“Over the last thirty years (Ed: 1970s – 2000s] the meaning of the word ‘wilderness‘ has changed and come under sustained attack. 

How has the term become so confused?  What can be done to reduce this confusion?

This book arose from the Ph.D. thesis ‘The Wilderness Knot’ (University of Western Sydney), and investigates the tangled meanings around ‘wilderness’.   This ‘knot‘ is comprised of five strands; philosophical, political, cultural, justice and exploitation.  ‘Wilderness‘ as a term is in a unique philosophical position, being disliked by both modernists and many postmodernists alike. 

The research uses participatory action research with Aboriginal people and conservationists and wilderness journals.  All scholars interviewed agreed that large natural intact areas (‘lanais‘) should be protected, though some did not call them ‘wilderness’.

Confusion declines when one can show that people hold many ideas in common.  ‘Mind maps’ are used to investigate the issues and to suggest ways forward to reduce confusion.  The idea of shared ‘custodianship’ or stewardship is suggested as a way forward.

This is a book for all those interested in saving and managing the Earth’s remaining large natural areas or wilderness.”

~ Haydn Grinling Washington, Ph.D  (2009).

 

Clicking on our document hyperlink below opens to an internal Adobe PDF document stored on this website, which has been downloaded from the University of Western Sydney’s publicly available website, so it resides in the public domain. 

This document is available in the public domain because that was the wishes of its author, the late Australian Environmental Scientist Haydn Grinling Washington – to share and promulgate the environmental philosophy of ‘Ecocentrism‘. 

This is the opposite of prevailing ‘Anthropocentrism‘ philosophy.  Human beings are NOT the central or most important entity in the universe, despite many arrogantly presuming they deserve to be.

 

The document comprises his complete Ph.D thesis submitted in 2006.   

Later in 2009, Haydn had his successful thesis published as a book entitled ‘The Wilderness Knot: Removing the confusion‘ in the form of a paperback in A4 size of some 386 pages in length, published by ‎VDM Verlag. 

The book version is currently still available to be purchased via reputable Internet resellers for a delivered price for about AUD$180.  These currently include FruugoAustralia.com and Amazon.com.

This website’s editor knew Haydn from a number of meeting events (2007-2009) within the Australian conservation movement particular to the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area and discussed his work and philosophies before Haydn’s untimely succumbing to bowel cancer in December 2022. 

Haydn wanted to share his environmental passion for respecting the values and wonder of wilderness, native habitat and its wildlife with as many people as possible.  He was not about fame and fortune from his many literary works (his prolific poetry and six books).   

Our editor was invited and attended Haydn’s funeral service at The Brahma Kumaris meditation retreat centre in Leura in the Blue Mountains in Australia on Thursday 22nd December 2022.   We counted about 150 attendees.  It was an opportune time to catch up with seasoned conservationists, although we would have wished for a different reason.  Haydn had attended this retreat on a number of occasions.

This is his Ph.D thesis in full, available to read and to download:

READ:  >The Wilderness Knot (thesis by Haydn Washington Ph.D 2006 UWS)  [This original 386-page PDF document is available for download free of charge, as were Haydn’s wishes].

 

 

Wollemi Wilderness Champion

 

Haydn Washington dedicated most of his adult life to selected environmental campaigns that affected him in eastern Australia about protecting wilderness areas from human harm, most notably the Wollemi wilderness in the northern part of the Blue Mountains region of New South Wales.  Haydn at the time lived nearby, so was this noble planetary Nymyism beyond his backyard?

What is wrong with that?  It’s such a selfless cause.

  

Haydn became the lead campaigner for this vast Wollemi wilderness region of 5,000 km².  He successfully saw it legally protected in 1979 as the Wollemi National Park.   

The Wollemi National Park was then in 2000 officially incorporated into the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area, respected as one of eight contiguous national park protected areas along with the Blue Mountains, Yengo, Nattai, Kanangra-Boyd, Gardens of Stone and Thirlmere Lakes National Parks, and the Jenolan Karst Conservation Reserve.

Tragically, two decades later from Saturday 26th October 2019 into January 2020 the custodial authority (NSW National  Parks and Wildlife Service of NSW (a misnomer) in cahoots with the New South Wales Rural Fire Service) stood back and allowed a private pile-burn off Army Road near Gospers Mountain inside the Wollomi wilderness get out of control and spread over days, weeks and months. 

That single ignition was allowed to blanketly incinerate the pristine Wollemi wilderness in its entirety – all 5,000 km², endangered Koala communities and all!   It was wantonly despicable neglectful act by the Wollemi NP’s and Blue Mountains World Heritage Area’s governmental custodian, NPWS.   

Indeed this is why we refer to the NPWS organisation as merely the NSW Parks Service; that’s all it is useful for, just servicing parks, as in urban parks and gardens. 

NPWS employs no ecologists, no botanists, no zoologists, no ornithologists, no geologists, and no environmental scientists like Haydn Washington; but only public servants. 

This is despite NPWS as a state government agency being delegated with supreme responsibility for the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area and all other national parks within the Australian state of New South Wales and their threatened and endangered ecosystems within.

Indeed defacto bush arson on a calamitous scale never before in Australia’s history by a anthropocentric governmental culture, having a total disregard and contempt toward Wilderness values.  

Haydn would have been utterly devastated. 

The entire loss of his favoured wilderness by preventable fire would have sapped him of energy and hope.  He lived next to it, knew it intimately by exploration on foot and down the length of the dominant wild Colo River by paddle.   One presumes the 2019 bushfire disaster of the Wollemi wilderness caused him immense grief and impacted upon his mental health. 

 

Did wiping out the Wollemi trigger Haydn’s heath demise? 

 

We think so.  The physical cause of cancer can emerge from psychological stress.  

‘Psychological stress‘ describes what individuals experience when they are under mental, physical, or emotional pressure. 

‘Stressors‘ are factors that can cause stress such as negative external factors that arise outside one’s control or influence, such as the total loss of one’s life work to protect a wilderness area and its ecology as an environmental scientist with a deep passion for its ecology.   Perhaps his psychological stress had become enduring and chronic, causing translating into physical harm.

Research has shown that people who experience chronic stress can have digestive problems, heart disease, high blood pressure, and a weakened immune system. People who experience chronic stress are also more prone to having headaches, sleep trouble, difficulty concentrating, depression, and anxiety and to getting viral infections.   The medical science is out (unschooled) on the causation of cancer from chronic psychological stress. 

