Imagine you’re halfway through your annual wheat harvest when a global crisis sends diesel and fertiliser prices soaring. All at once, your costs surge and your slender profit margin shrinks.
Are there alternatives? Increasingly, the answer is yes. Putting solar on the shed roof or an unproductive field could help keep the farm running.
In August, the federal government announced it would lift the cap on the long-running small-scale solar subsidy from 100 kilowatts to one megawatt – a size well suited to larger energy users, such as big farms.
If this plan comes into effect, it should reduce installation costs by about 20%, saving an estimated A$68,000 on the installation of a 250 kW system.
This could make larger solar systems more appealing for more farmers, reducing electricity costs and boosting energy self-reliance in the bush. It’s not yet possible to be fully self-reliant, as electric tractors and heavy machinery are still emerging. Anti-renewable sentiment in some communities could also be a challenge.
Shifting to solar and electric water pumps may make sense as a first move towards boosting energy self-sufficiency.Sean Savery Photography/Getty
How far can farms go?
If farmers have the space and funds to build a large solar array, this may make sense as a first measure. The ability to produce low-cost electricity opens up many more options – especially if paired with energy storage such as batteries, so power can be stored and used later.
Some farms are shifting to hybrid models, where solar and batteries are integrated with farm equipment and a backup generator to form the farm’s own microgrid.
What about fuel? Right now, Australian farms are highly reliant on diesel. This energy-dense fuel supplies about 84% of the energy used on Australian farms.
Diesel powers harvesters and tractors. But it also runs water pumps and power generators. Over time, farmers can replace broken pumps with electric options and run their operations on solar power.
Much more can be done. This year, AgriFutures Australia laid out a roadmap for farming and other primary producers to shift from diesel to electric options.
Are farms actually doing this?
These technologies are already in use.
New South Wales almond operation Cadell Orchards has long been off-grid. Until recently, its irrigation pumps were powered by diesel generators. But diesel was getting too expensive and a grid connection wasn’t viable. As Australian Farming Services CEO David Armstrong said:
we couldn’t stay on generators forever … it just wasn’t feasible [and] the variability of costs is too great
Instead, the agribusiness installed a microgrid with over 8,000 solar panels and a battery. The goal is to produce over 85% of its own power.
To avoid the upfront cost, the business didn’t buy the whole system. Instead, an energy company owns and maintains it, while the orchard buys the power.
Some farmers have taken up “agrivoltaics”, which means combining farming and solar panels. Fields can carry more sheep and produce more and better wool, according to some farmers. This is because solar arrays provide shade and can help the ground retain moisture longer.
Farmer Tom Warren has installed over 30,000 solar panels on his farm near Dubbo – and found panels pair well with sheep farming, offering shade and keeping more moisture in the soil.Gregory Plesse/AFP via Getty
But large battery-powered tractors and harvesters aren’t ready for prime time yet, as diesel packs more energy by weight than today’s batteries by a wide margin.
There are other challenges too. Large electric machines would likely have to recharge during the working day, meaning charging infrastructure might have to be located near fields. Farmers often put in long hours to bring the crop in. Stopping for long recharges could interfere with time-sensitive crop harvesting.
The AgriFutures roadmap predicts stationary equipment such as pumps will electrify first, while liquid fuels will remain important longer.
Solar paired with batteries can keep a farm running overnight or during cloudy periods. But if dark, cloudy days drag on, it may be time to bring out the generator.
Even free sunshine can hit a roadblock. After Queensland cotton farmer Ian Brimblecombe installed a large solar system, he began saving about $60,000 a year. But power network rules restricted how much electricity he could export or move between pump stations.
It’s not all or nothing
Over time, more farms will produce more of their own energy. But there’s no silver bullet, and the shift will take place in fits and starts.
Some farmers may find it viable to produce their own biodiesel from oils or waste fats to keep existing machinery working.
For farmers to get the most out of clean energy, they will need dependable equipment, affordable finance, local technicians and guidance from people they trust. These aren’t always easy to access.
Some rural communities are sceptical about large-scale renewable projects and new transmission lines, often due to a perceived city-country divide. Campaigns against new solar, wind or transmission projects often focus on the impact on the landscape and distrust of far-off authorities. False claims are common. This may slow the shift towards energy self-reliance.
