The Claim
“Secretly pressured the United Nations to delete from their climate change report the claim that closing coal power plants is necessary to fight climate change, as well as deleting mentions of fossil fuel lobbyists successfully watering down climate change legislation and action in Australia.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The core facts of this claim are substantially accurate, though the framing requires important clarification [1][2][3].
In October 2021, BBC News reported on leaked documents from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) that contained more than 32,000 government and stakeholder comments on the draft Sixth Assessment Report Working Group III on climate mitigation [1]. The leak was provided to BBC News by Greenpeace UK's investigative unit, Unearthed [1].
Australian government officials did submit comments requesting specific language changes to the draft IPCC report. Specifically, one senior Australian government official from the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources objected to a paragraph stating that closing coal-fired power plants was necessary for climate action [2]. The official's comment stated: "These remarks confuse the objective (eliminating emissions) with the means 'retiring existing coal-fired power'" and suggested carbon capture and storage (CCS) remained "relevant to zero emissions" [2].
Additionally, Australia requested deletion of a reference to analysis explaining how fossil fuel industry campaigns have weakened climate action in the United States and Australia [2]. The draft report had stated "Campaigns by oil and coal companies against climate action in the US and Australia are perhaps the most well-known," and Australia objected, calling it a "political viewpoint made to seem factual" [2].
Australia also requested removal from a list naming "major coal-consuming countries" alongside China, the US, and South Africa, arguing Australia's consumption was "an order of magnitude lower" than the others listed [3].
Missing Context
The claim uses the word "secretly pressured" and implies successful deletion, both of which require clarification [1][2][3].
Not "secretly": Australia's comments were part of the normal IPCC review process. Government feedback is a standard, mandated part of IPCC procedure—all governments are invited to comment on drafts, and according to IPCC protocols, all comments are eventually published with the finalised reports [2][3]. The Australian government's specific comments were made public as part of the full 32,000+ document leak, but this was due to the data breach by Greenpeace/Unearthed journalists, not an attempt by Australia to keep comments hidden [1][2].
Not successfully deleted: There is no evidence that Australia's requested deletions were actually incorporated into the final IPCC report. The Australian government's objection to the coal closure language appears NOT to have resulted in deletion from the final published report [3]. The IPCC explicitly states that "authors have no obligation to incorporate" government comments into reports, and that the review process is "designed to guard against lobbying—from all quarters" [1].
Not unique to coal: The leaked documents show this was systematic behaviour among multiple fossil fuel-producing nations. Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Japan, India, Argentina, OPEC, and others all submitted similar comments requesting language changes favourable to their fossil fuel interests [1]. This was not an Australia-specific issue but part of broader international lobbying at the IPCC.
Source Credibility Assessment
BBC News [1]: Mainstream, internationally respected news organisation with high editorial standards. BBC News is considered a credible, reliable source by international fact-checking organisations. The article contains direct quotes and demonstrates engagement with multiple stakeholders including IPCC officials. Strength: factual reporting of what was in the leaked documents.
Greenpeace UK / Unearthed [1]: Environmental advocacy organisation with known political position favouring climate action and opposing fossil fuels. While the document leak itself appears authentic (corroborated by multiple news organisations and government responses), Greenpeace's framing of the documents emphasises the "lobbying" aspect without noting this is standard IPCC procedure [1][2]. The characterisation as "secret" lobbying is somewhat misleading given the review process transparency. Bias: pro-climate action, presenting government comments in the worst possible light.
Australian Government Response [2]: The Energy and Emissions Reduction Minister's office stated: "The assertion that commenting on a draft is somehow 'interference' is categorically false" and noted that "All governments are invited to comment on draft IPCC reports as a matter of process" and that "all comments received by the IPCC are published with their reports as they are finalised" [2].
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Search conducted: "Labor government climate policy international negotiations IPCC"
Finding: The Labor Party (when in government 2007-2013 under Rudd and Gillard) took fundamentally different positions on coal and climate action [4]. Kevin Rudd's government prioritised early climate action and signed the Kyoto Protocol in December 2007 [4]. However, both Labor and Coalition governments have pursued Australia's economic interests in international climate negotiations.
What is notably different: Labor governments, when in office, advocated for stronger climate action globally and did not request deletion of pro-climate language from UN reports. However, this reflects Labor being out of power during the 2021 IPCC comments period (Coalition held office 2013-2022) [5]. Labor returned to power in 2022 and has since committed to stronger climate targets (62-70% emissions reduction by 2035) [5].
No equivalent direct precedent exists of a Labor government making similar objections to coal-related language in UN climate reports, though this is partly because Labor was out of power during this specific IPCC comment period. Both major parties have defended Australia's coal industry interests in trade negotiations, though Labor's climate positions have been notably less pro-fossil-fuel when in government [4][5].
Balanced Perspective
Government Perspective: The Australian government framed its comments as legitimate participation in a standard, transparent review process. Officials argued they were providing technical feedback (e.g., that CCS should be considered as a mitigation pathway alongside coal phase-out) rather than attempting to delete climate science [2]. The government's view was that commenting on drafts is not "interference" but expected governance participation.
