Tarkine mining

[Nuts]

I'm a bit confused Hallu, how do most Tasmanians think?

[Hallu]

With their brain ?

[Nuts]

Haha, don't get nasty now. I think you understood the question this time?

[stepbystep]

Unfortunately Hallu you are wrong. Educated Tasmanians that can see beyond the political and corporate bs are against this but the lowest common denominator are for it. They are afraid for the future of their kids(lol) and are manipulated by the fear campaign of the government pushing the proposal.

Tasmania needs to embrace it's history of environmental activism, dare I say a paradigm shift! It is worth fighting for, it is unique on a global scale, and the potential is remarkable.

btw the FES and the Bass Strait highway schemes are linked. One cannot exist without the other.

[frenchy_84]

I honestly don't care whether they're Indian or Chinese, but masking it as an Australian and Tasmania based company doesn't feel right... You really have to search for it to see that they're actually Indian. But then I guess they all do it, it wouldn't look good if they didn't sound Aussie.

I dont believe that they are hiding the fact its Indian owned, its regularly reported in the mercury as Indian and if the quality investigative journalism of the mercury can pick that up they cant be hiding it to well.

And Hallu im Tasmanian, because of an uncertain employment future I had to decided to leave, and as much as I would like to move home, the state of the Tas economy doesnt give me much confidence that it will happen any time soon.

Get your lazy *&^%$#@! over to the mainland where there is work and stop wining

Hardly a sustainable future for tasmania is it, the youth/brain drain is already in full swing but you think its a good idea for it to continue so that most young people face no other choice but to leave Tas for employment.

[Nuts]

But sbs- I'm edumuckated too

Please, (I'll admit I find myself needing edit but) I 'm not trying to argue, the facts are easy to find and the reality of the political situation is obvious (probably moreso to politicians and locals). As soon as a fact or inconvenient question is brought forward that doesn't fit with a chosen paradigm it is ignored.. I mean I consider my view very much conservationist, how do i find this so increasingly at odds with 'greenies'

Freight equalisation is happening, national highway parity is not.. 'they can't exist without each other' what do you mean?

[stepbystep]

It's quite simply normal for young Tasmanians who are educated to leave because the jobs aren't here. They've been leaving for decades.

If, and I'll only say it one more time we had leaders with vision the world is our oyster and it doesn't lie in pissant mines and forestry. It lies in what is special and unique about this island. High end agriculture(not canned vegetables) high end tourism, IT, The Arts and sustainability driven manufacturing.

Uurgh, that's it from me on this for now.

[frenchy_84]

Regarding the freight equalisation my (limited) understanding is that a major factor of the cost disparity is due to politics and unions. Previously international freight ships could visit an Aus port drop off their international orders, and then pickup some domestic freight to cover costs as they went to the next Aus port, which meant it was cost effective for international ships to visit Tas. However the ports and unions got up in arms and said that only Aus ships can handle domestic freight. This meant international ships would have half empty holds, visitng multiple ports, so it only made sense for them to visit a large port where they can fully unload and load pack up. Which results in limited options for Tas producers. Apparently it costs 10x more per km to transport stuff from Burnie to Melb as it does from Melb to Japan, this doesnt just effect the big bad miners but farmers and artisan producers that SBS loves so much.

[frenchy_84]

If, and I'll only say it one more time we had leaders with vision the world is our oyster and it doesn't lie in pissant mines and forestry. It lies in what is special and unique about this island. High end agriculture(not canned vegetables) high end tourism, IT, The Arts and sustainability driven manufacturing.

I agree dan, however I dont see how a mine being approved stops all this.

Uurgh, that's it from me on this for now.

Dont go SBS, I appreciate your input and agree with alot of it. You and I aren't that different

[Nuts]

I think he needs a hug.

[stepbystep]

Haha you're so right nuts, but no I've got stuff to do.

Frenchy I also agree with lots of what you have to say, but iron ore, Tasmania? Just don't see the need big picture wise.

Have a nice night lads.

[taswegian]

Edit. Re your comments several posts above SBS. I concur fully.
The countless times I hear what a Jewel we have in Tasmania from overseas visitors.
I've done little travel overseas but can appreciate it from videos etc. BUT I've seen a lot of Tasmania.

