Additional comments from the Australian Greens

1.1We are living through a climate emergency. With each year new weather records are being broken, biodiversity is lost and people across the planet are suffering. Our global economy is also paying the price.

1.2This is largely because the fossil fuel industry knew, lied, and denied catastrophic climate change, and then sabotaged climate action for decades, all the while raking in billions of dollars in profits every year.

1.3The industry was assisted by political systems captured by donations and influence, and by information ecosystems corrupted by calculated propaganda and lies. The deliberate corruption of our information ecosystems that prevents accurate, trustworthy and timely information being provided to citizens goes hand in glove with our climate and energy crisis, and is in itself one of the greatest challenges of our time.

1.4Although tactics have changed over the years, deliberate and organised climate policy obstruction continues to this day. Climate information integrity issues are not just about false information, they also involve the deliberate manipulation of public discourse.

1.5As summarised by one witness to this inquiry:

Climate policy has not failed, it has been defeated.[1]

1.6Understanding this reality, and how this has come to pass, will be critical in the campaign for renewed hope in climate solutions and for tackling a future of climate breakdown.

Thanks and acknowledgments

1.7The Australian Greens want to acknowledge and thank Government, Liberal and Independent Senators for working constructively in efforts to achieve a majority report on this critical matter of inquiry.

1.8Given the politically contested nature of key topics explored in the inquiry, this is a significant achievement in itself, and reflects how seriously the Senate has taken this inquiry.

1.9Whilst the majority report makes important recommendations, the Australian Greens felt the final chapter—the Committee View—and recommendations contained within should have gone harder and further. We comment on this below and make a number of additional recommendations for the Government to consider and respond to.

1.10The Australian Greens would also like to thank everyone who took the time to participate in this important inquiry. We recognise that it has at times been controversial and difficult for some participants. This was hard to avoid when those passionate in their beliefs were being asked to reflect on the integrity of information provided by other parties whom they fundamentally disagreed with, or had been critical of in the past. Considerable efforts have been made by the committee to provide balanced and fair processes to respond to adverse reflections and give everyone a voice to mitigate any concerns.

1.11While the scientific consensus on climate change that underlies the need for urgent action is clear and almost unanimous, as noted in the main report, what is thought to be 'misinformation' can be subjective and often reflects the political, ideological or vested interests of various parties to this debate. This was no different to the committee members themselves, some who held strongly differing views on both the veracity of climate science and the need for climate action, including the roll out of renewable energy. To put it another way, a (noisy!) minority of Senators who were climate deniers or serial blockers/obstructors of climate and renewable energy policy were always going to see this inquiry as a personal attack on their ideology and work. In the end, whatever criticisms were raised, all committee members had a platform and chance to have their say in the contest of ideas.

Background to this Select Committee

1.12This establishment of this Select Committee, initiated by the Australian Greens and passed by the Australian Senate in the second half of 2025, was deliberately timed to coincide with COP30—the 'COP of Truth', hosted in Belem, Brazil. COP30 was the first time climate 'information integrity' was formally dealt with as a key agenda item at these critical negotiations. As far as the Australian Greens are aware, this is also the first parliamentary inquiry anywhere in the world that has looked specifically at this issue of the 'information integrity gap' in the global debate on climate change and energy, and particularly how this relates to Australia, and what needs to be done to remedy the challenges we face in ensuring Australians have access to accurate and trusted sources of information on climate and energy matters.

1.13Over the past decade, most notably during the years of the first, and now second, Trump Administrations, the world has witnessed a renewed and unrelenting assault on climate science, policy and action. Closer to home, the so‑called 'climate wars', raging for decades, also continue unabated in the Australian political context. Indeed, during this inquiry, the Liberal and National Party were again involved in a public spat over climate policy, which ultimately led to their dumping of their historic (and already weak) 'net zero' commitments.

1.14While this inquiry received significant evidence that politicians are key players in (or swayers of) the information integrity debate, the obstruction of climate policy and meaningful climate action goes much deeper than just politicians. There are numerous actors, many working in the shadows, influencing the integrity of our information ecosystems, and hence politics, policy and ultimately the obstruction of climate action. The United Nations (UN) has now formally recognised that deliberate, organised and deceptive information campaigns run by vested interests (political, ideological, financial) are a key (ifnot the biggest) barrier to achieving the climate action necessary to pull our planet back from the brink of climate collapse. This was discussed in some detail at COP30.

