Defending Tassie forests
Saturday, July 17, 2010
By Melanie Barnes
The crisis in the forest industry has provided an opening to end the decades-long fight about how forests are used in Tasmania.
I’m a climate change activist and have lived in Hobart for five years. During that time, I’ve been involved in the campaign against the Gunns’ pulp mill, through the group Students Against the Pulp mill. More recently I’ve been a member of Climate Action Hobart.
I’m running as a candidate for the Socialist Alliance for the seat of Denison in the August 21 federal election.
The “forest issue” is often what people think of when Tasmanian politics is mentioned, and for good reason. Who can forget the images of then Coalition prime minister John Howard being cheered by 2000 logging workers in the 2004 election after he announced old-growth logging would continue indefinitely?
The then Labor leader Mark Latham said: “No policy issue or set of relationships better demonstrates the ethical decline and political corruption of the Australian Labor movement than Tasmanian forestry.”
He was referring to the Labor Party in Tasmania and the forestry sector of the Construction Forestry Mining Energy Union, which had completely aligned themselves with the unsustainable forestry industry — and in particular with the main destroyer of Tasmanian forests, Gunns Limited.
What is often not told is what happened to those workers cheering Howard. With the onset of the global economic crisis and the demand for woodchips plummeting, many lost their jobs. Gunns was more than happy to use workers to defend profits, but ruthlessly shed those same workers when it suited.
The forestry industry is now in deep financial trouble. There is talk from the government about “reforming” or “restructuring” the industry. In May, the state Labor government gave a $3.6 million “assistance package” to forest contractors to continue business as usual.
These corporate bailouts do nothing to restructure the industry for the long term, or to help workers to leave the industry and retrain to find sustainable jobs.
The crisis in the forest industry has provided an opening to end the decades-long fight about how forests are used in Tasmania.
Community pressure led to the government calling talks between environmentalists and the industry, but these talks have been going on between closed doors, without community input.
There is a fear that negotiations could include trading government support for a plantation-based pulp mill in return for an end to logging in high conservation value forests.
The conservation groups chosen to take part in these talks cannot make decisions for the rest of Tasmanians; negotiation should be public, so that everyone can be part of decisions about the future of the forest industry.
Protection of forests in Tasmania is a national issue because forests are needed to reverse the damage of climate change. A study by the Australian National University into the carbon storage of Australian forests found that eucalypt forests of Victoria and Tasmania could contain more than 1200 tonnes of carbon per hectare.
A sustainable forestry industry would have to include:
• an end to logging in high conservation value forests, which destroys ecosystems and carbon banks needed to deal with climate change;
• a ban on wood-fired power stations that use wood from native forests;
• no pulp mill, not even one using plantation trees; and
• a sustainable plantation industry that doesn’t use chemical spraying or monoculture.
Forests are natural resources that should be used in the public interest. Tasmania’s forests should be put under the democratic control of all Tasmanians. When it comes to our environment, the interests of people and the planet should be put ahead of profit.
Showing posts with label Forests. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Forests. Show all posts
July 27, 2010
March 09, 2010
Socialist Alliance Announces Forest Policy for 2010 State Election
The Socialist Alliance has given its full support to call to immediately to protect Tasmania's native forests, by adopting in full Climate Action Hobart’s Step 2 in its ten steps for a safe climate as its official Forest Policy for the 2010 election, which is as follows:
“The Tasmanian Government must act immediately to protect Tasmania's native forests as permanent and resilient carbon stores. This would include immediately ensuring that no new logging operations take place in intact natural forests in Tasmania, and commissioning a fully independent accounting methodology for carbon emissions and storage associated with current forestry operations in the State. Recognising that protecting forests in this way will require changes in employment patterns and new skills, a core element of this initiative is for the Tasmanian Government to work with the whole community to devise a genuine and community-owned transition strategy for the forestry industry, to preserve employment during and after a switch from large-scale logging native forests to existing plantations and other activities.”
Socialist Alliance Candidate for Denison, Mel Barnes stated “We think the step as outlined is best way to deal with what is described as the “forestry conflict”. If we are to achieve a safe climate, we need to ensure that no new logging of natural forest occurs, which will immediately reduce Tasmania’s carbon emissions. We know from previous studies that Tasmania’s forests are amongst the most carbon dense in the world, a fully independent study, however would give us the full picture of how much carbon is stored in our forests.”
Barnes continued, “We are proud to be a working class party, which supports working class Tasmanians, so recognizing that a just transition is necessary for timber workers and communities sustained by native forest logging, is incredibly important. We believe it is possible and necessary for workers to support a “genuine and community-owned transition strategy for the forestry industry” and we will seek to convince workers of this.”
The Socialist Alliance also calls on all other parties to adopt this step as their forest policy for the coming elections
Melanie Barnes 0423 978 518
Authorised by Susan Austin, 225 Murray St, Hobart, 7000.
9th of March 2010
“The Tasmanian Government must act immediately to protect Tasmania's native forests as permanent and resilient carbon stores. This would include immediately ensuring that no new logging operations take place in intact natural forests in Tasmania, and commissioning a fully independent accounting methodology for carbon emissions and storage associated with current forestry operations in the State. Recognising that protecting forests in this way will require changes in employment patterns and new skills, a core element of this initiative is for the Tasmanian Government to work with the whole community to devise a genuine and community-owned transition strategy for the forestry industry, to preserve employment during and after a switch from large-scale logging native forests to existing plantations and other activities.”
Socialist Alliance Candidate for Denison, Mel Barnes stated “We think the step as outlined is best way to deal with what is described as the “forestry conflict”. If we are to achieve a safe climate, we need to ensure that no new logging of natural forest occurs, which will immediately reduce Tasmania’s carbon emissions. We know from previous studies that Tasmania’s forests are amongst the most carbon dense in the world, a fully independent study, however would give us the full picture of how much carbon is stored in our forests.”
Barnes continued, “We are proud to be a working class party, which supports working class Tasmanians, so recognizing that a just transition is necessary for timber workers and communities sustained by native forest logging, is incredibly important. We believe it is possible and necessary for workers to support a “genuine and community-owned transition strategy for the forestry industry” and we will seek to convince workers of this.”
The Socialist Alliance also calls on all other parties to adopt this step as their forest policy for the coming elections
Melanie Barnes 0423 978 518
Authorised by Susan Austin, 225 Murray St, Hobart, 7000.
9th of March 2010
February 13, 2010
Climate Change
Tasmanian Climate Change policy.
A response to Climate Action Hobart’s “Ten Steps for a Safe Climate Future”
Jan 2010
Two of the four key campaign priorities are:
· Tasmania to lead the way on climate change by protecting old growth forests, achieving 100% renewable energy by 2020 and stopping subsidies to big polluters
· Public transport – free and frequent local buses or light rail, fast-speed trains not more Midland highway lanes.
Socialist Alliance activists who participate in Climate Action Hobart were involved in the development of Climate Action Hobart’s 10 Steps for a Safe Climate Future. The Socialist Alliance broadly endorses the Ten Steps and regards it as a fantastic development for the state and for the movement against climate change. The Socialist Alliance makes campaigning against climate change a priority and launched our own national “Ten Point Climate Action Plan” as part of our first Climate Charter in 2007, which was updated in 2008 and is again under revision, in line with developments in science and the movement.
In regard to Tasmanian policy, the following document will clarify which Steps the Socialist Alliance has adopted in full, as well as those with which we have some minor disagreements. There are also some policies within the ten points that we agree with but have adopted more ambitious targets for. These have been adopted after extensive discussion and collaboration with environment groups (like Beyond Zero Emissions) and after being debated at national decision making conferences of the Socialist Alliance. In some cases we have adopted additional policies which address the objectives of the Steps, so we have also referenced them for your information.
Step 1:
Carbon neutral by 2050
We agree. Our latest national conference resolution includes:
The threat of runaway climate change caused by rising carbon emissions emanating from human industrial and agricultural activity is the greatest threat to the continued existence of human civilisation of our era. Increasingly alarming scientific predictions only further dramatise the urgent need for governments internationally to take immediate action to move to a zero-emissions economy and reduce greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere.
The Socialist Alliance calls for a just transition to a carbon-neutral economy.
60% by 2020 over 1990 levels
The following policy was adopted in 2007: Aim for 60% overall emissions reduction, including 95% power station emissions reduction by 2020 and 90% overall emissions reduction by 2030.
In the updated 2008 version of the Climate Charter these targets were strengthened by replacing that sentence with: Implement immediate emission reduction targets with the aim of reducing net emissions to zero as soon as practicable, with a goal of achieving 100% of power from renewable sources by 2020.
At our branch meeting 28/1/10 we clarified our position on targets – we agree with 60% by 2020 over 1990 levels and push for net zero carbon emissions by 2050 or as soon as possible.
Detailed, transparent plan with annual targets from 2010 on
We agree. Our climate charter says:
Introduce annual reduction targets of at least 5% to ensure that these targets are met.
We propose immediate economy-wide and sector-by-sector planning for all greenhouse gases, to meet these targets on time or before. We must establish mechanisms to review and change these targets as scientific forecasts are updated.
Businesses, local councils and government departments should all be required to commit to reducing their overall GHG emissions to zero as part of a national plan.
Step 2: No new logging of natural forests, independent carbon forest accounting, community-owned (government funded) transition strategy
We agree. Our climate charter says: Stop logging old-growth forests and begin an urgent program of re-forestation and protecting biodiversity to ensure a robust biosystem that can survive the stress of climate change and provide an increased carbon sink.
Our 2006 Tasmanian State election policy included:
- We call for the protection of the Weld, Blue Tier, Styx and Weilangta (Socialist Alliance supports the Greens “Forest Transition Strategy”)
- End logging in old-growth forests. End clear felling in all other native forests.
- Ban the export of woodchips from native forests.
- Replant forests in dry-land and other salt-affected regions
- Strict controls on land clearing
- No mining or mineral exploration in national parks and other areas of high conservation value
In addition Socialist Alliance Tasmania endorsed (at a meeting 28/1/2010) the wording of the CAH Step 2 (including specifying no logging of “intact natural forests” not just old growth forests and the policy on carbon accounting.)
Step 3: Reduce energy use – economy-wide energy savings plan, target of reducing total energy use by at least 20% by 2020 over 1990 levels.
Socialist Alliance Tasmania agreed on this policy point at a meeting on 28/1/2010 but would want a sentence included to ensure some of these initiatives do not disproportionately affect already disadvantaged people eg. when creating incentives through car registration charges, ensure health care card holder rebates continue. Ensure “cash for clunkers” programs are not linked to people having to purchase a replacement car.
In addition we adopted the following policy on energy reduction in our Climate Charter
One of the easiest ways to reduce GHGs is by increasing efficiency and reducing waste. More efficient appliances, insulating homes, better recycling, improved and more efficient public transport, producing locally-produced goods—these are some of the simple but effective changes that are possible right now.
But these changes will not happen fast enough if they’re left to the individual consumer's response to appeals to save energy, and to the “sticks and carrots” approach of energy price hikes and tax rebates.
To begin the transition to sustainability, we must set energy efficiency as a national goal, and then develop targets, standards, regulations and national and local campaigns to achieve it.
In Venezuela and Cuba the goal of eliminating incandescent light bulbs was achieved by having teams of volunteers installing free government-supplied, low-energy replacement bulbs. This is the sort of initiative that’s needed to make Australia’s 5.5 million homes energy efficient.
Governments committed to energy efficiency should have sustainable energy household conversion plans, with annual targets for solar power and heating installation compulsory for energy utilities These plans would build on and promote the various community initiatives dedicated to goals like creating “zero emission” housing, schools and other facilities.
They would require the same approach from business, with systematic energy audits and set compliance deadlines. Firms that don't upgrade to low emissions technology and processes would have to close or be taken over.
They would also monitor and establish strict standards for the energy use of business products. Businesses that operate in a market-based capitalist economy concentrate on selling products, and are unlikely to implement climate-friendly techniques unless strong regulations are introduced.
Integral to the plan would be the phasing out of the $9 billion in fossil fuel subsidies to energy-hungry industries like aluminium refining. Industries that are heavy users of energy would be required to obtain their energy needs from sustainable sources.
(Action Point 4). Require the fitting of all feasible energy efficiency measures to existing houses and subsidise owner-occupiers for the costs. Allow renters to use the same system. Install photovoltaic solar panels and solar hot water heaters on home roofs, subsidised or owned by the electricity authority. Give commercial buildings a deadline to meet six-star energy standards within two years, and 10-star standards within 10 years.
The Socialist Alliance national conference also adopted a detailed policy on coal and steel which explains the steps that need to be taken to reduce the energy used to make steel for industrial production.
Step 4: 100% renewable electricity by 2020, massive investment in wind and solar, no biomass from native forests, no new dam-storage hydro, net feed-in-tariff.
We endorse all of the parts of Step 4 as long as there is no increase in energy costs for low income households.
Our policy passed at the 2010 national conference, is as follows:
We support the campaign for an industrial scale renewable energy feed-in tariff (FIT) to encourage medium and large-scale renewable energy projects. We are against increasing energy bills for low-income households to pay for the FIT.
At the climate summit, a conscious decision was made to expand the demand to encompass all forms of power (including transport fuel) not just stationary electricity. Beyond Zero Emissions have put the case that this is achievable. SA supports this policy:
Our climate charter explains that: “Socialist Alliance has a goal of achieving 100% of power from renewable sources by 2020” and this was reaffirmed at the 2010 national conference: “The Socialist Alliance supports the campaign launched at the 2009 Climate Summit for the transformation of the economy to 100% renewable energy by 2020, as one essential component of the effort needed to prevent run-away climate change.”
Climate Charter 2008: 100% renewable energy by 2020
Australia could meet its basic energy needs from a combination of non-fossil fuel sources like solar, wind, biomass derived from agricultural wastes, tidal and geothermal (hot rocks beneath the Earth's surface).
Countries like Spain and Denmark already produce more than 20% of their energy from solar and wind power. Australia should set a target of having all of its electricity generated by renewable energy by 2020.
While massive government subsidies continue to be given to dirty fuels like brown coal, research into renewable energy technologies is not given adequate funds.
This lack of serious research and development funding for renewable energy means that the fossil fuel and nuclear industries can delay any change towards sustainability. It hampers the rapid development of renewable technologies with reduced unit costs that would enable them to compete with their cheaper polluting products.
The quickest way to guarantee that renewables are taken up at the speed needed to limit GHG increases is not to leave this job to the market and private industry - even “green” industry - but to create an adequately funded, publicly-owned renewable energy network.
The Socialist Alliance calls for the creation of a Sustainable Energy Authority to drive this effort, and the overall conversion to energy sustainability.
Climate charter 2008 action point 5. Bring all power industries under public ownership and democratic control. Begin phasing out coalmining and coal-fired power immediately. …Run the maximum possible base-load power from existing natural gas and/or hydro power stations instead of coal only as an interim measure until renewable energy is available. Coal to be used only for predicted energy peaks in the short term.
Climate charter 2008 action point 7. Accelerate the construction of wind farms in suitable areas. Boost research into all renewable energy sources. Build pilot solar-thermal and geothermal plants now. Create localised power grids.
Additional SA policy:
The Socialist Alliance acknowledges that a massive rollout of renewable energy, as proposed in our campaign work, will all occur on Aboriginal land. The Socialist Alliance will seek to build consciousness of Indigenous struggle within the climate movement, and highlight the fact that any major rollout of wind farms, solar thermal plants, etc, must occur under the direction of the traditional owners of the land upon which such plants are proposed to be built. (SA national conf 2010)
Step 5: Sustainable cities and regions: overhaul of planning schemes
Socialist Alliance Tasmania adopted this policy in full at a meeting 27/1/2010
Step 6: Investing in Public and Low Carbon Transport
We support all the aspects of the Step 6 except for some significant differences:
à We disagree that “bus fares must be set at a nominal level (not exceeding $1 for an adult fare)”. We have a policy for Free Public transport.