Over time, we may see this resistance become more nuanced. Some farmers may keep opposing large-scale projects, while moving to install their own systems.
New incentives may sweeten the deal too. We’re unlikely to see the farm diesel tank disappear any time soon. But we are likely to see many more shed rooftops covered in panels – and new ways to make use of clean, cheap power from the sun.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Not so long ago, we thought the ocean was an inexhaustible resource. There would always be plenty more fish in the sea.
We now know this isn’t true. A growing proportion of the world’s oceans are overfished. And even though we’re fishing more intensively and using more advanced gear than ever, the total number of fish caught has plateaued. There simply aren’t as many left to catch.
On top of this, climate change and other human-driven pressures are placing even more stress on marine species.
Globally, governments are working to prevent further damage to ocean systems by establishing marine protected areas. However, our new research suggests these aren’t as effective as they seem.
The Australasian snapper (Chrysophrys auratus) is an abundant coastal fish species.Rick Stuart-Smith, Reef Life Survey
A global goal
Governments and communities are increasingly aware of the various threats our oceans face including fishing, marine heatwaves and overabundant species.
These compounding threats have prompted countries around the world to rapidly expand the coverage of marine protected areas – places where fishing and other destructive activities are restricted – over the past three decades. Protected areas are designed to help fragile ecosystems recover or, in some cases, prevent damage before it begins.
The international push to meet ambitious conservation targets has fuelled this expansion. The “30 by 30” target is one example. In 2022, 196 countries adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and committed to protect at least 30% of the ocean by 2030.
Currently, about 10% of the ocean is officially “protected”. On the surface, this is a major win for ocean life. But an area with this label on paper might not actually be protected in practice.
Until now, we’ve judged how well the world’s marine protected areas are working based on data we can collect from the surface. This includes how many square kilometres these areas collectively cover or how strict their rules seem to be.
As a result, we don’t know what is happening underwater at a global scale. That’s where our new research comes in.
To find out whether marine life is actually recovering, we analysed underwater biodiversity data from thousands of shallow coral and rocky reefs worldwide, located both inside and outside marine protected areas. This data enabled us to measure how much fish biomass – the total weight of fish on a reef – has bounced back. This is an indication of true recovery, not an assumption based on whether an area is protected on paper.
Our results suggest less than 2% of the ocean falls inside marine protected areas where ecosystems are actually recovering. That’s an optimistic estimate, which assumes people are following the fishing rules in each area. In reality, many don’t. On a global scale, this low compliance means the share of the ocean that is effectively protected is likely much smaller.
Large reef fish swimming through the ocean.Antonia Cooper, Reef Life Survey
So, what needs to change?
It’s worth noting, marine protected areas can be an effective conservation tool. Research shows they deliver significant and lasting benefits for marine life, such as restoring fish and shark populations.
However, there are various reasons why a marine protected area can fail. Fishing is a major one. If any amount of fishing is still happening, it’s difficult for marine communities to fully recover.
Research shows most of the world’s marine protected areas fail to safeguard marine life in practice. The reasons for this are complex and vary from place to place. What’s worrying is even a low level of non-compliance may put pressure on marine populations and undermine conservation efforts.
To ensure marine protected areas actually work, we need to improve protection on paper and in practice by strengthening fishing rule compliance. We must also ensure stakeholders are both aware of and actively engaged in marine stewardship.
But we can’t manage what we can’t see. We need an ongoing coordinated strategy for monitoring how marine species are faring by tracking them underwater, both inside and outside protected areas.
Otherwise, we risk overestimating how well the world’s protected areas are doing while ocean ecosystems beneath the surface continue to deteriorate.
Ella Clausius does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
WMO report details extreme weather events causing climatic feedback loop with serious health consequences
Big increases in wildfires and heatwaves supercharged by the climate crisis are hindering improvements to air quality around the world, UN experts have said.
Regions that had recorded a fall in pollution emitted by cars and industrial sites are facing new threats to air quality because of exposure to smoke from wildfires, according to a new report, while rising temperatures caused by intense heatwaves are causing a surge in ground-level ozone.