1.15Overlaying this, the World Economic Forum identified 'disinformation' (deliberate lies and deceptions), including the use of artificial intelligence (AI), as the biggest short-term (2 years) risk to humanity for 2024 and 2025. This information integrity issue combined with the impacts of climate breakdown is the biggest long-term (10 years) risk facing humanity. Multiple witnesses during this inquiry, from national security agencies through to social science experts, corporations, government departments and non-government organisations also recognised the very real and growing dangers posed by the information integrity gap in our climate and energy debate.

1.16A significant outcome for this inquiry was getting the Australian Government to agree to recommendations to support and adopt the 'Declaration of Information Integrity on Climate Change' launched at COP30 in Brazil, and endorse the UN Global Principles on Information Integrity, and apply these to Australia. This is a critical first step on the path to developing a national plan to combat climate and energy information integrity failures. The Australian Greens look forward to Australia joining other nations around the world in solidarity to tackle the dangerous scourge of climate disinformation that has so effectively undermined climate action for decades. Few nations are as vulnerable as Australia to climate collapse, or have more to lose from not acting to meet our Paris commitments.

1.17This inquiry showed that improving information integrity is clearly relevant and critically important to Australia. The Australian Greens hoped that this inquiry would at a minimum raise awareness on what is a little understood or discussed issue undermining political climate action, and offer constructive solutions. The submissions, hearings and significant documented committee evidence will also provide valuable resources for further research in this area.

1.18The evidence presented in this majority report is strong and clear that without a new, multifaceted approach to dealing with information integrity issues in Australia—such as the deliberate and deceptive propaganda campaigns undermining climate action, turbo charged by largely unregulated social media networks and the agendas of some conservative media outlets—we stand little chance to meet our agreed science-based Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emission reductions commitments. The stakes couldn't be higher given the frightening and rapid changes we are witnessing in our natural world. The Australian Greens believe we must do everything we can to restore information integrity in both the Australian and global climate debate. This parliamentary inquiry and its report is an important reminder of this, and hopefully an important step in this direction.

Climate obstruction & the noisy denial machine

1.19Evidence submitted to this committee from numerous international witnesses and groups, including multiple representatives of the UN, the International Panel on the Information Environment, the Climate Social Science Network, Climate Action Against Disinformation, Brown University, McGill University and the Union of Concerned Scientists along with many others, have all outlined in detail the global nature of this urgent problem, and the associated importance of globally coordinated action.

1.20Numerous submissions to the inquiry also highlighted how models of climate obstruction, predominantly developed, pressure-tested, and first delivered in the United States over many years, have subsequently been exported to various countries like Australia. Key to the amplification of the climate obstruction playbook is what was termed by one witness as the 'denial machine',[2] which includes conservative think tanks, law firms, PR firms, consultancies, third‑party campaign groups and some conservative media outlets. Evidence to this committee indicates that the various parts of the machine, while not always working together in a co-ordinated fashion, have been firmly entrenched in our national climate and energy debate for decades.

1.21It did not go unobserved by the Australian Greens that the 'denial machine' swung into action as soon as this Select Committee was officially confirmed. Within days, and in the months following the establishment of this inquiry, dozens of articles and news stories appeared in the Murdoch press, many of them opinion pieces—including commentary by prominent conservative think tank representatives—criticising the inquiry, its motivations, committee members and cherry-picking information to suit anti-climate or other agendas. Online attacks were also aimed at committee members from third-party political campaign groups such as ADVANCE, who the Australian Greens note have been funded in the past by Associated Entities linked to the Liberal Party, along with other millionaires and billionaires. Some committee members received over ten thousand emails criticising the inquiry over a single weekend.

1.22While some 'cut and thrust' is to be expected in political debate and discourse on an issue such as climate and energy policy, ironically the inquiry itself provided a case study in real time, a demonstration straight from the climate obstruction play book. It showed clearly how a small minority of powerful, resourced, and motivated interests have so successfully used their platforms to crowd out other voices and hijack the climate and energy debate so successfully in Australia for so long.

1.23To look at the Labor Government—with a significant House majority—working with the Australian Greens and independents in the Senate, one may be tempted to conclude that climate science and climate action has today ultimately won out in the decades-long political 'climate wars' in Australia. But this would be to ignore the fact that our current Government has not done nearly enough in committing to necessary emission reduction targets or stopping new fossil fuel projects, and with the Liberal National Party now having abandoned any semblance of climate policy, what pressure (apart from the Australian Greens and a few independents) is there now for Labor to do better?

