There's a clink of the Clayton's-on-ice about Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett's decision not to approve three environment conditions for the Gunns pulp mill.

For those too young to remember, Clayton's was ''the drink you have when you're not having a drink,'' passing into Aussie lingo as a term for something that's a crummy substitute for the real thing.

Although making much of the need for further work on the hydro-dynamics of effluent dispersal in Bass Strait, Mr Garrett has approved nine ''modules'' or sections of the mill's environmental management plan. This includes clearing 92ha of bushland and if you read the detail of the relevant ''module'' creating ''a short-term sediment plume'' in the Tamar River which may have ''localised impacts'' on fish. Could that be weasel speak for ''killing'' those fish?

Will the missing modules even matter, if the land is cleared and major earthworks are underway to carve out the site?

Just two months out from the federal election that swept Kevin Rudd's Government into office, Mr Garrett, as Labor's environment spokesman, issued a statement of support for the pulp mill.

Labor respected the Howard government's approval of the $2.2billion mill, even if the process to arrive at that decision had been ''a shambles.''

''Federal Labor has always supported a world class mill for Tasmania that achieves best practice environmental outcomes and reduces woodchip exports in favour of economically beneficial downstream value adding processing,'' Mr Garrett's pre-election statement said.

This seems to make the political posturing over Gunns getting up to scratch on its effluent modules something of an empty gesture. Clayton's tough talk, indeed.

And again, CSIRO has been asked to provide advice at taxpayer expense only to have its findings suppressed.

Go to Senator Christine Milne's website and read the letter from departmental secretary Gerard Early, arguing why the CSIRO preliminary modelling should not be released under Freedom of Information. The CSIRO has no objection to the report being released. But Mr Early argues disclosure of the report will ''have an unreasonably adverse impact on Gunns' lawful business, commercial or financial affairs.'' Our taxes doubly at work here funding the CSIRO report and the department refusing to release it to public scrutiny.