In my work I try at times to get an innovative development through councils.
That boringly green stuff like recycled water, off grid power, no storm water system as we know it, non conventional sewer system, roads not "conventional" width, 'green housing'.............
Only to hit hurdle after hurdle due to outdated planning / building schemes /codes, officers who say things like "we've never done it like that before", or worse - "I don't agree" despite it being convention in other more switched on parts of the world. Latter comments probably from people's ignorance and there own insecurities.
So Tasmania is run by people who bemoan lack of development but stand in the way of it happening.
Mines / Forestry isn't "development". That's old hat stuff been around for millennia . Yes we need those resources.
Real Development though stretches the mind, opens up to new and helpful things that further our life on this planet, and encourages like to meet with like, not clash as we seem to be forever doing these days. Its actually exciting.
And yet those same people who won't/don't encourage innovativeness will embrace with much gusto the latest iPhone and other ultra modern contrivances. They don't or won't put up with old hat stuff.
Not sure how we can encourage others to look beyond the box that has shaped our lives for yonks and which many of us are now firmly conformed to.

It is just so frustrating to experience these things and to listen to the endless stream of verbosity about how much we need "jobs" while heads stay firmly embedded in the sand.

[stepbystep]

Very nicely put Taswegian, you understand what I am getting at.

And nuts I don't mean to sound elitist, but by educated I don't necessarily refer to how well someone's schooling went but more how deeply people think about the issues and how far they are looking into the future.
I did an arts degree so am far from an intellectual!

I don't give a rats about whether someone has a job today I care far more about how an environment will be several generations away.

An interesting observation from commentary the other day, I believe it was the Circular Head mayor, that said, and I paraphrase. "It's not a pristine environment, most of it is buttongrass plains" Why can a buttongrass plain not be pristine? There are many species that survive in this environment and the soils are ancient, the region is remarkable for many reasons not just the old growth around the larger rivers.

[Clusterpod]

I would posit that an area's pristine-ness should not be a requisite for its conservation value.

I would further argue that the process and manner with which value is applied to an area for purposes of development is very much in favour of the short-term economic value and out of touch with anything resembling the true, long-term value of an ecology or ecological region.

If bio-surveys continue to only cover a rather narrow sample of species inhabiting an area, omitting, for example, the fungal and bacterial species present, then I must wonder how much of the Environmental Protection and Rehabilitation that mining companies undertake to provide is serious, and how much just pays lip-service to the admittedly mining-friendly legislation.

This goes way beyond the cuddle-value of mammals, and the awe-value of a rainforest covered in mist.

We know, for a fact, that we may have described less than half of Australia's invertebrate species. There are suggestions that less than 20% of Australia's fungal species may be described.

I ask you: if we do not know what is actually present in an ecology, how can we place any kind of value upon it beyond arbitrary guesswork based on mineral content and tall trees?

If we do not know what is there, how can the Government or mining company tell us with so much confidence what effects their operation will have on the ecology?

[Nuts]

For a short time i was involved with council and farmers on conservation projects (in tas). There's no doubt that there's some 'old' thinking. Didn't continue with it, as much as I enjoyed the grass roots outcomes I really didn't like the projects being used as political footballs. I would have much rather conservation taken out of the hands of politicians and left to conservation science and (daring to be tarred with this brush) economists. Green belts and conservation fencing actually add immediate value..

Same thing for parks. I don't know the area of this particular minesite. We had a place on the west coast, haven't spent much time down there probably a few weeks all up. Enough time driving around to know that the area dubbed 'The Tarkine' isn't 'all' pristine, definitely not all worth degrading a world heritage tag for surely? Perhaps there are areas of cultural value, that is fair enough.. but where exactly, surely not the whole 'Tarkine'?

It's not a matter of proving passion by saying so, answers are what are needed. Some claims are just not going to be believable.

I think, after wandering around the Tyndall area it deserves park status or inclusion (hardly pristine wilderness either so not WHA on those grounds). Lots of places do. So people chose to (perhaps disingenuously) lobby for a huge area reserve- 'the Tarkine', the reality is that they so far have nothing (I was wondering about that coastal strip.. the outcome for that). If the relative impact/footprint of this particular mine proposal (or even several of them) does indeed prove not significant then do we thank green stubborness for further eroding local conservation potential (or even wider universal acceptance of appropriate conservation)?

