Opposition to renewables is selfish and short-sighted

Opposition to the establishment of wind turbines on country properties is mostly driven by jealousy and misinformed prejudice (“Tilting at turbines”, October 26). Farmers whose properties have been chosen to host the turbines are provided with an opportunity to “drought-proof” their operations in a practical way. Most sensible people accept the need for renewable energy, and of landholders to improve their situation by embracing wind farm projects. The major cause of community division from the projects is largely driven by those who believe they will not benefit financially from the technology. This attitude is both selfish and short-sighted. The wider community will certainly benefit from renewables despite the destructive opposition, which is generally going nowhere. Derrick Mason, Boorowa

It seems that some country people are against wind turbines because of their ugliness. It suggests they love the aesthetics that nature brings with climate change - bushfires, droughts, floods and storms, all of which cause damage. John Rome, Mt Lawley (WA)

Barnaby Joyce, the great fossil fuel defender.Credit: Dominic Lorrimer

It is tragic that renewable energy should be dividing rural communities the way it is. Had the Nationals decided that wind farms were good for the bush, as they have with coal mines and gas fracking projects, none of this fracas would be happening – at least, not on such a grand scale. The irony is, it’s in rural areas where climate change is going to manifest itself the most, and where communities have the most to lose. They can look forward to more droughts, more floods and more bushfires – all of which will be costly to cover and increasingly difficult to insure against. I don’t for the life of me know why the future victims of a hotter planet would be doing the work of the companies that are heating it up. Ken Enderby, Concord

Yes, wind farm turbines and power lines do spoil some those views across current landscapes, but the alternative of no power has got to be worse. And yes, power companies must consult and adjust the route of their structures so they don’t build them across farm houses and infrastructure. They can’t do it in the city, so why can they get away with it in the country? But renewables aren’t just a commercial activity, they are essential to replace our almost defunct power stations, which were allowed to become obsolete by successive (mainly Coalition) governments. So the alternative for the “anti-renewable” factions doesn’t exist. And you can pin the tail on the Coalition governments whose members are now fomenting all of this harassment. Their option of nuclear power is too far away and currently not viable based on current projects worldwide, so unless they come up with a magic bullet then they should shed their Luddite ideas and move on. They also need to lift their eyes and remember that commercial farming is required to feed us all. But in doing that, it also spoiled what were once beautiful natural landscapes and forests which fed a much smaller population. We need to move on and accept the need for change, but it needs to be done with proper consultation with those affected. Ian Ferrier, Long Jetty

Rudd was right. He still is

What Kevin Rudd said about Donald Trump three or four years ago – ie: “the most destructive president in history” and a “traitor to the West” – is still true today, even more so (“I won’t forget what Rudd said: Trump”, October 26). “I won’t forget what Rudd said,” Trump said. We do not need Kevin Rudd to tell us that Trump is the worst president in US history. If Trump comes on a visit to Australia he will be kept under tight security, just as he was in Scotland and England, too frightened to meet and greet the public. Robert Pallister, Punchbowl

It’s time? Whitlam was ahead of it

Whether you love or loathe Whitlam (“Whitlam’s lesson for Albanese”, October 26), there is no doubt that the Gough Whitlam government was chaotic at times, but he was the most consequential Prime Minister since Ben Chifley. In his defence, Labour came to power after 23 years of the Conservatives. All government instrumentalities were stacked with the Conservatives’ ideology. Here was the tall, eloquent, intelligent, and highly educated man with a vision and independent thinking that Australia had never had, who tried to change the country drastically overnight – economically, culturally, and socially. This wasn’t in Australians’ DNA at the time, and still isn’t to some extent. He removed all traces of discriminatory immigration policy, went to China even before the Americans did, and, best of all, made a bold, across-the-board 25 per cent cut to tariffs in 1973, aiming to reduce inflation by increasing competition and imports, without informing the Treasury, which was the cardinal sin that the bureaucracy would never accept. Remember, all tariff reductions came after Margaret Thatcher came to power in 1979. Many of Whitlam’s policies are still going, but he was 50 years ahead of his time. Mukul Desai, Hunters Hill

Achievements of Abbott

Your correspondent asks for a reminder of “what Tony Abbott ever achieved that was useful for the country” (Letters, October 26). That’s easy. He saved Australia from the shambles that was the dysfunctional Rudd/Gillard/Rudd governments. Riley Brown, Bondi Beach

Mr Abbott accomplished the lowest bar for a Minister for Women, recognition that onions are best fried and, most importantly, prompted the best speech on the floor of the House of Parliament this millennium. Jo Rainbow, Orange

• To submit a letter to The Sun-Herald, email [email protected]. Click here for tips on how to submit letters. The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform. Sign up here.

Most Viewed in National

Loading