After spending his life telling us that (1) climate change is the number one world problem and (2) renewables (including wind and solar) are critical to addressing climate change, St. Bob Brown is now saying a wind power project in northern Tasmania is ‘the new Franklin Dam’ and must be opposed.
Has Brown recanted his previous advocacy of wind by suggesting that it should be subject to a cost-benefit analysis? (Previously he said that wind power should be introduced at any cost to address climate change). This would represent a major shift to a rational approach to wind power, recognising that it has both benefits and costs and often the latter outweighs the former.
Or is it simply that Brown wants wind everywhere else except Tasmania? The NIMBY trick practiced by the spivs promoting wind power who live in the leafy suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne but who would never accept wind turbines near their own homes.
If Brown really believes that wind power is critical to addressing climate change, he should welcome wind turbines in his own backyard, just as I would welcome a nuclear power station in my backyard.