LETTER TO THE EDITOR:
I AM amazed at the amount of obfuscation and misinformation that has been published in your letters to the editor recently.
The hidden agenda of the ASH attack now appears to be just another land grab by city- based Greens, who want to increase the national park area.
The true endangered species are ASH and the people of Heyfield, who are threatened with the loss of habitat and livelihood.
Jaana Dielenberg of Queensland has been misinformed.
Nobody is asking for a $40 million hand-out.
All ASH needs is its original allocation of logs to continue to function as per the people's petition now circulating, to be returned to Tim Bull and to be sent to the Legislative Assembly of Victoria, for urgent attention.
There is no need whatsoever to choose between tourism and logging, as Ms Dielenberg from Queensland proposes.
ASH itself, with a bit of thought, could be turned into a wonderful tourist attraction, to showcase its innovative and beautiful products.
Also, possum spotting tours may be possible.
Maybe we could rival Phillip Island's penguin parade, by our very own possum (s)potting parade. Well, maybe not.
The same muddled Green stance also applies to Yallourn and its brown coal asset.
Quite regardless of the fact that solar and wind power are not enough to guarantee a reliable supply, and are only useful as an addition to power plant generation, the Greens want to wreck that also.
Recently a letter to you was published describing the new power plants in Germany which are generating electricity from brown coal, with much less harmful emissions.
Could we not investigate that option rather than just shut down everything in Yallourn, Hazelwood and surround areas?
There is now a committee formed, whose aim is to "rehabilitate" the brown coal mines.
"Rehabilitation" in this case appears to be by filling the coal mines with water, so making it impossible forever to use brown coal for power generation.
I don't think future populations will be grateful for the actions of present day misguided fanatics; indeed I think that nobody has the right to destroy any present resources which may become useful in the future.
Trees regrow and technology is available for low emission brown coal energy production.
Has common sense really become so uncommon and our language so debased by 'newspeak' terms, that the word 'conservation' has now come to mean 'destruction'?