The state and federal government do not give a "rats bum"
about the enviroment in tassie again history will be made in tassie as more species of flora and fauna will become endangered and/or extinct

How short does ones memory have to be??????
Tasmanian Tiger,Tasmanian Aborigines
Well we can add a few more to list
thanks john howard and thank you paul lennon

And no im not related to paul lennon

wazcrazy aka warren lennon..

Agree with you wholeheartedly artie and waz!

I disagree Warcrazy - Howard and his 'business-comes-first' cronies may not give a hoot, but there are Liberal senators and backbenchers who definitely see this as something that could hurt them in the long term. Lennon is an appalling example of a politician who will happily lie to reporters, the people of Tasmania and anyone else who asks him about Gunns. I was appalled to hear that his government has stonewalled attempts by the Senate to force them to come clean on the cosy relationship with Gunns.

Sadly, it doesnt end there - most of our Superannuation funds rely on Gunns and their ilk (to be fair, Central Queensland has its share of such companies) for returns on our investment. Monopolies have a fantastic ROI, but its not a return that is sustainable, and our kids will bear the cost of Gunns 'profit-before-people' practices.

I'm not anti-development or anti-jobs, and I know that the people of Tasmania greatly resent mainlanders interfering in their affairs, but when you see Tassie timber workers telling you that Gunns' logging efforts end up as by-product enroute to Japan, something is very wrong. I'm not siding with the diehard greens who want an end to *all* logging, but there has to be a middle ground.

Sure there are some libs who give a damn but the public have been duped over and over again by politicians and howards party is just the most recent example.
my super relies on ethically and enviromentally responsible companies
(i'm sounding more like a greenie every day ) but when is enough really enough when it comes to tassie.
It really should be releing on the eco tourism that it could generate long term rather than the short term picture of profit
Problem also with tassie is that education on this matter is lacking due to a major company like gunns and the government sending out propaganda that this is the only way to keep tassies economy going!
Tassies forest could be the place were the world could go for a look into the geologic past like a jurrasic park of forests or something

It is the only way to keep the Gunns economy going more like.

As soon as the timber runs out the Gunns will make like the trees they raped and 'leave'. The workers of Tassie will be left with the useless wasteland and no long term jobs!

The feedback thus far would seem to indicate that we (presmably mainlanders) are on Pete's side : I guess its only fair to ask if there are any Tasmanians out there with a different point of view ? Perhaps they see things in another light, but I am hoping that they can see the validity in warcrazy's assertion that eco-tourism is a much better longterm bet than logging old-growth forests for woodchips ...

Yes I am a Tasmanian and a former tree feller, not for Forestry Tasmania but for a lone contractor who is as mad as I am about the modern method of clearfelling, we used to selectively log.
It is said that Paul Lennon is the Premier of this state, that is not correct, John Gay is the premier and Gunns is the political party he represents.
It was promised several years back that we would never again have industries like the Boyer Paper Mill or the Zink Works built near a river because of the pollution they cause, that decision now seems to be totally forgotten.
I am afraid I do not see a very bright future for the Tamar River and the people who live in that area if this proposal becomes a reality
I am 100% behind Peter Cundall.

Not the worst surely? Possibly in the top 100?? lol

Indignation at multi-nationals - governments by a select few bothers them not. After all we consume the products at an unbelievable pace.

How many send back junk mail? Who reads the newspaper? Its of no value having a "No Junk Mail" sticker, the crap needs to be sent back to the sender. Then it will cost companies in disposal etc but how many are willing to do that??

Also because everyone reckons recycling is the answer, the overflow in the letterbox isn't a problem.

So unless the mindset of the nation changes dramatically or a lot of committed individuals combine to do something like this not a great deal is going to change. It has to cost companies/individuals something before any change will occur...

Eco tourism yup burn up the fossil fuels whilst we've got'em tis great for the environment hehee

The feedback thus far is depressingly quiet actually..Apathy is the biggest problem me think. Are we all becoming more selfish?

*falls off soapbox*

kbranksome - thanks for the feedack : its reassuring to know that we arent just being dogmatic mainlanders on this issue.

Scruffly - nice troll, er, *post* :) I agree that apathy is the biggest problem, but I feel that any effective resistance to Gunns must come from within Tasmania - until the politicians see real community anger they will continue to do Gunns' bidding. The resistance to Howards industrial relations push is proof that pollies wont all sing along to the party tune if they know it will hurt them at the next election.

Scruffly,

Relax - I was referring to your flippant tone, not the content of your post. I realise that you are serious, but the written word isnt always easy to decipher.

Cheers,

Artie

Scruffly, your comment re returning of junk mail is quite right. Waste disposal is expensive. Bunnings now sell plastic bags at the register. Not necessarily an environmental decision but a way of forcing shoppers to take a cardboard box. It was costing them millions each year to get rid of the packaging. Just think of how many boxes they must accumulate. Everything comes in a box from the distributers and manufacturers.

Oh, I could go on forever about this issue, I'll spare you all though, kinda preaching to the converted, right? Just dropped in here to mention that for those in Adelaide, there will be a public meeting re: Tasmania's Forests with Bob Brown speaking, it will be on Friday July 29th at 7.00pm at Norwood Town Hall, cost $10.00, unfortunately I forgot to write down the contact number, but will attempt to find more details for anyone interested.

regards, mudlark

As a side issue to this, Artiew mentioned how many superannuation funds rely on investments like Gunns. If you feel strongly enough you can approach you Super company to only invest your funds in 'Green' projects. If enough people did this it might make a difference to these destructive companies.
Cheers
Judy

A better option would be to simply move your invest to a superannuation company that is ALREADY selective about where it puts your money. There are numerous ethical funds available in Australia and the industry is growing. I invest in such a fund, not so much because they invest in green projects, but because they make considered and informed decisons about their investment strategies, they observe the triple bottom line of socially, environmentally and economically responsible behaviour. I stress this because, I do not invest as an act of benevelence, I want my superannuation to make a profit. There are many industries that may not neccessarily be considered "green" but are non-the-less progressive and sustainable in their operations.

cheers, mudark