Rarely does the Murdoch media in Australia need an invitation to attackย environmentalists.
Whether itโs backing climate science denialists or criticising environment groups for getting in the way of coal projects, NewsCorp Australiaโs flagship The Australian newspaper is a reliable supporter of coalย developments.
In recent days, the conservative media stable has pushed hard with a story plucked from the Wikileaks release of the email inbox of John Podesta, the chairman of Hilary Clintonโs presidentialย campaign.
In short, The Australian newspaper โrevealedโ that Australian environment group The Sunrise Project wasย partly funded by the US-based Sandlerย Foundation.
The little-known Sunrise Project, led by former Greenpeace staffer John Hepburn, has been working with conservation groups to challenge the proposed Adani mega-coal mine inย Queensland.
What has enraged The Australian more than anything, is that the Wikileaks emails show there are foreign influences at play in challenges to the coalย project.
Thinkingย Australians
โThinking Australians, whatever their views about coal, should be appalled by the revelation,โ said the newspaper in an editorial.
In fact, this is exactly the point at which โthinking Australiansโ should be able to see The Australianโs outrage for what it is โย a grand hypocrisy mixed with confectedย outrage.
Does The Australian really want the public to be outraged by โforeign influenceโ while ignoring the โforeign influenceโ of the Indian owned company Adani that has been lobbying hard for years to be able to dig up 60 million tonnes of coal aย year?
This, letโs remember, comes from a โforeign ownedโ newspaper whose proprietor, Rupert Murdoch, is a USย citizen.
In an attempt to ram home its editorial line, rather than to try and give its readers some much needed perspective, the newspaper commissioned an editorial from Brendan Pearson, of the mining industry group the Minerals Council ofย Australia.
Pearson wrote how the emails showed that the Sunrise Fundation was using โevery ruseโ to avoid disclosing itsย funders.
Fullย Disclosure?
In fact, as frustrating as this is for journalists in Australia and elsewhere, groups campaigning on all sorts of issues have no legal obligation to disclose theirย funders.
For example, the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), which has chairtable status, pushes the denial of climate change science while issuing reports about the supposed benefits to Indian people from the Adani mine without ever having to say where their money comesย from.
In fact, the IPA used its status as an organisation that can attract tax-deductible donations to publish a book pushing climate science denial, and then allowed that book to be sold by Canadian conservative commentator Mark Steyn to help fund his own libel defence in the Unitedย States.
Would The Australian like to campaign on that one,ย too?
Whatโs more, some funders will make it a condition that their identities are not disclosed and, in the case of the environmental movement, often to avoid just the kind of attacks from the mining industry that can see calls for charitable status to beย revoked.
This is not so much a โruseโ to hide funders, as a legalย obligation.
Is this the juncture when we point out that Pearsonโs Minerals Council has a board of directors that includes representatives from several โforeign-ownedโ companies, such as US-owned Peabody (currently filing for protective bankruptcy) and Anglo-Swiss mining corporationย Glencore?
Many โforeign-ownedโ companies pay subscriptions to the Minerals Council for it to lobby on their behalf, includingย Adani.
Foreignย influence?
In another email trail, forwarded to Podesta, Hepburn briefs a staff member at the Sandler Foundation over a parliamentary inquiry called to look at the charitable status of environmentย groups.
Hepburn discusses how the inquiry could force the Sunrise Projectโs funders to beย revealed.
The Sandler Foundation staff member then forwards the briefing to a contact at Human Rights Watch, saying: โFull disclosure. We are a funder of the Sunrise project as part of our work on climateย change.โ
Ken Roth, at HRW, responds: โThat the mining companies are going after the charitable status of an environmental organization isnโt surprising but is very ugly. The mining companies seem to own the Liberals, and they play veryย dirty.โ
Of course, Queenslandโs peak mining lobby group the Queensland Resources Council has been quick to join the attack โ a group that could also be under โforeign influenceโ with directors also from Glencore andย Peabody?
In a press release, QRC claims the emails show that Human Rights Watch had offered to โlend its tax deductibility status to green activistย groupsโ.
This would be a concerning issue, if it was true, which itย isnโt.
Nowhere in the emails does HRW offer to โlend its tax deductibility statusโ. HRW merely offered to help groups to understand the complexities of establishing a charity in Australia, and there’s no indication that this actuallyย transpired.
The Australianโs story has been picked up by several members of the conservative Liberal government to attack the charity status of environment groups that are engaged in efforts to block coal projects while receiving special taxย privileges.
These groups, so the outrage goes, are only interested in slowing economic development while getting in the way of Indiaโs poorest people being given access toย electricity.
Foreignย concern?
Actually, it is worth asking why foreign groups would want to fund activities to campaign against the rapid acceleration of fossil fuel exploitation inย Australia.
That answer is a simple one.ย The impacts of climate change are not discriminatory. The impacts of fossil fuel burning in Australia, India or anywhere else, are felt across theย globe.
As an issue of global concern demonstrated by the existence of international agreements, donโt foreign groups have every right to be worried about expanding fossil fuel extraction, wherever it might takeย place?
Most โthinking Australiansโ probably know the answer to that, and they wonโt find it in the pages of The Australian or the press releases of the mining lobby – two places which occasionaly, appear to be one and theย same.
Main image: Rupert Murdoch, pictured in 2011. ย Credit: Flickr/ David Shankbourneย ,ย CC BYย 2.0
Subscribe to our newsletter
Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts