Environmentalism once conjured images of saving whales, planting trees, and preserving the natural world in harmony with human activity.
Movements like "Save the Whales" or campaigns to combat deforestation rallied millions around the globe.
The ethos was simple: protect ecosystems, minimise harm, and work alongside nature.
But over time, the movement has shifted.
Today, environmentalism often advocates large-scale industrial projects like wind farms, solar arrays, and offshore energy developments. While these projects aim to combat " climate change " , they can ironically conflict with the movement’s original goals of conservation and sustainability.
And all to promote globalist interests over national sovereignty.
Planting trees has long been one of the simplest, most effective symbols of environmental action.
Trees capture carbon, provide habitats for wildlife, and prevent soil erosion. Yet, in some regions, those very forests are now being cleared to make way for wind farms or other so called renewable energy projects.
Take, for instance, large-scale wind farms that require vast stretches of open land. In some cases, old-growth forests are cleared because they occupy the "prime" spots for wind turbine installations. The irony here is stark: cutting down carbon-sequestering trees to install carbon-reducing turbines creates a strange moral tradeoff. Are we addressing one environmental problem by creating another?
I argue that it reflects a shift in priorities - from protecting ecosystems to reducing emissions at all costs. It raises the uncomfortable question: should environmentalism prioritise "green energy" infrastructure over the intrinsic value of natural landscapes?
Solar farms are booming. However, these farms often require large tracts of land, and grazing land is frequently the first to go. This displaces farmers and reduces land available for food production.
Livestock grazing itself has a role in many ecosystems, helping manage vegetation and prevent bushfires in grasslands. When grazing land is converted to solar farms, we not only lose agricultural capacity but potentially disrupt ecological balances.
Furthermore, solar farms can create "heat islands," increasing localised temperatures, which may affect nearby wildlife.
Offshore wind turbines are hailed as a cornerstone of the renewable energy revolution. They harness powerful ocean winds to generate clean electricity. However, these projects are not without environmental consequences.
For one, offshore turbines can disrupt marine habitats during both their construction and operation. The foundations of these turbines disturb the seabed, destroying delicate ecosystems such as coral reefs or seagrass meadows.
The noise pollution generated during construction and operation affects marine life, including whales and dolphins, which rely on sound for communication and navigation.
Fisheries are another area of concern. Fishing communities often find themselves displaced or restricted due to the presence of wind farms, creating economic and social challenges alongside the ecological ones.
The irony is hard to ignore: the same movement that once fought to save whales and marine habitats is now advocating for projects that, while called " renewable " are far from it. In fact , they may harm those very ecosystems.
So, how did we go from "save the whales and plant trees" to "clear the trees and disrupt marine habitats"?
For many activists, the fight against " climate change " justifies these tradeoffs. But this "ends justify the means" approach doesn’t sit well with me... I feel the environmental movement has abandoned its roots in conservation.
There’s also a political and economic dimension to this shift. Renewable energy projects often attract significant government subsidies and corporate investments. What started as a grassroots movement to protect nature has, in many cases, become entangled with outsider interests.
I believe we are a resource rich nation here in Australia.....and we should use coal and gas until we can bring nuclear on board. We have uranium and are one of the only countries in the world capable of self sufficiency.
Yet we are fast becoming a third world nation. We cannot remain a wealthy and prosperous nation if we continue to deprive ourselves of our natural wealth and simply export it to those that use it to value add and sell back manufactured goods that we can no longer produce!
Australia has vast reserves of coal, natural gas, and uranium, as well as critical minerals like lithium, rare earths, and iron ore. These resources give Australia the rare ability to secure its energy needs while maintaining export revenues.
Properly managing and utilising these resources could sustain domestic industries and strengthen national wealth. By focusing solely on exporting raw materials, Australia has lost much of its manufacturing base. For example, car manufacturing disappeared, and now value-added goods are often imported. Without affordable and reliable energy, industries like steel, aluminum, and fertilizer production have become uncompetitive, leading to job losses and economic stagnation in regional areas.
As one of the largest uranium producers, Australia has the resources to lead in nuclear energy. Nuclear power is reliable, low-carbon, and perfectly suited for baseload energy needs. By embracing nuclear technology, Australia could ensure energy security, reduce emissions, and develop a world-class nuclear industry that adds value to its uranium exports rather than simply selling it as raw material.
This "dig it up, ship it out" model leaves Australia vulnerable.
Countries like China buy Australian resources, process them into manufactured goods, and sell them back at a premium. For example, while Australia exports lithium, China dominates the battery manufacturing industry. Australia could instead produce and export finished batteries or solar panels, capturing more of the value chain.
Australia’s manufacturing struggles are directly tied to soaring energy prices. Renewable energy projects lack the reliability needed for heavy industries, while coal and gas plants are being decommissioned without adequate replacements. Affordable, reliable baseload power from coal, gas, and eventually nuclear could revive manufacturing, create jobs, and reduce dependency on imports.
If Australia continues down this path, we risk becoming a resource-dependent economy that fails to create long-term wealth for it's people. To reverse this trend, Australia needs: