One small dam
Sir: I have just read the article 'Island in the rain' by James Hughes-Onslow (1 January). It is inconceivable that our South-West, in its totally wilderness state, could attract a 'lucrative tourist trade'. Six thousand square miles of the South-West is an almost im- penetrable trackless forest with mountain ranges and many 'wild rivers'. Without some reasonable means of access, even on foot, tourists would have nowhere to go. Hughes-Onslow also mentions, correctly, that the rainfall over this area is some 3 metres per year. Tourists are not usually at- tracted by such torrents of rain.
Many Tasmanians are, in fact, conservation-minded and no Tasmanian wants to 'destroy' even the 1 per cent of the South-West that the dam would flood, but we do not want nuclear power stations or thermal generation. Quite apart from the fact that hydro power is, in our situation, infinitely cheaper than either thermal or nuclear, I can't believe that any conserva- tionist, in his right mind, would prefer the dirt and dangers of coal-fired power sta- tions nor the unknown risks involved with nuclear energy. Really the only rational argument against even one small dam in the South-West is not conservationist at all, but economic. It can be argued that, by scrimping and sav- ing, we would not, in some ten or twentY years time, require more electricity genera- tion capacity than we have now. That could mean that industries, with high energy re- quirements, would not establish in this state and some such industries, already establish- ed here, would leave, with consequent job losses. Even so, if there were any certainty that other, low-energy-using, industries could be enticed to establish here, Tasma- nians would jump at the chance to stop the dam. It is obvious, from our recent democratic State election, that Tasmanians do not want to gamble for such high stakes.
John Large
178 Macquarie Street, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Previous page