A National Plan : strengthening information integrity on climate change and energy

1.24The majority report confirms that the Australian Government has agreed to recommendations to officially endorse the 'Declaration on Information Integrity on Climate Change' launched at COP30 in Belem, Brazil, as well as to support and adopt United Nations Global Principles on Information Integrity, and work to coordinate the application of these principles across government. Enacting these commitments will require the development of a national plan or holistic approach to tackling climate information integrity issues such as dis and misinformation, as well as the urgent and growing challenges created by the rapid scaling and uptake of generative AI and large language model programs and products. The Australian Greens believe reference to plans for a national strategy and approach should be made more explicit in this report, and agree with a number of submitters and witnesses that the Australian Government should urgently begin work on developing a national plan or blueprint for tackling climate and energy information integrity issues.

1.25The Australian Greens recommend the Australian Government develop and implement a national strategy and approach to information integrity, particularly in the areas of climate change and energy.

1.26The Australian Greens recommend the Australian Government amends the Climate Change Act 2022 to require the relevant Minister for Climate Change and Energy to include a summary of all work done in support of strengthening climate change and energy information integrity in the annual climate statement to Parliament required through the Climate Change Act 2022.

1.27The Australian Greens recommend the Australian Government consider expanding the priorities and remit of the Australian Climate Service to include the provision of independent, science-based prebunking and debunking information and advice related to climate change, particularly during and in the immediate aftermath of extreme weather events and natural disasters.

Truth in political advertising, astroturfing & impacts of weak information integrity on climate politics

1.28Elections rely on voters being able to make informed choices based on accurate information about policies, candidates, and political parties. Due to the politicisation of climate action over the past half century by the vested and commercial interests seeking to obstruct the transition to clean energy, the climate and energy debate is regularly weaponised by bad faith actors during elections in Australia to support candidates whose positions more closely align with the commercial interests of large fossil fuel polluters. The committee's report outlines numerous case studies, including multiple from the most recent 2025 federal election, where advertising campaigns backed by significant levels of financial investment well beyond the realistic means of a legitimate community group, were delivered to Australian voters at large scale, with little real-time data available to understand the 'who, what and where' of these advertising campaigns as they were being delivered.

1.29The committee was not able to reach majority consensus on a recommendation that the Australian Government urgently progress truth in political advertising reforms, with the Albanese Government choosing not to support this important recommendation. This is particularly disappointing given very recent history, with the Albanese Labor government introducing the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Communications) Bill 2024 in November 2024, largely aimed at delivering stronger oversight and regulation of political advertising. However, frustratingly, this bill lapsed with the dissolution of parliament in March 2025 and to date has not been reintroduced.

1.30While the Albanese Government did not support this recommendation as part of the committee's final report, numerous submissions to the committee highlighted the importance of this reform in strengthening information integrity related to climate change and energy, as well as it being a critical element of the urgent reforms required to safeguard and strengthen Australia's democracy more broadly. The Australian Greens also note that many submitters called for truth in political advertising reforms to be extended and applicable to third‑party campaign organisations, given the high levels of advertising expenditure of some of these organisations during recent election cycles, and the projected election advertising expenditure expected by these third-party groups in the future.

1.31This committee inquiry received significant amounts of public testimony and evidence through submissions that the strategy of 'astroturfing', particularly in relation to political advertising, has taken hold in Australia and is now widespread.[3] This phenomenon is an emerging problem, particularly in relation to matters of climate change and energy information integrity. As detailed in the majority report of this committee, examples of fossil fuel-aligned commercial interests and billionaires providing high levels of financial support for campaign groups and advertising campaigns to provide the appearance of legitimate grassroots movement, but which obscure the true 'real time' origins of campaign funding and target pro-climate political candidates and their supporters, is undermining our electoral and democratic processes and slowing the urgently required transition to clean and renewable energy.

1.32The Australian Greens recommend that the Joint Select Committee into Electoral Matters (JSCEM) take note in its final report of the inquiry into the 2025 federal election of the clear and serious evidence gathered by this Select Committee inquiry related to commercial interests, particularly those aligned with the fossil fuel industry, using significant financial and other resources to distort the facts and parameters of public debate and influence elections.

1.33The Australian Greens believe this is particularly relevant when considering that the JSCEM’s Terms of Reference include: “reforms to address the ongoing threats of interference in our electoral system, both foreign and domestic.”

1.34The Australian Greens recommend the Australian Government progress federal truth in political advertising reform before the 2028 federal election, with these reforms being extended to apply to Significant Third Parties and other related political advocacy and lobby groups.

1.35Such reform would also ensure that all third-party actors are required to clearly authorise their campaigns and advertising material in-line with the requirements for political parties under the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

1.36The Australian Greens recommend the Australian Government create a real-time, publicly accessible political advertising register to provide an independent, searchable database of all political advertising (digital, broadcast, print), alongside the advertising sponsoring entity.

1.37Possible additional transparency measures on the advertising register could include the top funding sources for the advertisement featured.

a)All advertising containing an electoral authorisation would be subject to submission to the register.

b)Advertising disclosure on the register would occur within 48–72 hours of ad launch.

c)Advertising would be retained on the register for 7 years.

d)Oversight of the political advertising register would be jointly managed by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) and the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).

1.38The Australian Greens recommend the Australian Government introduce regulation that limits or bans fossil fuel advertising, in line with current tobacco and gambling advertising restrictions, and introduces a ban on political donations from the fossil fuel industry, reducing the donation cap across all political donations to $3,000 per term.

1.39The Australian Greens recommend the Australian Government deliver more accountability from online platforms by requiring accurate classification and disclosure of online advertisers to stop mislabelling (for example, advertising label attribution of industry groups as ‘community groups.’)

1.40The Australian Greens recommend the Australian Government expand the definition of lobbyists and update the lobbyist code of conduct.

a)Currently, only third-party lobbyists, organisations and individuals that lobby on behalf of others, are required to register as lobbyists. As a result, approximately 80 percent of lobbyists are not subject to the Lobbying Code of Conduct and therefore operate without any oversight, restrictions, or transparency obligations.

b)This transparency is critical for developing better accountability in the climate change and energy policy-making process.

Tech Platform Accountability and Transparency

CHAIR: Going back five years, Meta posted a statement in September 2021 around your Climate Science Centre. In fact, at that time, you announced a suite of new measures aimed at directly addressing climate misinformation on your platforms.

Specifically, Meta committed to expanding Meta's Climate Science Centre; increasing reliable information about climate change by announcing investment in new climate grant programs, in partnership with the International Fact-Checking Network, to support organisations working to combat climate misinformation, and by expanding your 'Facts about climate change' section of the Climate Science Centre; and elevating climate voices.

But all the links on the webpage that was published at the time of this announcement are now dead.

So does Meta still actively fund and manage its Climate Science Centre?

Mr Milner: No, we do not.

CHAIR: And why is that the case?

Mr Milner: I was not involved in that decision. I can take that on notice to see if we can provide some more information.[4]

1.41The inauguration of Donald Trump to a second U.S. presidential term in January 2025 appears to have precipitated a chain reaction across large tech and online corporations in relation to actions to maintain and strengthen information integrity standards on their platforms. Are we to believe it was a simple coincidence that two weeks prior to Donald Trump’s second presidential inauguration, on 7 January 2025, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announcedan end to Meta’s then-current third-party fact-checking program in the United States, instead announcing a move towards a Community Notes program across Meta’s platforms, as X/Twitter had done in the months prior?

1.42The confirmation from Meta executives during a public hearing of this committee that one of the world’s largest social media and online platforms had ceased funding its climate fact-checking and knowledge sharing program was of particular note to committee members, highlighting a concerning shift away from platforms focusing on maintaining strong and proactive information integrity programs and standards, particularly in relation to climate change and energy, and towards placing the onus on users to correct or comment on flagged content through a ‘community notes’ approach. Evidence was provided to the committee that this ‘community notes’ is ineffective and possibly counterproductive to information integrity.

1.43Significant evidence was provided to this committee inquiry that Australia should be evolving towards adopting an EU-style Digital Services Act or U.K. Online Safety Act 2023 framework of legislation and regulations that provide more transparency and accountability from digital platforms, especially in relation to dealing with information integrity issues such as misinformation, disinformation and online harms. Of particular note, a significant number of submissions highlighted the need for greater transparency related to algorithm design and the inputs being chosen that dictate the types of content users are shown in their feeds, particularly relating to content on climate change and energy matters.