But what is established is that chronic psychological stress can lead to many health problems.   A 2019 meta-analysis of nine observational studies in Europe and North America also found an association between work stress and risk of lung, colorectal, and esophageal cancers.   Even when stress appears to be linked to cancer risk, the relationship could be indirect.  For example, people under chronic stress may develop certain unhealthy behaviours, such as smoking, overeating, becoming less active, or drinking alcohol, that are themselves associated with increased risks of some cancers.   The condition may also prevent the body’s immune system from recognizing and fighting cancer cells. 

Three years hence in late 2022, Haydn died of cancer, a chronic disease, at aged just 67, before his time.    It is in this editor’s view that the government’s apathetic destruction of the precious Wollemi wilderness by bush arson that Haydn loved so dearly, contributed to the premature demise of his health.   

NPWS Blue Mountains Branch Director David Crust had the temerity to present himself at Haydn’s funeral, appropriately donned in a full blackened suit and said nothing.  The past Commissioner of the NSW Rural Fire Service, Shane Fitzsimmons who was in charge of the NSW 2019 Bushfire emergencies, including the Wollemi bushfire, did not attend.  

 

 

 

Further Reading:

 

[1]   Vale Haydn Grinling Washington Ph.D [1955-2022], >https://habitatadvocate.com.au/vale-haydn-grinling-washington-ph-d-1955-2022/  , (NOTE:  This article is a work in progress and so currently remains unavailable to access, however we expect to have it completed and accessible before the end of January 2023.)

 

[2]  ‘Stress and Cancer‘, National Cancer Institute, America, 202-10-21 , ^https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/coping/feelings/stress-fact-sheet

 

[3]  ‘Dr Haydn Washington’s literary works‘,  >https://habitatadvocate.com.au/dr-haydn-washingtons-literary-works/

 

 

New house for sale on the Blue Mountains Escarpment

featuring “Tasmanian Oak hardwood flooring”  as a key selling point.

[Photo by Editor, 20120111, Photo © under  ^Creative Commons]

.

Tasmanian Oak, which is typically abbreviated as Tassie Oak, does not exist as a real tree, but as a contrived timber flooring brand marketed to household consumers by the timber industry.

The trees sourced to produce Tassie Oak Flooring are from old growth Tasmanian native forests that are either Eucalyptus delegatensis (Alpine Ash), or Eucalyptus obliqua (Stringybark or Messmate) or else Eucalyptus regnans  (Mountain Ash or Swamp Gum).

Eucalyptus Regnans is the largest flowering plant and hardwood tree in the world.  Historically, it has been known to attain heights over 100 meters (330 ft) and is one of the highest tree species in the world. The tallest measured living specimen, named Centurion, stands 99.6 meters tall in Tasmania.

Eucalyptus regnans

before becoming someone’s Tassie Oak floor

.
Tasmania is well known to travellers looking for pristine beauty and unspoiled wilderness. Besides unique flora and fauna including the endangered Tasmanian Devil, it is also home to the giant Eucalyptus.  Tasmanian Tourism is all about marketing spin hiding the clearfelled old growth just out of sight of the tourist road.  Visit Mount Field and wonder over the majesty of the old growth, but dare not venture beyond to the tragic scale of wanton clearfell.

The reality is that  Australian Forestry Standard (AFS) “Chain of Custody” eco-label is an exploitative con by the timber industry.

On Forestry Tasmania’s website ‘Island Specialty Timbers’ at Geeveston claims to be a licensed Chain of Custody member, FTT CoC 08005, “which is your guarantee that all our raw material and products are Tasmanian fine timbers sourced from forests whose management is certified to the Australian Forestry Standard”.

 Only ‘sawlog’ sections of MATURE large hardwood trees are suitable for flooring

If there are no branch knots in the timber, then the timber has come from the trunks of  mature large hardwood trees.

Such trees are not from plantations, but from rare and disappearing forest habitat.

Forestry Standard AS 2796 ‘Sawn and Milled Native Hardwoods’ is the driving force for logging old growth habitat.

.

The supplier ‘Fine Timber Tasmania Inc.’ sells Tasmanian Myrtle (Myrtle Beech), Southern Sassafras, Leatherwood, Cheesewood, Musk, Blackwood, Eucalypt Burl, Figured Eucalypt, Huon pine, Celery Top Pine and King Billy Pine as ‘certified’.

The products of these ancient tree species are timber beams, posts, slabs and even raw logs – which simply can only come from old growth Tasmanian native forests.

Certification is AFS (Australian Forestry Standard) which has two separate standards

1. Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) Certification – Australian Standard AS 4708
2. Chain of Custody Certification (CoC) – Australian Standard AS 4707

.

The only benefit seems to be so that some developer and real estate agent can say hey your floorboards come from Tasmanian Old Growth and you are part of the problem; part of the Chain of Ecological Destruction, driving demand that sustains 20th Century Industrial Native Logging.

.

Tassie Oak Reality

Editor standing on a Eucalytus Regnans clearfelled in the Styx Valley

[Photo © Alan Lesheim 20110928]

.

“I wish to explore what remains for most – and has been for me – a terra incognita, a forbidden place, a heart of darkness that civilised people have long attempted to repress – that is, the wilderness within the human soul and without, in that living profusion that envelops all creation.”

.

~ Max Oelschlaeger, The Idea of Wilderness: From Prehistory to the Age of Ecology (1993)

.

Pinnacle of Mount Wellington, Tasmania

(Photo by Editor 20111001, free in public domain, click photo to enlarge)

.

In 2007, former United States Vice President Al Gore‘s campaign to educate citizens about global warming was portrayed in an award winning documentary film ‘An Inconvenient Truth‘.

The subject matter, global warming, has indeed become an inconvenient truth because the global scale of the problem is such that the powers that be have so far been finding it difficult to comprehend.  They have been told that it demands a response so systemic as to be transformational, which is highly inconvenient for them to say the least.  The transformational response is mostly inconvenient to the powerful vested interests in polluting industries that are key contributors to global warming – particularly oil, gas, coal, heavy manufacturing, transport and weapons industries.

.

‘Deluded Convenience’

.

On the flip side of  this inconvenience of the truth, powerful vested interests understandably, are hell bent on maintaining their convenient business as usual practices, choosing to ignore, reject and deny the truth.  It is their short term interests to do so, because change is expensive and threatens to diminish their power, influence and wealth.  But in the long term, by perpetuating practices that are shown to be damaging to the Earth’s climate, the  imperative of maintaining a convenient business as usual approach is a deluded one, as everyone will be adversely affected by global warming.   They are only deluding themselves.  Such harmful business-as-usual practice is a ‘deluded convenience‘.

Harmful business-as-usual practices that are contributing to global warming were once branded aspiringly in the 18th, 19th and 20th Centuries as ‘industrial progress‘.   The widespread Western culture from Western Europe and the United States has for over three hundred years idolised the ‘civilised’ advances of the Industrial Revolution, capitalism and economics.  Western economies now have many conveniences of lifestyle, but attaining them has caused considerable cost to societies and ecology.  Globalisation has destroyed family-based enterprises, local markets and village communities and caused wars and immense suffering.    Industrialisation has destroyed many forests, rivers, valleys, coastlines and species.  These have been the cost of convenience, the cost of civilisation; and we are now paying the price.

.

“It is fairly widely accepted today that environmental destruction ultimately becomes self-destructive as a sick and impoverished global environment in turn sickens and impoverishes the human members of that ecosystem.

..Why, despite warning signs from a stressed global ecosystem, mounting scientific evidence, and public education campaigns, does degradation of the environment continue to persist and mount?”

.

~ Catherine M. Roach, 2003, ‘Mother Nature: Popular Culture and Environmental Ethics.

.

Absolute environmental destruction above Queenstown, Tasmania

.

Bushphobia – a form of deluded convenience

.

Bushphobia is a composite term emanating from Australia, which combines two words ‘bush’ meaning the native forest and scrub environment of Australia’s unique animals and plants, with the non-clinical use of the term ‘phobia’.  Phobia (from Greek φόβος, phóbos: fear, phobia) is an anxiety association, a negative attitudes towards, a dislike, disapproval, prejudice, discrimination, or hostility of, aversion to, or discrimination against something.  Bushphobia is borne out of learnt acculturation adopting two distinct attitudes:

1. A deep fear of the bush due to its propensity to burn and cause horrific wildfires
2. A dislike of Australian native vegetation due to its wild untamed appearance which is so different to exotic trees and landscapes that have a more symmetrical and accessible character

An Australian native tree discriminated against by a pro-development Court ruling…because it may be dangerous

^http://www.savethetree.org/

 

In this case a discrimination against the bush, where the word ‘bush’ is an Australian term for native forest and scrubland.  Bushphobia was first used with its modern meaning in 2008 in the Blue Mountains in eastern Australia which represents an intolerance and prejudice against the natural Australian bush vegetation mainly because of its susceptibility to burning in the case of bushfires and the consequential fire threat to life and private property.

The combined meaning is to have a persistent irrational fear specific fear or loathing of the natural (bush) environment.  There are three classes of phobias: agoraphobia, social phobia, and specific phobia (Wood 521).  Bushphobia is a specific phobia associated with a fear of natural environment.

Bushphobia is a socially learnt fear and loathing toward the bush common amongst rural volunteer bushfire fighting organisations which is instilled in new recruits as part of the training tans assimilation process. Bushphobia has thus become a form of learned cultural prejudice amongst the rural fire fighting fraternity throughout Australia.  This attitude becomes deep seated and a motive to regard native forests, not as valued natural assets and habitat for native flora and fauna, but only as a combustible fuel that is prone to burn and thus a menace and ‘hazard’.  The standard myth conveyed about the bush that inculcates bushphobia is that if the bush is not destroyed and allowed to grow naturally then the bush will develop into an uncontrollable fuel that in the event of a bushfire will cause an horrific fire storm and Armageddon.  The issue of inadequate bushfire fighting capabilities is conveniently ignored.

Those who only see the bush through a bushphobic mindset desire to burn it, bulldoze it and destroy it at any opportunity when weather permits such action to be done safely.  Deliberate burning of the bush has become a ‘prescribed burning’ policy of Australian governments at both state and federal level attracting massive resources. In New South Wales prescribed burning is labelled ‘hazard reduction’.  History however has shown repeatedly that many prescribed burning activities frequently escape control lines an end up destroying vast areas of bush.

.

---

.

NIMBYism – a celebration of ‘think globally, act locally’

.

The maxim ‘Think globally, act locally‘ has long passed into the vernacular, urging grassroots activism where thinking about the health of the entire planet is translated into taking action at a local level in one’s own community.  The phrase has been originally attributed to Scottish town planner and social activist Sir Patrick Geddes FRSE [1854-1932].

Sir Patrick Geddes (c.1886)

.

At a time in the early 20th Century when industrialisation was dramatically altering the conditions of  social life, Geddes recognised the role of architectural amenity on urban life, particularly promoting the happiness, health and comfort of all residents, rather than focusing on roads and parks available only to the rich. He applied this in his design of Edinburgh, Tel Aviv and Bombay. Geddes was an advocate of nature conservation and strongly opposed to industrial pollution.  Some historians have claimed he was a forerunner of modern Green politics.   At a time of rapid urban growth, Geddes coined the term ‘conurbation’ observing how population growth was pushing large towns to merge into one continuous urban and industrially developed area. In Geddes’ 1915 book “Cities in Evolution” his advocacy of maintaining local character in urban planning is clearly evident:

‘Local character’ is thus no mere accidental old-world quaintness, as its mimics think and say. It is attained only in course of adequate grasp and treatment of the whole environment, and in active sympathy with the essential and characteristic life of the place concerned.’

.

Prominent American environmentalist and mountaineer David Brower [1912 – 2000] and founder of Friends of the Earth (FOE) in 1969 is believed to have been the first to applied the phrase ‘think globally, act locally‘ in an environmental context as the slogan for FOE.  Application of ‘think globally, act locally‘ maxim in this environmental context has manifest itself most prevalently when grassroots activism erupts as a result of inappropriate land use development threats.  Local residents opposing inappropriate development are following the thinking of Geddes by recognising the important value of local amenity to the health and happiness of local residents.  Developers are quick to deride the rights of local residents to defend their neighbourhood amenity, labelling them as NIMBY‘s – an acronym for the phrase “Not In My Back Yard“, first coined in 1980 by British writer Emilie Travel Livezey in an article ‘Hazardous Waste‘.

