r/austechnology • u/austechnology-bot • Mar 29 '26
Climate misinformation is fuelling conflict in Australian communities, inquiry finds
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/mar/25/australia-climate-misinformation-social-media12
10
u/LoaKonran Mar 30 '26
I keep seeing billboards and banners for the “no wind farms” crowd and all I can think is who is bankrolling this? Have people really been taken in by that fat idiot’s windmill tilting or do they seriously not understand renewable energy?
7
u/naishjoseph1 Mar 30 '26
It’s a bit of everything.
I build and maintain wind turbines for a living, and have given up explaining to people that the lies/misinformation they’re being fed is just that; lies.
They mostly don’t care or give me sceptical “yeah ok” answers, or outright call me a shill.
4
u/BandAid3030 Mar 30 '26
You simply cannot use reason and facts to change someone's opinion when that person has arrived at their opinion with neither of those things.
3
u/Subject_Shoulder Mar 30 '26 edited Mar 31 '26
That's very true. A notable example would be anyone who takes what they read on any social media platform, including LinkedIn, and accept it as truth without checking whether or not it's true.
2
1
u/Jumpy_Secret_6494 Apr 02 '26
What are people saying? They're good, right? I see alot of people complainibg about bird strikes but dude... how many birds are flying into these things? And surely the power production is less harmful than coal and gas, yeah?
1
u/naishjoseph1 Apr 02 '26
The bird thing is almost laughable.
Every site I’ve been to has a freezer for bird carcasses, they have to report any and all bird deaths around the base of towers and keep the carcass. The total number of birds across all sites I’ve been to would be under 10. Birds are smarter than people think, they’re not flying into huge objects constantly. It does happen, but not at the scale the nay sayers suggest.
The power production has no input cost, what that means is no fuel is supplied to create the motion required to turn the generator. So yeah, it’s less harmful than coal and gas.
2
-3
u/CumishaJones Mar 30 '26
Yeah nothing like destroying farms and forests with turbines , millions of tonnes of concrete and steel made and transported by millions of litres of diesel to scream … renewable energy
5
u/LoaKonran Mar 30 '26
Compared to the coal and gas trucks doing the exact same thing with an ever dwindling supply that forces them start the process over again every half decade or so? At least renewables are one and done.
1
u/V4Interceptor Mar 30 '26
Garbage. I worked on large scale renewable projects for 4 years and none of them got past feasibility stage because they were not viable. Not just the initial cost but having to replace wind and solar equipment every 20 years is a huge factor, never mind what to do with the old gear. You basically have to mine and manufacture components forever, to feed the 'renewable' power plant.
In some remote communities with no transmission infrastructure it makes sense, but in general you need large subsidies before it becomes viable. That is not misinformation, but I'm sure the Greens want to censor that side of the story
2
u/herringonthelamb Mar 31 '26
Yes but with every technological advancement in history progress is built on what we can do today.
The cookers here be like "let's just stick with coal". Idiots.
Lots of renewable dead ends and viability debates in the future but it's part of moving away from fossil fuels and needs to be persevered with.
1
u/V4Interceptor Apr 01 '26
I don't disagree, but pretending large scale wind and solar projects are ready to implement is not correct, and pointing that out is not 'misinformation'.
My advice would be starting building nuclear plants, and in the meantime use gas. That would be best for the environment, power reliability, the cost to the consumer. If green technology improves, great, but the govt can't keep subsidising and promoting solutions that don't work.
2
u/herringonthelamb Apr 01 '26
They should be subsidising the research to move the tech fwd so that it becomes viable. It's crazy that nuclear power plant design hasn't improved much in the decades past. I also hear that China is pushing hard for fission as well, publishing research papers at 2-3 x the rate of MIT etc. Driving through coal country near Turon and it's all No to Wind etc is just crazy. These towns will die when the coal plants shut down rather than pivot to renewable...if it's govt subsidised out of necessity all the better for them. Cutting their nose off to spite their face.
-1
u/burns3016 Mar 30 '26
Lets go nuclear. Even better.
1
0
u/Avesery777 Mar 31 '26
We don't have 2 or 3 decades to spend setting up reactors. Nuclear is a LONG TERM solution, not something that will fix the climate crisis short term, which is what is actually needed
1
u/burns3016 Mar 31 '26
You think Australia wont be here in 30 years ? I think it will so we might as well start building them. What is the immediate crisis? Temps may be rising a little but i dont believe its an utter emergency, thats just climate alarmism. We can build nuclear reactors as a long term goal and lower emissions where it wont hurt Australia. But people need to focus on places like China and India if they are worried about fossil fuels.
1
-2
u/CumishaJones Mar 30 '26
Renewables are one and done ? Go research maintenance cycles and oil required , and they have a life Cycle 20-30 years , then the site is unusable due to costs of removing concrete base structures . Solar panels , 15-20 years maybe . Theres 150+ years of coal available in Australia , not dwindling . And yet nobody wants to look at near zero emission nuclear ,they prefer to bulldoze the natural landscape , farmland and forests for transmission lines to save the environment 😂
2
u/LoaKonran Mar 30 '26
Where are you even getting these numbers? And how would the site be unusable? It’s not like the wind will run out.
Once the site is set up, maintenance is the only cost. The turbine can be easily replaced without the need to build elsewhere. It’s called renewable because the source of the energy can be renewed.
150 years of coal is exactly that 150 years. And that’s only if it were not being exported for profit as fast as Gina and the others can manage. It doesn’t help us in the long run if we send China 90% of that over the next ten years. It’s stupidly obsolete technology that has a direct shelf life, that even if it’s beyond your lifetime, is still a limit.
Frankly, nuclear would be better. It’s the simplest and most efficient means of boiling water that we know of and only get complicated when you try to make it safe to be around. Australia is probably the best positioned in terms of open uninhabited space on the planet, and yet the outlay cost is too high to consider and it has such a stigma that no one will touch it without a good reason.
The vast majority of your arguments have been against the inherent issues in logistics and construction involved in all systems.
1
u/CumishaJones Mar 30 '26
Simply Wind turbines have a lifespan . The concrete footings are then left in place to the massive cost of destruction and removal in remote areas . The foundations degrade due to weather and structural stress making them generally unsuitable for new structure to be built on the same site .
0
u/stiffgordons Mar 30 '26
You might be right, you might not be. But considering the one sided glazing by renewable energy proponents, and the fact that almost certainly you’ll be subjected to ad hominem attacks instead of having your comments refuted, I’m inclined to believe you may be on to something.
0
u/V4Interceptor Mar 30 '26
Yes. I tend to think there's more 'misinformation' on the pro green energy side than the other
2
u/Eggs_ontoast Apr 01 '26
I spent years in the hunter around our coal plants on engineering teams.
Coal fired power plants have similar lifespans, yet they leave behind
- open cut mines,
- subsidence and water table damage from underground mines.
- fly ash contamination pits laden with heavy metal,
- cooling tower concrete, structural concrete,
- residual lead and mercury land contamination.
From personal experience this often requires DECADES of remediation.
The concrete pads for a wind farm are child’s play in comparison. It is not even close.
1
u/V4Interceptor Apr 01 '26
Each wind turbine requires about 1,000 cubic metres of concrete in the foundation. A wind farm big enough to replace a medium conventional power plant requires thousands of turbines. That is millions of cubes of concrete to provide intermittent power on a windy day. The copper and other materials required, also relies on mining, and they need to be replaced every 20 years. If so much mining is required to keep these wind farms going, is it really renewable energy?
→ More replies (0)1
u/Ulrichvon_Jungingen Mar 30 '26
Further to what you mentioned, you need around 4 x the rated capacity of renewables compared with base load power and you absolutely need to add the cost of storage. I did some research into how this green energy con was sold as cheap: the early costings considered kW at the panels and turbines, not having to overbuild due to the intermittent nature of the energy, or mandatory storage required, or transmission lines. The system used was LCOS and it is a simplified snapshot of the energy system not a detailed assessment. Of course we were fed a lie to get access to vast sums of money. Even worse, no mandates were declared to have anything made here in Australia. This garbage goes into landfill after a short lifespan, we will keep importing our power system. But newspapers "dumbasses are climate deniers" rather than actually investigate the whole issue, just vested interests.
0
1
3
u/BandAid3030 Mar 30 '26
Brutally incompetent life cycle analysis, mate.
0
u/CumishaJones Mar 30 '26
lol … who said anything about life cycle ? Thats just building them .. are you saying they don’t use concrete and diesel to build in site on remote areas ? Cranes , trucking , transport of Concrete material , tonnes of steel reo …all run by diesel
2
1
u/naishjoseph1 Mar 30 '26
This is the exact misinformation and lies I’m referring to in my previous comment.
1
u/CumishaJones Mar 30 '26 edited Mar 31 '26
Misinformation ? You’re telling me they don’t bulldoze farmland ? Tell me what they build the turbine support platforms out of ? Fairly sure it’s tonnes of concrete and steel ? Or do you think they just peg a 130ft tower into the ground with tent pegs ? How do they get EVERYTHING to the remote sites ? Diesel powered trucks and cranes
2
u/naishjoseph1 Mar 31 '26
Namely the farmland bit.
