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].
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].
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 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].
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].
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].
**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].
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.
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].
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.
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?
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.
いいえ Iie 。 .
The IPCC itself takes the position that all comments are legitimate input, but science prevails in determining what stays in reports [1].
However, the claim's framing is misleading in three important ways:
1. **"Secretly pressured"** is inaccurate: Comments were part of a standard, transparent IPCC process that all governments participate in [1][2].
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].
3. **Implies uniqueness to Coalition**: Multiple fossil fuel-producing nations made similar requests [1].
But the characterisation as "secret" pressure that successfully "deleted" content from UN reports is overstated and misleading about the actual process and outcomes.
However, the claim's framing is misleading in three important ways:
1. **"Secretly pressured"** is inaccurate: Comments were part of a standard, transparent IPCC process that all governments participate in [1][2].
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].
3. **Implies uniqueness to Coalition**: Multiple fossil fuel-producing nations made similar requests [1].
But the characterisation as "secret" pressure that successfully "deleted" content from UN reports is overstated and misleading about the actual process and outcomes.