Nimbyism is used typically by proponents of a development to pejoratively describe opposition by neighbouring residents.  Nimbyism, however is simply acting locally to protect the values of one’s neighbourhood.  Standing by and watching an inappropriate development proceed is an option, but why stand by?  Residents who plan to live in a locality for some time and perhaps for the rest of their lives, have a democratic right and a say in what happens to their locality and this includes a say its preserving or changing the locality’s amenity and character.  It is about holding strong principles of community governance and valuing the rights of locals to participate in decisions that directly affect them.  Local residents are the stakeholders who will have to live permanently with a development and so are most deserving in having a louder voice in development decisions to balance corporate developers and their investors.

Amusing variants of NIMBY are:

• ‘NIMFYE’  =   Not In My Front Yard Either
• ‘NIMTOO’  =   Not In My Term Of Office [a favourite of politicians]
• ‘NITL’  =   Not In This Lifetime
• ‘NOPE’  =   Not On Planet Earth
• ‘NOTE’  =   Not Over There Either
• ‘GOOMBY’  =   Get Out Of My Backyard [Common in new suburbs that encroach on industrial sites or airports]
• ‘NIABY’  =   Not in Anyone’s Backyard
• ‘NUMBY’  =   Not Under My Backyard  (applicable to mining companies)

.

And this Editor’s favourite:

• ‘BANANA’   =  Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything

.

---

.

‘A recent report has found that nearly 80% of U.S. residents oppose any new development in their community. It’s the highest level of opposition recorded in the report’s six-year history, and the first time since 2008 that the amount of opposition has increased.’

.

[Source:  ‘As America Ages, NIMBYism Could Increase, by Nate Berg, The Atlantic Cities, 20111017, ^http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2011/10/as-america-ages-nimbyism-could-increase/306/]

 

 

Given that Nimyism is a developer term used derogatorily against residents who dare to question and challenge land use development , the counter-language on the side of residents is ‘property rights‘ and ‘planning democracy‘.  Many residents out of frustration with the local planning process decide to form an action group.  One organisation well experienced in this quest is Sydney-based Save Our Suburbs.

.

Save Our Suburbs

.

‘Save Our Suburbs (NSW) Inc is a non-profit & non-aligned group of residents, originally formed to fight against forced rezoning and over-development of Sydney’s suburbs. It has grown to include communities who are fighting for better planning and regulation on a range of development issues, including major infrastructure projects such as road tunnels.  Sydney’s beleaguered residents have been fighting an endless string of localised battles against increased density developments (‘urban consolidation‘) and badly planned developments such as unfiltered tunnel exhaust stacks. We have been fighting local councils about local rezoning and local developments, and state government departments about the lack of regulation and planning. Residents are usually the losers in these local battles.  If we want to effectively protect the environment and heritage of our suburbs, we need to take the fight beyond our local areas into the State Government arena.  This can only be achieved by organised and united residents. Save Our Suburbs (NSW) Inc has been formed for this very purpose.

.

 

Fundamental Objectives:

• Return Planning democracy to New South Wales, by allowing true consultation, and giving planning power back to local councils: The people should decide, not a Planning Dictator!
• End big developer donations to political parties: We want planning decisions based on merit, not on money!
• Save our property rights: Provide just compensation for loss of land, income or amenity, and for change of land use.
• End forced urban consolidation- allow sensible land release, with infrastructure funded by the government: Dump the failed planning policies, designed to favour big developers rather than the community.

 

Read More:  ^http://www.sos.org.au/

.

---

.

Bushphobia – a ‘case’ of deluded convenience

.

‘Our urban footprint is encroaching further and further into bushland. The amount of land used as space for community living is decreasing as urban settlements have sprawled. This is affecting the opportunities we now have to meet and interact as communities. The consequences of urban sprawl include a decline in the supply of affordable housing, increased bushfire risk for individuals and property and increasing impacts on the environment.’

Historically, much of the development in the Blue Mountains has encroached well into bushland with little regard for environmental impact and often without supporting infrastructure, such as sewerage and transport systems. This dispersed, sprawling development pattern along ridgelines has been added to by post war residential development, creating many of the ‘suburbs’, particularly in the lower Blue Mountains. As all available sites for new development dry up it is likely that existing urban areas will come under increasing pressure for redevelopment.’

[Source: Blue Mountains Council, ^http://www.sustainablebluemountains.net.au/imagesDB/resources/Paper14bOurFuture.pdf, p.4]

 

An example of current housing encroachment into bushland

Faulconbridge, Blue Mountains, New South Wales, Australia

[Source: Century 21 Real Estate, ^http://www.realestateview.com.au/Real-Estate/faulconbridge/Property-Details-buy-residential-2842241.html

.

A case in point involves the current issue about a significant native tree facing death due to the threat of housing development in the Blue Mountains village of Faulconbridge.

About midway along the conurbated highway corridor through the Central Blue Mountains lies the urban village of Faulconbridge.  Like all the other villages and towns along this highway, Faulconbridge residential housing ultimately backs on to the Blue Mountains National Park, which forms part of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.

 

Faulconbridge juxtapositioned to the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.

[Source: Google Maps]

.

A local resident action group in St Georges Crescent, Faulconbridge has been recently formed to try to save a significant native tree situated in its natural bush environment from being killed for housing development. The resident group, lead by local Faulconbridge resident Don Cameron, is simply called ‘Save the Tree‘ and a dedicated website has been designed and set up:  ^http://savethetree.org

 A mature native tree in a forest but on death row

 so that property developers can build a house or two.

 (St Georges Terrace, Faulconbridge, Blue Mountains, New South Wales Australia,

 Source: ^http://savethetree.org)

.

According the website, the subject tree has been listed on Blue Mountains Council’s Register of Significant Trees since August 1985 – #33.  The subject land site where the tree stands comprises remnant bushland including the significant tree as well as three locally rare Faulconbridge Mallee Ash trees (Eucalyptus burgessiana), which is a rare species of flora included on the Australian botanical list of Rare or Threatened Plants (ROTAP).

In early 2010, a development application for two dwellings on the site was submitted to council.  The proposal included the removal of a considerable amount of the remaining vegetation including the removal of the significant tree.   In that same year, numerous residents submitted objections to the development application.  As a result of Council’s notification process, fifteen submissions from local residents were received objecting to the development on the following bases:

• Removal of the significant tree from the site
• Clearing and loss of vegetation, including threatened
• Species of vegetation, and screening of the development
• Impacts on streetscape
• The lot should become public land
• Overdevelopment of the site and the bulk and scale of the development
• The proposed development is out of character with the surrounding development
• Proposed subdivision into 2 lots
• Loss of environmental features of the site
• Increased stormwater impacts and local flooding
• Pedestrian and traffic safety
• Reduced building setbacks

.

