The Senate inquiry into energy and climate misinformation is part of the problem, at least, according to many of the submissions that flooded in over the last seven weeks.
The inquiry fielded 150 submissions since launch in late July, a number of which claim astroturfing and mis- and dis-information campaigns are actually being led by the federal government.
“Successive governments have not merely failed to prevent disinformation, but have themselves engaged in astroturfing, narrative manipulation, and suppression of data that runs counter to predetermined policy goals,” says the submission from Rainforest Reserves Australia, an environmental group co-founded by photographer Steven Nowakowski who has in the past aligned his cause with pro-coal MP Colin Boyce.
“It is clear that both corporate and governmental actors have undermined information integrity in climate and energy policy.
“The Committee must recognise that the erosion of trust stems not only from private-sector deception, but also from government-led astroturfing, curriculum-driven indoctrination, and the deliberate weakening of environmental guardrails.”
The inquiry emerged after evidence came to light that fake anti-offshore wind groups were being set up to “spread lies” about renewable energy, committee chair Greens senator Peter Whish-Wilson said at the time.
The Senate committee is tasked with investigating climate and energy mis- and disinformation campaigns, and looking into foreign and local organisations funding “astroturfing” – fake grassroots movements that are actually coordinated marketing campaigns.
The conservative Centre for Independent Studies, which has links to conservative campaign group Advance Australia, took the latter point to heart and issued a strong denial that it is funded by the global Atlas Network of conservative think tanks.
“To be abundantly clear, Atlas does not provide any funding or direction whatsoever in relation to the content or direction of CIS research and recommendations on any climate matter. And it has never done so,” it said, adding Atlas has reimbursed travel expenses to its US and Asia events.
It also said the government is using mis- and dis-information claims as an excuse “to exercise greater control over the speech of individuals”.
“Misinformation and disinformation are not unique types of societal harm that may require intervention of parliament to address. Many of the supposed harms identified in discussions about misinformation, such as racial vilification, are already illegal under Australian law.
“Moreover, allowing government to set itself up as the arbiter of truth constitutes a far greater threat to democracy than the existence of Russian bot farms.”
Bot farms are a real and genuine problem though, with Farmers for Climate Action saying it was attacked by fake accounts on its Meta social media pages earlier this year in a campaign designed to make people think farmers are opposed to renewable energy. It says false claims are forcing it to divert resources away from constructive policy work.
Aiming at different enemies
No submissions read by Renew Economy disputed that mis- and disinformation campaigns around energy are happening in Australia. But they don’t all agree on the source.
Coal Australia says “secret foreign donations and deceptive astroturfing campaigns deployed by activist groups” are compromising the country’s energy security.
But its target is environmental groups opposing coal, which it wants to see stripped of charity status or federal grants if they hide funding sources or don’t disclose foreign investors.
The submission followed the rules of a long-standing fossil fuel playbook that has been used to undermine clean energy and climate action for 58 years, in this case channeling the idea of creating a level playing field.
Alan Moran, in a submission for the Australian Environment Foundation, believes key institutions – and Renew Economy – are the true culprits.
“Misinformation on climate issues is not limited to fringe voices but is embedded in institutional narratives propagated by the CEC, Climate Council, DCCEEW, CSIRO, AEMO, AEMC, Treasury and the PC as well as by subsidy-seeking influencers like RenewEconomy and the Dark Money financing these sources,” he says.
“Misinformation and disinformation related to climate change and energy is largely confined to those promoting the idea, within and outside of government, that dangerous climate change is occurring and is human-induced.”
The inquiry received submissions from universities, groups of scientists, environmental organisations, several grassroots groups opposed to local projects or supporting them, and a number of fringe groups such as Australia Exits The W.H.O and Property Rights Australia.
But missing from the list to date are any views from renewable energy developers, or clean energy industry groups aside from Farmers for Climate Action or a joint submission from RE-Alliance, Community Power Agency and Yes 2 Renewables.
Of the 58 submissions from individuals, a large minority were worried about being tagged as “agents of disinformation”, as one put it, or of being linked with groups that might be involved with astroturfing or disinformation campaigns.
But one of the most direct, and powerful, submissions came from Julia Steinberger, lead author of the sixth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report 2018-2023.
“As a scientist and public communicator on climate change and energy, the prevalence of disinformation is unescapable. Any intervention in conventional or social media is met with a flood of disinformation responses,” she wrote.
“YouTube is one of the worst offenders in my experience regarding climate disinformation. The algorithm actively pushes climate disinformation.
“I have tested this myself, by starting to watch a conference by one of my colleagues on climate science, and being proposed subsequent videos that are all climate denial and disinformation.
“Twitter, now X, is a hotbed of climate denial, disinformation and harassment of climate scientists.
“[We saw] a whole new typology of discourse aimed to discredit and delay climate mitigation policies… emerge around 2018… The motivation is clear: not around any specific legitimate issue, but simply to confuse, create as many obstacles as possible, and prevent effective action.”
