You obviously have a one sided view.......I am giving some comparisons of how the Greenies love renewable energy irrespective of the fact that wind farms and solar are expensive and only 15% efficient and also the fact that it is killing millions of birds of which they will turn a blind eye to but when it comes to building a new dam to store rain water, the Greenies will put up all the objections in the world as to why a new dam should not be built.
Healthy flying foxes eat plenty of fruit which in turn gives less profit to the farmer.
Your argument in this case does not hold water......dams do!!!!!!!!!!!
Once again, not all greenies are the same person, so they can hold different views. And
once again, climate change isn't necessarily about being a greenie - most discussions ignore species loss, and focus on economics and physics. Neither of which are especially left wing.
As I've explained, and you haven't bothered to try refuting, the economics of climate change mean that solar is actually cheaper, even with today's technology, because carbon isn't costing in the damage. Coal power is, in effect, heavily subsidised by future taxpayers - something I would have thought economic rationalists would be against.
And,
once again, basically all human activity kills birds. Powerlines kill them right now. Buildings do. We don't get to NOT kill birds. Everything we do will kill birds. But what activity will kill FEWER birds?
If we fail to avoid climate change, that will kill a lot more birds, and make more species extinct, than all the solar power stations in the world. What is more rational (yes, some greenies ARE rational): ignore climate change and see multiple species go extinct, or fight it and - yes - see some birds die as part of our activity to avoid the worst effect (in comparable numbers to pretty much anything we do, anyway), to end up with fewer deaths overall?
Regarding the economics of flying foxes: most people use nets on a small scale, or just grow enough to muscle through the loss. Nets are made from simple materials and don't require power, and I'm not aware of any large-scale use of electric fences to stop bats, even in countries that don't have "political correctness gone mad".
I'm not a mango farmer, but it seems to me the bat-killing electric fence idea has two problems: 1. it seems less cost-effective than nets, being (surely?) vastly more expensive to install, maintain, and run than nets (I'm happy to hear reasons for why it's not, though); and 2. wounded bats represent an actual threat to the health and safety of humans, something that I would have thought your humanist anti-greenie impulses would be against.
Without knowing what actually happened and why decisions were made as they were, you have simply assumed the worst regarding the dreaded greenies.
...and ONCE AGAIN, what some local people who call themselves greenies say or do isn't necessarily representative of the entire green movement. Searching the country for a few examples of greenies being idiots isn't exactly proving anything. There are idiots in any group.
And this is also my problem with Bolt's writings. He puts up poorly sourced third hand accounts with no actual details, waggles his textual eyebrows, and lets the biases of his audience do the rest. Here, you've heard a vague story that basically goes "hur hur, greenies are dumb", and you not only buy into it without hesitation, without needing to know anything much about it at all, you actually seem to think it's convincing enough to use in an argument.