More emotionless data, more negotiation, small steps (SBS). Less divisiveness, it only plays into the hands of careless politicians. I really don't think we are all far from being on the same page here, however it seems, unless the question is simplified as either no compromise or no result. Perhaps a modern mine with appropriate royalties properly directed, a compromise, would better preserve other high value areas? Maybe not?

And mentioned but further from the topic- forestry... what could be more a more sustainable industry than a diverse culture plantation? Not necessarily unique to tas no but I have real doubts about the future look of a tourist based economy as well (as said).

Anyhow that's just my take on it, within the limits of my knowledge and experience. Maybe its as far from workable as any. A bit moderate for some perhaps. never said I was the smoothest or most agreeable I do know that I look back on my uni days, mindset and some of the actions as fairly naive these days.

[Nuts]

Cluster, I see what your saying but if it isn't about the 'uniqueness' of this area or a focus on known threatened species why not apply it to neighbouring farmland or forest reserves... or give up your back yard..

[Clusterpod]

But thats what i am saying. It needs to be applied far wider than just cuddly mammals, old- growth trees and orchids.
Ecologies are much more than its individuals.
Besides, if we don't know what species are in an area, how do we know if they are threatened or not?

[Taurë-rana]

It's quite simply normal for young Tasmanians who are educated to leave because the jobs aren't here. They've been leaving for decades.

If, and I'll only say it one more time we had leaders with vision the world is our oyster and it doesn't lie in pissant mines and forestry. It lies in what is special and unique about this island. High end agriculture(not canned vegetables) high end tourism, IT, The Arts and sustainability driven manufacturing.

Uurgh, that's it from me on this for now.

Very quick glance through this page of this thread, further to sbs's above comment on young Tasmanians leaving - I've been working at H&R Block doing tax and we've had a fairly high number of people of all ages who are on the boat very shortly to find work elsewhere. And one fellow who works in the mining industry said that mining jobs are disappearing as well - I've also heard this from someone associated with mines in WA, so why are we choosing mining to try and get jobs here?

If you look at the number of campervans and people at Cradle Mountain on any given day, surely promoting tourism and sustainable, ecofriendly (horrible buzzoword) businesses is the way to go. And that doesn't include Forestry - not sustainable IMHO. It also destroys other industries like honey production. I'm as much a victim of the lack of work here as anyone, but I don't think mining areas like the Tarkine are the way to make jobs. Sure some of it is degraded, but there are other areas that are remote and surprisingly beautiful.

[maddog]

Why are tourism and honey production on the one hand and forestry and mining on the other mutually exclusive?

By promoting poverty and provoking anxiety, it could be argued that deep green ideology is causing more damage to conservation than either the mining or forestry industries.

[Taurë-rana]

Forestry in northern-western Tasmania has destroyed much of the honey producing bush. The species that are replanted after clearfelling are not the ones that produce honey. And who on earth is promoting poverty and provoking anxiety? Haven't come across that.
And tourists come here to see wilderness or at least relatively untouched bush. Selectively logged areas from 100 years ago are still beautiful, but clearfelling and plantations certainly aren't. Neither are the scars from mines.

[Nuts]

I imagine a tourism economy on the scale needed wouldn't be served by or set up for campervans (or bushwalkers).

[Hallu]

Maddog : forestry and mining can only provide something significant to Tassie economy if done on a large scale. That isn't compatible with agriculture and wilderness tourism. From the comments we see here it's clear that the tendency is that Tasmania shouldn't invest in mines or forestry, since they've been declining for a long time anyway and don't provide jobs, and I agree with SBS. Tasmania should become THE foodie and wilderness destination of the Southern Hemisphere. Some private investors are trying to do the same thing in Patagonia by the way. What I don't get is why the idea of "ecotourism" seems to rhyme with golf courses and expensive resorts ? That's completely the opposite of what should be done. If you've seen the Highlander Cottages in Cradle, THAT's what should be done, on a larger scale, with innovative restaurants using local products. Instead of pushing for more mines, push for more agriculture. Fisheries, raising grass fed cattle, and vegetable/fruit growing can be sustainable. Mining can't, because ore isn't a renewable resource by definition. Forestry ? Tassie is too small and the scars left are too visible. Tasmania is also the only part of Australia where small towns are actually cute. I'll take a seaside Tassie town over any of the rubbish outback cities that are so overestimated in tourism guides (Coober Pedy and Broken Hill come to mind of course) any day. Tassie SHOULD be the next New Zealand. It is already, it's just that nobody knows. Hotels are half empty outside of summer, even last Easter only Cradle seemed fully booked.