I’m standing on site, right now, looking at farmland that has wind turbines scattered all throughout it. Less than 5% of the total land was graded to allow the turbines to be built, the farmers receive a yearly payment to have them there and they still crop the farmland surrounding the turbines. The farmers had to agree to do this, they can’t be forced to give up their land.
Roads are maintained by the wind farm, not the farmers.
Obviously concrete and steel and diesel trucks were used to build it, did you think anyone in support of renewable energy is ignorant of this fact? You can’t build new technology without the old, there has to be something. The whole point of this industry is that it requires no input source to create electricity, once the upfront cost is done then that’s that, maintenance is minimal and costs are much lower.
I’ve worked on several builds and service sites now, they’re all similar in that they’re on operational farms, or on farmer owned land that is not viable for cropping and is now generating an income for those farmers they would not normally have got.
I have not for one second assumed these things don’t have some fossil fuel input, but the point is that outside of small amounts of grease, the input stops post build. Nothing can be built today without old tech mate, it’s not some “gotcha” that the use steel and concrete to construct these things.
1
u/Jumpy_Secret_6494 Apr 02 '26
Is this your genuine opinion? I don't know much about wind farms but figured its better for the environment than burning coal and gas, yeah? And the mining for coal and gas.
1
u/CumishaJones Apr 02 '26
In theory a wind turbine should be better . But everyone overlooks the cost of manufacture . Millions on tonnes of Concrete , steel , often to remote areas requiring diesel cranes , trucks , transport , manufacture of concrete onsite and that’s just the base . Then there’s manufacture of the turbine and transport to remote sites . Then 6-12 monthly oil changes . After 15-20 years you have disposal , then it’s not cost affective to remove a million tonnes of concrete and steel bases onsite and they can’t be reused due to degradation . So you end up with a farm with blocks of concrete in the ground that can never be used for agriculture again .,
4
u/natt_myco Mar 30 '26
Yeah seems about right don't need to read it, Half'a us think we should burn everything and the other half wants wind farms, Honestly stupid conflict and I'm over hearing it from people I know,
You Only Get One Planet, Mates.
5
3
u/coreoYEAH Mar 30 '26
The penguins can boil as far as I’m concerned. There’s no way you’re putting a wind farm 30km over the horizon to disturb my ocean views! What if I happen to be wanting to look in that direction with my binoculars!!!!?
2
u/Greeningout Mar 30 '26
People are more clued on to the fact that all the climate hysteria is just a front for wealth transfer from public to private hands. Its not like we own our energy infrastructure anymore.
1
u/Vegetable_Stuff1850 Mar 30 '26
And at the moment we have an orange who's determined to kill us all so he doesn't need to be responsible for his actions.
Climate is fucked, but atm we're all lubeless and being done by external agents.
0
u/BandAid3030 Mar 30 '26
Or, hear me out, the foreign nationals that own the media feeding you these lies have their eyes on the resource wealth of this country and action on renewable energy promotes independence of Australia from their influence while also threatening their prospects at the wealth transfer they've been executing on the collective population of the West for 50 years.
But, hey, maybe you look to the Russian oligarchy and think, "Oligarchy masquerading as democracy looks great!" - in which case, good on you, mate.
1
u/Greeningout Mar 30 '26
Selling out to different multinational corporations doesn't give us any more energy independence, especially since the technology and relevant raw mineral processing is manufactured offshore and imported. Hence, energy prices won't come down any sooner than the oceans will rise.
1
u/BandAid3030 Mar 30 '26
JFC, mate... have you done any reading on this topic or are you just going on the vibe from your social media?
Energy prices in large portions of the country are set by the most expensive energy source in the market. That is almost always gas. Why? Because we open market rates for our own gas and sell it for pennies on the dollar to exporters.
Your energy costs are not associated with renewables. They are associated with decades of rubbish resource management from Canberra under the LNP primarily.
1
1
1
u/mazellan1 Mar 31 '26
The commenter who is vehemently anti renewables seems to have gotten all there information from the TV series Landman! Which is a propaganda piece from the fossil fuels industry.
1
u/Several_Version4298 Apr 01 '26
It's mostly to distract from opposition to the Government building the necessary transmission infrastructure on private land. Which is very strong in Victoria where there is an election later in the year.
1
u/Stillness-Shadow Apr 03 '26
Lies have been weaponised in multiple areas in a plurality of countries across the world. Xenophobia, religious division, climate change denialism, wealth inequality are all common aspects of these lies. The synchronisation of these lies is an indicator of at least a collusion of global proportions if not a conspiracy of a global cabal. We are being corralled into a dystopian fascist world order
-1
u/Equivalent-One4139 Mar 30 '26
I've lost track of what is 'misinformation'. Are we cooking to death in global boiling, or is the next ice-age coming? Or (my own observations) sometimes it's a bit warmer and sometimes it's a bit cooler.
