Our Landscapes Are Being Sacrificed in the Name of Climate Action. It Doesn’t Have to Be This Way.
- WePlanet Australia
- 2 days ago
- 6 min read
Right now across Australia, vast tracts of land are being cleared. What’s driving it isn’t only coal or gas. It’s also our attempt to replace them.
Remnant forests with vital ecosystems and culturally significant landscapes are being flattened for roads, transmission lines, and industrial-scale wind and solar projects.
A new national mapping project released by Rainforest Reserves Australia has exposed the sheer scale of what’s unfolding. Over 1,000 industrial energy projects are proposed or under construction. More than 31,000 wind turbines. 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines. Hundreds of thousands of hectares allocated for solar.
We welcome the release of this new mapping of renewable energy projects across Australia. Transparency is vital if we’re to secure the social licence needed to build the clean energy system we urgently need and we’re disappointed governments haven’t already done a better job at providing this to the public.
Climate change is accelerating and with it, the health, wellbeing, and future of every Australian is under threat. Our communities are already living with the costs of soaring insurance premiums and major disruptions and dangers driven by extreme weather. There is no room for delay. The clean energy transition must accelerate.
But how we build this new system matters just as much as when, not only for the environment but for social licence. Because for many coming to grips with the reality of this full-scale renewables buildout, it’s become clear that it’s not the clean energy transition they envisaged or were promised. This includes long-time environmental defenders sounding the alarm over biodiversity impacts.
Steve Nowakowski, a conservationist and wilderness photographer who has spent decades documenting the beauty and fragility of Australia’s ecosystems, put it bluntly to The Australian:
“After decades photographing Australia’s wild places, I have never seen a threat like this.”
Former Greens leader Christine Milne, who has led some of the most iconic environmental campaigns in our nation's history, also recently told The Australian:
“You can oppose renewable energy if it is destroying biodiversity… Globally, people are saying you can’t destroy biodiversity in the name of climate.”
WePlanet Australia agrees. The climate crisis and biodiversity crisis are not separate—they are one. Our future depends on solving both at once.
This alarm is being raised by communities from Robbins Island in Tasmania to the Upper Burdekin in Queensland. They are not opposed to clean energy. They are calling for smarter planning. They are demanding respect for the places they love and for the species that have no voice in this debate.
Some still argue that energy efficiency and degrowth will be enough to meet climate goals. But the evidence is clear. Even during the COVID-19 lockdowns, when flights stopped, roads emptied and economies slowed, global emissions only fell around 10 per cent. Not only are these methods ineffective at meeting our climate goals, they would lead to a less prosperous and connected world, making them electorally toxic and thus increase the risk of public backlash—none of which is good for people or the environment.
As veteran environmentalist Bill McKibben observed, efficiency and degrowth don’t displace fossil fuels. Only building real, reliable clean energy at scale can do that. But it must be done wisely. The green energy revolution doesn’t have to mean industrialisation of Australia’s biodiverse and culturally sensitive landscapes.
We need a new path that respects and delivers for people and communities, protects ecosystems, reduces our land footprint, and follows science rather than dogma.
That’s why WePlanet Australia supports lifting the ban on nuclear energy. It’s not a silver bullet, but it is a proven, low-impact energy source used across the world. We’re not alone—tens of thousands of Australians support lifting the ban, signing our petition and Nuclear for Australia’s. Even Green parties in Finland, Sweden, Norway, Canada, and more are shifting their position to support, or at least not oppose, nuclear energy.
WePlanet Australia is calling on State and Federal governments to lift the outdated ban on nuclear energy. Modern nuclear technologies are among the safest and lowest-impact energy sources we have. They use less land, protect ecosystems, and operate reliably—day and night.
Every energy source has trade-offs. But by including nuclear, we reduce the overall land and environmental footprint of the clean energy transition. That means fewer transmission lines slicing through forests. Fewer habitats bulldozed for roads and turbines. And less conflict with communities already fighting to protect the places they love. Utilising nuclear energy could even see us achieve long-fought-for rewilding efforts such as restoring Lake Pedder and the river systems of Tasmania and the mainland.
We need to move fast. But we must also move wisely.
It’s time for evidence to lead. It’s time for governments to listen to communities. And it’s time to build a clean energy system that protects nature, supports people—and leaves no one behind.
Policy priorities:
Managing land-use, biodiversity impacts, and community concerns.
No-go and go zones, as suggested by the Productivity Commission, for energy projects. No-go zones should be areas of moderate to high ecological importance, and zones should consider the density of projects in a given community and region.
No-go zones should maximise the protection of existing vegetation and forests, as these are our highest-value assets in sequestering carbon and reducing the need for industrial carbon sequestration. It’s not good enough to say we will simply allow regrowth or to compensate by planting trees elsewhere:
“... secondary forests between 20 and 40 years old can remove carbon from the atmosphere up to 8 times faster per hectare than new natural growth — if they're allowed to reach those older ages. The catch is that many secondary forests don't regrow for this long, whether due to human activity (such as clearing or harvest) or climate-related disturbances (like fires or pests).” - World Resources Institute.
Effort should be made to ensure the benefits of the energy transition—such as local employment and community funds—stay in the communities that host these projects. This is particularly important for large-scale wind and solar projects, which can involve significant land use, affect visual amenity, and cause other trade-offs such as construction disruptions. Regional communities must be fairly compensated for managing these impacts.
No-go and go zones should have clear regulatory processes to streamline energy project approval times and construction. A go zone should act like a priority development area where a single approval process of the ‘go zone’ occurs and avoids the need for individual project, or minimises the requirements of individual project assessments, thus speeding up project approval processes.
Managing the tension between land use for farming and renewable energy projects is complex. However, land that has already been cleared or degraded by farming, and where the landholder consents, should be prioritised for wind and solar projects. This is especially true for large, rural land used for livestock. This is among the most degraded land in the country.
Public policy must not rely solely on energy efficiency, nor assume that the public will accept degrowth.
Energy efficiency and degrowth are often considered to be the primary solutions by many environmental activists, academics, and politicians. However, we believe this was thoroughly debunked by the COVID-19 pandemic which saw most of the developed world shut down, including people not driving or flying. Yet emissions globally only fell about 10 per cent.
Only a rapid expansion of clean energy that displaces fossil fuels, the protection and restoration of forest ecosystems, and the shift away from animal agriculture can ensure we achieve our climate goals.
Lift Federal and State nuclear energy and uranium mining bans.
Life cycle analysis shows that nuclear energy has the lowest environmental impact of all existing energy sources.
By including nuclear power stations, we reduce the overall land and environmental footprint of the clean energy transition.
Including nuclear energy would also require fewer transmission lines slicing through forests. Fewer habitats bulldozed for roads and turbines. Less conflict with communities already fighting to protect the places they love. Utilising nuclear energy could even see us achieve long-fought-for rewilding efforts such as restoring Lake Pedder and the river systems of Tasmania and the mainland.
Australia has the largest known reserves of uranium in the world.
Allowing us to mine and export this uranium would support global efforts to grow the nuclear energy industry and contribute to the global clean energy transition. Increasing the supply of uranium from countries like ours would also leave the world less reliant on countries with authoritarian regimes and poor environmental standards, e.g. Russia.
About us: WePlanet Australia is an ecohumanist organisation promoting public policy addressing a range of social and environmental issues including climate change, biodiversity loss and poverty.
Media inquiries: Tyrone D'Lisle