[doogs]

Forestry can be a sustainable industry, it is just that practice of clear felling is not. It not only leaves massive ugly scars on the landscape but it also destroys habitats for animals that take decades to develop and plantation forestry cannot replicate.
I am all for promoting Tasmania as a pristine environment and promoting the produce of the state. It is a great place for Aquaculture and areas have the climate suitable for quality agriculture. Unfortunately some areas of farming has become degraded and are in need of restoration which is happening through the biodiversity fund which is linked to the carbon tax. On that subject Hydro Tasmania has had somewhat of a windfall from the mining tax selling our 'green' energy to the mainland whilst we Tasmanians get to buy your mainland dirty energy These are positives for Tasmania in a way as money=power. Tasmanian landowners and the Hydro can influence the governments thinking (paradigm shift), so that they can concentrate on promoting more sustainable forms of income for the state. I don't see why our state can't be compensated for having such large areas of land locked away as NAtional Parks in the same way that landowners are.

[stepbystep]

I hate to disagree again Hallu, but this issue is very complex. I do agree with your sentiment but not some of the examples you cite.
In regards to forestry, it's been proven large scale forestry is not and has not worked and is certainly not sustainable long term, if the profits were there it would be continuing unabated. I believe a sustainable selective logging industry built around premium artisan furniture manufacturing and speciality timber products is our future. Extraction methods should be totally transparent, carbon neutral and involve ENGO's as overseers to the operations. The huge pricepoint would cover the higher extraction prices.

Tourism is a central cog to Tasmania's future but let's not think we need to rely on it to survive long term, many factors out of our control can and will effect numbers.
Also I wouldn't get too hung up on the ecotourism/resort argument. Premium end resorts might well be out of the reach of most of us but the market is there and should be exploited. If any area of the tourist sector will survive the vagaries in Aus dollar etc it is the high end. These developments can and should be built with utmost respect for their environment both in construction method/materials and ongoing operation. Set an example for others to follow, let those high rollers fly in on their private planes but make them pay big time for the privilege.

As Taswegian so eloquently put, mindsets need to change. All levels of government are very much clinging on to old systems, systems they have profited from for decades. If we want to be the 'smart green island' a gradual transition in the development of new industries sympathetic to this ideal need to be subsidised and encouraged with programs from the school level up and employ the children of those now caught out by the burst bubble of other failed industries. A dedicated education program from grade 1 up is the only way to stop the rot and dilute ignorant attitudes over time.

And maddog, I would argue the Tasmanian government has had a sustained policy of promoting poverty and provoking anxiety, that's how you keep the dumb, dumb. Just look at asylum seeker policy if you aren't aware of the machinations of Tasmanian politics.

Does this political will exist? No, Will anything change soon? I doubt it. But it's nice to dream...in the meantime I'll take any win I can get(not that this one will last).



Bam - cross post. Nice points doogs. Particularly re the influence of landowners and Hydro. Of course to pay for the shift to an emissions trading scheme, the biodiversity fund is being gutted, nice move Kev!

Aquaculture interests me as this industry is growing and evolving over time, there are some pretty serious issues with it but the industry are taking these on.

[Nuts]

But thats what i am saying. It needs to be applied far wider than just cuddly mammals, old- growth trees and orchids.
Ecologies are much more than its individuals.
Besides, if we don't know what species are in an area, how do we know if they are threatened or not?

OK, good idea perhaps a long way off. For now people seem content with assumptions to support various arguments, some being more populist than others.

[maddog]

Cluster, biodiversity is far greater in Queensland and NSW than in Tasmania - should all mining and forestry be stopped in the name of unknown fungi? What level of public support would such a policy attract?

Taure-rama, With 45% of the Tasmania under NP tenure, I'm sure the European Honey Bee will not be endangered by a little forestry or mining. Scars from mining (mostly) heal with time.

Hallu and Doogs, compensation should not be necessary if a basket weaving economy is viable. Note that other States succeed with a full range of economic activity. In both New South Wales and Queensland tourism is a big industry, there are plenty of pretty destinations, however tourism does not preclude either forestry or mining. Balanced economies tend to prosper, so why should Tasmania be the exception?

