John Daysh,
is he wrong ?
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=334808049717188

Indyvidual,

Canavan isn’t wrong to say wind and solar have environmental impacts. Of course they do - every energy source does. We've discussed this in excruciating detail. He's wrong about everything else, though - not to mention dishonest in that he misrepresents the report’s intent and claims.

Firstly, Matt Canavan was questioning is Dr. Brendan French, who is the CEO of Energy Consumers Australia - not an environmental scientist or energy systems engineer. He’s a consumer advocate with decades of experience in public interest and dispute resolution, especially around energy, water, and banking. So, he’s not the “technical expert” on the environmental impacts of wind and solar farms that Canavan portrays him as. That’s also not what he was there to talk about.

French was speaking about consumer sentiment and how misinformation spreads when people don’t have access to balanced, clear information. That’s a valid and well-documented dynamic in public behaviour - and one that falls directly under his wheelhouse.

Canavan framed the report as if it labelled any criticism of renewables as “misinformation” - which isn’t what the report or French actually said. French clarified that the report refers to uninformed speculation, not the mere act of raising environmental concerns.

So yes - Canavan attacked a strawman, misrepresented the report, and went after the wrong kind of expert for the issue he was pretending to interrogate.

If he wanted to debate the real environmental trade-offs of renewables, he should have been speaking to a planner, ecologist, or energy systems analyst - not a consumer sentiment specialist.

In short, Canavan was mostly wrong and very dishonest.

John Daysh,
You deserve an Oscar for manipulating & protecting a massive & unsustainable rort ! Nothing personal but this is just my gut feeling !
We agree that no form of energy is free of negative environmental impact however, I can't shake the suspicion that rather than offer us a better future, present technology in the form of "renewables" will cost us dearly in every way ! My suspicion is formed by observations of how the proponents of that industry underplay the impact all round !

Indyvidual,

I appreciate your passion, but when you’re calling for an Oscar because I made an argument you can’t refute, that says more about the strength of the case than anything else.

You say “nothing personal,” and I’ll take you at your word - but let’s be real: suspicion and gut feelings aren’t substitutes for evidence. If you believe renewables are a “rort,” the next step is to demonstrate it. That means showing how, where, and why - not just repeating the word with increasing certainty.

We’ve both acknowledged that no energy source is impact-free. What matters is comparative impact, scalability, long-term viability, and whether the tech is improving or stagnating. On every front, renewables are moving forward. Fossil fuels - despite their century head start - are increasingly uninsurable, volatile, and globally phased out.

I’m not asking anyone to believe blindly. I’m just saying suspicion should be a starting point for investigation - not the final word in an argument.

an argument you can’t refute,
John Daysh,
Nothing to refute when the evidence clearly shows the folly of the replace renewable folly !
To maintain the funding by promising that renewables are the future when they're clearly not is by now a well known fact that can't be argument about but it is being denied vehemently by those profiteering from increased pollution !

Indyvidual,

You’re repeating conclusions without ever showing your working. You say “the evidence clearly shows” renewables are a folly - but when challenged, you don’t present it. You say it’s a “well known fact,” but you don’t cite anything. You call it “indisputable,” but your only proof seems to be how strongly you feel about it.

That’s not argument. It’s declaration.

Meanwhile, the data, the investment trends, the technology roadmaps, and the policy shifts - globally - tell a different story. You’re free to disagree, but if your entire case boils down to “everyone denying this is corrupt,” then you’re not making a case. You’re just accusing people of bad faith to avoid engaging with the facts.

If you’ve got something solid, show it. Otherwise, this just feels like the part of the debate where someone starts yelling “conspiracy” because they’ve run out of evidence.