Australia is awash with ‘ dark money’ bypassing disclosure laws, and avoiding public scrutiny and accountability.

What is this bloke talking about now. if you have any sort of proof lay it on the line. Accusations do not jell. Speak now or forever hold your peace.

The Sunrise Project tries scaring us with this nonsense:

“The climate crisis threatens the future of life on earth. To help solve it, an energy revolution is moving the world beyond fossil fuels. How, and how fast that revolution happens will determine the future of humanity…”.

They claim to be “passionate about building networks who can drive the transmission from fossil fuels to clean to energy to reduce greenhouse pollution (sic) and create a healthy and prosperous future for everyone”.

Sorry, folks. That’s the job of competitive private enterprise offering options to customers in accordance with elected government’s legislation. Not busybody NGOs. And prosperity comes only from cheap, reliable energy.

This mob sounds a bit WEFish to me.

There are lots of happy looking board members (look them up at sunriseproject.org and funding (disclosed) of $123 million in 2023.

Our very own Mike Cannon-Brookes, an investor in renewables, is one of the donors.

Excellent subject choice ttbn.

Expect to see every hot day used to shore up the fight against climate change. Net zero reminds me of that poem about a duke:

That grand old Duke of York,
he spent a trillion quid,
on something that didn't work,
for something it never did!

Hats off to you for what you did at the checkout, AC.

Regarding batteries - exactly. They’ve reached a tipping point where, combined with the right rebates and feed-in arrangements, they’re no longer just "green" but smart. I agree the economics only work if you’re generating enough daytime excess and have the right usage profile - but that’s true of any investment. (And yes, I’m sizing mine carefully.)

You raise a good point with this:

//…if rooftop solar wasn't economically viable, then someone might attempt to change the laws [and] shut down a few coal stations…//

That’s a fair suspicion.

But in practice, coal plants are closing because they’re increasingly uneconomic - not because of conspiracy, but because 60-70 year-old machinery struggles to compete with near-zero marginal cost renewables. Add the cost of repairs, emissions compliance, insurance, and litigation risk… and even Origin wanted out of Eraring before any law forced them.

As for your main concern - that foreign-funded activism might be pushing up costs and harming battlers - I get it. But the story’s more nuanced:

Most cost increases come from global fuel volatility, network upgrades, and underinvestment in transmission - not green NGOs.

Foreign donors aren’t setting polic, they’re backing publicly accountable, tax-deductible advocacy groups. (And ironically, so are fossil fuel companies, including multinationals.)

If prices rise without safeguards for the vulnerable, that’s a domestic policy failure - not proof of foreign corruption.

Your Normanton solar farm link is a case in point. That wasn’t a green grift. It was corporate greed from the energy utility underpaying for exported solar. You and I are on the same side there.

I defend the principle of Net Zero, but I’ll just as strongly oppose leaving people behind. That’s not compromise, it’s how you bring everyone along.

I've been thinking about Johns response to our claims of deceit.
He points out that "It’s all disclosed and legal."

I'd like to point out something from my perspective looking at regime changes.
The point I want to make here is that the information about who USAID and the NED (National Endowment for Democracy) were funding was accessible on their own website.
They didn't hide it, (but now do)

Between the U.S. own policy documents
ttbn knows one of them 'Which Path to Persia' by the Brookings Institute for Iran for example.
And the information listed on the NED's own website, you could see who they were funding and figure out what their intentions were if you understood their game.
What I'm saying here is that they weren't hiding too much, but barely anyone in the world knew about what they were doing.

So what am I saying...

Just because they weren't necessarily hiding something, doesn't mean they wanted everyone knowing.

So instead of using the word 'deceit'
Maybe a better word might be 'obscure'
As in not hide what they're doing.
- But certainly not advertise it either.

Make it difficult for the average Joe to truly understand what's been happening.

So if I said they've made foreign funding of climate change agenda a little obscure, in order that the majority are 'lead to believe' that all efforts are grassroots in nature...

As in not advertising that there is foreign funding by wealthy philanthopists.

This fact may not have been hidden, but it certainly isn't advertised.

Take a look at this article for example...
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2019/01/us-regime-change-in-venezuela.html

If you scroll down the page, you'll see an image.
Exxon Mobil, Waste Management, Citigroup, Hilton, Goldman Sachs, McDonalds, Boeing, VISA, Conoco Philips.

- Corporate Donors -

Also, fyi...
That page article listed an entity called 'Ballmer Group'
This group has given 1.32bln via 562 grants in the last 12 months.
The group is not organized as a nonprofit foundation and operates as a corporate philanthropy, and they give grants in the millions.
Some of those grants don't seem to be sinister though.