Ecologists Question Renewable Energy Sprawl

“Large-scale solar farms, wind turbines, and associated infrastructure are touted as solutions to the climate crisis, but their development comes at the cost of native forests and critical habitats.”

“Until conservation charities disentangle themselves from government funding and corporate influence, they risk becoming complicit in the very destruction they were created to prevent.” – Kelly Jones (Carbon8 Fund) below

One of the great ironies of our age is the double standard of Big Environmentalism toward wind and solar, which commit numerous eco-sins that would not be tolerated otherwise. Dilute, intermittent, and thus inefficient? Yes. Energy sprawl requiring service roads and transmission lines in the wild? Yes. A threat to wildlife on land and in the water? Yes. And mining issues, even using child labor? Yes.

But it is anti-CO2 or bust to the foes of modern, prosperous living in a free society. The want a state of nature, a Garden of Eden, as if humankind did not matter. Deep Ecology is a religious cult that is, in the area of energy, an enemy of Global Greening.

Will the hypocrisy end? Or is it beginning to be? The latest evidence about growing doubts about the “solution” to climate change was posted by Kelly Jones (Carbon8 Fund), “Funding the Silence: Why Conservation Charities Won’t Speak Against Habitat Loss.” She asks:

The Australian government’s aggressive push for renewable energy has created a significant moral dilemma for conservation charities. On one hand, these organisations are entrusted with protecting ecosystems and biodiversity; on the other, they are increasingly reliant on public funding tied to government renewable energy initiatives. The result? A deafening silence in the face of environmental destruction, as raising concerns about habitat loss could jeopardise their financial stability. This isn’t conservation—it’s capitulation.

Renewable energy projects are a double-edged sword. Large-scale solar farms, wind turbines, and associated infrastructure are touted as solutions to the climate crisis, but their development comes at the cost of native forests and critical habitats. Vulnerable species like koalas are being pushed to extinction, yet conservation charities, aware of these impacts, find themselves in a compromising position: challenge the renewable energy narrative and risk losing funding, or remain silent and perpetuate the destruction.

Corporate influence further complicates the issue. Renewable energy companies, eager to greenwash their operations, channel significant donations into conservation initiatives. These partnerships create a façade of environmental responsibility while insulating companies from criticism. Conservation organisations, incentivised by these donations, turn a blind eye to the damage caused. In the race for renewable dominance, profit-driven alliances have reduced Australia’s biodiversity to collateral damage.

The erosion of public trust is a particularly stark betrayal. Australians contribute to conservation charities believing their donations will safeguard wildlife and ecosystems. Instead, those funds often bolster partnerships with industries that undermine conservation goals. Government funding and corporate donations have transformed many conservation groups from independent advocates into silent enablers of habitat destruction.

True conservation demands courage—speaking out even when it’s inconvenient and advocating for solutions that coexist with biodiversity. Until conservation charities disentangle themselves from government funding and corporate influence, they risk becoming complicit in the very destruction they were created to prevent. Transparency, accountability, and a commitment to real environmental protection are essential to restore trust and ensure Australia’s unique wildlife has a future.

So next time you support conservation in Australia, be sure to check what solutions your money is funding. If you are giving to protect the koala, make sure the organisation’s advocacy and solutions are genuinely aligned with biodiversity protection—and far removed from the destructive impacts of renewable energy projects.

I commented: “Consider this perspective.

The greenest fuels are the ones that contain the most energy per pound of material than must be mined, trucked, pumped, piped, and burnt. [In contrast], extracting comparable amounts of energy from the surface would entail truly monstrous environmental disruption…. The greenest possible strategy is to mine and to bury, to fly and to tunnel, to search high and low, where the life mostly isn’t, and so to leave the edge, the space in the middle, living and green.

– Peter Huber, Hard Green: Saving the Environment from the Environmentalists (New York: Basic Books, 1999), pp. 105, 108.

—————————

Appendix: Other Posts by Kelly Jones (Carbon8 Fund)

Kelly Jones asks the hard questions, such as “Please explain how destroying our native bushland to build wind and solar farms is going to reduce the temperature of the whole planet?” Here viewpoint is utopian for seeking the perfect energy, but she is on track with the fealty of wind and solar as “environmental”.

“Unlimited Power Without Harm: The Hidden Energy Technologies to Save Our Planet”

“While solar and wind power are often touted as clean energy cornerstones, they’ve proven to be environmental disasters.”

The Dirty Secret of Clean Energy: How Renewables Devastate Communities and Ecosystems

“While marketed as the solution to climate change, renewable energy has a dark side that is rarely discussed. The extraction of critical resources—such as lithium, cobalt, and nickel—essential for batteries, wind turbines, and solar panels, wreaks havoc on ecosystems and communities.”

The post Ecologists Question Renewable Energy Sprawl appeared first on Master Resource.

Source: https://www.masterresource.org/environmental-issues-windpower/ecologists-question-renewable-sprawl/