A group of former national security leaders has released a report warning that Australia is not prepared for threats posed by climate change, putting the nation's future safety at risk. More provocatively, the security leaders were flanked by federal crossbenchers in Parliament House on Tuesday urging the government to step up on climate security, including calling for the public release of the Office of National Intelligence's assessment of climate risks.
The Australian Security Leaders Climate Group comprises senior leaders with a depth of career experience in defence, policy and risk assessment. Its report identifies a different kind of threat: the systematic spread of disinformation about climate change through technology platforms. Retired admiral Chris Barrie, who serves on the Australian Security Leaders Climate Group, said the group saw national climate policy failures as putting Australia at risk, adding that "climate change now represents the greatest threat to the future and security of Australia."
According to the report, the threat is not merely intellectual disagreement. The group contends that technology companies have created an environment where coordinated disinformation campaigns can flourish, deliberately undermining Australia's capacity to transition to renewable energy. Climate mis-and disinformation in Australia is not isolated or incidental; it is systematic and well-funded, with decades of fossil fuel interests and allies seeding false narratives to protect their commercial positions and profits.
The security leaders propose a suite of regulatory interventions. They want the government to introduce a climate threat intelligence unit within the Office of National Intelligence so security decisions factor in global warming risks. They also call for tighter rules on artificial intelligence, social media platforms and big tech, with 13 recommendations to increase action on climate change and ensure Australia was better prepared. The report specifically flags climate disinformation which has evolved over the last decade from straightforward climate denial to more subtle forms of "climate delay," where the urgency of climate change is acknowledged but action and policy is deferred.
The group's case carries weight. Barrie himself was Chief of Defence Force from 1998 to 2002, and his colleagues include former military officers and intelligence analysts. Their concern about AI-generated disinformation is not speculative. Generative AI makes it trivially simple to create text and images that did not exist before, and the report flags this as an urgent regulatory gap.
But the regulation question sits on contested ground. Climate-related misinformation and disinformation potentially diminish human rights by undermining informed public debate. Yet regulation must not improperly restrict access to diverse perspectives or censor different views. Australia's approach of letting big tech companies regulate themselves has allowed misinformation and disinformation to spread like wildfire on democracy, causing increased discrimination, societal polarisation, and distortion of public debate.
A Senate Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy was formed in July with broad terms of reference to investigate bad faith lobbying that relied on tactics such as astroturfing and the spread of misinformation and disinformation to disrupt efforts to end climate pollution in Australia. The inquiry has received substantial submissions, though critics worry that defining "disinformation" itself remains fraught. Misinformation is incorrect information shared without intent to deceive, while disinformation is deliberately false information designed to mislead, which is not the same thing as controversial or unpopular opinions.
The security leaders' argument rests on a simpler foundation: if disinformation campaigns are deliberately designed to prevent Australia from understanding and responding to climate risks, that is a security matter. Whether regulation can address it without creating new problems remains the genuine challenge policymakers face.