sydney alternative media - non-profit community independent trustworthy

Monday, 8 October 2007

Mainland corporations are killing Tamar Valley and Tas forest?
Mood:

blue
Topic: ecology

Why should mainlanders be concerned about the environment in Tasmania when we have big problems here including over consumption by rich folks, and destruction of Botany Bay? Because it's the same over consumption/poor governance driving both, so the problem there is the same thoughtless problem here. We spent 6 hours yesterday separating waste at a community market - turning 6 bins of general waste into 2 recyclables, 2 compostables, and 2 unusable plastics or similar. Sounds like grovel but actually it was an uplifting social interaction that people enjoyed.

This is the change we have to see in all of society regarding issues of sustainability. And the social lesson was, it wouldn't have happened despite signage without external intervention by this agent of the centre management at Addison Rd Community Centre because people are thoughtless, lazy, ignorant or in a hurry.

It takes intervention to protect the environment. Here is an instructive deconstruction of the false Wentworth versus Tasmania debate amongst environmental locals of demonstrated goodwill over many years:

.....................

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 6:49 AM

Subject: 'mainland' overconsumption is exactly the point with Gunns pulp mill also Re: Tasmania, all 500K population massively subsidised by .... mainlanders e.g. Wentworth? Re: PULP MILL AND BOTANY BAY

Just to clarify a few things here ....

In fact Tasmania has the largest per capita land clearing rates (read over consumption) in Australia in fact, and that's saying something with 2M Ha cleared in NSW in the last 12 years out of 80M full area, and Qld very likely same crude area of ha cleared. Source is Prof Jamie Kirkpatrick and others eg ABC Earthbeat programme now slashed. One needs to recall that profits from ANZ (main lenders), Perpetual Trustee (15% owners), and probably super funds and others, all mainland institutions, are keystones to the Gunns pulp mill proposal.

The idea that it's a 'Botany Bay-overconsumption in Wentworth' versus 'parochial Tasmanian rights to economic development' doesn't ring true to me. Actually the over consumption here is the exploitative financial backing for Gunns there too as outlined above in the corporate financial food chain.

Both need sustainable management not either or. I take a far more sophisticated view and the green movement need to pick up their game too. When Senator Brown says its evil he is no fool and its based on a good 30 years of know how. It's no surprise to me as an ecologist that it's all connected and that your point on overconsumption actually reinforces why Gunns pulp mill is bad.

This is a similar false debate about land clearing as 'the real issue' not Tas forest protection in the last 2004 federal election, as per Woodford of SMH and WWF big adverts versus TWS and a 100 top scientists and the rest of the green movement on Tas forests.

And climate change concerns causing ocean level rise ...in Botany Bay just reinforces the convergence of all this socio-economic connnectivity on sustainability problems. There is a very similar demarcation debate with Cape York economic development versus conservation agenda of wild rivers going on too but also a false debate forced on little people by Big Capital and ruthless Howard Govt who broke his election promise 96 and 98 to fund economic sunrise industry sectors with $40M so the Cape York Land Use reconciliation package became a dead letter. Noel Pearson was thus forced to play Howard's welfare reform agenda. It's all very nasty, deathly stuff.

I explain alot more of it here:

Sunday, 7 October 2007

Sunday political talkies: New rodent species Howardensis discovered in forest, eats giant freshwater cray Malcontensis
Mood: party time!
Topic: election Oz 2007

There are some really good pictures in there you might enjoy. Thus endeth the rebuttal grasshopper!

Yours truly, Tom

PS note Ingrid Strewe feedback, new Mayor of Waverley below in the string.

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 10:15 PM
Subject: Fw: Tasmania, all 500K population massively subsidised by .... mainlanders e.g. Wentworth? Re: PULP MILL AND BOTANY BAY

Hi Tom
I neglected to comment on this line:
Truth be told Taswegians should be asking the rich people in Wentworth permission to go ahead because chances are they pay more tax dollars into Tasmanian services than anyone else. At least the companies they own do.
The ACF commissioned study - reported front page of the Herald in August - concluded that the largest proportion of an individual's ecological footprint came from consumption of goods. The bigfoots were found to live in areas like Wentworth while Tasmanian was the state with the had the lowest ecological footprints. Instead of singling out the loggers and miners what about looking at the complexity of the individual footprint.
Cheers, Lynda

From: [Ingrid Stewe, Mayor of Waverley]
To: "ecology action australia"
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2007 10:59 AM
Subject: Re: Tasmania, all 500K population massively subsidised by .... mainlanders e.g. Wentworth? Re: PULP MILL AND BOTANY BAY

> Quite right.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 5:55 PM
Subject: Tasmania, all 500K population massively subsidised by .... mainlanders e.g. Wentworth? Re: PULP MILL AND BOTANY BAY

The best simple answer to this furphy is Tasmania is significantly subsidised by mainland Australian taxpayers, including sadly via over exploited Botany Bay. This tin pot 'parliament' no bigger than Sutherland Shire in population of about 500K population live off our backs here in NSW and especially WA and Qld eg the massive subsidy to the Mersey Hospital being the latest, but uneconomic broadband and everything else we subsidise from the mainland too. If you really want to hear squealing, we could make Tasmania fully pay it's own way, then we could expect to hear, help help help federation, federation, equal services, equal funding, citizenship rights etc.

If taxpayer hypothecation came into it we would have Tas Parliament located somewhere between Perth and the Kimberley from mining profits because that's what keeps them financial. And just consider all the financial subsidies from Tasmania's 'gubberment' to the loggers is in turn subsidised from the mainland when we mainlanders put into their consolidated revenue. Truth be told Taswegians should be asking the rich people in Wentworth permission to go ahead because chances are they pay more tax dollars into Tasmanian services than anyone else. At least the companies they own do.

In other words this very selective parochial state based sovereign exclusion argument is complete opportunistic bullsh*t. Any mill that chews 4 millions tonnes of natural forest a year in our country is evil and the rest of Australia has a duty to object. Though we should look after Botany Bay too. No doubt.
Cheers Tom McLoughlin
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2007 4:40 PM
Subject: PULP MILL AND BOTANY BAY

DEAR ALL
This letter appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald today:
I find the opposition to the Tasmanian pulp mill by people in other states to be hypocritical. Why don't you clean up that stink hole you call Botany Bay before sticking your nose in the industrial development of other states?
Tasmania is by far the cleanest state in this country and will continue to be so even after the pulp mill is built.
Brett Rutherford Devonport (Tas)

Regards,
Lynda Newnam
www.botanybay.info
protecting environment = protecting people

Posted by editor at 8:53 AM NZT

Updated: Monday, 8 October 2007 9:15 AM NZT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Comments Page

View Latest Entries

«	October 2007					»

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31