[Source: Blue Mountains Council, Ordinary Meeting of 28th June 2011, Section: ‘Using Land for Living’, Item 20, Ordinary Meeting, 28.06.11, p.212, 20. 11/85977. Development Application no. X/443/2010 for a detached dual occupancy consisting of a single storey dwelling and a two storey dwelling…Faulconbridge]

.

Council Planning assessed the Environmental Impacts of the proposed development as follows:

‘There are currently three (3) Faulconbridge Mallee Ash (Eucalyptus burgessiana) located on the subject allotment. This is a rare species of flora which is on the list of Rare or Threatened Plants (ROTAP) published by the CSIRO. While it is acknowledged that Eucalyptus burgessiana are a rare plant, they are not listed as a threatened species under either the Threatened Species Conservation Act or the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

‘There are also a number of other indigenous trees on the property including a large Eucalyptus Sclerophylla x Eucalyptus Piperita hybrid which is listed as a significant tree in DCP 9 Significant Trees.  The proposed development will result in the removal of much of the vegetation on the site including two (2) of the Eucalyptus Burgessianna and the significant tree.  The site also contains a number of significant rock outcrops which are identified by the LEP as a significant natural feature.’

.

The proposed development has been sited to avoid as far as practical impacts on those outcrops. In particular, it is noted that the development has been designed to ensure that both the dwellings and the vehicular driveways are predominantly clear of the two most significant features, being the outcrop adjacent the frontage with St Georges Crescent and the outcrop toward the centre of the lot.
Clause 44(4) provides a hierarchy for considering any adverse environmental impact which may result from any development. This clause requires that any development should be designed and sited so as to have no adverse environmental impact. However the clause goes on to provide that where an adverse environmental impact cannot be avoided and no practicable alternative is available, it is necessary to consider the proposed use of the land with reference to the zone objectives of the land. In this respect, while it would be possible to reduce the impacts if the development was confined to a single dwelling only, it is considered that there are no practicable alternatives that would allow all the rare species and the significant tree to be retained and at the same time, allow the permitted use as a detached dual occupancy.

.

It should also be noted that the significant tree has been assessed as not being viable for retention in any case as the result of extensive decay throughout the trunk. This matter is discussed in more detail in the body of the report.’

.

Biodiversity incremental degradation encouraged by Council Planners

.

The matters for consideration are:

‘ The need to prevent adverse impacts on the near pristine conditions of these subcatchments’

.

Council Planning Response: 

‘The proposed development is located on an existing vacant lot within the urban area. There will be a significant amount of vegetation removal but this is unavoidable to provide for development of this site. The site will be revegetated and landscaped.’

(Editor: ‘revegetated’ permits destruction of  native bushland in favour of creating an exotic urban garden complete with fertiliser and associated runoff).

 

Both dwellings will be connected to the sewer.

It is considered that the proposed development will not have any adverse impact on the condition of the Grose River Sub-catchment.

(Editor: What is ignored is the collective impact of multiple development applications on Blue Mountains biodiversity and catchments.  The planning guidelines fails to factor the collective death by a thousand cuts).

 

The proposed development is located clear of the areas of surface rock on the property and has been designed to minimise cut and fill by the use of drop edge beams. While the development will result in the removal of two (2) of the Rare or Threatened Plants listed trees, the site is not part of a contiguous area of bushland and it not considered that their removal will have a significant impact on the species.’

– – –

On 28th June 2011, following Blue Mountains Council’s planning assessment, councillors voted unanimously at a General Meeting to refuse the development application on the basis that it breached Council’s local planning laws.  The meeting was addressed by: Don Cameron, Robert Leslie, Rama Decent, Terry Barrett.

A motion was moved by Councillors Searle and McLaren that the Development Application No. X/443/2010 be refused on the following grounds:

 

1. The proposed development is contrary to the objectives for the ‘Living-General’ zone under LEP 2005 in that it does not maintain and improve the character of the area, or respond to the environmental characteristics of the site;
2. The proposed development, including the removal of the significant majority of existing trees and other vegetation from the site, will have an unacceptable adverse impact on the established landscape character of the locality;
3. The proposed development will have an unacceptable adverse environmental impact and is contrary to the provisions of Clause 44 of LEP 2005 in that it has not been designed and sited to minimise impacts on the rare species of plant Eucalyptus Burgessiana and the destruction of rock outcrops on the property;
4. The proposed two storey component of the development will be visually prominent and have an unacceptable impact on the existing streetscape when viewed from St Georges Crescent;
5. The proposed development is an over development of the site in terms of the height, bulk and scale of the two storey dwelling fronting St Georges Crescent;
6. The proposed development does not comply with Clause 2, Part 1, Schedule 2 – Locality Management within the Living Zones, of LEP 2005 by reason that the rear dwelling encroaches onto the 4 metre secondary street frontage setback to Adeline street, and the Council is not satisfied that the objection lodged pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 is well founded or that compliance with the standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances;
7. The proposed stormwater management measures proposed are not adequate, given the potential run-off from the proposed development of the land as a dual occupancy; and Confirmed Minutes Ordinary Meeting 28 June 2011, p.21 of 28
8. The grant of development consent will be contrary to the public interest.

.

 

Upon being put to the Council meeting, the motion was carried unanimously.

 

Not content with this unanimous decision, the owners of the site appealed against the Council democratic umpire, and in September 2011 the appeal case was heard by The Land & Environment Court of New South Wales.

Specialist arborists gave conflicting reports on the health and viability of the said tree, perhaps according to their respective client motivations. Yet the arborists of opposing parties were engaged as expert witnesses of the Court and so legally presumed to be independent. But legal presumption conveniently ignores contractual undertaking, so the evidence was likely biased to the respective parties.

In the interim findings, the Acting Senior Commissioner agreed that the tree could be removed, notwithstanding its status as a Significant Tree.  (Editor: for whose convenience?)

A final ruling on the case will be made after the applicants have submitted a complying landscape plan. One won’t be surprised if the ultimate outcome is from dense mature intact bush to a clearfelled, bulldozed site, and the Court will somehow justify this in favour of the property owners as it normally does.

More information and analysis on this case will be presented in future.

.

---

.

Further Reading:

.

