Comment on “Turbine graveyard” debunked: Anatomy of a media anti-wind scare campaign
Ilandar@aussie.zone 1 year agoSo while there might be semi-reasonable opposition it does look like anti-renewable nuts are getting involved in this as well.
The very first thing I said was that conservatives were hijacking it. Reading this article you might get the impression that all environmental concerns have been addressed and that any remaining opposition is purely in the form of a conservative scare campaign, but that’s just not a fair reflection of the facts.
Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone 1 year ago
1.1 There are reasons given for what the blades are doing sitting on the Kidners lot. It is communicated very clearly that there is value seen in those particular blades.
While spent renewable technologies is an interesting subject of increasing importance, it is not what the focus of this article needs to be. But it might make a fun follow up piece. Especially following up with CSIRO on how their recycling project is going.
1.2 The point of the article also wasn’t about the Chalumbin windfarm near the rainforrest. That is information brought into the article to illustrate ‘Nick Cater’s’ (the articles alleged antagonist), and other actors alleged bad faith actions in this incident. And their wider campaigns against renewables. As per below,
“…true aim of the video is to spread anti-renewables sentiment, more broadly, anti-wind energy sentiment, specifically, and anti-Chalumbin wind farm sentiment most specifically of all.”
1.3 So, the trespass and lie about the reasons for those blades storage on Kidners lot are what the article is actually focused on conveying. This is why in media you are supposed to give subjects of an article a ‘right of reply’, which it seems Cater might have neglected.
The point of the article was to expose the bad faith controversy that has yet again played out through reactionary disinformation channels. But, as usual, the story is serving it’s purpose to entertain and anger the hard of thinking who watch/read those outlets.
I disagree with your point here,
“but that’s just not a fair reflection of the facts. The author really makes no attempt to actually address any of the legitimate concerns”
Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the article describes these owners reasons for having them. And it seems they are being kept because of the concerns about renewables waste.
“We see future value in the blades in a circular economy. These blades were destined for landfill, but we took possession of them and were stockpiled onsite as we have been working on ideas for reuse of them.
“Eight of these blades have been rehomed – two of them for trials for recycling options to CSIRO just last year, and the others for training purpose to repair them in-situ in NSW and VIC, so they don’t have to be removed for repair or be replaced if damaged, as other blades removed just get buried.”
Also refer to paragraph 17 of the article, the writer very clearly addresses legitimate concerns with Chalumbin.
“Legitimate concerns about the project’s proximity to the adjacent Wet Tropics World Heritage Area last year saw it whittled back to less than half its original size, with 114 of the 200 turbines initially proposed cut from the plan to avoid sensitive ecological and cultural heritage sites.”
But, i will readily agree putting paragraph 17 between paragraphs 16 and 18, which are focused on the climate change denier side of the argument, is a jarring switch. If i was the writer, i would have put a version of paragraph 17 above paragraph 16, to more clearly define legitimate actors to bad faith actors.