Climate Advocate Perspective: Environmental groups and climate scientists viewed the comments as problematic because they appeared designed to downplay the urgency of coal phase-out and minimize discussion of fossil fuel industry influence on climate politics [1][2]. Greenpeace characterized this as Australia acting as a "coal lobbyist" for the fossil fuel industry [6].
IPCC Science Process Perspective: IPCC leadership defended the integrity of their process. Dr Joeri Rogelj (IPCC author) stated: "If we have comments that challenge us and that asks us to remove something, that only motivates us to take a closer look at the evidence and make sure that what we write is fully correct and fully supported" [2]. The IPCC explicitly states it has "no obligation" to incorporate government comments and that submitted changes "not justified by the science" will not be integrated [1].
Key Context: What the claim omits is that the IPCC review process is specifically designed to allow this kind of scrutiny. All governments participate. The actual outcome—what ended up in the final report—is what matters scientifically and politically, not what governments requested be deleted. The IPCC maintained the substance of its findings on coal and fossil fuel mitigation in the final published report, suggesting the Australian objections were not successful in influencing the scientific assessment [3].
Comparative Analysis: Is this unique to the Coalition? No—the leaked documents show fossil fuel-producing nations from multiple continents submitted similar objections [1]. Is this corrupt? Governments defending their economic interests in international forums is standard diplomatic practice. Whether requesting deletion of language about your nation's industry constitutes inappropriate "lobbying" depends on one's view of how governments should participate in scientific review processes. The IPCC itself takes the position that all comments are legitimate input, but science prevails in determining what stays in reports [1].
PARTIALLY TRUE
6.0
out of 10
/ MISLEADING FRAMING
The factual core—that Australia requested deletions of coal-related language from the IPCC report—is true [1][2]. However, the claim's framing is misleading in three important ways:
"Secretly pressured" is inaccurate: Comments were part of a standard, transparent IPCC process that all governments participate in [1][2].
"Delete from their climate change report" overstates the impact: There is no evidence the requested deletions were actually made in the final published report, suggesting the objections had limited or no effect [3].
Implies uniqueness to Coalition: Multiple fossil fuel-producing nations made similar requests [1]. This was not Australia-specific behaviour but systematic practice among resource-dependent economies.
The broader accuracy: Yes, Australia's Department of Industry did object to language about coal closure necessity and fossil fuel industry influence. These objections were made, they were documented, and they were part of what Greenpeace characterised as pro-fossil-fuel lobbying at the UN. These facts are true. But the characterisation as "secret" pressure that successfully "deleted" content from UN reports is overstated and misleading about the actual process and outcomes.
Final Score
6.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
/ MISLEADING FRAMING
The factual core—that Australia requested deletions of coal-related language from the IPCC report—is true [1][2]. However, the claim's framing is misleading in three important ways:
"Secretly pressured" is inaccurate: Comments were part of a standard, transparent IPCC process that all governments participate in [1][2].
"Delete from their climate change report" overstates the impact: There is no evidence the requested deletions were actually made in the final published report, suggesting the objections had limited or no effect [3].
Implies uniqueness to Coalition: Multiple fossil fuel-producing nations made similar requests [1]. This was not Australia-specific behaviour but systematic practice among resource-dependent economies.
The broader accuracy: Yes, Australia's Department of Industry did object to language about coal closure necessity and fossil fuel industry influence. These objections were made, they were documented, and they were part of what Greenpeace characterised as pro-fossil-fuel lobbying at the UN. These facts are true. But the characterisation as "secret" pressure that successfully "deleted" content from UN reports is overstated and misleading about the actual process and outcomes.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (6)
-
1
COP26: Document leak reveals nations lobbying to change key climate report
Countries are asking the UN to play down the need to move rapidly away from fossil fuels.
Bbc -
2
Leaked documents show Australia lobbied to change key IPCC climate change report, Greenpeace says
Australia sought to change a major international report on climate change to promote a future for coal-fired power and downplay the influence of fossil fuel lobbyists, the environmental group Greenpeace says.
Abc Net -
3
Australia rejects leaked claims it lobbied to change major UN climate report
Australia had asked the UN to play down the need to phase out fossil fuels, according to leaked documents obtained by Greenpeace and reported by the BBC.
SBS News -
4
Rudd government (2007-2010)
En Wikipedia
-
5
Setting Australia's 2035 climate change target
Today, we’re announcing Australia’s next step in acting on climate change and seizing the economic opportunity before our nation.The Albanese Labor Government has accepted the Climate Change Authority’s independent advice and will set our 2035 climate change target at a range of 62% to 70% reduction on 2005 emissions.
Prime Minister of Australia -
6
Leaked report reveals Australia's role as global coal lobbyist
Documents leaked to Unearthed, Greenpeace’s investigative platform, reveal that the Morrison Government has actively lobbied for the rejection of findings outlining the need for rapid global coal phase out from the next major report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).The leak comes days after the Morrison Government rejected setting a stronger 2030 emission reduction target in the lead up to the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow. The leaked documents reveal how Australia is part of a small group of fossil fuel producing countries, including Saudi Arabia and the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), who are lobbying…
Greenpeace Australia Pacific
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.