[1]  ‘The Idea of Wilderness: From Prehistory to the Age of Ecology’, by Max Oelschlaeger, ^http://yalepress.yale.edu/book.asp?isbn=9780300053708

‘How has the concept of wild nature changed over the millennia? And what have been the environmental consequences? In this broad-ranging book Max Oelschlaeger argues that the idea of wilderness has reflected the evolving character of human existence from Paleolithic times to the present day. An intellectual history, it draws together evidence from philosophy, anthropology, theology, literature, ecology, cultural geography, and archaeology to provide a new scientifically and philosophically informed understanding of humankind’s relationship to nature.

Oelschlaeger begins by examining the culture of prehistoric hunter-gatherers, whose totems symbolized the idea of organic unity between humankind and wild nature, and idea that the author believes is essential to any attempt to define human potential. He next traces how the transformation of these hunter-gatherers into farmers led to a new awareness of distinctions between humankind and nature, and how Hellenism and Judeo-Christianity later introduced the unprecedented concept that nature was valueless until humanized. Oelschlaeger discusses the concept of wilderness in relation to the rise of classical science and modernism, and shows that opposition to “modernism” arose almost immediately from scientific, literary, and philosophical communities. He provides new and, in some cases, revisionist studies of the seminal American figures Thoreau, Muir, and Leopold, and he gives fresh readings of America’s two prodigious wilderness poets Robinson Jeffers and Gary Snyder. He concludes with a searching look at the relationship of evolutionary thought to our postmodern effort to reconceptualize ourselves as civilized beings who remain, in some ways, natural animals.’

.

[2]    Save Our Suburbs, ^http://www.sos.org.au/

.

[3]   Save The Tree, ^http://savethetree.org

.

Gunns’ must really be loaded to commit $2.2 billion on a pulp mill in Tasmania’s Tamar Valley.

Not many companies have that sort of money and certainly not in cash-strapped Tasy.   But with access to so much financial capital, why waste it on 20th Century logging?  Tasmania has so much economic potential using 21st Century thinking and think what a smart $2.2 billion could otherwise benefit Tasmania’s future, without 19th Century exploitation?

The money to build such a pulp mill has to come from somewhere and it appears Gunns’ may have found a financial joint venture backer in Finnish pulp giant, UPM-Kymmene Oyj.

[Source:   ‘Finnish firm UPM eyes stake in Gunns pulp mill‘, by journalist Matthew Denholm, The Australian, 20110209].

Gunns tries to claim that it’s motive is all about forestry jobs for Tasmanians.  But once UPM gets a foothold in Tasmania, check UPM’s record with jobs…

.

“In September 2008 UPM announced another cost reduction program that includes layoffs thousands of employees, and its Kajaani paper mill and Tervasaari pulp mill will be closed altogether. These will be the largest layoffs ever in Finland.

In March 2006 UPM announced a cost reduction program that includes layoffs approximately 3,600 employees, nearly 3,000 of those in Finland, and its Voikkaa paper mill in Kuusankoski was closed altogether. This was the largest single layoff ever in Finland. This is attributed[by whom?] to the worldwide overproduction of paper.

UPM announced the permanent closure of a large mill complex in Miramichi, New Brunswick on December 17 2007, citing economic pressures in the North American forest industry.”

 

[Source:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UPM_%28company%29 ]

.

Greg L’Estrange, Gunns’ replacement CEO for John Gay since July 2009, seems to be tasked with getting the pulp mill up and running no matter what the cost, no matter what spin doctoring efforts are employed to secure government approval.  Somehow his deal making has succeeded in government fast-tracking of the assessment process.

.

On 25th November 2010, Gunns released a statement to the Australian Stock Exchange stating that the pulp mill project remained on track. This is Gunn’s ‘do-or-die‘  single corporate strategy. It has no plan B. . L’Estrange’s initial ploy was to remove the motive driving Gunns’ key enemies.  Gunns’ declared a moratorium on native forest logging across Tasmania.  It was clearly a bid to secure Forestry Standard Certification, to comply with new Japanese buyer benchmarks; rather than any noble recognition of native forest conservation values.

.

Then  L’Estrange concocted Gunn’s Forest Statement of Principles and armed with this did a secret forest peace deal late last year with local greenie groups.  L’Estrange sold it as a new greener Gunns’ “working with environment groups to create a future without conflict.”  Consistent with strategy, the ‘Tassie Talks’ deal it was all about quelling Tasmanian public dissent and he quickly branded the deal pivotal to the Tasmanian forest industry and ‘historic’.  Be seen to be green! Whatever it takes! Except environmental groups deny they have given the green light to Gunns Tamar valley pulp mill by signing the deal. There’s that greenwashing term again – ‘sustainable‘.  It’s become an abused and hollow marketing euphemism really about corporate ‘financial viability‘ in the exploitation of natural resources.  Such corporations shy from using the term ‘triple bottom line’  any more, because it is harder to promote when one is only focused on the bottom line. And there’s fresh water demand of the mill and the marine effluent it will spew, which L’Estrange has tried to allay concerns claiming new pulp bleaching  technology promises to reduced toxic outflow of chlorine dioxide by some 40%.  Despite the promise of ‘stricter controls’ an expected 64,000 tonnes of effluent will still be released by the pulp mill into Bass Strait daily.  And it won’t harm marine life?

‘At its annual general meeting in November, Gunns told shareholders that modelling work showed the mill would have no impact on marine ecosystems, but Environment Tasmania said it was still concerned about the effect of up to 51 gigalitres a year of industrial effluent being discharged into the sea.’

[Source:   ‘Promise of greener hue to pulp mill at final hour‘, 20110304]

.

Securing Gunns’ shareholder backing, L’Etrange at Gunns’ recent annual general meeting, drew a line in the sand claiming the moratorium on native forest logging (the greenie forest deal) was now conditional on the Tamar Valley pulp mill going ahead.  If the greenies want to keep Tasmania’s native forests, they must agree on the pulp mill proceeding. The ‘Tassie Talks’ deal was always a loaded gunn deal.

“We believe that the development of the Bell Bay Pulp Mill will be the centrepiece of this strategy for the modern industry in Tasmania.”

[Source:   ‘Pulp mill key, says Gunns‘, by journalist Sue Neales, 20101125]

.

