Not much more of a chance that Peter Garrett will save it either.
As to expecting Herr Howard to keep a promise, yeh, and Santa Claus is coming down my chimney too.

Apparently as part of the jobs and economy mantra, this tree and its kind have to be sacrificed as part of the ‘sustainable alternative’.  Apparently, Tasmania can not go forward, especially under Howard, without destroying trees such as this. Apparently, we, as a people will be better off if they destroy something so grand.

HOW HOWARD?  How are we are better off?  We are mere spits in the ocean of time, but this destructive legacy will take many a lifetime to reestablish. That’s if the likes of those, who can’t possibly have soul if they can allow the death of something so grand, ever stop for a moment and give the forests the opportunity to grow properly, naturally, freely, like they supposed to.

This is what Forestry terms – “Native Forest - the sustainable alternative” (01/11/2007)

“Foresters are entitled to a modest chuckle when they come across earnest young protesters perched dangerously atop timber tripods beseeching all to protect what they think is a stand of old growth forest.” (Or is that a sinister laugh in knowing they have the power to destroy the biggest and best?)

“The mistake is understandable. Naturally regrown native forest, cared for and tended by foresters over many decades can, and does, look as if it has never been touched by human hand.” (FT, can’t take any credit for, or have a hope in hell, with their attitude, of creating, let alone managing forests to this natural standard.)

“In the heat of election campaigning, facts can get lost. In the meantime, please appreciate the irony of the young protesters seeking to protect regrowth forest, nurtured by the very people they oppose – Tasmanian foresters.”

Apparently, as the above statements allude to, FT doesn’t consider some of the areas they are logging in the Weld or Upper Florentine Valley to be old growth. Hence it is of absolutely no use except to cut down, chip and burn and sell at the cheapest possible price.

How does Forestry propose to recreate such forests within 90 years? With genetically modified implants of dinosaur dung?

I don’t know how some of these people who can be part of destroying something so grand can sleep at night. Let alone have the gall to stroke their own egos as ‘stewards’ seeking to protect and nurture our forests. They have lost touch with something that makes one human.

In the meantime Forestry please appreciate the irony of reaping what you have clearfelled and the dissent you have sown, nurtured by forestry continuing to destroy the magnificence of nature.

“I don’t know how some of these people who can be part of destroying something so grand can sleep at night. Let alone have the gall to stroke their own egos as ‘stewards’ seeking to protect and nurture our forests. They have lost touch with something that makes one human.”
Charles and Claire Gilmour
I have the privilege(?) of having loggers as neighbors and getting to discuss their position frequently. As some informal surveys have revealed, loggers give me the impression that their very masculine identity would be threatened if they couldn’t go out and chop down gigantic trees. As to their assertion that they are conducting a sustainable industry I doubt they actually believe that. More probably they simply don’t have any idea of the broader planet wide meaning of sustainability. To them it appears their industry is ‘sustainable’ so long as they’ve still got something to chop down. That and the uniquely corrupt red-neck nature of Tasmanian politics is capable of making mincemeat (woodchips?) of any pretense at democratic process. I’m getting to the stage where I wonder if violent action is required to make these barbarians sit up and take notice when even Peter Garrett turns his back on the forests for political expediency.

This tree will be gone because voters continue to support governments with very little concern for the environment and Tasmania’s ancient old growth forests and that idiotic trend will not change while sleeping

An article in the last Weekend Australian suggests that only 2% of the rainforests of Indonesia will remain standing by 2022! The conversion of untouched rainforest for conversion to palm oil plantartion is accelerating through local corruption networks between loggers, large corporations and government officials.

Staggeringly, nothing stands in their way not even National Park boundaries nor the habitat of Orangutans. There are instances of loggers taking machetes to attack and kill adult orangs and leave their nursing children dismembered.

That is the greedy and merciless world that Tasmania now is part of. We are now in the 6th great Extinction.

“That is the greedy and merciless world that Tasmania now is part of. We are now in the 6th great Extinction.” David Obendorf.

Yes, ours!

llareqqub said: “This tree will be gone because voters continue to support governments with very little concern for the environment and Tasmania’s ancient old growth forests..”

Wrong.  This tree will be gone because of the nature and evolution of our social and economic systems.

We have a two-party electoral system.  If you have been watching TV, listening to the radio or reading newspapers you should be able to note something very obvious.  The media inundate the Australian public ONLY with the policies of two look-alike parties.  Both parties are increasingly right-wing and extremist in the context of a quickly collapsing global economy and ecosystem. 

Lib-Lab supports ‘capitalism’.  This is a system whereby “the main forces of production are still owned and controlled by tiny minorities who produce in competition [or collusion] with one another on the basis of the ever-increasing exploitation of people and the natural environment.

The Greens do not provide a solution to this deadly dynamic.

“To speak of ‘limits to growth’ under a capitalistic market economy is as meaningless as to speak of limits of warfare under a warrior society. The moral pieties, that are voiced today by many well-meaning environmentalists, are as naive as the moral pieties of multinationals are manipulative. Capitalism can no more be ‘persuaded’ to limit growth than a human being can be ‘persuaded’ to stop breathing. Attempts to ‘green’ capitalism, to make it ‘ecological’, are doomed by the very nature of the system as a system of endless growth.” [Murray Bookchin, Remaking Society, pp. 93-94]

Capitalism has now evolved to a point where there are now very high concentrations of money and power.  This is now providing trigger points for calamities that can be brought about by relatively few individuals or institutions.

There is no sphere of exclusivity with these trigger points.  Collapse is also in the financial markets and the world economy as a whole.  A internet search for the word’s “global economic collapse” will provide ample clarification on this topic.

The whole point of capitalism is that you can’t stand still and survive.  The economy (of an individual, a company, a nation, the world) can only either grow or die.  Infinite growth is, of course, an impossibility, given finite resources.

Therefore the only future is short-term concentration of wealth (and therefore of power) followed by total collapse.

Of course, humans are the only species with the capacity to turn this around, but there is no incentive for any individual to do so.  Cooperation rather than competition might help, but that, too, is diametrically opposed to the principles by which we live.

Brenda:
Thanks for that explanatory overview of what is still a painful tragedy (for those who don’t buy the myth of masculinity). How do you suggest we resist if not by class actions, emotive photographs, tree sitting, public marches and meetings? Do we just roll over and die?

How about a list of policies that the Greens should put forward? How should governments be regulating the concentrations of money and power so that we don’t dismember orangutans, centuries old trees and the humanity of child soldiers?
NC

Brenda Rosser’s post #7:“Capitalism has now evolved to a point where there are now very high concentrations of money and power.  This is now providing trigger points for calamities that can be brought about by relatively few individuals or institutions.”

Since the beginning of the new Millenium and especially after 9/11 2001 we are seeing that the control of ‘money and power’ is narrowing. Trying to control Chaos is evident EVERY DAY with the newest expose of sudden extremism, corruption uncovered, assassinations, funtamentalist terrorist acts and shameless corporate greed.

The masses have obviously not reached the ‘blink’ moment and News Ltd boss, Rupert Murdoch and his global support base must be so happy that the majority of humanity are still addicted to Capitalism. And as he said to the News Ltd AGM in Adelaide yesterday, he’ll keep going doing what he is doing until they cart him out.

Our veritable own, Citizen Kane! But where is his “rosebud”?

3; I can’t agree with you regarding loggers. My work takes me out into working coupes and I’ve found that in one on one discussions they are also concerned about what is happening. Group discussions are different, no one wants to be thought a greenie!
The further up the ladder you get, the more rigid is the anti-green mind set, but on the forest floor there’s plenty of closet greenies who don’t admit it, even to themselves.

Steve, when a term such as ‘Greenie’ has a negative connotation, is it any wonder it creates the ‘closet greenie’? People who nervously say: “I’m not a greenie, but…..”

Take any dicriminated group in our society, have leaders incite fear, hatred, contempt or distrust about them. Have those same leaders constantly label them and a closeted group is created.

If individuals cannot be confident about the values and behaviours they hold and live by, then these types of manipulations and these forms of self-censorship will continue.

Having been concerned about the ecological future of our planet, the survival of our and other species for something like 40 years, I was a so called Greenie before the term was invented.
Calling people names sometimes does push them back in the closet (not me, I’ve been out of the closet proud 100% proof for decades & you can’t push me back). One of the reasons it’s easy to shame people into not calling themselves green is the idiotic practice some greens indulge in of dressing up in silly constumes at demonstations. Having legitimate protests look like a circus only plays into the hands of your enemies making it ever so easy for them to describe you as a bunch of ratbags. Please, can put the silly koala costumes etc back in the closet where they belong?

