Renewables booklet feedback

by | Feb 17, 2026 | News Update

Following the recent release of our renewables booklets, DDEC received an email from another environmental organisation telling us that the information we are providing is at times inaccurate and ‘misleads the community’. The following blog draws from specific sections of our booklet as well as additional research to prove that this is not the case. 

Feedback #1 – ‘DDEC should stop implying offsets reliably “solve” clearing impacts’. 

Offset systems attempt to compensate for predicted future harm through environmental benefit and are becoming an increasingly popular tool for regulators to try and control environmental harm. However, DDEC is well-aware that the offsets system is known to be defective. This is why minimising impacts and conducting restoration on-site is of first priority, with ‘environmental off-setting’ as a last resort [ pg 9 ]. The booklet also takes a proactive approach within Section 3: Project Site and Design Considerations to determine other ways to minimize environmental impact e.g. using land that has previously been cleared. 

The organization goes on to criticize DDEC’s use of the term ‘unavoidable’ and ‘environmental net gain’ [ pg7 ] to justify offsets, but this has been put out of context. The booklet simply aims to convey the existing legislative process listed under the Environmental Offsets Act 2014 in a simple manner. In reality, vegetation clearing is an urgent and complex issue that cannot simply be neutralised with the solution of offset schemes. 

Feedback #2 – ‘The booklet states renewables are “the lowest cost way to produce new electricity” and that operating costs are “near zero”, but fails to acknowledge costs and constraints beyond generator costs, including transmission build, firming, curtailment, connection delays and system services.’

DDEC’s booklet primarily provides information on renewables projects rather than energy economics. Detailed cost analysis as suggested above could not be included due to length constraints, but further information can be found online or in the sources below. The statement of ‘Near zero’ generation costs [ pg3 ] is referencing renewables projects ‘once built’ and hence remains factual. 

Further research suggestions:

Feedback #3 – ‘Contamination risks are dismissed using industry assurance language’

Contamination concerns are addressed in the booklet within the context that industry reports point towards very low risk. However, as with many industrial products imported from regions with less strict environmental regulations there can be a possibility of chemicals that contaminate regardless of Australia’s strict import laws. The management of any industry infrastructure, especially the potential for leaching of any hazardous substances, is a valid area of ongoing research and regulatory attention. 

The potential contamination issue is especially pertinent to the disposal of decommissioned projects. Hence, the booklet discusses the need to increase the conservation of solar panel components ( which are 100% recyclable ) and even implement chemical disassembly processes to break down composite materials [ pg18 ]. 

Additionally, the booklet states that even with damaged materials, landholders can request information on specific componentry and/ or transparent on-site monitoring [ pg13 ]. This attempts to encourage individual efforts in curbing this potential risk, not promoting complacency through misleading information.

Feedback #4 – ‘Asbestos in wind turbine components: a real, current safety issue omitted’

The organization references recent findings of asbestos in wind turbine lift brake pads as a result of an importation breach late 2025. This case of a supply chain flaw is unacceptable and relevant government authorities are in the process of reviewing how asbestos passed existing testing and certification programs. 

However, this case shows the need for technical revisions rather than seeing contamination as inherent to renewable projects. Brake pads are only used in the internal structure of the wind turbine tower and air quality testing in the affected areas has confirmed no detection of airborne asbestos. The resulting threat to the community and maintenance workers was also deemed as ‘no quantifiable risk’. DDEC’s original stance still remains that any large-scale development carries a potential contamination risk. However, technical and legislative revisations must be made to minimize this risk rather than using contamination potential to discredit renewables. 

Feedback #5 – Footprint and cumulative impact are minimised using selective metrics. 

The purpose of including small footprint percentages and other metrics such as ‘2 ha of cleared land per wind turbine’ [ pg 8 ] is to reveal the upsides of renewable energy over other fossil fuel sources. This does not intend to justify land clearing itself or minimize the cumulative impact of industrial development projects, but simply show readers that electricity needs can be met in a much more sustainable way than before. Best practice examples to minimize emissions in road upgrades, grid build-out and so on are listed as well [ pg 9 ].