NSW Farmers reject wind and solar ‘farms’ terminology

NSW Farmers have taken aim at “farm-washing” terminology used by energy developers that “deceive people” about the nature of their work.

NSW Farmers have taken aim at “farm-washing” terminology used by energy developers that “deceive people” about the nature of their work.

In a letter to The Weekly Times this week, NSW Farmers president Xavier Martin says the terms “wind farm” and “solar farm”, should be replaced with “electrical complexes” or “energy facilities”.

“Farms produce food and fibre, they don’t do all these other things that industrial electricity generation does with wind turbines, solar panels and transmission lines draped all over the countryside,” Mr Martin said.

Mr Martin said the terminology has been “hijacked” by proponents and promoters of these facilities, and that NSW Farmers will be advocating for governments to also reject the terms.

“We just had hundreds of delegates across the state come to our annual conference, and they really laid down that this is very wrong to have it described as a farm.”

Currently the federal and every state government refer to wind farms in official documents, and the NSW Farmers’ current Renewable Energy Landholder Guide refers to wind and solar ‘farms’.

“That shows just how endemic it has become, that someone has let that slip through,” Mr Martin said.

NSW Farmers will not be using those terms anymore, and will refer to them as wind and solar ‘developments’ in the currently-in-draft updated landholder guide.

See the letter below.

I commend you for bringing to light the eye-watering government subsidies for renewable projects, but I must protest the use of your term ‘wind farm’.

Both myself and many of my NSW Farmers members take umbrage at the use of the terms wind farm or solar farm, which have been used by energy developers to deceive people about the true nature of what they’re actually doing.

Farms produce food and fibre. Paddocks full of solar panels or towering wind turbines should be called electrical complexes, or energy facilities, not farms.

Indeed, to take this deceptive language to its illogical conclusion, we should be calling Loy Yang a ‘coal farm’, Snowy Hydro a ‘water farm’ and the Lucas Heights reactor in Sydney an ‘atomic farm’.

I would encourage you, and your fellow members of the fourth estate, to reject these ‘farm-washing’ terms, which will remind your readers people that we are being asked to host electrical installations on land that should instead be used for producing food and fibre.

Xavier Martin,

NSW farmers president