“When the winds of change blow, some people build walls, others build windmills.”
~ Chinese proverb
This ancient Chinese proverb eloquently captures the essence of human reactions to change. In contemporary political contexts, such as in Australia, this saying offers a lens through which to analyse and understand the responses to societal and environmental shifts.
Australia, like many nations, faces numerous winds of change, particularly in areas such as climate policy, energy and immigration management, and economic reform. These issues often polarise public opinion and political parties, with some advocating for protective measures – building walls – while others push for progressive, adaptive strategies – building windmills.
Resistance versus adaptability
The Chinese proverb highlights two distinct approaches to change. Building walls symbolises resistance, a desire to maintain the status quo, and a reluctance to embrace new ideas or challenges.
Conversely, building windmills signifies adaptation and innovation, turning potential obstacles into opportunities.
This duality reflects the broader spectrum of human behaviour in the face of change, whether personal, social, or political.
Climate change is arguably the most pressing issue facing Australia today. The nation’s frequent bushfires, droughts, and extreme weather events underscore the urgent need for effective climate action.
However, responses to climate change vary significantly across the political spectrum. Some factions advocate for the continued use of coal and other fossil fuels, effectively building walls to protect traditional industries.
Others, however, promote renewable energy sources and sustainability initiatives, building windmills to harness the inevitable changes in environmental policy and energy consumption.
Energi mix versus renewables
The debate over Adani’s coal mine in Queensland exemplifies this divide. Proponents argued it will create jobs and boost the economy, while opponents highlighted the environmental degradation and long-term unsustainability of continued reliance on coal. The latter group seeked to shift the focus towards renewable energy, illustrating the windmill-building mentality.
A recent statement by David Littleproud, leader of the Nationals Party, provides a concrete example of this proverb in action:
“If the Australian people give a strong message about having an energy mix rather than a renewables approach, I think they want us all to be the adults in the room and get on with what the Australian people decide,” Littleproud told the Australian tv news channel 9 News.
This statement is an attempt to build walls. By advocating for an “energy mix,” Littleproud is essentially promoting the continued use of fossil fuels under the guise of a balanced approach. This new terminology serves to obscure the underlying resistance to a full transition to renewable energy.
Littleproud’s assertion that the Australian people do not want an all-renewables approach is contradicted by data from the CSIRO, which found that 87 percent of Australians support moderate to high change energy transition scenarios, favouring renewable energy.
Littleproud’s claim to be the “adult in the room” further exemplifies a wall-building attitude, implying that those advocating for renewable energy are not pragmatic or realistic.
However, this stance dismisses the clear preference of the Australian public for renewable energy and undermines the innovative potential that a windmill-building approach would harness.
Support for renewables
According to the CSIRO, Australians overwhelmingly support a transition to renewable energy. This indicates a strong public mandate for renewable energy, contradicting Littleproud’s assertion. It is important to challenge Littleproud’s wall-building narrative with facts and data.
Moreover, building windmills in this context means investing in renewable energy infrastructure, supporting technological innovation, and creating sustainable jobs. It means recognising that the winds of change are blowing towards a greener future and that embracing this shift is not only beneficial but necessary for long-term prosperity and environmental health.
Sheep farmer Dimity Taylor and the newspaper The Australian recently provided a compelling example that contradicts the narrative presented by Mr Littleproud. It’s not the so-called “Australian people” – in Littleproud’s words – who are demanding a fossil-fuelled, nuclear-powered ‘energy mix’ rather than an ‘all-renewables approach’. Certainly not if you consider a person such as Ms Taylor a part of ‘The Australian People’. Littleproud’s assertion there is simply untrue – or, should we call it out for what it is: a lie.
