Australia\u2019s climate and energy wars are at the forefront of the federal election campaign as the major parties outline vastly different plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and tackle soaring power prices.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, misinformation about climate change has permeated public debate during the campaign, feeding false and misleading claims about renewable energy, gas and global warming.<\/p>\n
This is a dangerous situation. In Australia and globally, rampant misinformation has for decades slowed climate action \u2013 creating doubt, hindering decision-making and undermining public support for solutions.<\/p>\n
Here, we explain the history of climate misinformation in Australia and identify three prominent campaigns operating now. We also outline how Australians can protect themselves from misinformation as they head to the polls.<\/p>\n
Misinformation is defined as false information spread unintentionally. It is distinct from disinformation, which is deliberately created to mislead.<\/p>\n
However, proving intent to mislead can be challenging. So, the term misinformation is often used as a general term to describe misleading content, while the term disinformation is reserved for cases where intent is proven.<\/p>\n
Disinformation is typically part of a\u00a0coordinated campaign<\/a>\u00a0to influence public opinion. Such campaigns can be run by corporate interests, political groups, lobbying organisations or individuals.<\/p>\n Once released, these false narratives may be picked up by others, who pass them on and create misinformation.<\/p>\n In the\u00a01980s and 1990s<\/a>, Australia\u2019s emissions-reduction targets were among the most ambitious in the world.<\/p>\n At the time, about 60 companies were responsible for\u00a0one-third of Australia\u2019s greenhouse gas emissions<\/a>. The government\u2019s plan\u00a0included measures<\/a>\u00a0to ensure these companies remained competitive while reducing their climate impact.<\/p>\n Despite this, Australia\u2019s resource industry began a\u00a0concerted media campaign<\/a>\u00a0to oppose any binding emissions-reduction actions, claiming it would ruin the economy by making Australian businesses uncompetitive.<\/p>\n This narrative persisted even when\u00a0modelling repeatedly showed<\/a>\u00a0climate policies would have minimal economic impacts. The industry arguments eventually\u00a0found their way<\/a>\u00a0into\u00a0government policy<\/a>.<\/p>\n Momentum against climate action was also fuelled by a vocal group of\u00a0climate change-denying<\/a>\u00a0individuals and organisations, often\u00a0backed by multinational fossil fuel companies<\/a>. These deniers\u00a0variously claimed<\/a>\u00a0climate change wasn\u2019t happening, it was caused by natural cycles, or wasn\u2019t that a serious threat.<\/p>\n These narratives were further exacerbated by\u00a0false balance<\/a>\u00a0in media coverage, whereby news outlets, in an effort to appear neutral, often placed climate scientists alongside contrarians, giving the impression that the science was still unclear.<\/p>\n Together, this created an environment in Australia where climate action was seen as either too economically damaging or simply unnecessary.<\/p>\n Climate misinformation has been circulating in the following forms during this federal election campaign.<\/p>\n Clive Palmer\u2019s Trumpet of Patriots party ran an\u00a0advertisement<\/a>\u00a0that claimed to expose \u201c the truth about climate change\u201d. It featured a clip from a 2004 documentary, in which a scientist discusses data suggesting temperatures in Greenland were not rising. The scientist in the clip has\u00a0since said<\/a>\u00a0his comments are now outdated.<\/p>\n The type of misinformation is cherry-picking \u2013 presenting one scientific measurement at odds with the overwhelming scientific consensus.<\/p>\n Google removed the ad<\/a>\u00a0after it was flagged as misleading, but only after it received 1.9 million views.<\/p>\n The\u00a0Responsible Future<\/a>\u00a0campaign opposes wind turbines on\u00a0various grounds<\/a>, including cost, foreign ownership, power prices, effects on views and fishing, and potential ecological damage.<\/p>\n Scientific\u00a0evidence<\/a>\u00a0indicates offshore wind farms are relatively safe for marine life and\u00a0cause less harm than boats and fishing gear<\/a>. Some studies also suggest the infrastructure can\u00a0create new habitat<\/a>\u00a0for marine life.<\/p>\n However, a general\u00a0lack of research<\/a>\u00a0into offshore wind and marine life has created uncertainty that groups such as Responsible Future Illawarra can exploit.<\/p>\n It has cited statements by Sea Shepherd Australia to argue offshore wind farms damage marine life \u2013 however Sea Shepherd said its comments\u00a0were misrepresented<\/a>.<\/p>\n Australians for Natural Gas<\/a>\u00a0is a pro-gas group set up by the head of a gas company, which presents itself as a grassroots organisation. Its\u00a0advertising campaign<\/a>\u00a0promotes natural gas as a necessary part of Australia\u2019s fuel mix, and stresses its contribution to jobs and the economy.<\/p>\n The ad campaign implicitly suggests climate action \u2013 in this case, a shift to renewable energy \u2013 is harmful to the economy, livelihoods and energy security. According to\u00a0Meta\u2019s Ad Library<\/a>, these adds have already been seen more than 1.1 million times.<\/p>\n Gas\u00a0is<\/em>\u00a0needed in Australia\u2019s current energy mix. But analysis shows it could be phased out almost entirely if renewable energy and storage was\u00a0sufficiently increased<\/a>\u00a0and business and home electrification\u00a0continues to rise<\/a>.<\/p>\n And of course, failing to tackle climate change will\u00a0cause substantial harm<\/a>\u00a0across Australia\u2019s economy.<\/p>\n As the federal election approaches, climate misinformation and disinformation is likely to proliferate further. So how do we distinguish fact from fiction?<\/p>\n One way is through \u201cpre-bunking<\/a>\u201d \u2013 familiarising yourself with common claims made by climate change deniers to\u00a0fortify yourself against misinformation<\/a><\/p>\n Sources such as\u00a0Skeptical Science<\/a>\u00a0offer in-depth analyses of specific claims.<\/p>\n The\u00a0SIFT method<\/a>\u00a0is another valuable tool. It comprises four steps:<\/p>\n As the threat of climate change grows, a flow of accurate information is vital to garnering public and political support for vital policy change.<\/p>\n This article was co-authored by Alfie Chadwick, a PhD candidate at the Monash Climate Change Communication Research Hub, Monash University. The article was originally published on <\/strong><\/em>The Conversation<\/strong><\/a>.\u00a0<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n1. Trumpet of Patriots<\/strong><\/h3>\n
2. Responsible Future Illawarra<\/strong><\/h3>\n
3. Australians for Natural Gas<\/h3>\n
How to identify misinformation<\/h3>\n
\n