Climate & environment, explained.
Renewable energy is both an environmental solution and a form of industrial development (Wolfram Steinberg via Getty Images)
Renewable energy is both an environmental solution and a form of industrial development – and they are increasingly in conflict.
Subscribe to The Informer for monthly expert analysis, and to Events for advance notice of visiting world leaders and distinguished guests.
You may unsubscribe from Lowy Institute newsletters at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
The quiet contradiction at the heart of the energy transitionThe quiet contradiction at the heart of the energy transition
The policies designed to address climate change are, at times, undermining the very environmental and social objectives they are meant to support. What was once a clear contest between fossil fuels (brown) and conservation (green) has become something far more complex – a competition between competing “goods”.
Nowhere is this more visible than in the growing tensions between renewable energy development and biodiversity protection.
Large-scale wind, solar, transmission, and critical minerals projects are expanding rapidly, often into regions of high ecological value. In Australia, proposed developments have raised concerns about habitat loss, threatened species, and landscape transformation. Similar patterns are playing out globally, as the physical footprint of the energy transition becomes harder to ignore.
These conflicts are frequently dismissed as teething problems – issues of siting, planning, or community acceptance. But that framing understates the depth of the challenge as a failure of policy alignment.
Within government itself, competing priorities are being advanced simultaneously, often without a clear mechanism for reconciliation. Departments given the job of accelerating renewable energy are operating alongside those responsible for biodiversity conservation, cultural heritage protection, and land or sea management. Each is pursuing legitimate objectives. But taken together, they can produce contradictory outcomes.
The environmental costs of decarbonisation are not eliminated. They are displaced – across regions, ecosystems, and communities.
In Australia, this tension sits squarely within portfolios such as the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. An urgent mandate to deliver renewable energy at scale – to meet emissions targets, support industry transition, and maintain international credibility – sits awkwardly alongside equally pressing obligations to halt biodiversity decline, protect threatened species, and uphold commitments to First Nations heritage, land and sea Country rights.
These are not marginal concerns. Australia is recognised as a global biodiversity hotspot, and one of the country’s most at risk of species loss. At the same time, it is positioning itself as a renewable energy superpower. These ambitions generate clear friction.
Historically, environmental governance operated within clearer boundaries. The “brown versus green” divide allowed for relatively straightforward policy positioning. But the energy transition collapses this distinction. Renewable energy is both an environmental solution and a form of industrial development. It carries benefits and impacts simultaneously.
This creates a governance gap. Existing policy frameworks are not well equipped to deal with conflicts between environmental objectives, particularly when they operate at different scales.
Climate policy is largely driven by global metrics – emissions reductions, net-zero targets, energy capacity. Biodiversity and cultural heritage, by contrast, are place-based. They are experienced locally, shaped by specific ecosystems, species, and communities. When these scales collide, global priorities tend to dominate.
This is why many conflicts are framed reductively as local resistance to projects of national or global importance. Terms such as “NIMBYism” or “misinformation” are used to explain opposition, particularly when it slows project delivery. But these risk misdiagnosing the problem.
In many cases, communities are not simply reacting to individual projects. They are responding to cumulative pressures on places that carry ecological, cultural, and economic meaning – pressures that policy frameworks have not adequately reconciled.
Crucially, this tension is not limited to where renewable infrastructure is built. It extends across the entire supply chain.
Renewable energy systems are often presented as clean and benign alternatives to fossil fuels. Yet their material foundations tell a more complicated story. Wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, and transmission networks depend on large-scale extraction of critical minerals such as lithium, copper, nickel, and rare earth elements. Demand for these minerals is set to increase dramatically under energy transition scenarios, placing growing pressure on ecosystems and communities involved in their extraction.
These supply chains carry serious environmental and social impacts, including biodiversity loss, water stress, land-use conflict, and human rights risks. The United Nations Environment Programme has similarly highlighted that mining for energy transition minerals can generate substantial ecological degradation if not carefully managed. Conservation organisations have also demonstrated that many proposed renewable energy sites, and mining expansions along the supply chain overlap with areas of high biodiversity value.
In other words, the environmental costs of decarbonisation are not eliminated. They are displaced – across regions, ecosystems, and communities. This makes climate and biodiversity policy not parallel agendas but competing environmental imperatives operating within the same system.
Yet current policy settings remain heavily oriented toward a single objective: carbon reduction. While the urgency of climate change makes this understandable, it can lead to a form of “carbon reductionism” – where emissions become the overriding metric of success, and other forms of environmental and cultural value are treated as secondary.
This is where governments are struggling.
Policy frameworks need to move beyond carbon as the sole measure of success. Biodiversity, cultural heritage, and place-based values cannot remain secondary considerations, folded in late as constraints to be managed. At the same time, governments cannot continue to advance climate, environment, and resource agendas in parallel silos without undermining their own objectives.
This is as much a governance problem as it is a technical one. The energy transition is often treated as an infrastructure challenge – something to be delivered through speed, scale, and deployment. But as conflicts intensify, it is becoming clear that it is equally a political and ethical project, requiring more than rollout alone.
About the author
Larelle Bossi
Dr Larelle Bossi is an ocean ethicist working on values-led ocean governance, with a focus on the Pacific and global ocean policy.
The most-pressing world events explained by Lowy Institute experts and global contributors, in your inbox, every Thursday.
You may unsubscribe from The Interpreter at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