Here’s what she told The Australian:
“My name is Dimity Taylor. I’m living here next to the Gullum Range Wind Farm near Cookewell. I’ve been living here for about 14 years and the Gullum Range Wind Farm is just coming up to its 10th year anniversary. We hear the turbines every now and again, but it’s not very often and when we do, it’s not annoying, kind of sounds like the ocean. We can pretend we’re living near the seaside out here in the country. There’s been quite a few properties that have been sold that have been well within the two kilometre radius of the turbines and they’ve all sold for really good prices. So it’s really encouraging that land values near the wind farm are holding strong.
I think a lot of the concerns that come from the community in regards to wind farms coming to the area have so much to do with how the project is communicated early on. And if people can feel empowered during that initial consultation process, it can just save people so much concern and worry and angst. I think there also needs to be a really good focus on making sure the whole community can really benefit from being in a region that’s hosting renewable energy.”
This testimony highlights the positive impact of renewable energy projects on local communities, countering claims that ‘The Australian People’ are against an ‘all-renewables approach’.
Taylor’s experience shows that when renewable projects are well-communicated and the community feels involved and empowered, concerns diminish, and the benefits become apparent. Properties near wind farms maintain their value, and the sounds of the turbines are not a significant nuisance.
The actual sentiments of the population
This real-world example underscores that many Australians support renewable energy initiatives and recognise their benefits. It is crucial for policymakers to listen to these voices and consider the actual sentiments of the population rather than relying on misleading narratives.
Building walls in economic policy might involve protectionist measures, and subsidies for failing industries. Building windmills, however, requires embracing innovation, supporting emerging industries, and investing in education and technology to prepare for future economic landscapes.
The transition from a resource-based economy to one that values knowledge and technology is a significant windmill-building effort. Initiatives to support tech startups, renewable energy projects, and advanced manufacturing demonstrate a willingness to adapt and thrive in a changing global economy.
A way forward
The proverb’s wisdom lies in its call to action: to view change not as a threat but as an opportunity for growth and improvement. For Australia, this means fostering a political environment that values innovation, inclusivity, and sustainability. Policymakers and citizens alike must recognise that building walls might offer temporary solace but ultimately hinders progress. Building windmills, though challenging, paves the way for a resilient and prosperous future.
The proverb “When the winds of change blow, some people build walls, others build windmills” serves as a powerful reminder of the choices available in the face of change. In Australia’s political landscape, embracing the windmill-building approach could lead to more sustainable, inclusive, and forward-thinking policies that not only address current challenges but also prepare the nation for future opportunities.
“The future will be circular, the future will be green – or there will be no future.”
~ Janez Potočnik, Co-Chair, International Resource Panel
Honest conservatism: To preserve we must change
Christina Ihler Madsen, Communications Manager at the Climate Movement in Denmark, wrote on Linkedin.com:
“Are you noticing the false choice?
Today I’m going on summer holiday after another intense year in the Climate Movement in Denmark. I’m shutting down the computer with a reflection on an important factor that hinders climate action and often makes my work more difficult: the false choice.
Most media stories and political messages about climate have a false premise:
The choice is presented to us as: ‘keep it as it is’ or ‘go green’. All political initiatives to curb the climate crisis are met with a critical angle about what it will ‘cost us’ in terms of money or jobs. The false starting point is that we even have the choice to continue with business as usual and then nothing would change. It almost never occurs that the real maths are set up:
– What will it cost us if we don’t change?
– How expensive will your goods be when harvests systematically fail in several parts of the world?
– How many jobs will be lost if we do not introduce a carbon tax on agriculture?
– How much lifespan will be cut off if we continue using fossil fuels?
– How expensive will it be when insurance companies no longer cover flooding of your house?
– How will your country, your city, your home, your everyday life change if we don’t get the climate crisis under control?
The choice is not between maintaining the status quo or going green. The choice is between going green so we can preserve as much as possible of everything we love – or clinging to ‘business as usual’ and watching the foundation of everything we love crumble before our eyes.
We must ‘change to preserve’.
~ Christina Ihler Madsen
Communications Manager at the Climate Movement in Denmark
. . .