Of course it’s all rather reminiscent of Gunn’s heavy-handed power playing under John Gay.  The Gunns’ Board hasing changed; only its front man.  This latest greenwashing approach is one of image rebranding and loaded deals, all the while Gunns’ pulp mill strategy remains on track. L’Estrange plays good cop while the pulp mill unswervingly looms as Tasmania’s big bad cop.

.

Tasmania’s natural heritage is Tasmania’s future… whether dead in a museum like its Thylacene or alive and precious…is ultimately an existence decision for local Tasmanians.

Tasmania’s unique Celery Top Pine

[Source: Veronica Tyquin, WARRA (long-term ecological research)

http://www.warra.com/warra/research_projects/research_project_WRA108.html]

 

.

---

.

Update News Friday 20110311:  ‘Contentious pulp mill wins federal approval’

.

Yesterday L’Estrange must have earned his executive performance bonus following Labor’s federal Environment Minister, Tony Burke, announcing government approval for the pulp mill to proceed.  L’Estrange’s comment was that the decision brought certainty for proposed investors in the pulp mill project, now estimated to cost $2.3 billion, pre-cost blowout, pre-government subsidies. (‘Contentious pulp mill wins federal approval’, SMH, 20110311)

.
Upon gaining the final three environmental permits Gunns needs for the mill, Gunns shares rose 5.88% to close at $0.63.  (Finnewsnetwork.com.au, 20110311).  Certainly a ‘sustainable’ result for L’Estrange.
Gunn’s pulp mill will perpetuate 20th Century logging across Tasmania. It will continue to make Tasmanian rural communities dependent on one industry and vulnerable to the whims of one employer – Gunns.

.
Gunns’ spin is that the mill will only use timber from plantations, capitalising on the fact that those plantations were planted as a result of clear felling destruction of Tasmania’s rare native forests.   According to The Wilderness Society, Gunns’ wood supply deal with Forestry Tasmania commits it to supplying a million tonnes a year of native forest for the next twenty years. (‘Gunns’ proposed pulp mill, The Wilderness Society, 20110310)

.

So Gunns’ ‘plantation only’ claim is false and misleading.

.

The mill will spew odorous fumes downwind through the Tamar Valley forcing thousands of residents of this rural region to breathe polluted and toxic air and contaminate local horticultural producers such as vineyards.  The mill is forecast to consume fresh water equivalent of the combined use of all water users across Northern Tasmania, according to The Wilderness Society there. (‘Gunns’ pulp mill impacts – Environment, heritage, economy and community threatened, The Wilderness Society, 20100530).

.

Gunns’ mill is still set to spill 64,000 litres of toxic chlorine, dioxins and furans a day from its chemical pulping process into the Tamar River and downstream into Bass Strait.  That it will obviously pollute the surrounding waters, kill marine wildlife, poison and permanently contaminate marine habitat, and destroy the local fishing industry; Burke has still managed to find a way to approve the bloody mill!

“I’m only doing what my requirements are under the Act. We’ve got some very specific requirements on environmental approvals. I’m delivering on that.” – Tony Burke. (‘Milne: Pulp mill approval a corrupt process’, ABC TV Lateline, 20110310)

Burke in the same week, managed to push through legislation to allow Sydney’s Barrangaroo development avoid the cost of a heavy metals clean up, while at the same time stuck to the letter of the law with his approval of Gunns’ pulp mill.  Can there be no clearer display of pro-development bias? Laws for some!
But then Burke’s bias is predicable,  given he came to the portfolio from the other side of the fence, as Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries; and his quick rise from the NSW right faction.  (‘Gunns deal a shedding of responsibility, by Andrew Darby, The Age, 20110311)
According to federal Greens Senator Christine Milne responding on last night’s Lateline programme:

“There has never been a thorough and rigorous assessment (of the pulp mill) because Paul Lennon, former Premier of Tasmania together with John Gay, managed to pull it out of the proper assessment process (at State level), fast-track it through the Tasmanian Parliament…so what we have got here is a project that has been through a corrupt assessment process.”

Milne is factually correct.  There was no rigorous assessment of the Bell Bay site. The Tasmanian assessment process was corrupt, the community was denied a say, the democratic process was abused.  The mill has no social license to operate.  It is illegitimate and Gunns’ development actions are one of a corporate and political bully imposing its selfish shortsighted greed on Tasmania and Tasmanians.

.

Gunn’s Bell Bay pulp mill will not only degrade the region, but dominate the northern heart of Tasmania. On Google Earth it will show up like a festering sore poisoning a diminishing green forested Tasmania.

L’Estrange borrowed Labor’s classic dirty tactic of divide and conquer to stymie opposition and protests from Tasmanian conservation groups. His deal has seeded a split between conservationists and the Greens over the pulp mill.  He has lured local conservationists to compromise with the offer to  surrender Gunns’ contract rights to 220,000 cubic metres of native forest saw logs a year and to protect an extra 600,000ha of forests.  Even Labor’s appointed negotiator Bill Kelty has been brought in to clench a forest peace deal with select conservationists.  The Wilderness Society in Tasmania, together with Environment Tasmania and the Australian Conservation Foundation seem to be coming on board backing down on their opposition to the pulp mill.  They are now at odds with the Tasmanian Greens who are a little more savvy about the hollow politics and promises.

“It looks as though somebody wants to save some high conservation value forests, but is sacrificing the Tamar Valley to get them”, says Tamar Valley resident and mill opponent Peter Cundall.  (Greens v Greens on Gunns pulp mill, The Australian, 20110304)

Site of proposed Gunns’ pulp mill, Bell Bay, Tamar Valley

Photo:  http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/10/3160890.htm

.

.

---

.

The editor agrees with the following selected comments posted in The Australian to the article ‘Greens v Greens on Gunns pulp mill, 20110304:

.

By James McMaugh’:

“The mill will never be built. The people are opposed and are right not to trust Gunns. There will be a huge outcry and mass protests blockading construction. I will travel to Tasmania and so will many others to make sure of this. The proposal is dead.

It’s about time politicians listened to the people and business should too. You cannot run roughshod over the will of the people and they don’t want this mill. Overwhelmingly they don’t. It will cost more jobs than it creates and destroy the river. No, no and no to this mill.”

.

By ‘Chris B of Australia’:

“The only acceptable outcome is NO Pulp Mill at all in Tasmania. Gunns has no credibility and has proven time and again how they cannot be trusted by the community. I personally believe there is no place for a company like Gunns in Tasmania and they should make transition plans for their workforce to move to a sustainable industry.
The environmental groups willing to compromise the values and allow Gunns to sacrifice the Tamar Valley should be ashamed of themselves. Make no mistake, the pulp mill will completely and utterly degrade the environment of the Tamar Valley and Bass Strait, no matter which form it takes.”

