WHILE THE NEIGHBOUR was clearing 400 hectares of pristine bushland for a solar farm, I wondered why this is good according to the greens.
Other than a few bandicoots and wallabies shifting location, I didn’t notice any wildlife threatened, although the old trees hit the deck pretty hard.
But, if you cleared that much virgin bushland for growing food, you’d be in court up to your neck in bad publicity and steep fines.
And an engineer told me that the thousands of solar panels and inverters will use more rare and heavy metals (mainly raped out of kleptocratic countries of Africa) than even the most intensive farming and the maximum use of fertiliser and chemical.
But this is all good, according to The Greens and Premier Anna.
I just don’t get the obverse rationale.
I have a few solar panels on the farm sheds, mainly to try to obviate the skyrocketing electricity bills, rather than trying to advertise green credentials. I didn’t know the adverse green impact until the engineer showed me. At least mine went on an existing structure, whereas the solar farms require total vegetatation clearing and the use of road base to stop regrowth (which has the adverse impact of speeding-up water flow of the washed-out heavy metals into nearby creeks).
The engineer said the greenest solution would be to build dams in stony, scrubby country (like Hells Gate or Urannah north and south of Townsville) and then cover them in floating solar panels and fit hydro power. He said then you get twice the output (water and electricity) for your environmental vandalism!
He wasn’t joking.
Apparently this has been put to the Queensland and New South Wales governments, but they refused to even consider (that is put to an expensive consultancy).
Where’s the common sense?
I just have to get my head around watching all the trees being cleared across the fence and understanding that’s good — according to The Greens — because it’s for solar, not farming.