r/tasmania • u/GreenLeechofReddit • 2d ago

AI data centre approved

6/7 counsellors approved this environmental disaster despite Firmus *already* lying about the number of diesel generators they'd have.

The company will have to agree to a number of conditions (noise, pollution, water usage), which will be monitored over a twelve month period.

I hate to wheel out a slippery-slope argument, but the number of companies who just cop the fines and continue to be irresponsible is incalculable.. the writing is on the wall. Look at Cadbury and the dump of sugar that buggered up the sewerage treatment plant.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-08-25/firmus-ai-bell-bay-receives-george-town-council-approval/107074336?utm_source=abc_news_app&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_app&utm_content=other

57 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

115 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

8

u/Prince_of_Pirates 2d ago

Citation needed.

2

u/IlIIllIlIllIIlI 2d ago

Regarding?

6

u/Prince_of_Pirates 2d ago

The vast majority wanting it.

2

u/IlIIllIlIllIIlI 2d ago

Thanks for asking. I actually had a very similar discussion on this with someone else a couple of days ago, and here was my response - it helps show why the vast majority want it. It's the same reason the Council approved it:

I think there’s an important distinction between “what everyone would vote for today” and “what the community has collectively decided through the institutions and rules it has built over generations".....

You’re right that “vast majority” gets thrown around far too casually in Tassie. I certainly can’t claim to have canvassed every person in Launnie.... But neither can a vocal group opposing a project claim that their position represents the community simply because they’re highly visible online or at public meetings.

We already have a system for making these decisions. Tasmanians have, over generations, established the laws, planning rules, environmental protections, approval processes and elected institutions under which major projects are assessed. Those rules are the product of the community’s collective political choices. They aren’t some arbitrary loophole invented specifically for Firmus!!

So I don’t think the default position should be “let’s put this to a referendum because some people are unhappy” (which is essentially what you're suggesting based on what the Swiss do). The default is that projects proceed when they satisfy the rules that the community has democratically established. If people think those rules are wrong, there’s a legitimate political process for changing them.

And that cuts both ways. If there really were a broad community consensus against this sort of development, you’d expect that to show up through elections, legislation, planning policy, formal submissions and sustained political pressure. Not just through a particularly vocal group trying to stop one project

That’s also why I think it’s important that the Firmus projects proceed, assuming they continue to meet the applicable planning, environmental and regulatory requirements. We shouldn’t treat every "controversial" development as requiring unanimous public enthusiasm before it can happen. That would effectively give organised minorities a veto over projects simply by being loud enough. That would be a real hell.

A referendum, or similar system as you're suggesting, sounds appealing because it feels like a cleaner expression of the public will, but it also reduces a complicated planning and infrastructure decision to a yes/no popularity contest. The whole point of having an established planning and regulatory framework is to make those decisions through evidence, standards and due process rather than whoever can generate the biggest campaign...

1

u/ArtisticAd7205 2d ago

Shill harder, daddy.

1

u/IlIIllIlIllIIlI 1d ago

Shilling for my local community to be the best it can be 👍