Scientists and ambitious enviro-bureaucrats have sucked governments into insisting upon "environmental impact statements" (EIS) for an expanding range of development proposals.
Initially such requirements envisaged an EIS being conducted rapidly and precisely with unambiguous findings.
This has proven to be way off the mark. The EIS process is costly and lengthy and often its conclusions are contentious. It is a major deterrence to new ventures.
Originally an EIS was structured to give a green light to proposals using technology designated as "state-of-the-art" or using "world's best practice". Today some anti-business commentators pillory such terms as meaningless.
Indeed, when an EIS indicates that the environment will not be seriously harmed by a proposed activity, this regularly becomes a springboard from which a new set of objections are raised.
So it is with Gunns' proposed Tasmanian pulp mill. Environmentalists oppose using Australian timber resources and the infinite cleansing power of the oceans to build a facility which is essential to the production of this and every newspaper. This is despite the mill replacing older and heavier polluting facilities elsewhere in the world.
Having battled the environmental approval process for three years, the Tasmanian pulp mill is now awaiting the findings of another study, headed by Commonwealth chief scientist, Jim Peacock. But one thing is certain; unless Dr Peacock finds that the mill should not proceed, there is no prospect of the environmentalists and their favoured scientists accepting his verdict.
EIS procedures nowadays impede developments.
We have already seen the mechanism turned against even the most "environmentally correct" facilities such as wind farms. Now we have the prospect of activists using the process to target other eco-indulgent white elephants such as the proposed Wonthaggi desalination plant.
They might do us all a favour by stopping this wasteful $3 billion proposal dead in its tracks. But the problem is that such success would energise activists to oppose any other measures to bring water to Melbourne. Low shower pressure, cracked cricket pitches, dying gardens and dirt-caked cars is their idea of the good life.
There is a better way.
Getting an EIS green light does not grant immunity from lawsuits. If Gunns builds a mill that has adverse effects on oyster farming or any other business, it becomes liable for hefty damages.
Working through capital markets and bankers, this is a highly effective deterrence against harm being done. Recognition of this can considerably reduce the scope of the EIS process.
The present tortuous approval process means fewer projects and fewer well-paid jobs. This is of particular concern to Tasmania, Australia's Cinderella state.
Placing impediments on development is a reversal of long standing attitudes. Columnist Mark Steyn noted that the first Labour Day was proposed 120 years ago by the US Carpenters and Joiners union to honour those "who from rude nature have delved and carved all the grandeur we behold". Unfortunately, many who are active in the politics of economic development are today more interested in "rude nature" than how it can be used to improve our world and its living standards.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment