in the industry. Crucially, the government supports the mill. In fact, both state and federal governments have given the green light.

Gunns is the company proposing this. I checked on their website in an attempt to get some semblance of a balanced view. The section on the pulp mill boldly proclaims, “the world’s greenest pulp mill.” I could hardly believe my eyes at that. My information on the anti-pulp mill side comes from average Tasmanians, who can recite a litany of complaints. The biggest one is that the pulp mill will be an environmental disaster.

To start with, hardly anyone is convinced that Gunns cares about sustainability. Few people like the idea of chopping down Tasmania’s forests for pulp. This is already happening on quite a large scale, it seems, but the wood chips are currently being exported to Japan. (I’m told the Japanese make a killing off this, because they insist on low prices for the wood chips and then sell paper at a high profit. However, retirement funds are invested in this, so Tasmania can’t just stop easily. ) Many cars have a bumper sticker proclaiming “Save Tassie’s Forests!” or “Vote Green.”

The concerns don’t stop there. The proposal is for a mill that would pump polluted water into the Bass Strait, which separates Tasmania from mainland Australia. Gunns says the influence of toxins is “negligible” but the general consensus is that introducing toxins into the ocean and food chain is a lousy idea. Further concerns are over air quality, harm to endangered animals, and the vast amount of water needed. Environmental issues aside, other people are upset that the state government will be spending money on the infrastructure.

Thousands of people have participated in protests. There was even a student protest day here in Hobart, and the impression I gathered is that students were allowed to leave school for the event. I recently heard a news report that a poll was taken on what Tasmanians think should be the priority for government spending. A mere 1% replied the pulp mill, and a leader of the anti-pulp mill movement went on record as being surprised it was that high.

Here I must admit that I was not impressed with the pulp mill proponents in a television news report because they tried to paint peaceful protesters as terrorists. There was the footage of protesters with signs, not even saying anything. Yes, they weren’t moving when asked, but the man who said, “We have laws against terrorism” seemed ridiculous to me. Talk of creating jobs and economic growth is legitimate, but resorting to a brazen attempt to classify people who disagree with you as terrorists – a word with strong connotations and the ability to raise fear – is dodgy. (“Dodgy” is an Australian word that fits well here. It means questionable, with an implication of deliberate misuse.)

At this point it would be natural to wonder how the pulp mill ever got off the ground. This is the story I was told: the government was working on the review process, which involved looking at the environmental impact among other things. The president of Gunns did not like how long the review process was taking, so he called up his friend the premier. (The role of premier is more or less like a governor in the US.) The premier therefore drafted a new, shorter review process which omitted aspects of the original.

Following this, a letter to the editor appeared in the Mercury, Hobart’s newspaper. The author said that they applied for permission to put an addition on their house, but the Hobart City Council was taking a long time approving it. “Maybe,” the frustrated homeowner continued, “I should ring up the premier and see if he can speed things up.”

If this pulp mill goes ahead, it will be against the wishes of nearly all Tasmanians. Whether or not democracy and environmentalism can win remains to be seen.