Facebook’s algorithms are no different given we actively optimise for engagement. With the incentives we create, some publishers will choose to do the right thing, while others will take the path that maximises profits at the expense of their audience’s wellbeing. Ethical issues aside, empirically the current set of financial incentives our algorithms create does not appear to be aligned with our mission.[5]

1.44On 16 March 2026, just over a week before this final committee report was released, a BBC News investigation piece was published to coincide with the release of the documentary Inside the Rage Machine.[6] This investigative piece detailed the accounts of more than a dozen whistle-blowers from Meta and TikTok, who detailed their experiences and accounts of what they claim was leadership pressure being exerted to maintain and enhance algorithmic design which prioritised content engagement over the safety of users,[7] potentially driven by the profit motive, despite internal documents, analysis and research indicating a potential awareness of the damage this may do within the community. The Australian Greens note that Meta representatives refute claims relating to the design of algorithms being optimised for engagement at the expense of user safety.[8]

1.45An important touchstone report and resource for this committee’s work was the July 2025 report Extreme Weather,[9] published by the Centre for Countering Digital Hate. This report analysed hundreds of posts across large online social platforms, tracking numerous instances where false and misleading claims related to extreme weather events and natural disasters were hosted without any form of fact-check, community note or information panel. It also outlined how Meta was profiting from content creation partnerships and advertising around posts denying extreme weather links to climate change, or other dangerous disinformation. Responses to questions on notice to Meta outlined how this couldn't happen in Australia, but it wasn't refuted that this occurs now in the US.This US-generated content is obviously available online globally. The Australian Greens believe that minimising profit incentives for creators across these platforms during and in the immediate aftermath of extreme weather events may be an appropriate action for the government to progress in order to protect public safety and reduce the proliferation of false or misleading information across online platforms when timely access to accurate and trusted information is paramount.

1.46More broadly a range of solutions (a ‘portfolio approach’) are needed to tackle this issue, including more resources being put into fact-checking, pre-bunking and debunking deliberate, deceptive and false and misleading information on topics such as climate change and energy, especially around extreme weather events. Solutions such as third-party fact-checking aren't silver bullets to tackling dis/misinformation but evidence showed they do play an important role in strengthening information integrity.The Australian Greens are very concerned by evidence provided to this inquiry suggesting major tech platforms are reducing their commitments to simple and scalable misinformation solutions such as third-party fact-checking.

1.47The use of ‘community notes,’ replacing more formal fact-checking programs, by companies such as X or Meta, or the use of generic ‘information panels’ as a substitute for third-party fact-checking services used by YouTube were criticised by experts who provided evidence to this committee as being insufficient or even counterproductive. The Australian Greens agree that online tech platforms shouldn't be the ones doing fact-checking themselves, but they should be funding such services, and significantly increasing resources in this area. Given the distinct trend away from fact-checking or other important content moderation actions across these platforms, the Australian Greens want a ‘trust levy’ legislated by the Australian Government which would direct a percentage of the revenues or profits of the big tech platforms - which are some of the biggest and most profitable companies on the planet - that would fund a portfolio approach to implementing solutions that strengthen information integrity in our democracy.

1.48The Australian Greens recommend the Australian Government introduce regulation to better protect Australians from the negative impacts and dangers to community safety created by the spread of false and misleading claims related to extreme weather events and climate change online.

1.49This could be achieved by incorporating the United Nations Global Principles on Information Integrity online (of which Australia is a signatory) and relevant aims of the United Nations Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change into the Government’s planned introduction of a Digital Duty of Care under the Online Safety Act 2021.

1.50The Australian Greens recommend the Australian Government recommence work on legislative and regulatory reform to strengthen information integrity related to climate change and energy, possibly through a legislation framework similar to the European Union ‘Digital Services Act’, which strengthens public transparency, platform accountability and reporting requirements from news, social media and other related organisations and entities.

1.51The Australian Greens recommend the Australian Government should ensure people have a free, independent service to escalate digital platform complaints, including about false and misleading information online, by expanding the remit and jurisdiction of the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman to include digital platforms.

1.52This is in line with recommendations from the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission Digital Services Inquiry and the Review of the Online Safety Act 2021, complementing the Albanese government’s work on digital competition and a Digital Duty of Care.

1.53The Australian Greens recommend the Australian Government, in consultation with relevant industry bodies, develop and implement a mandatory code of conduct related to online platform monetisation during, and in the immediate aftermath of, extreme weather events and natural disasters.

1.54The Australian Greens recommend the Australian Government strengthen the powers of the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to compel transparent and mandatory reporting of climate misinformation and disinformation in digital platforms and online advertising.

