How net zero could hurt the nation’s food bowl forever

The lucrative incentives on offer for hosting wind and solar farms - in one case worth $230,000 a year - may cause struggling farmers to sell their land to people who have little interest in agriculture, writes James Willis.

During a recent trip to regional NSW a group of locals were talking about real estate. A long-time farming property had been sold for a fortune after it was specifically advertised as the site of a new wind farm.

Neighbouring landowners received a brochure which guaranteed the buyer “substantial passive income” over the next 30 years, in exchange for allowing a dozen wind turbines in your backyard.

A guaranteed annual payment for hosting this new green energy project was more than $200,000. That’s $200,000 in the bank every year until the 2050s.

The 2,200 acre property would go on to put Sydney’s crazy property market to shame, and fetch a whopping $8 million. The local real estate agent who sold it noted that without the wind turbines, the sale price would have been “half that amount.”

But this case near Goulburn offers an insight into why so many people in the bush have genuine concerns about the permanent consequences of the state’s net zero transformation.

Many farmers outside Sydney fear the battle against new giant wind and solar projects could be the final straw for multi-generational families.

Having endured drought, fires, floods, and volatile market prices - which often means they literally lose money - the lure of a lifetime green energy paycheque might be too good to refuse.

The number of broadacre and dairy farms has declined in Australia by 33 per cent, between 1999 and 2023, according to official government figures. One in three farms catering Australia’s food bowl is gone.

It’s valid to ponder how many more will soon cash out in favour of a giant net zero paycheque, and either scale back their agricultural output or simply sell to a rich city slicker whose only intention for the land is to make money by creating green energy.

This masthead has highlighted one extraordinary example near Yass, where a man has agreed to a huge deal with private operator Wind Prospect which will see him host dozens of new turbines on their property.

The man will have the ability to escape from the turbines as he also owns a $7 million home in Bellevue Hill, where he finds time to play at one of Sydney’s most exclusive golf clubs.

Angus Oberg and his daughter Emma Webb - sheep farmers near Yass - who could soon have wind turbines 265 metres tall on the other side of their boundary fence. Picture: Martin Ollman

Meanwhile, his neighbours have not been paid a cent, and fear for their own land values and quality of life once the 270 metre high structures are installed on the other side of their boundary fence.

One neighbour, sheep farmer Angus Oberg, told this masthead that the project had resulted in “neighbours who were once friends are now enemies.”

“It’s been a terrible side of this conflict. We don’t talk. It’s a case of some getting millions of dollars versus the people who get nothing” Mr Oberg said.

The concerns from anyone living close enough to a wind turbine are simple. While those hosting the infrastructure pocket massive earnings, to a point where they don’t even have to be farmers anymore, anyone living within “cooee” is facing a drop in land value.

Many farmers don’t have superannuation. Every cent they have earned over decades is tied up in their property. A dramatic drop in sale value, driven by the fact there is a turbine the size of Sydney’s Barangaroo within 2 kilometres, is likely to be devastating. And if you don’t take that seriously, ask yourself this - would you seriously buy a farm with a cluster of turbines blocking your view of the landscape?

Green energy companies - many of them foreign owned - are also in the firing line. Long before receiving official Planning approval, these cowboys have been known to storm into town with a map, making secret deals with a handful of landowners they need.

Chery O’Donnell and her husband Michael are attempting to rip up their wind farm “neighbour agreement” with an international company. Picture: Jonathan Ng

Wind turbines near Crookwell in regional NSW, about 45 kilometres north-west of Goulburn. Picture: Jonathan Ng

At one recent forum in Bowning attended by this masthead, Wind Prospect asked a room full of angry locals: “don’t you all want to keep the lights on?” This tone-deaf response was hit with a series of well-deserved boos, particularly when the new turbines do not offer nearby residents a cheaper power bill.

How can our leaders guarantee that the companies building and operating these projects will still be around in 5, 10, 20 or 30 years when the turbines or solar farms malfunction or inevitably have to be taken down? Or will it be left up to taxpayers to fix?

Take the situation in Crookwell as a cause for concern. Residents Cheryl and Michael O’Donnell want to rip up their contract with GPGA - jointly owned by firms from Spain and Kuwait - arguing the new turbines are noisier and closer than they had agreed ten years ago. Oh, and GPGA haven’t paid the O’Donnell’s or their neighbours the $5,500 in compensation they were promised. This is surely not a case study anyone would want to be highlighting as “good practice.”

Governments have had their heads in the sand on some of these issues. Wednesday’s Bush Summit in Wagga is a start. But make no mistake - the journey to net zero is about to turn very, very ugly if we don’t value or listen to farmers in our regions.

Do you have a story for The Daily Telegraph? Message 0481 056 618 or email [e-mail]