Look, normally were pretty moderate, sensible people. But occasionally we just see red. Hence this letter sent to GBRMPA after the insane decision they just made. We think we need to make our position clear ;-) 1st February 2014 GBRMPA approval to dump dredge spoil from the Abbot Point expansion in the Marin Park To: Russell Reichelt Melissa George Tony Mooney Jon Grayson Margie McKenzie SHAME ON YOU To those within the authority who have enabled this decision, shame on you. For those who support it, shame on you. For those who may not support it and have said nothing, shame on you. You in charge of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority have the distinction of having presided over the world heritage property and see half the coral disappear on your watch. It is a testament to your failure to exercise your basic purpose. But before you throw up your hands and bring out the excuses in protest, that you have no control over the path of cyclone Hamish, no influence on the farmers and their fertilizers, no control over increasing temperatures and ocean acidification, note that this is at least one area where you could have made a difference. One real opportunity, may you have reduced it to negligible, one real opportunity to actually do something to demonstrably protect the reef and instead you buckled. Your excuses confirm your impotence, your behaviour confirms betrayal. Your decision to allow the dumping of dredge spoil within the Marine Park boundary demonstrates cowardice. We expect far more from those in charge of the protection of one of the world’s most precious ecosystems. To allow a direct assault of this kind on the world heritage property taints the GBRMPA and all associated with it. You have damaged its reputation not just in the eyes of those who fight to protect our natural values, but in the eyes of most Australians. The damage to reputations will cascade far and wide. If once it was prestigious to be part of the GBRMPA team, many will now question that. I understand some serious questions arise from conflict of interest allegations from at least two of you prompting the environment minister to order a probity inquiry. It seems completely unreasonable for Tony Mooney to contend that his executive position with Guildford Coal would not have played a role in this decision. It also seems that a serious ethical dilemma arises from holding an executive role in an organisation with ambitions to open up vast new coal resources, while accepting the science of anthropogenic climate change. Should Mr Mooney however be at odds with the science of climate change and ocean acidification, his position on the board of the authority is clearly untenable. We have, to some extent come to terms with the character of politicians and political appointees, but what is rather new is the permeation of inappropriate and obfuscatory supervisory comments from senior scientists trying to push an agenda. In a pathetic justification of the decision, the risks are being down played, viz: the sediment consists of sand, silt and clay and does not contain coral reefs or seagrass beds, the sediment has been extensively tested for contaminants and was found to be clean, this is natural sand and seabed materials ... its whats already there, were just relocating it from one spot to another spot, in a like-per-like situation. When scientist on alternate agenda’s promote: Marine sediments are anoxic apart from a thin oxic layer (typically ranging from a few millimetres to a few centimetres) at the sediment-water interface. In an attempt to convince the public that: dredging and disposal of Potential Acid Sulfate Soil (PASS)-containing sediments in the marine environment is unlikely to result in either significant oxidation of this material, acid production, or release of significant quantities of heavy metals (where present), because: oxidation will cease soon after the dredged sediment settles, because microorganisms quickly use up the available oxygen in bottom sediments. Of course most marine scientists know that the marine sediment at depth is anoxic because of sulfur-loving bacteria, the same ones that give us acid sulphate soils. But now we are to accept from the supervisory scientists that the sediments at Abbot Point are different marine sediments, “clean” and free of “contaminants”. We also know that almost every sediment sample taken from Gladstone harbour had appreciable detections of Arsenic, Chromium, Cobalt, Copper, Lead, Nickel, Vanadium, Zinc. Metals that bio accumulate readily and for which recent high level exposures were diagnosed in Green Turtles of Gladstone Harbour at the time of dredging. We sincerely regret your decision and ask that you at least have the decency not to pervert the science as you already seem to be slipping into a public relations mode, trying to defend the indefensible. Shame on you, Jan Arens President – Gladstone Conservation Council gladstoneconservationcouncil.au/web/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/GCC-Feedback-on-GBR-Strategic-Assessment-140201.pdf
Posted on: Sun, 02 Feb 2014 03:21:53 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015