… We have to put public transport at the centre of our urban development plans.
Although trains are 40 times more energy efficient than cars, we won’t reduce or stop using cars and trucks unless there’s huge investment in public and rail freight transport to make it a real option for commuters and industry.
A successful public transport system will have reliable, frequent services available to everyone within 10 minutes walk of a service, especially in outer metropolitan regions. It will have to be a publicly owned, integrated system of heavy rail, light rail, ferry and bus services.
But we need to make it more attractive to users. To accelerate the switch to public transport it has to be free. That’s what transport authorities have always done when they really need to move large numbers of people quickly, as in the 2000 Sydney Olympics. It’s what has happened in the Belgian city of Hasselt: within a year of introducing free bus fares, patronage increased by 870%.
Most people think that this proposal would cost a vast amount of money. However, this reaction fails to measure the total (economic, social and environmental) cost and benefit of public transport against the total cost and benefit of continuing to shift people and goods by private car and truck.
On that scale, public transport wins hands down. For every 10% switch from car and truck and into public transport, the costs of air pollution, greenhouse gas emission, car accidents, traffic congestion, motor vehicle waste disposal, noise pollution and road maintenance would drop by at least $1.4 billion.
Free and frequent public transport combined with policies that stimulate cycling and walking is the only serious approach to curbing greenhouse gas emissions in the transport sector.
Climate Charter 2008 Action Point 10. Make all urban and regional public transport free and upgrade services to enable all urban residents to use it for regular commuting. Nationalise and upgrade interstate train and ferry services to provide real alternatives to air travel. Prioritise rail freight. All rail, light rail and interstate freight to be electrified or to run on biofuels from waste where possible. Encourage bicycle use through more cycleways, and better facilities for cyclists. Implement free or very cheap bicycle rental networks.
We do not call for higher parking fees or financial incentives for workers or employers or preferential parking fees for electric vehicles, as these policies are not in line with our commitment to equitable solutions, they do not represent the structural solutions that will be the fundamental driver of behaviour change and they will have negative / unequal ramifications for poor or disadvantaged sectors of the community, including those who, for whatever reasons, cannot rely on public transport.
We also believe public transport needs to be more accessible for parents with dependent children and people with disabilities (Decision made by Socialist Alliance Tasmania at a meeting 28/1/2010)
A detailed interim policy on public transport was adopted at the SA National Conf 2010 and can be viewed at http://socialist-alliance.wikispaces.com/National+Conference+Decisions+on+Screen Page 46.
A state election media release on public transport “For the sake of people’s lives and the environment, invest in public transport” can be read at: http://socialistalliancehobart.blogspot.com/2010/01/for-sake-of-peoples-lives-and.html
Step 7: Just transitions: Sector-by-sector, company-by-company just transitions program to reduce emissions while preserving or enhancing employment
We support this policy point 100%. However we feel for a just transition to be implemented, different models of ownership and control other than the free-market model need to be utilised.
Additional policy under this point:
Public ownership:
That in its campaigning work, the Socialist Alliance continues to advocate fundamental social change as a necessary answer to the threat of climate change. This includes campaigning for our current policy positions, including the need for public ownership of key sectors of the economy. (SA national conference 2010 decision)
Co-operatives and social enterprises:
- The Socialist Alliance supports community efforts such as the Hepburn Wind Co-operative in Victoria which aim to acquire/ build renewable energy generation capacity for the community.
- The Socialist Alliance notes the “Eureka’s Future” project of the Earthworker Social Enterprise Association, currently an initiative of the Victorian District of the Mining Division of the CFMEU. This will see a social enterprise manufacturing solar hot water units for exchange, providing a range of options for workers to purchase, including through their EBA.
The Socialist Alliance supports the establishment of such enterprises as a social sector of the Australian economy, owned and controlled by working people. The Socialist Alliance will pro-actively support the existing project and future such projects by direct participation of Socialist Alliance members, and by promoting and defending this initiative in other areas of our work. We will particularly seek to integrate this example as an important part of our “green jobs” campaigning and literature in the union and environment movements. (SA national conference 2010 decision)
From the 2008 Climate Charter: No solution without public ownership and democratic control
The principle of “polluter pays” means that the polluting companies should be directed to clean up the mess they have made. Individual consumers do use polluting products but they are rarely responsible for the decisions that result in the pollution occurring: it is the big industries that must bear the costs.
The first measure to ensure a just solution is to take over industries that will not stop polluting, and place them under public ownership and scrutiny. In this way, those operations that are essential can be identified and kept (and cleaned up) while non-essential aspects can be scaled back or shut down. The profits that these public enterprises will still make can be re-invested in further programs.
Private power companies have a vested interest in making us all use more energy, whereas what is really needed is less use of energy and clean power targets that can be met with renewable sources.
But Australian governments have continually privatised public utilities, handing vital infrastructure over to the private sector. Public ownership and control over the vital area of energy generation and distribution is essential to bring this sector under an overall plan for greenhouse gas reduction and environmental sustainability.
Guarantee jobs, involve workers in the fight for a liveable environment
As old industries die, their workers are normally thrown on the scrap heap of unemployment. For example, as oil prices rise and cars become too expensive, the fossil-fuel based auto industry may well shrink to a boutique luxury service and masses of workers lose their jobs.