1.55This could be achieved by penalising digital platforms for algorithmic amplification of false and misleading information relating to climate change and energy, and through requiring transparent reporting on content moderation, removal actions, and paid advertising related to climate and energy.

1.56The Australian Greens recommend the Australian Government provides stronger powers to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to:

a)enforce legitimate data access requests to platform providers from researchers, with associated penalties for non-compliance; and

b)improve public access to digital platform content libraries for researchers.

1.57The Australian Greens recommend the Australian Government increase funding for independent monitoring support (for example via the Australian Internet Observatory) to track hidden digital influence ecosystems and provide independent transparency and accountability from platforms.

1.58The Australian Greens recommend that when looking at an EU Digital Services Act legislative framework and its applicability in Australia, the Australian Government recognises climate disinformation as a “systemic risk.”

1.59This regulatory or legislative action should reflect the aims of Article 34 of the European Union’s Digital Services Act.

1.60The Australian Greens recommend that the Australian Government undertake urgent work to combat the negative social impacts and harms created by algorithmically suggested content including by requiring social media platforms to provide users with the option to opt in and out of algorithms as called for by the ‘Fix our Feeds’ campaign.

1.61The Australian Greens recommend the Australian Government expand the powers of the e-Safety commissioner and/or the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to establish a mandatory requirement for platforms to provide the Australian government quarterly reporting and disclosure of the sources, prevalence and scale of coordinated inauthentic behaviour (CIB) or ‘bot networks’ active across Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) and Search Engines (VLOSEs) in Australia, accompanied by actions taken by corporate owners to mitigate or remove these network and platform risks.

Impact of Traditional Media and Role of Independent Media

1.62Evidence presented to the inquiry was strong and consistent that a robust and healthy local news and independent media sector is critical to combatting information integrity deficits such as dis and misinformation. Local media outlets are often some of the most trusted information sources,[10] particularly in relation to renewable energy development and climate change. While these publications are often some of the most trusted sources of information, due to a multitude of pressures, local and independent media publications are struggling to remain viable and need urgent assistance. The Australian Greens believe the Australian Government has an important role to play in not only sustaining this sector, but actually supporting its growth.

1.63Overlaying the importance of building independent media is the current concentration of media ownership in Australia. As touched on in the majority report, evidence was compelling that the Murdoch Press/News Ltd media outlets are one the biggest misinformers in the Australia climate and energy debate, consistently platforming climate sceptics and policy obstruction content and opinion. When asked directly about this, News Ltd responded during hearings that this was legitimate for public debate, and if climate misinformation was ‘debunked’ in the process of free speech and debate, this showed such a contest of ideas was healthy and working. This avoids the very real evidence provided to the committee that once misinformation is platformed (especially if consistently promoted), it travels very fast and is very difficult to debunk comprehensively or in a timely manner.

1.64The Australian Greens recommend the Australian Government provides greater support for regional media outlets through increased and ongoing funding, including through development of local procurement policy for government advertising.

1.65The Australian Greens recommend the Australia Government fund research and consultation on developing and implementing more timely and effective climate change and energy fact-checking, pre-bunking, and debunking frameworks, particularly in the independent media, social sciences and digital sectors.

Current and Future Impacts of AI on the Climate and Energy Debate

In a threat intelligence report that we published in March 2025, we did detect the use of Claude by actors to run what we called an influence-as-a-service operation. In that campaign, Claude was used in violation of our policies to basically orchestrate the operation of multiple social media accounts.

This was less about the generation of the content itself. It was a really novel attack where Claude was misused to dictate posting schedules and to dictate who these accounts should interact with.

That sort of activity is a concern and is a focus for our team. When we detected that, we shut that campaign down, and it influenced our monitoring capabilities going forward to detect that activity earlier. That is the form of activity that we've seen, beyond just misinformation, in the world of fraud and scams, where Claude was used as an orchestrator to help automate some of these activities.[11]

1.66The above public testimony provided to this committee’s inquiry by a representative of Anthrophic, was one of a number of submissions that pointed to the coordinated deployment of bot, or ‘inauthentic,’ online accounts to spread false or misleading information about climate change and provide the appearance of support for large new fossil fuel development. For example, in their submission the Union of Concerned Scientists highlighted that:

The cooperation of major tech companies and state officials in the spread of profitable disinformation has further established the "clickbait for profit" phenomenon.