And in regards to poverty and anxiety, unemployment and over reliance on low wage, low skill, and insecure 'service' jobs brings poverty and fear of unemployment brings anxiety. Working people leave (sometimes replaced with retirees), broader economic activity decreases, the downward spiral continues. This is important to recognise for those with a commitment to conservation. If you wish to protect environmental values, you must have public support. You will not have public support if you promote policies with a track record of destroying livelihoods. Without public support, conservation itself becomes vulnerable.

[stepbystep]

And in regards to poverty and anxiety, unemployment and over reliance on low wage, low skill, and insecure 'service' jobs brings poverty and fear of unemployment brings anxiety. Working people leave (sometimes replaced with retirees), broader economic activity decreases, the downward spiral continues. This is important to recognise for those with a commitment to conservation. If you wish to protect environmental values, you must have public support. You will not have public support if you promote policies with a track record of destroying livelihoods. Without public support, conservation itself becomes vulnerable.

Not too sure how familiar you are with the forestry debate down here but from what I can tell you have swallowed the line propagated by the government, the industry is not on it's knees because of conservationists, it's on it's knees because it has been producing a low end commodity(woodchips) and competing with the likes of Brazil and SE Asia. This is precisely my point in regards to agriculture also. Public opinion swings relatively easily when both sides of politics get behind a cause, think of that and consider how popular the conservation movement could be if some of it's causes were supported by one or both sides.

You seem like an intelligent fellow maddog, take a look at your sig, then do some research on the reality of the forest issue down here and then consider the possibilities long term.

EDIT: And with that the sig is gone, something to do with bs and your lack of tolerance of said bovine excretion!

[Clusterpod]

Cluster, biodiversity is far greater in Queensland and NSW than in Tasmania - should all mining and forestry be stopped in the name of unknown fungi? What level of public support would such a policy attract?

Its not about the level of biodiversity. Its not a competition.

Development of public lands, including reserved lands and parks, is being done under the false premise that they have been assessed and will be rehabilitated.

This is clearly a misinformation, and misdirection of the public as complete assessments are not done and therefore rehabilitation is impossible.

So if you aren't going to stop development in the name of unknown fungi then at least be honest to the public that it will necessarily disrupt the local ecology, with the potential result of endangerment or extinction of local species' populations, with no return to its previous state possible. Tell them as we don't know what is there now, we don't know what the future loss to the economy might be.

So with respect to mining iron ore in the Tarkine, you are balancing the immediate but short term benefits to some in the local and state economy against an unknown ecological value. This value, of course, remains unknown.

The point of public support is moot, as the system encourages taking the known over the unknown, taking todays money and hoping tomorrow will look after itself.

[Nuts]

Such a level of auditing would be great for getting on with the job of conservation but i can't see how it would help influence decisions in this case? Unfortunately, public support is everything to winning votes, people care about the threat to devils... it's the 'cuddly' animals that 'matter'.

[maddog]

SBS,

I'm aware of the forestry debate down there and the degree to which this has polarised Tasmanian society. I remember the damage done to the Federal Labour party when the local branch of the CFMEU waved their flags for Howard. And I understand that the end of the pulp mill was largely due to the industry of a wealthy businessman from NSW, Geoff Cousins.

The influence of the mainland is the modern history of conservation in Tasmania. This is true in the case of the Franklin Dam case, where the foreign affairs power was misused by the Commonwealth, and in the case of the Gunns mill - where finance was used as the weapon. It is not local democracy that has determined these outcomes for Tasmania, but perhaps it should have been.

Nevertheless, the great thing about being a mainlander is getting to decide what is good for Tasmania, a great holiday destination, without the need to feel the consequence of social collapse. However, I have wondered at times whether Tasmanians would prefer that it was them, not mainlanders, who wore the pants.

On the subject of the export of bulk low end commodities, whether that be wood-chip, raw materials such as iron ore, or agricultural produce. Australia has traditionally succeeded despite competition from the developing world, as wages are only a small part of the equation. Attracting capital with low sovereign risk, a skilled workforce, infrastructure, mechanisation, etc, have been sufficient for Australia to compete in commodities, and Germany and Japan in manufacturing. The biggest problem for Australian commodity exports has been the rise of the dollar.

And the sig has been gone for some time now.