The Queensland government has rejected a Canadian company's application to build a wind “farm” in the Moonlight Range.

Threats to the Powerful Owl, Koalas, the Ghost Bat, Greater Glider, Squatter Pigeon and sundry raptors have been avoided.

In contrast, the previous Labor government was all for the death of wildlife and destruction of thousands of hectares of vegetation.

The outcome is regarded as “a pivotal moment” for some rebalancing in the renewals debate. Climate action “cannot justify every proposal everywhere”. It should also be a warning to foreign companies hoovering up Australian taxpayers’ money in subsidies - whether or not they provide reliable electricity, or any electricity at all.

These largely foreign environmental destroyers were paid by us, the electricity users, $659 million in 2024, according to the Institute of Public Affairs; plus $513 million to solar operators : 72% of them foreign-owned. We are handing money over to mainly foreigners in increased power prices and Albanese TAXES.

The IPA suggests that our energy system is not built to serve the national interest: it is designed to “meet ideological net zero mandates, regardless of the cost.

ttbn,

You frame this as if the Queensland LNP government’s rejection of the Moonlight Range project is some sort of moral correction of Labor’s record, yet their decision was as ideological as your selective outrage.

They didn’t reject the project solely on ecological grounds - they rejected it under pressure from local councils and community backlash. It's part of an overall shift in LNP policy that’s seen multiple clean energy projects scrapped with no clear plan for how to replace coal generation. If anything, it's a political response, not some principled stand for owls and gliders.

You point to potential threats from wind turbines, while ignoring the far greater historical and ongoing destruction caused by roads, mining, agriculture, and fossil fuel extraction. Koalas and Greater Gliders have lost vast amounts of habitat under both parties - yet we only ever hear concern from conservatives when a renewable projects are involved. It’s hard to take that seriously.

For context, wind turbines in the US kill an estimated 140,000 to 500,000 birds per year, which is dwarfed by other human-related causes:

Cats: ~2.4 billion birds per year
Buildings/windows: ~600 million
Vehicles: ~200 million
Fossil fuel power plants: ~14 million

As for foreign ownership - yes, some renewable companies are foreign-owned. So are most of our gas and coal operations. If this were truly about sovereignty and taxpayer exploitation, you'd be howling about Glencore and Chevron. But you’re not, because this isn’t really about protecting Australian interests. It’s about attacking renewables at every turn.

Quoting the IPA only underscores your bias. They’re not an independent think tank - they’re a fossil-fuel-backed lobby group with a vested interest in stalling climate action. Their “analysis” reliably tells you whatever the coal industry wants you to believe.

This wasn’t a “pivotal moment” in the renewables debate. It was a convenient excuse for the LNP to obstruct progress while offering nothing in its place. It was never about wildlife.

Given that net zero is a pipe-dream, its inevitable there'll be a recalibration of renewable energy projects and hysteria and a warming (!) toward required traditional energy sources.

Another example of that is the recent ALP recognition that gas projects (ie fossil fuel projects) are necessary to keep the lights on which of course explains the embracing of the extension of the North-West Shelf project. (Strange how that was announced AFTER the election - mere coincidence I'm sure).

And the Victorian greens are losing whatever marbles they still have over another Labor Government approving a gas storage facility in the deep south.

The retreat from renewables hysteria is happening all over the world but some will take a little longer to notice.

Trumpster,

"The retreat from renewables hysteria is happening all over the world but some will take a little longer to notice."

That's why a record $2 trillion was invested world wide in clean energy in 2024, compared to $1.1 trillion in fossil fuels. Clean energy investment has exceeded fossil fuel investment every year since 2016, and the gap is widening year by year. Makes you statement look as silly as you do

That's right mhaze. Australians are always a bit behind the rest of the world; at least the Leftists and the politicians are.

mhaze,

This sounds awfully familiar. You’ve already had a whole thread titled “Bye-Bye Net Zero,” and it didn’t end well for your argument. You were shown repeatedly that major economies are not abandoning net zero - that the transition is happening unevenly, yes, but still accelerating, both economically and technologically.

So now you’ve shifted from saying it’s “dead” to saying there’s a “recalibration” - which is a pretty soft backpedal, considering how forcefully you declared it over.

Gas being used as a transitional fuel doesn’t disprove net zero - it’s always been part of the transition plan, even in the IEA’s net zero roadmap. The fact that both major parties in Australia still support net zero should tell you something. They’re not reversing course, they’re navigating the practicalities of replacing coal, which is dying of old age and lack of investment, not policy decree.

And while you cite “warming toward traditional energy,” you keep ignoring the global investment trends: renewable energy investment hit a record $1.8 trillion in 2023. Even with political headwinds, companies, consumers, and whole economies are moving forward - not retreating.

Your latest comment is just a recycled version of the same narrative you pushed in March, only now it’s more cautious because the evidence keeps proving you wrong.