The same can be said for unsustainable agriculture, coal mining and similar industries. A plan for a transition to a sustainable and just economy is therefore essential. These workers would become the driving force and moral guarantor of the new sustainable society, and not left behind with the de-commissioned machinery.
Workers are critical to identifying and eliminating waste and pollution in the workplace, closing down old industries and opening new ones. The transition also needs government-funded “climate action brigades” - teams of people who can provide practical assistance and resources to assist households and communities improve their energy efficiency.
Also from 2008 Climate Charter: Provide guaranteed jobs and retraining on full pay for coal mining and power-station communities, with new sustainable industries being built in their areas and paid redundancies offered.
Step 8: Local and sustainable production and consumption
Socialist Alliance Tasmania adopted all the points in this step at its meeting on 28/1/2010 except for the broad statement: “Financial support for local small businesses engaged in local production”. Instead we would emphasise the need to support local co-operatives and publicly / community / worker owned sustainable enterprises.
Read our interim policy on agriculture adopted at the 2010 National conference at http://socialist-alliance.wikispaces.com/National+Conference+Decisions+on+Screen Page 56 and our climate charter policy on agriculture at
http://socialist-alliance.wikispaces.com/National+Conference+Decisions+on+Screen
Step 9: Closing resource loops and eliminating waste:
We fully agree with this policy and included similar wording in our 2008 Climate Charter:
All products require energy to be manufactured. Waste of energy and resources are built into the entire economy. More profits are made from designing products not to last, and pollution produced along the way goes on to become someone else’s problem. Even traditional recycling largely ignores manufacturing waste and assumes relatively few products can be re-used or recycled at the end of their lives. Most consumer products—with all the energy and raw materials that have gone into their production—one way or another become landfill.
In a zero waste economy, products are designed so that they can be repaired, re-used and disassembled for recycling. We must start to require manufacturers to take back their used products (cars, TVs, computers, etc.) and re-use the components.
(Action point 3): Start the transition to a zero-waste economy. End industrial energy waste by legislation. Improve or ban wasteful consumer products. Engage workers in industry, with the appropriate technical experts, to redesign products and jobs sustainably.
From the SA national conference 2010 policy on steel and coal:
Steel producers should be compelled to increase the recycling of steel which is much cleaner than blast-furnace steel (only 65% of available scrap metal is recycled in Australia each year). Steel producers should have to maximise the end of life recyclability of products, and governments should encourage scrap availability programs, especially in the electrical and domestic industries where recycling is minimal.
Obsolescence policy adopted SA national conf 2010:
In a world where resources are being rapidly devoured, inbuilt obsolescence is a crime and a useless waste not only of resources, but of time, energy and human life. Why should people waste their lives slaving away at dreary jobs to produce these goods for wages, which go on replacing obsolescent goods? If goods are made to last as long as possible, there can be massive gains in saving resources and reducing pollution. Redirected human employment, effort and saved time could be used in the massive battles to save the environment, produce more renewable fuel and food and improve health treatment and prevention.
Companies should be compelled to design products so that they can be repaired, recycled, re-used and disassembled for recycling. Manufacturers should be compelled to take back their used products (cars, TVs, computers, etc) and re-use the components.
Products should be designed in such a way as to minimize inefficiencies and waste both in their production and manufacture, and during and after their service life.
Step 10: Climate Justice and education
Socialist Alliance Tasmania endorsed all parts of Step 10 at a meeting 28/1/2010. We also stand for the expansion of free public education to train up workers to deal with climate change.
Similar climate justice wording in existing policy (Climate Charter 2008) is as follows:
The rich industrial countries are mostly responsible for greenhouse gas emissions, and they must lead the campaign for strong and rapid international climate action. Per head, Australia is one of the highest GHG emitters in the world.
It is impoverished developing countries like Bangladesh and Kiribati that will be most affected by climate change. Many poor nations will struggle to deal with the symptoms of climate change without massive technical assistance. The rich nations must assist poor nations to develop economic plans that avoid high-pollution industries and encourage the use of renewable energy.
This assistance is just part of repaying our ecological debt.
Additional policy that fits under this point includes:
Socialist Alliance proposes a massive program of converting energy infrastructure that will demand a large number of workers, requiring extensive redeployment and training. We will also need an expansion of free public education to provide sufficient numbers of skilled professionals to achieve the necessary research and development goals. (Climate Charter 2008)
Institute a program for accepting climate refugees, especially from countries in the Asia Pacific region, and that this program not result in any reduction in the number of humanitarian refugees. (Refugee policy adopted SA national conference 2010)
That the Socialist Alliance recognises the disproportional negative impact of climate change on Third World countries, which has already led to mass displacement and the deaths of thousands of people. The Socialist Alliance will promote practical solidarity between the Australian climate change movement and climate activists from other countries, especially from the Asia-Pacific region. In addition, The Socialist Alliance will advocate that the climate movement publicly oppose the Australian government’s threat to withdraw aid from Pacific nations such as Tuvalu, which is campaigning internationally for stronger targets. (Building the climate action movement policy SA national conference 2010)
Authorised by Susan Austin, 225 Murray St, Hobart, 7000.
November 17, 2007
Open letter to timber workers about the pulp mill
An open letter to Tasmanian timber workers about Gunns proposed pulp mill
Dear fellow workers,
Socialist Alliance is totally committed to workers’ rights. But we are also totally opposed to Gunns’ pulp mill.
We’re not against all pulp mills, but we are against this one. It would poison the environment, endanger other industries in the region, and put other workers’ livelihoods at risk. More jobs would be lost in industries adversely affected by the pulp mill than would be created.
And it would not provide long-lasting benefits to timber workers and their families.
The only lasting winners would be Gunns and its big shareholders, who would trash the forests and when there’s not enough profit to be made, pull out, leaving workers and local communities in the lurch.
Gunns' mill would pour cancer-causing chemicals, furans and dioxins, into Bass Strait and pump more than 100 million tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
The mill threatens the organic status of Tamar Valley vineyards and farms. And it threatens people’s health so much that the Australian Medical Association opposes it.
The economic report commissioned by the Tasmanian Roundtable for Sustainable Industries found that even though the pulp mill may add 280 jobs to the Tasmanian economy, it would be at a cost of 216 lives lost in extra deaths from respiratory disease and log truck accidents.
In addition, the negative impact of the pulp mill would cost 1044 jobs in the tourism industry and at least 175 jobs in the local fishing businesses.
Then there are the government subsidies, state and federal. The subsidies to be handed to Gunns for the mill would far exceed the benefits reaped from increased company tax payments.
The direct subsidies paid to the pulp mill for associated infrastructure, feasibility studies, new roads and rail would total $30 million from the state government and $65 million from the federal government. Canberra would also hand Gunns a subsidy of $242 million through the tax benefits of plantation managed investment schemes over the mill's 24-year life.
That money could and should be spent on creating sustainable timber-based industries and jobs. Since 2004 more than 300 jobs have been shed in the Tasmanian forestry industry and highly mechanised projects like this pulp mill will continue the trend.
Gunns has no ongoing commitment to timber workers. We already see this when log truck drivers have their contracts ditched, leaving them with huge debts to pay for the trucks that they are in the middle of buying.
Gunns doesn’t care about environmental impacts but working people must. We workers would have to live with the environmental and economic consequences of a bad development like the pulp mill.
If big businesses such as Gunns really were the “friends” of the workers and the environment, they wouldn’t be building this pulp mill, but follow scientific and industry best practice. That would mean a plantation-based, chlorine-free, closed-loop pulp mill that doesn't use a Kraft (sulphur-based) pulping process.
In this election the only alternative to the non-choice that the major parties offer (either jobs or the environment) is for timber workers, environmentalists and industry experts to develop their own plans for a sustainable, forest-based industry that provides jobs while protecting our environment and our communities.
Timber workers should demand that their union adopt this approach and stop simply backing whatever Gunns, the timber industry and the Lennon state government proposes.
That’s what the Socialist Alliance stands for. It’s why we’re standing in the present election. Stop this pulp mill, and let’s build an alternative future for Tasmania’s timber workers, environment and communities!
Susan Austin Matt Holloway
Authorised by: Dick Nichols, 23 Abercrombie Street, Chippendale NSW 2008
Dear fellow workers,
Socialist Alliance is totally committed to workers’ rights. But we are also totally opposed to Gunns’ pulp mill.
We’re not against all pulp mills, but we are against this one. It would poison the environment, endanger other industries in the region, and put other workers’ livelihoods at risk. More jobs would be lost in industries adversely affected by the pulp mill than would be created.
And it would not provide long-lasting benefits to timber workers and their families.
The only lasting winners would be Gunns and its big shareholders, who would trash the forests and when there’s not enough profit to be made, pull out, leaving workers and local communities in the lurch.
Gunns' mill would pour cancer-causing chemicals, furans and dioxins, into Bass Strait and pump more than 100 million tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
The mill threatens the organic status of Tamar Valley vineyards and farms. And it threatens people’s health so much that the Australian Medical Association opposes it.
The economic report commissioned by the Tasmanian Roundtable for Sustainable Industries found that even though the pulp mill may add 280 jobs to the Tasmanian economy, it would be at a cost of 216 lives lost in extra deaths from respiratory disease and log truck accidents.
In addition, the negative impact of the pulp mill would cost 1044 jobs in the tourism industry and at least 175 jobs in the local fishing businesses.
Then there are the government subsidies, state and federal. The subsidies to be handed to Gunns for the mill would far exceed the benefits reaped from increased company tax payments.
The direct subsidies paid to the pulp mill for associated infrastructure, feasibility studies, new roads and rail would total $30 million from the state government and $65 million from the federal government. Canberra would also hand Gunns a subsidy of $242 million through the tax benefits of plantation managed investment schemes over the mill's 24-year life.
That money could and should be spent on creating sustainable timber-based industries and jobs. Since 2004 more than 300 jobs have been shed in the Tasmanian forestry industry and highly mechanised projects like this pulp mill will continue the trend.
Gunns has no ongoing commitment to timber workers. We already see this when log truck drivers have their contracts ditched, leaving them with huge debts to pay for the trucks that they are in the middle of buying.
Gunns doesn’t care about environmental impacts but working people must. We workers would have to live with the environmental and economic consequences of a bad development like the pulp mill.
If big businesses such as Gunns really were the “friends” of the workers and the environment, they wouldn’t be building this pulp mill, but follow scientific and industry best practice. That would mean a plantation-based, chlorine-free, closed-loop pulp mill that doesn't use a Kraft (sulphur-based) pulping process.