Our three cities are learning from each other about how to protect residents. These climate policies are also public health measures
This summer, mayors met in London during the heatwave that ironically threatened to derail London Climate Action Week.
As temperatures broke records across the UK and Europe, leading some climate talks to be suspended or cancelled, we found ourselves seeking shelter and comparing how our cities prepare for extreme heat: how we protect vulnerable residents, communicate risk, and redesign neighbourhoods for hotter summers.
Gas is now flowing from the Beetaloo Basin, a vast fossil fuel project roughly 500 kilometres southeast of Darwin in the Northern Territory.
The basin is one of Australia’s largest onshore gas reserves, which the NT government estimates is capable of producing 430 trillion cubic feet of gas.
The Beetaloo is producing its first round of gas amid fanfare about the amount of royalties it could bring the NT. Proponents say the basin could generate more than A$17 billion and support 13,000 jobs over the next two decades. Already, there is talk of the economic opportunities that come with cheap energy, including powering energy-hungry data centres with shale gas.
For those who have long hyped the Beetaloo’s economic potential, this is welcome news. For scientists, environmental groups and communities around Australia and the world bearing the brunt of global warming, it represents a “climate bomb”.
Remind me, what is the Beetaloo Basin?
The Beetaloo Basin is a vast, sparsely populated stretch of rolling plains that covers 28,000 square kilometres between Katherine and Tennant Creek.
In terms of gas reserves, the Beetaloo is bigger than Western Australia’s North West Shelf project, the nation’s largest fossil fuel development which accounts for more than 40% of Australia’s oil and gas production.
The Beetaloo Basin is covered with pastoral leases and different forms of Aboriginal tenure. Some of this tenure is the NT’s Aboriginal Land Rights Act land, which provides fairly strong rights for Traditional Owners. But most of the Aboriginal title in the basin is federal native title tenure that does not allow Traditional Owners to veto resource extraction.
Over several years, the developers of the Beetaloo – who now include Beetaloo Energy, Tamboran Resources and Santos – reached agreements with the Traditional Owners to frack their Country. But whether these agreements mean Traditional Owners actually consented to this fracking is hotly contested, given the Native Title Act is notorious for forcing Aboriginal groups into agreement.
Drawing in the dollars
The federal and territory governments have forked out significant money for the Beetaloo project.
At least $220 million has come from the Commonwealth. Meanwhile, the NT government has underwritten a $75 million loan to Tamboran Resources, a gas company found by a 2021 Senate inquiry to have then “paid no tax” in Australia. Other gas companies have also benefited from government largesse including Beetaloo Energy Australia, which received $15 million in taxpayer funds in 2024 alone.
The government has backed the Beetaloo for a range of reasons, including its potential to bring much-needed investment and jobs to the region.
However, it is extremely unlikely the project will deliver on these promises. A federal report, released only under freedom of information laws, found the benefits for Traditional Owners are “uncertain and variable”.
The climate crisis means the Beetaloo Basin project has two critical drawbacks.
A ‘stranded asset’
In this context, a “stranded asset” is a fossil fuel project – such as a coal mine or gas pipeline – that quickly loses its value because of the global transition away from fossil fuels. Research suggests demand for liquefied natural gas will decline as early as the mid-2030s. This, combined with dubious employment benefits, means the government is highly unlikely to get a good return on its Beetaloo investments.
An unliveable region
Recent research shows fracking in the Beetaloo would produce the equivalent of up to 49 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year – about 11% of Australia’s total emissions in 2021. What’s more, Beetaloo gas projects are only required to offset 5% of their emissions with carbon credits. That’s nowhere near enough to compensate for the environmental damage they will cause.
Climate forecasts suggest many parts of the NT will become unliveable within decades, due to the lethal heat caused by climate change. The NT News headline, “NT will be cooking with Beetaloo gas”, sums this dilemma perfectly, if accidentally. The irony of this headline won’t be lost on anyone who is familiar with the science.
No amount of jobs or money can compensate for this devastating future. By turning on the Beetaloo tap, we risk watching the climate crisis worsen before our very eyes.
Lily O'Neill is a volunteer Director at Protect Our Winters Australia. She has previously consulted for the Commonwealth government on the Beetaloo Basin.