A Climate Action Against Disinformation (CAAD) analysis released after COP29 found that thousands of bot accounts were used to disseminate pro-Azerbaijan propaganda following the release of news on the country's planned increase in natural gas production, despite concurrent suppression of climate activism and a worldwide call for Azerbaijani accountability.[12]

1.67This evidence and that of many other submitters demonstrates that the coordinated and automated use of bots, possibly often powered by artificial intelligence models, is an immediate and rapidly escalating threat to the protection and strengthening of matters related to climate change information integrity.

1.68As outlined on page 146 of this committee’s majority report, on Wednesday 11 March 2026, just a few weeks prior to the tabling of this committee report, ABC News Verify published an explosive article titled Foreign Facebook accounts using AI Pauline Hanson to manipulate Australians, which provided shocking details of a massive campaign of ‘fake news’ (fake images, propaganda and disinformation) on Meta's Facebook platform targeting Australian political figures and commentariat. This investigation proved to be a timely and critical case study for this inquiry. Many of the hundreds of fake content posts studied by the ABC used AI to generate hyper-realistic images and video, some of it offensive and harmful. This has come to be referred to in the media as ‘AI slopaganda.’

1.69Who are these shady, untraced foreign interests seeking to exploit Australians by injecting this slop into our homes and politics? What are their motives? Is it profit? Power? Persuasion? Or some combination of all these and more? The truth is the public doesn't know exactly - which is simply not good enough. The work progressed by this committee has highlighted the gaping holes in our information integrity ecosystem, which is especially concerning when these large online platforms continue to play such a prominent role in our everyday lives. If it took an ABC News investigation to bring this to the world’s attention - what more are we not seeing? If Meta and other large online platforms have this kind of information, what will it take to achieve transparency and accountability on this? Sadly to-date this has been desperately lacking.

1.70ABC News Verify’s investigative piece suggested a profit motive was behind the generation of this content, with foreign interests creating controversial and fake political content to exploit engagement algorithms, driving advertising revenues. If this is true, did Meta also profit from what was obviously ‘co-ordinated inauthentic behaviour’ (CIB) and disinformation, something that their participation in DIGI Inc’s voluntary Australian code of conduct, the Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation requires them to detect and remove? The Australian Greens note Meta was reported as having taken down a number of these fake posts and accounts once it was brought to their attention by the ABC News Verify team.

1.71It's relevant to point out this could have also been direct foreign interference by state actors in our Australian democratic political system. It may be a co-incidence, but the timing of this massive fake news campaign, which experts labelled as the tip of the iceberg, coincided with an unprecedented rise in the polling vote of One Nation, which was significantly platformed in a favourable light by this disinformation campaign.

1.72Whether it was monetisation of the algorithm driving this tsunami of fake news, direct foreign interference or even a shady third-party funded campaign to boost One Nation's vote The Australian Greens feel this needs a thorough investigation. Given the big role AI played in helping generate this content, including deep fakes, it is a chilling portend of what is to come down the line, and why we must have full transparency and accountability of such deceptive content undermining information integrity and democratic processes.

1.73The Australian Greens recommend the Australian Government direct our National Security Agencies (ASIO, Department of Home Affairs) to investigate and report back to the Attorney General on the origins and motives behind the significant fake news campaigns reported on by ABC News Verify (11th March 2026), propagated by foreign interests, targeting Australian politics.

1.74The Australian Greens recommend that the Australian Government direct the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to investigate why Meta failed to detect or remove, or if they profited from, what was most likely ‘coordinated inauthentic behaviour (CIB)’ on their Facebook platform, and what lessons can be learnt from such a concerning event given its increasingly likely use in the future, including why the use of offensive AI content didn't trigger warnings or the removal of posts.

1.75The Australian Greens recommend the Australian Government provide the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) greater powers to mandate the labelling of AI-generated content with standardised disclosure formats and progress regulatory approaches addressing the impact of generative AI on climate, energy and broader political communication, based on the principles of transparency and accountability.

