Federal

Oct 13, 2011

The web of vested interests behind the anti-wind farm lobby

A network analysis of links between the principal voices involved in demonising wind farms in Australia has been circulating in recent weeks and reveals connections between some of the principal wind farm opponents.

Following a July investigation by environmental correspondent Sandi Keane , a network analysis of links between the principal voices involved in demonising wind farms in Australia has been circulating in recent weeks. The network diagram shows connections between some of the principal individuals who have been vocal in opposing wind farm development in Australia, several organisations that are at the forefront of the opposition, the Institute of Public Affairs and its love-child the Australian Environment Foundation and the Victorian Liberal Party. In August, the Baillieu government announced it would be amending legislation to require all wind turbines to be sited further than two kilometres from any residence.  The push is now on to get the NSW O’Farrell government do the same thing. The decision effectively guts the wind industry’s immediate prospects of further development in Victoria with wind industry insiders predicting that money will rush into South Australia, where already 21% of the state’s energy is sourced from wind.

(Click on the image for the full, readable version)

Free Trial

Proudly annoying those in power since 2000.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions

135 comments

Leave a comment

135 thoughts on “The web of vested interests behind the anti-wind farm lobby

  1. Flower

    @ Mark Duffett: ” Two, as a practising geophysicist, I could flatly assert that your ‘complete demolition’ of my statements on radon is nothing of the sort. But there’s no need, because anyone looking at your post with a reasonable comprehension of English doesn’t need me to spell it out.”

    I’m a poor “Englisher.” Please explain?

  2. Fran Barlow

    [ Perhaps Fran should cease the Barry Brook spin about Gen IV nuclear reactors that are non-existent and reflect not only on the urgency for action on climate change *now* but also on her snide attack on Crikey opponents whom she condescendingly claims are “ignorant, deceitful, angst-ridden and generally lacking in the ability to argue a case without resorting to uncivil attacks on others.” And no names – huh? In her poorly disguised innuendo I think she’s referring to me.]

    I wasn’t actually. I was reflecting on the TTH/SB/Michael troll especially when I composed that.

    I’m not sure why you’d assume I had you in mind.

    [Fran’s interest in nuclear is clearly about the filthy lucre – the economics and certainly not about multinational corporations and ignorant governments running rough shod over a fragile environment to produce uranium which Fran Barlow says is not required in nuclear reactors anyway.]

    Me? Interested in ‘filthy lucre’? Hardly (Though I do have the book by Joseph Heath). I have no interest in the mining industry, direct or otherwise, AFAIK. (Not sure what my super fund is up to). I favour a very robust windfall profits tax on mining, for the record. As I said, ideally, we’d have reactors that required no further mining of uranium. In general, I’d like to see as little mining as possible.

    Taking coal and gas mostly out of the mix would help that a lot.

  3. Flower

    Ok Fran – a teensy apology coming your way. So why are you on the psychos’ side? Bad company corrupts good character:

    http:// www.

    smh.com.au/news/national/campaign-to-discredit-wind-blows-to-nsw/2006/05/18/1147545460756.html

    (PS: De-mangle link)

  4. Fran Barlow

    Flower said:

    [So why are you on the psychos’ side? Bad company corrupts good character:]

    I don’t see that I am on the side of any ‘psychos’. Please understand that my first interest in this matter is to reduce radically reliance on the combustion of fossil hydrocarbons for energy supply, in particular, coal — an energy source which, as part of its normal cycle of harvest, transport and combustion harms people — including by exposure to radioactive waste. Combustion of coal is the single largest source of release of radioactivity to the biosphere. Coal plants are not subject to the same restrictions as nuclear plants.

    I want the package of measures that gets us there quickest. As I said above, if someone can devise a package that meets that test and has no serious undesirable environmental consequences, I’m for that.

  5. Flower

    @ Fran: “Combustion of coal is the single largest source of release of radioactivity to the biosphere. Coal plants are not subject to the same restrictions as nuclear plants.”

    Same dog, different haircut:

    Coal Energy:

    ”Over the years there have been many occasions when it was asserted that coal-fired power stations emitted more radioactivity into the environment (from NORM) than was released anywhere in the nuclear fuel cycle. While having some basis in fact, the claim is generally not correct now where deployment of emission reduction technology – scrubbers, filters and flue gas desulphurization –acts to capture this material.” (Source: World Nuclear Association)

    Tell Barry Brook to call off the vampire bats.

    Not happy Doris.

Leave a comment

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details

Sending...