This paper draws on evidence from the findings of the Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy, independent research and engagement with misinformation experts in government, academia, industry, and the community sector.
For this paper, ‘misinformation’ is used as an umbrella term for misinformation (unintentionally false), disinformation (intentionally false) and malinformation (true information used with the intent to mislead). We have chosen misinformation as it is in common use. Experts often distinguish between the different terms. While freedom of expression and debate are fundamental to democracy, these forms of information disorder can undermine informed public discussion and confidence in climate and energy policy.
Climate and energy misinformation state of play
Climate misinformation is already affecting how climate policy is delivered in Australia. It’s contributing to project delays, higher costs and community division.
Globally, misinformation is a recognised risk to policy delivery in complex transitions. It can distort public debate, amplify mistrust, create confusion and affect how people respond to change. Misinformation is a real delivery risk that can distort the policy environment before evidence is presented. It affects both policy on emissions reduction and preparedness for climate impacts.
Misinformation narratives now focus on disruption, not denial
Climate misinformation in Australia has changed. Recent research1 shows it is increasingly focused on delaying or disrupting climate and energy action rather than denying climate change.
Common narratives seek to increase uncertainty about climate policies, technologies and solutions, focusing on:
- cost of living
- energy prices and reliability
- jobs
- regional impacts
- biodiversity and environmental impacts
- whether Australia’s action matters.
This shift is consistent with international evidence. Simple, emotionally engaging and well-funded messages spread faster than detailed policy evidence. The result is an uneven playing field.
Misinformation is increasingly delivered through channels and formats designed to maximise reach and engagement.
Short-form video, online influencers, coordinated social media activity and AI-generated content can communicate simple messages quickly and at scale.
Emerging AI-powered search and chatbot tools are further growing exposure to inaccurate or misleading information where underlying sources are unreliable. Climate misinformation is increasingly intersecting with broader online communities built around distrust of government and institutions. This expands the audience beyond people with a direct interest in climate, energy or specific projects.
The recent Senate inquiry heard that social media platforms can amplify misleading information because recommendation algorithms prioritise engagement rather than accuracy. Evidence presented to the inquiry also highlighted the use of coordinated online activity, including automated or inauthentic accounts, to spread misleading and false climate narratives. Together, these trends suggest climate misinformation is becoming more coordinated, more sophisticated and more capable of influencing public debate than in the past.
There’s more support for the energy transition than most people think
Misinformation narratives come from well-resourced actors
Some actors have more resources to shape public narratives than others. Recent research identified a diverse set of sources for climate and energy misinformation narratives, including:
- industry and advocacy organisations
- think tanks
- online influencers
- campaign groups
- community-based opposition movements.
The Senate inquiry highlighted concerns about unclear funding sources, third party campaigns and the influence of well-resourced networks operating across multiple communication channels.
Misinformation thrives when people don’t have strong views
Misinformation often works by exploiting uncertainty. Many Australians accept climate change but are unsure about specific policies, technologies and local impacts. This uncertainty creates opportunities for misinformation to influence public opinion and policy debates.
Roundtable participants noted that misinformation may reflect deeper community concerns around livelihoods, identity, values, regional development, visual impacts, trust and perceptions of fairness, rather than being the primary issue itself. Reliable information is important, however, is rarely enough to change views or build support.
The Authority identified social acceptance as critical to achieving Australia’s climate targets.
Evidence presented to the Senate inquiry suggests misinformation can exploit existing mistrust in institutions, increase community conflict and contribute to opposition to climate and energy projects. It can also contribute to delays, increased costs and reduced confidence in climate policy. Experts consulted for this paper reported growing concern that hostile rhetoric surrounding the energy transition is contributing to threats and intimidation directed at individuals and organisations involved in climate and energy issues.
Misinformation can also increase vulnerability to climate-related disasters by undermining preparedness, disrupting emergency response efforts and eroding trust in official sources of information during crises. Following extreme weather events, misinformation can also hinder community recovery, resilience and social cohesion, amplifying the broader impacts of climate change.
Further reading
