Australian government must fight climate disinformation, says Senate committee
A proliferation of climate misinformation and disinformation is polarising public discourse, eroding trust in science, and making the transition to renewable energy more difficult, an Australian Senate committee has found.
The Integrity Report: Restoring Trust in the Climate and Energy Debate by the Senate select committee on information integrity on climate change and energy, was published on 24 March.
Its chapters cover what ‘climate and energy obstruction’ is, who the players are, and the motivations behind it; how false and misleading narratives are spread; and how threats to climate change information integrity shape public perceptions in Australia.
“A robust information ecosystem is critical to the health of Australia’s democracy and to its ability to meet the challenges arising from climate change – including the need to transition to renewable energy sources,” the committee said.
“However… the integrity of Australia’s information ecosystem is threatened by a proliferation of misinformation and disinformation, which is polarising public discourse and eroding trust in science and knowledge institutions.”
The committee calls on the federal government to adopt international standards on information integrity, to introduce new transparency and accountability measures aimed at curbing the spread of misinformation on digital platforms, and to strengthen communication and social licence capability across government agencies.
Read more: Scientists call for internationally mandated assessment of climate change risks
‘AI slopaganda’
The committee acknowledges that the motivations behind the spread of climate change mis/disinformation are “complex” and range from “genuine community concerns through to ideological, political and commercial narratives that can amplify or delay climate action, protect established business models, or increase community divisions”.
It highlights that climate mis/disinformation is most commonly spread on digital and social media platforms and perpetuated by AI algorithms and bots.
“Widespread use of artificial intelligence had led to a self-perpetuating cycle… in which AI uses existing mis/disinformation to create new content, which then becomes the basis for further AI-generated mis/disinformation,” the committee said, adding that this had been described during its inquiry as “AI slopaganda”.
It said: “Overall, the deteriorating information ecosystem has significant impacts on the Australian policy landscape, with climate mis/disinformation confusing public understanding of climate science, reducing support for action on climate change, and delaying renewable energy projects – with the associated economic opportunity costs, particularly for regional areas.”
It noted that one contributor to the inquiry had called climate mis/disinformation a “wicked problem” and that there was no simple fix for the spread of false and misleading information – particularly that related to climate change and energy “which are themselves inherently complex and highly contested policy areas”.
It said evidence pointed to the need for a “systemic and coordinated” approach between levels of government and across knowledge institutions and civil society, and that Australia’s “current piecemeal approach” was “unlikely to deliver the reform needed to strengthen Australia’s information ecosystem”.
The committee also said it recognised that “silencing debate is likely to further undermine trust in communities, science, experts and public institutions, with 175 implications for the nation’s climate and energy policy, as well as the resilience and effectiveness of Australian democracy”.
As such, it has called for an approach that “does not dismiss legitimate community concern or stifle public debate”.
Read more: UN climate change mitigation registry to enable cross-border data exchange
The recommendations
The report explores addressing information integrity in part through global efforts and international approaches; developing trusted, reliable information sources; increasing resilience through media, digital and science literacy; improving information transparency and accountability; and considering the effectiveness of existing digital platform regulation in Australia, and the monitoring and regulation of societal harms on digital platforms.
Among the 21 recommendations outlined in the report, the committee suggests that the Australian government adopt the UN’s Global Principles on Information Integrity and coordinate the application of the principles across government, and that it officially endorse the Declaration on Information Integrity on Climate Change launched at COP30 last year.
It recommends that it explore funding models for independent monitoring – for example, through the Australian Internet Observatory – to track hidden digital influence ecosystems, while several more of the recommendations are also linked to the monitoring of climate mis/disinformation on digital platforms and the regulation of such platforms.
For example, the committee suggests the government consider legislative or regulatory reform “which identifies psychosocial harms [and] places the onus of responsibility in addressing these harms onto digital platforms” and monitors effectiveness of their mitigations through regulatory and civic oversight.
It also recommends that the government require digital platforms to provide more and higher quality data – such as thematic breakdowns of their reporting inclusive of climate and energy data, removal actions and paid advertising related to climate and energy – to the Australian Communications and Media Authority.
Other recommendations include strengthening digital and media literacy in education, continuing to provide funding support for regional and independent media outlets, and increasing funding for social sciences research relating to threats to climate and energy information integrity and including potential solutions.
The committee said the federal government should “continue to strengthen communication and social licence capability across government agencies and departments”, and that “improving the flow of information between jurisdictions and across departments will help address knowledge fragmentations across multiple sectors of the economy” such as transport, electricity, agriculture, and the emergency services.
Read more: Why ‘decoupling’ energy emissions from economic growth underpins the green transition
About Mia Hunt
Mia has been editor of globalgovernmentforum.com since 2019. She has 15 years’ experience as a journalist and editor and specialises in writing for civil and public servants worldwide, including covering sustainability policy and related issues. She has led the Global Government Women’s Network since it launched in 2023. Previously, she covered commercial property having been market reports and supplements editor at Property Week and deputy editor at Retail Destination. She graduated from Kingston University London with a first-class honours degree in journalism and was part of the team that produced The River newspaper, which won Publication of the Year at the Guardian Student Media Awards in 2010.
Related Posts