.

By ‘SW’:

“ Senator Milne speaks for me. Thank you, Christine, for maintaining the rage. It certainly hasn’t died down here in the Tamar Valley.”

.

By ‘Robert of Adelaide’:

“ Same old argument of lack of development, growth, jobs, high crime etc. The same attitude is taken in the case of the Brazilian Rainforest as well. Where does it stop and what will we actually be left with in 100 years? Oh, that’s right, we won’t be here, so who cares… If people want employment, go to where the jobs are in the rest of the country and the world like everyone else is doing! And while you are working in places like Sydney, London, Beijing, Tokyo and Bangkok… reflect on how wonderful development has been for these these concrete infested cities! Then maybe we can appreciate what we have here.”

.

 

.

---

.

‘Green movement outguns Gunns’  [20110311]

.

…’Gunns had gone so far as to sue an elected politician, the Greens leader, Bob Brown.

“When I got the writ,” says Brown, “I knew better than to call the lawyers. The first thing I did was to call a press conference. Within 24 hours we had a candlelight vigil for democracy, in Hobart. It was like the Prague Spring.”

Ultimately, Gunns underestimated its opposition and its decision to sue backfired spectacularly.
Far from being cowed by the suit, Marr and his colleagues ramped up an environmental campaign the likes of which had not been seen in this country – targeting the Gunns bankers and shareholders, Japanese customers and European partners – which ultimately brought the company to its knees, decimating its market value and ousting its divisive chairman, Gay.

.
..It was left to the new chief executive, Greg L’Estrange, to concede defeat last September, and promise that Gunns would get out of native forest logging altogether. Despite this week’s federal approval of the mill, and the talks over a Tassie forests peace deal, Gunns is by no means out of the woods. A long, painful process of rebuilding trust with former enemies is only beginning.

.

Gunns was once a corporate powerhouse. A series of acquisitions in 2000-01 turned it into Australia’s largest export woodchipper, and No. 1 target for the environment movement.

..’A bulked-up Gunns put the pedal to the metal. This was logging on an industrial scale. Between 2000 and 2006, working with Forestry Tasmania, Gunns clear-felled 110,966 hectares of native forest, 90 per cent of the timber being used for woodchipping and 58% of the land making way for timber plantations.

“Gunns got unlimited amounts of other people’s money and went on a clearing binge,” says Marr.

The forest was clear-felled and waste burnt off using napalm-like incendiaries. Gunns used 1080 poison bait to protect seedlings, inflicting gruesome death on untold native animals and risking the health of forest workers.

.

Whether from strength or desperation, Gunns launched its ill-fated suit. The company’s shares hit their all-time peak a month later, at $4.38, and began to slide downwards.  The story of the Gunns 20 suit, which dragged on until last year and was ultimately settled at a cost to the company of $2.8 million – including $1.3 million paid to the Wilderness Society – has been well told. Perhaps less well understood is the international backlash the case triggered.

The decision in 2008 by the new ANZ chief, Mike Smith, to refuse finance for the pulp mill, quickly followed by the other big banks, was unprecedented in this country and followed a strong online petition campaign by the Wilderness Society and the online activist group GetUp!After a decade’s lobbying, Japanese paper-makers decided in February last year not to accept Gunns wood unless it was Forest Stewardship Council- controlled.

.

Shares in Gunns are off their lows but the company’s future remains uncertain. Bob Brown says if Gunns ”doesn’t survive – and I hope it does – it will be nobody’s fault except the board’s”.

.

[Source:  ‘Green movement outguns Gunns, by Paddy Manning, Sydney Morning Herald, News Review, p 6,

 

http://www.watoday.com.au/national/green-movement-outguns-gunns-20110311-1br8m.html]

---

.

References

.

[1] ‘Contentious pulp mill wins federal approval’, by Andrew Darby and Dylan Welch, 20110311, Sydney Morning Herald,  http://www.smh.com.au/environment/contentious-pulp-mill-wins-federal-approval-20110310-1bpt4.html]

.
[2] ‘Gunns’ proposed pulp mill’, The Wilderness Society, 20110310, http://www.wilderness.org.au/campaigns/gunns-pulp-mill
.

[3] Greens v Greens on Gunns pulp mill, by Matthew Denholm and Matthew Franklin, The Australian, 20110304, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/greens-v-greens-on-gunns-pulp-mill/story-fn59niix-1226015622300

.

[4] http://www.finnewsnetwork.com.au/archives/finance_news_network17216.html

.

[5] Photo: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/10/3160890.htm

.

[6] http://www.watoday.com.au/national/green-movement-outguns-gunns-20110311-1br8m.html

– end of article –

Why did Gunns abandon its respected local north coast hardware business to greedily exploit Tasmania’s irreplaceable natural forests?

Gunns board’s single decision sought to selfishly exploit Tasmania to its core and will go down in Tasmania’s history as the worst for all participants and for all Tasmania and Tasmanians.  Gunns only divided a community that traditionally has sought subsistence from its valuable natural asset…because Gunns was greedy, not responsible, not acccountable to Tasmania or Tasmanians!  Now the Board says its proposed Bell Bay Pulp Mill in the Tamar Valley “is critical to any strategy for achieving a modern Tasmanian forest industry.”  [Gunns media release 25-November 2010].  High values forestry is not about woodchips to Asia.  How does woodchip commonity distinguish the Tasmanian export product?  Small selected timber for custom crafted timber furnitur, but this is not an industrial scale business model.

If Gunn’s has access to $2.5 billion to build a destructive and unwanted pulp mill, think of the lost opportunities of that $2.5 billion to other investment projects that could instead make a genuine difference to Tasmanians and their Island State.

“Even if Gunns gets its pulp mill, we will stop them selling their pulp by uthe same method we stopped them selling their woodchips. We will badger the buyers and embargo goods all the way down the product line. After a while no one will touch it.”

[Source: ‘Rod’, a valued contributor to Tasmanian Times, 5th December 2010, http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/greens-warn.-gunns-threatens.-premier-promises/]

Peter Cundall AM, a horticulturalist and television personality in Australia.

He currently lives in Tasmania’s Tamar Valley,and is prepared to defend important habitat to the point of being arrested.

Hale Peter Cundall!