Hi, all -
Forgive me for what may seem self-indulgent, but I have spent a significant
chunk of my life involved with this particular issue - now apparently resolved;
Russell Woodford said:
> I'm not sure if anyone
>on this list (or anyone at all, for that matter!) understands why the
>State Government did an about-face on the issue.
>Can anyone shed any light on these issues?
I think there is little doubt that money (relocation, compensation and other
costs) played some role in this. There may have been a couple of lesser
factors involved, such as the fact that the Orange-bellied Corella is a very
charismatic species - and that the Ramsar Convention has a much higher
public profile now than it did at the time of the Coode Island Inquiry five
years ago. However, cynicism is cheap and not very useful in this case.
The decision to retain the bulk chemical storage facility at Coode Island
should be welcomed. If you consider that a relocated facility would require
a coastal location, remote (for political reasons) from human habitation,
well buffered (for environmental reasons) from any sensitive or valuable
natural habitat, close (for economic reasons) to industry and transport
corridors, where would you put it?
Ultimately we must accept responsibility for keeping the unpleasant or
potentially dangerous parts of the infrastructure of our society close to us
where we can keep a wary eye on it, and to give us the incentive to make it
as safe as possible, and to examine ways of reducing our need for it. The
alternative is always to look for some neglected, unwanted or distant piece
of land (which is usually biologically valuable for exactly the same
reasons) on which to dump and forget our responsibilities.
Cheers, Hugo.
Hugo Phillipps,
Birds Australia Conservation & Liaison,
Australian Bird Research Centre,
415 Riversdale Road,
Hawthorn East, VIC 3123, Australia.
Tel: +61 3 9882 2622. Fax: +61 3 9882 2677.
Email: <>
Web Homepage: http://www.vicnet.net.au/~birdsaus
|
