Thursday, September 13, 2007

Pulp Friction - Forests, Paper, and a Federal Election

The Debate is far from over. Tonight broadcast on the ABC, yes the station which is home to the Chasers, was a program called Difference of Opinion.

Tonights Debate focused on the Tamar Valley Pulp Mill.

Asking the questions such as:
how can the Government State and Federal Allow a business to built in and area where it will KILL 6-8 people per year from respiratory illness, how can a Government Approve a Business in an area where 68% say NO!!! We don't want it and only 27% say yes thanks......

Click the link Below view the program and make up your own mind.......
but you will get alot of the facts.......
Listen to the older Gentlemen on the end ...... he is not connected with an environment group and is not connect to GUNNS Limited and has the facts....



Shinade said...

Nothin about any governmanets surprise me anymore. After all the research I did into the NWO-----I have no doubt that they truly do have a plan to eliminate many of us so called lesser peoples of the world....I really have started to believe this. I just read too much and viewed too many videos to think anything different. and they are all into together...almost every single leader form every single country...all crooks and liars!! thanks for allowing me to vent....sorry it's been such a long while between visits...but I still love ya!!~jackie


So, I watched the video several times and took notes. The man from the Wilderness Society set the stage by bring up legitimate concerns backed by facts of potential environmental damage. Tim, the union representative ignored these concerns in taking a union position for jobs. Unions represent members who pay for membership. The unions gain by producing a greater paying base. He falls back upon an assertion that environmental regulations are already strict, but he does not address the pollutants that will be created. He argues apples and oranges. The woman, CEO of Timber Communities, who is in this issue strictly for profit, makes a rather bald-face plea for the unemployed. If the unemployment statistics she sites are true, her profiteering does not address this issue in and of itself. Her position was pretty rank. The last, Warwick, criticizes the government for providing no plan B, and, waiting for the results of an independent study, finds the mills a source of noxious environment pollutants.

So, we have two incredibly uninformed people, who argue from self interest and side step the environmental issue. And we have two who stick to the subject and base their arguments upon research.

The two proponents of the mill present an either/or argument which is always fallacious. There are always more choices than A or B. The opponents argue from fact and from the suggestion of investigating alternative choices to solve the myriad of issues in a win-win manner.

So, will Australians follow the scientific facts, will they knee-jerk in irrational ideological lock step, or will they be apathetic?

To me, the environment is a national treasure that demands protection from profiteering.

(Excuse this long comment, but you invited it.)