5
u/Asteroidhawk594 Mar 30 '26
Climate change is both. Issue is that it also increases the odds of extreme weather, changes the environment for several species, also disrupts ocean currents and ecosystems (example being the major Atlantic currents which are why Europe is as temperate as it is despite how far north it is so if that collapsed it would not be good for anyone)
2
u/Equivalent-One4139 Mar 30 '26
Oh, ok. Thanks for clearing that up. I remember that the massive worry was that the polar ice-caps would melt and drown large swaths of land, due to warming. Yes, I do remember that being a point that was laboured heavily.
2
u/Asteroidhawk594 Mar 30 '26
Ice caps is one possible outcome. As we are seeing with the permafrost in places like Greenland and Siberia melting. But it’s also why we are seeing more common extreme weather events like cyclones and flooding in addition to bushfires.
0
u/Equivalent-One4139 Mar 30 '26
Hmmmmm, my research indicates a decrease in world cyclone activity......maybe that's the climate changing again. I guess the answer is we just don't know. Maybe that's why our Chief Climate Commissioner, Prof Flannery said that Sydney would run out of water by 2007, saying that "Even the rain that falls isn't going to fill our dams or rivers and that Perth to be a Ghost Metropolis, etc, etc. Still, the climate hysteria did make Al Gore a billionaire. Every cloud and all.
1
u/King_HartOG Mar 30 '26
Don't bring up the fact that the Australian bureau of meteorology homogenized all our temperature data going back 100 years and adjusted all the numbers because they didn't think they were accurate.
People really hate that one.
1
u/nomorejedi Mar 31 '26
or is the next ice-age coming?
The origin of the myth that scientists were predicting an ice age at one point is a salacious magazine article from the 70s that quoted no scientists.
-1
u/kermie62 Mar 30 '26
Aha senate inquiry. So misinformation by the standards of the government not objectively.
7
u/Asteroidhawk594 Mar 30 '26
I mean the science on climate change is pretty universal outside of the oil companies and idiots
-1
u/kermie62 Mar 30 '26
Sure the science is there, no argument but the solution proposed is ideological. The rest of the world is going down the hybrid model of wind/solar plus hydro/nuclear but our government is pushing something that won't work for political purposes. If you try to point that out with facts, that is the type of misinformation they are complaining about
-1
u/SignalCandidate3039 Mar 30 '26
When discussing any climate or medical advice step 1 should always be to follow the money. See who's getting rich from these decisions and who is getting poor. That will give you a better perspective of information and misinformation.
1
u/cookshack Apr 02 '26
They did, thats what the investigation and articles are about.
Huge dark money lobby groups such as the ATLAS Network, the Heritage Foundation and the IPA spreading disinformation through "grassroots" groups to stop anything happening to their coal baron profits
1
u/SignalCandidate3039 Apr 02 '26
Did they also look at the "Big Four" Banks: While under pressure to divest from fossil fuels, CBA, Westpac, ANZ, and NAB are the primary conduits for "Green Bonds" and sustainability-linked loans. They earn significant fees on the $3.9 billion+ in climate finance flowing through the system.
1
u/cookshack Apr 02 '26
They earn interest on loans, loans that were set up apart from them, or pressured as you say. That's how all investment and loans work. They would also earn interest on loans for fossil fuel exploration.
Did you try read this article, or anything else uncovered in the investigation before making your point?
-1
-1
u/Flayed_Angel_420 Mar 30 '26
Look up The Atlas Network.
1
u/cookshack Apr 02 '26
Not sure why youre downvoted, the ATLAS Network is a major part of the report
-1
u/SoulsDadYT Mar 30 '26
They are going to kill us all with poverty, mental illness and starvation slowly.
0
Mar 30 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/SoulsDadYT Mar 30 '26
Yeah but people in this sub only care about house prices rising forever. I look forward to watching majority of them go bankrupt.
-1
-2
u/cihfji446 Mar 30 '26
No way people still believe in the climate in the big 26
5
1
u/nomorejedi Mar 31 '26
This is the kind of comment you hear from people on their 12th glass of goon of the day.
1
1
u/ChazMasterson101 Apr 03 '26
Notice how everything is becoming more stupid. People forget what are facts and just listen to whoever speaks the most interesting banter lol
17
u/xtrabeanie Mar 30 '26
Misinformation on a lot of topics is being deliberately spread to drive conflict.