In this election the only alternative to the non-choice that the major parties offer (either jobs or the environment) is for timber workers, environmentalists and industry experts to develop their own plans for a sustainable, forest-based industry that provides jobs while protecting our environment and our communities.
Timber workers should demand that their union adopt this approach and stop simply backing whatever Gunns, the timber industry and the Lennon state government proposes.
That’s what the Socialist Alliance stands for. It’s why we’re standing in the present election. Stop this pulp mill, and let’s build an alternative future for Tasmania’s timber workers, environment and communities!
Susan Austin Matt Holloway
Authorised by: Dick Nichols, 23 Abercrombie Street, Chippendale NSW 2008
October 27, 2007
Socialist Alliance candidates support student walk-out
MEDIA RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
25th October 2007
Socialist Alliance federal election candidates Susan Austin and Matthew Holloway are urging students to walk out of school on Thursday, November 1, to join the protest being organised by Students Against the Pulp Mill.
Hundreds of students are expected to walk out of school and rally on Parliament Lawns at 12:30pm to show their opposition to the pulp mill.
Young people have strong opinions on this issue as they will inherit the environmental issues caused by the mill if it goes ahead”, said Ms Austin, candidate for Denison. “We support the right of young people to express their opinion in public, and if they need to walk out of school to get their point across, then we support that”, Ms Austin said.
Matthew Holloway, Socialist Alliance candidate for Franklin, said “Socialist Alliance supports lowering the voting age to 16 because we believe if people are old enough to pay taxes, they are old enough to have a say. Walking out of school and protesting against the pulp mill is a legitimate way for young people to get their voices heard”, he said.
“We recognise that the type of pulp mill and the location being proposed, will lead to massive amounts of air, water and odour pollution, the continued deforestation of our beautiful state and the release of thousands of tonnes of carbon dioxide” Ms Austin said. “It will also lead to a loss of jobs in other industries, such as tourism, wineries and the fishing industries. With both major parties showing they are willing to over-ride due process to ensure the mill goes ahead, we support a variety of protest actions which express the democratic will of the majority, who are opposed to this mill”, Ms Austin said.
Susan Austin Ph: 0418 643 133
Matthew Holloway Ph: 0419 582 372
October 14, 2007
Letter to the editor - Drop charges against Weld Angel!
I breathed a sigh of relief when I found out that Tasmania Police were withdrawing their claim for costs from the Weld Valley forest activist and 'angel' Alanna Beltram. But the relief didn't last long - the Police Commissioner said he wants to change the laws so that police can regularly charge forest activists for the costs of attending protests! And Forestry Tasmania are still pursuing their compensation claim, obviously having learnt a few lessons from Gunns about how to tie activists up in ongoing court cases. These people (Gunns 20 defendants and our Weld Angel) are highly respected by many in Tasmania for devoting themselves to saving our precious old-growth forests from profit-driven destruction. We cannot stand by and watch the authorities further erode our civil liberties. It should not become possible for the police to determine that a healthy democracy is something that we cannot afford. That is when we become a police state.
Susan Austin
Socialist Alliance candidate for Denison
Note: See http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/727/37711 for latest article by Susan Austin "Weld Angel faces Court"
Susan Austin
Socialist Alliance candidate for Denison
Note: See http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/727/37711 for latest article by Susan Austin "Weld Angel faces Court"
January 15, 2007
Green Left: Pulp mill controversy escalates
Susan Austin, Hobart
13 January 2007Woodchipping giant Gunns Ltd’s proposed $1.4 billion pulp mill in northern Tasmania continues to be the subject of controversy. Gunns has expressed impatience over the delays in the assessment process and threatened to axe the project if government approval is not given within six months.
On December 21, pulp-mill technology expert Dr Warwick Raverty quit the Resource Planning and Development Commission (RPDC) assessing the pulp mill, after receiving legal advice that other consultancy work done by his employer, CSIRO-Ensis, could compromise his position on the panel.
Upon his resignation, Raverty said that Gunns had chosen the “worst place possible” in Tasmania to build the mill. He said that Long Reach on the Tamar Estuary near Bell Bay is a very environmentally sensitive site. Not only does the area have poor air quality already, but it is near a major city — Launceston. He said that to operate a mill in such an area Gunns would need to spend millions more dollars on extra fans, filters, pumps and castings in order to reduce dangerous emissions.
In a letter printed in the January 10 Hobart Mercury, Raverty also hit out at the “unethical political activity” of Premier Paul Lennon’s Labor government. He wrote that “no ethical, unbiased scientist should assist a government that is, in his or her view, duplicitous and Machiavellian in its dealings with the electorate it serves”.
RPDC executive director Julian Green resigned from the panel on January 4 alleging political interference by the government and its Pulp Mill Task Force, which was set up with $6 million in funds ostensibly for the purpose of disseminating information about the proposed mill.
“The Pulp Mill Task Force has masqueraded as a public-information body but has mainly been providing blatant propaganda services to Gunns’ proposed pulp mill at taxpayers’ expense”, Geoff Law, the Wilderness Society (TWS) campaign coordinator, said in a media release issued on January 7. “Its activities have now contaminated the RPDC’s assessment of the pulp mill so much that the RPDC chief has resigned. The credibility of the pulp mill assessment is now in tatters.”
Both TWS and the Tasmanian Greens have called for the task force to be disbanded.
On January 9, Gunns chairperson John Gay argued that the mill project had “already met all the guidelines and proved we’re better than the standards — now just let’s get on with the job of building it”.
In a January 10 statement, Law pointed out that the major delays in the assessment process had been caused by Gunns itself, such as its changing of the scope of the project and delaying the release of its Integrated Impact Statement. Law also noted that Gunns’ claim that it has met the RPDC’s guidelines was “arrogant” and “wrong”.
“It is for the independent umpire — the RPDC — to make that determination, not Gunns”, said Law. “Meanwhile, Gunns has admitted that it can’t meet all of the guidelines and has sought an increase in the permitted emissions of nitrous oxides.”
According to the January 12 Mercury, Lennon made an emergency trip to Launceston on January 10 in an attempt to placate Gay and reassure him that the government would do all it could to speed up the assessment process and ensure the pulp mill is approved.
Greens parliamentary leader Peg Putt told the media on January 12 that “the revelation that Paul Lennon was prepared to drop everything to rush to John Gay at the same time that he continued his refusal to speak publicly showed a contempt for the Tasmanian people to whom he is answerable and indicated who really matters to the premier”.
Putt accused Lennon of planning to subvert the pulp mill assessment guidelines at the behest of Gay. “Collaborating with Gunns to ‘manage’ an allegedly independent process such that an approval is granted expeditiously is a further attack on the independence and integrity of the process”, she said.
In related developments, TWS has criticised the appointment of former Pulp Mill Task Force head Bob Gordon as the new managing director of Forestry Tasmania. In his new position, Gordon is “supposed to be managing state forests on behalf of the Tasmanian public”, Law noted in his January 7 media statement. He called for the public release of Forestry Tasmania’s wood-supply agreement for the pulp mill “to reassure the public that the interests of the pulp mill are not being put before those of the public”.
The Tasmanian Greens have also charged that the appointment of lawyer Simon Cooper as interim RPDC head is flawed, claiming Cooper is a “Labor mate and crony” of Premier Lennon.
Upon his resignation, Raverty said that Gunns had chosen the “worst place possible” in Tasmania to build the mill. He said that Long Reach on the Tamar Estuary near Bell Bay is a very environmentally sensitive site. Not only does the area have poor air quality already, but it is near a major city — Launceston. He said that to operate a mill in such an area Gunns would need to spend millions more dollars on extra fans, filters, pumps and castings in order to reduce dangerous emissions.
In a letter printed in the January 10 Hobart Mercury, Raverty also hit out at the “unethical political activity” of Premier Paul Lennon’s Labor government. He wrote that “no ethical, unbiased scientist should assist a government that is, in his or her view, duplicitous and Machiavellian in its dealings with the electorate it serves”.
RPDC executive director Julian Green resigned from the panel on January 4 alleging political interference by the government and its Pulp Mill Task Force, which was set up with $6 million in funds ostensibly for the purpose of disseminating information about the proposed mill.
“The Pulp Mill Task Force has masqueraded as a public-information body but has mainly been providing blatant propaganda services to Gunns’ proposed pulp mill at taxpayers’ expense”, Geoff Law, the Wilderness Society (TWS) campaign coordinator, said in a media release issued on January 7. “Its activities have now contaminated the RPDC’s assessment of the pulp mill so much that the RPDC chief has resigned. The credibility of the pulp mill assessment is now in tatters.”
Both TWS and the Tasmanian Greens have called for the task force to be disbanded.
On January 9, Gunns chairperson John Gay argued that the mill project had “already met all the guidelines and proved we’re better than the standards — now just let’s get on with the job of building it”.
In a January 10 statement, Law pointed out that the major delays in the assessment process had been caused by Gunns itself, such as its changing of the scope of the project and delaying the release of its Integrated Impact Statement. Law also noted that Gunns’ claim that it has met the RPDC’s guidelines was “arrogant” and “wrong”.
“It is for the independent umpire — the RPDC — to make that determination, not Gunns”, said Law. “Meanwhile, Gunns has admitted that it can’t meet all of the guidelines and has sought an increase in the permitted emissions of nitrous oxides.”
According to the January 12 Mercury, Lennon made an emergency trip to Launceston on January 10 in an attempt to placate Gay and reassure him that the government would do all it could to speed up the assessment process and ensure the pulp mill is approved.
Greens parliamentary leader Peg Putt told the media on January 12 that “the revelation that Paul Lennon was prepared to drop everything to rush to John Gay at the same time that he continued his refusal to speak publicly showed a contempt for the Tasmanian people to whom he is answerable and indicated who really matters to the premier”.
Putt accused Lennon of planning to subvert the pulp mill assessment guidelines at the behest of Gay. “Collaborating with Gunns to ‘manage’ an allegedly independent process such that an approval is granted expeditiously is a further attack on the independence and integrity of the process”, she said.
In related developments, TWS has criticised the appointment of former Pulp Mill Task Force head Bob Gordon as the new managing director of Forestry Tasmania. In his new position, Gordon is “supposed to be managing state forests on behalf of the Tasmanian public”, Law noted in his January 7 media statement. He called for the public release of Forestry Tasmania’s wood-supply agreement for the pulp mill “to reassure the public that the interests of the pulp mill are not being put before those of the public”.
The Tasmanian Greens have also charged that the appointment of lawyer Simon Cooper as interim RPDC head is flawed, claiming Cooper is a “Labor mate and crony” of Premier Lennon.
From: Comment & Analysis, Green Left Weekly issue # 694 17 January 2007.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)