Other noteworthy points of interest from the Inquiry:

1.76A key question considered by the committee has been: “What direct evidence is there tying fossil fuel interests to deceptive or misleading information campaigns undermining climate and energy policy in Australia?” There is some reference to this in the committee’s majority report, but the Australian Greens would like to highlight that examples were provided in evidence. The Australian Greens note that on page 45 of US-owned Peabody Energy’s 2025 Sustainability Report, Peabody Energy states that Coal Australia (which Peabody is a member of) provides “direct financial support to third-party organisations to campaign in support of pro-coal mining policies.” As outlined in detail in submission evidence,[13] Coal Australia funded $3.68 million of third-party election, climate and advocacy campaigns around the 2025 federal election, through supposed ‘community’ organisations Australians for Prosperity and the Australian Institute for Progress. Questions were put to Coal Australia as to whether this paid advertising during the last election was (or could be perceived to be) misleading or deceptive, given there was no disclosure of fossil fuel funding associated with this advertising from a supposed ‘community group.’ Coal Australia representatives refuted the proposition that this strategy was a deliberate attempt to obscure the identity of Coal Australia campaign funders.[14] While the Australian Greens are sceptical of this response, whatever their motive, it is a clear example of fossil fuel funding impacting the integrity of our national climate and energy debate.

1.77Evidence was also provided to the committee that conservative think tanks play a pivotal role in climate obstruction. It might surprise some that this play book was developed many years ago. A 50-year-old document was provided by Dr Jeremy Walker (see below), highlighting the genesis of conservative think tanks in Australia, many of which have proudly and openly campaigned against climate action and renewable energy policies, indeed publicly boasting of their critical role in defeating climate change policy in Australia. Specifically, this letter dated 19 August 1976 written by Mr John Bonython, outlined why conservative think tanks are important in policy debates like climate and energy, because they can directly speak for business interests (without the public knowing). Obviously think tanks have evolved over the years, but given the complete lack of transparency on their funding, and their links to international networks previously associated with fossil fuel funding, the integrity of information they provide in public climate debates must be questioned.

1.78At the time, Mr Bonthyon wrote;

Recently, at my instigation, Australia has had a visit from one Antony Fisher of London. A successful businessman, youngish but retired, he is the founder of the Institute of Economic Affairs, London. This has had, after a slow start, a good record of achievement in getting some academics and politicians and therefore people too, to see the error of the socialist-communist way.

So much so, that Fisher was recently invited to advise and direct the new Fraser Institute in Vancouver. He is in demand to do so elsewhere In the western world, including a show In Los Angeles and one in New York - quite apart from approaches from Europe.

Anyway, I was fortunate enough to get Fisher here (Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney talking to meetings of directors of companies etc.) for a fortnight. I am hopeful that we will be able to proceed along the route he has outlined.

I cannot tell you his method quickly. What l may say, what any business itself may say, is put down by many to "vested interest".

He has a technique of getting academics to say and write under their own names what business cannot say for itself. It is now having some good results in the U.K. and in Canada. I have had, over the years, a good bit to do with Chambers of Commerce, of Manufacturers, with politicians - and what they say is regarded sceptically by a public encouraged by leftwing academics.

Fisher's method seems to me to be the best I have come across.

1.79If the vested interests or businesses referred to in this letter are fossil fuel aligned, as has been proven in the United States with similar think tanks, then this highlights more than half a century of impact and influence these industry-aligned think tanks and advocacy lobbyist organisations have exerted over Australia’s climate and energy policy and public debate.

Senator Peter Whish-Wilson, Chair

Australian Greens

Senator for Tasmania

Footnotes

[1]Dr Jeremy Walker, Submission 243, p. 5 (emphasis added).

[2]QUT Digital Media Research Centre, Submission 60, p. 12.

[3]See, for example, ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making and Society, Submission 21.

[4]Mr Simon Milner, Vice President, Public Policy APAC, Meta, Committee Hansard, 16 February 2026, p. 3.

[5]BBC Two, Meta internal document cited in ‘Inside the Rage Machine’ report,March 2026 [emphasis added].

[6]BBC Two, Inside the Rage Machine, March 2026.

[7]BBC News, Meta and TikTok let harmful content rise after evidence of outrage drove engagement, say whistleblowers, 16 March 2026 www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqj9kgxqjwjo

[8]See: Committee Hansard, 16 February 2026, pp. 1–21.

[9]Centre for Countering Digital Hate, Extreme Weather, July 2025, https://counterhate.com/research/ extreme-weather-false-claims/

[10]See: Local & Independent News Association (LINA), Submission 18.

[11]Mr Evan Frondorf. Head of External Policy, Partnerships and Safeguards, Anthropic, Committee Hansard, 12 March 2026, p. 5, [emphasis added].

[12]Union of Concerned Scientists, Submission 111.

[13]Dr Jeremy Walker, Submission 243.

[14]Mr Stuart Bocking, Chief Executive Officer, Coal Australia, Committee Hansard, 16 February 2026, pp. 35–39.