NeoConned said: “How do you suggest we resist if not by class actions, emotive photographs, tree sitting, public marches and meetings? Do we just roll over and die?How about a list of policies that the Greens should put forward? How should governments be regulating the concentrations of money and power so that we don’t dismember orangutans, centuries old trees and the humanity of child soldiers?”

- We need to ensure that we understand what the nature of our economic system is and what the consequences are if this system continues.

Here’s a rough definition:
Capitalism is an economic and social system based on unequal exchange. One that involves ongoing expansion and deepening of exchange relations and the use of money. Thus the economy relies on an ever-deepening level of exploitation that ultimately ends in the failure of nature and man - the very foundation that supports capitalism - to reproduce.

Capitalism has become ‘internalised’.  That means that most people are not fully aware of their position in the hierarchy and in their role associated with this system of exploitation. Government, industry and the media play a large part in ensuring that this low level of awareness amongst the masses continues.

As capitalism has deepened and expanded so has the ‘spin’, the advertising industry, the propaganda, the flak campaigns, and the distortion of educational systems.

What immediate action can we take?
* boycott
Boycotts were extremely effective in South Africa in the ending of the sytem of apartheid.  Similarly we can refuse to purchase or use tree-based paper.  Avoid purchasing items in the stores of corporations involved in the forest-rape and pesticide industries (amongst other forms of abuse).

* unite with others rather than focus exclusively on one’s own backyard.  Don’t suggest the problem be moved somewhere else.

* avoid anything that results in the unnecessary intensification of paid employment and consumerism.  For example, limit the amount of debt taken on.  Work part-time if you can afford it. Repair, recycle, reuse.  Engage in more home production.

The Greens need to completely rewrite their economic policy to ensure they have an adequate definition of ‘wealth’. There can be no viable economic policy without such.

“Our true wealth is the good we do in this world. None of us has faith unless we desire for our neighbors what we desire for ourselves.”
Mohammed

12; It’s actually a very interesting example of divide and rule, which has been most successful in Tasmania. I’m both horrified and fascinated by it. It’s very subtly done. Every extreme environmental idea is carefully published and emphasised to create an image of this bunch of lunatics who want to stop everything. These are the feared “Greenies”. Woe betide anyone who is classified as a greenie! Very convenient as anyone coming up with a conservation based idea is immediately dismissed as a greenie and no-one takes any further notice, except perhaps to burn their house down or something.
The same method of dismissing objections is being applied to NIMBYs. Someone wants to establish a nuclear waste dump on the residential block next door..“stop complaining, you’re just a nimby”. The implication being of course that you’d be fully in favour of a nuclear dump in someone else’s backyard. In most cases this is patently false but the technique continues to flourish.

Steve said: “..Someone wants to establish a nuclear waste dump on the residential block next door..“stop complaining, you’re just a nimby”. The implication being of course that you’d be fully in favour of a nuclear dump in someone else’s backyard. In most cases this is patently false but the technique continues to flourish…”

I’m not sure whether you were referring to my critique of the proposed TAP class action against ‘the’ mill??

If you were I’d like to clarify my thoughts and writing on the topic of my objection to the NIMBY focus.

West Calder residents objected to aerial spraying and whole farm/whole district application of industrial pesticides in their district.  At the time it was clear that such practices were not acceptable ANYWHERE.  That’s why I and others worked with the statewide Tasmanian Clean Water Network, amongst others.

On similar principles it is inappropriate to support ANY pulp mill that relies on an industrial regime that involves the growing of vast monocultures.  One dependent also on the most horrific pesticide and other practices.  [This week we’ve had a helicopter fly over two morning in a row with the large pesticide tank attached to its belly.  How many rural residents are being poisoned this month?]

‘Tasmanians Against THE Pulpmill’ statements and name makes it very clear that the focus has not extended from that narrow community out to the wider affected population impacted by the horrors of the feedstock management regime for ANY tree-based pulpmill.  This after a very painful full-on decade of forest rape, corporate landgrabs, theft from taxpayers, incessant spin and lying etc.

“..‘Tasmanians Against the Pulp Mill’ (TAP) chairman, Bob McMahon said “We are looking at least a possible $2 billion Class Action against Gunns Limited which will include thousands of claims for loss of property and housing values in the Tamar Valley, loss to businesses, loss of public amenities and potential threats to public health & safety”...”

Brenda, you are very, very wrong in your statements about TAP not “extending from that narrow community out to the wider affected population etc”. We have gone out of our way to extend ourselves beyond the immediate Tamar concerns. Come to any TAP meeting and you will find this out for yourself. We definitely get the bigger picture and we have been instrumental in getting farmers alerted to what is happening to our food-producing land under their very noses. And why they have less water now that there are water sucking plantations in their catchments. We have broken stories in the media about overspray incidents. The point about the class action is that - yes - people in the Tamar Valley are more directly affected in terms of property values because of the location, but anyone can join this class action - it will be conducted on several bases. So instead of whinging about how we in the Tamar Valley are NIMBYites, why don’t you do something positive and join the action?

16, I wasn’t actually referring to your critique. I was attempting to make a point about the technique of discrediting a persons viewpoint by assigning them to a group. It’s a lot easier than tackling individuals. You concentrate your attack on the group and anyone you don’t like you simply assign to the group.
I’m aware that you were guilty of that simplistic argument somewhere along the line but it was really part of a bigger point that you were making, so good luck to you.
Personally I see the nimby reaction as perfectly normal up to a point. I live on the West Tamar and I’ll be driving my family to Hobart tomorrow to attend the anti mill rally. If the mill was being built in the Huon valley I doubt I’d make the effort. That would not mean that I would be in support of such a mill, simply that it’d be further down my priority list.
In any conflict of this nature the strongest opposition comes from those with the most to lose. Likewise the strongest support (in this case the majority of the support!) comes from those with the most to gain. That’s life and unless you can factor it in your theories will remain just that.

Steve said: “In any conflict of this nature the strongest opposition comes from those with the most to lose. Likewise the strongest support (in this case the majority of the support!) comes from those with the most to gain. That’s life and unless you can factor it in your theories will remain just that.”

Yes.  That means that we all fight the spot fires on our own with murmurings of support from those further afield.  It means those who have set Tasmania on a course of destruction get away with it.

19; Yep, that’s about right Brenda. If it was different the problems would not arise in the first place.
Equally so, if one wants to take a broad, philosophical view, the characteristics which cause many of the problems that you decry are the very same that ensured we weren’t wiped out many rungs back down the evolutionary ladder. Can’t have it both ways!
Mean while I’ll get back to doing my darnedest to put out this particular spot fire. Care to lend a hand?

Brenda what you have written about TAP and its class action is not a critique. Your comments about us were a shoot first and dont even bother asking questions rant. I bet you havent even been to our website and had a good look through. I bet you,ve never been to a meeting, nor talked to one of our patrons at any length about our activities and achievements in our regions. Perhaps if you had or even given Bob Mcmahon a call before you shot off your mouth about our inadequacies you might have realised what how offensive to us statements like

“Tasmanians Against THE Pulpmill’ statements and name makes it very clear that the focus has not extended from that narrow community out to the wider affected population impacted by the horrors of the feedstock management regime for ANY tree-based pulpmill.  This after a very painful full-on decade of forest rape, corporate landgrabs, theft from taxpayers, incessant spin and lying etc”.

You dont know how wrong you are Brenda. Just ask the blokes like Tony Saddington or blokes like Rocky and Rod Sinfield from the Meander valley action group all who frequent our meetings. Or have a chat to Mike Bolan or Paul O Halloran about us.

Go and do those things I have suggested Brenda and then get back to us with what i would hope might be a more accurate critique of TAP and its activities.

So if we are a network of organisations and individuals connected by greater or smaller inequalities of exchange…

It would seem exploitative to expect material support without providing it in return.
Holding a belief that supports ‘no mill anywhere’ is not material support for those in Meander or Hampshire or the southern forests.
To avoid exploiting the outsiders providing support, TAP should exclude those individuals who support a timber-based mill in a different location or at least voice opposition to those individuals. Swinging from the trees in the southern forests would also be a provision of material support.

If you give more than you get, is that exploitation or generosity? I guess not all rewards come from materials.