It’s a commonly repeated statistic that the US military is the world’s largest institutional polluter, but what exactly does that mean?

The quest to find a real answer to that question led journalist and documentary filmmaker Abby Martin and her husband and co-director Mike Prysner on a five-year journey from defence contractor conferences and international climate gatherings to the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) military training exercises and the fight against the construction of a military base in Okinawa that would fill in its iconic Oura Bay.

The result is Earth’s Greatest Enemy, released last year — but just screened in Australia and New Zealand over the past month — independently through Martin and Prysner’s own Empire Files, with editing by Taylor Gill and an original score by Anahedron.

• READ MORE: The Pentagon is the biggest polluter on the planet — ABC Late Night Live

The film uses personal narrative, research, investigative reporting, interviews, and live footage to detail all the ways in which the Pentagon poisons the planet, including greenhouse gas emissions, the ecocide of war, and the toxins left behind long after the fighting has stopped.

“When you combine all of this, it is completely undeniable that this force that is upheld by extreme violence is the greatest threat to all living things on Earth,” Martin told Common Dreams.

World’s largest polluter?
Toward the beginning of the film, Martin sets out to explain how the Pentagon can count as the world’s largest institutional polluter, and why the numbers behind that fact actually undersell its impact.

It turns out, Martin told Common Dreams, that this statement is only based on the amount of oil the US military purchases on paper, which comes to 270,000 barrels per day. This puts its emissions at 55 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually, more than 150 countries.

This itself is a staggering amount of carbon pollution.

As Martin explains in the film: “It would take the average American driver over 40 years to burn as much fuel as a single flight of a Boeing Pegasus. The US flies more than 600 of these tankers.”

But it’s also only the tip of the melting iceberg. Through an interview with scientist Stuart Parkinson, Martin reveals how that 55 million keeps ballooning when considering life cycle emissions from military equipment and from the equipment purchased by NATO allies, projected to reach 295 million metric tons by 2028, or more than half of all countries. And that figure excludes the use of military equipment in war, or the emissions from reconstructing cities leveled by US-made bombs.

In one particularly candid interview, a major-general tells Martin that it’s great to develop alternative energy sources, “but let’s not walk away from what fuels today’s national security, which is oil. You have to have it.”

And until something is developed that can completely replace oil, “I think you need to keep the alternatives in check,” he says.

Statements like these give the lie to the idea that the US can have a “green military empire,” Martin said.

They also show how difficult it is to separate the US military’s carbon footprint from that of the fossil fuel industry itself.

“Everything has really been wrapped up into securing the fossil fuel, building the infrastructure for fossil fuel, and maintaining that infrastructure empire in order to maintain a fossil fuel economy,” she told Common Dreams.

“So you have to look at the military as actually the institution that’s actually keeping the fossil fuel infrastructure in place through brutality and violence.”

‘Human detritus’

The film also makes clear that carbon pollution isn’t the only kind of pollution the military generates.

“Once you get into the research, you realise every stone unturned is an entire other documentary because it’s not just emissions, it’s the totality of pollution that the military is emitting on a daily basis, the dumping of toxic waste, the legacy contamination, that alone is still killing people every day,” Martin said.

The film spends much of its run time digging into the landfill of military waste, from melted down pucks of plastic dumped off Navy boats and unused munitions exploded in the desert to decades of water contamination at Camp Lejeune, the 26 million marine mammals the US Navy is permitted to harm or kill over five years of training, and the more than 250,000 bullets left behind in Iraq and Afghanistan for every person killed.

Martin said that almost every fact or anecdote she unearthed surprised her.

“No matter what you think you know, it’s worse. It’s actually worse because of how big it is and how every face is a story, every victim is a story,” she said.

One of the most devastating stories comes at the film’s beginning, as viewers spend time with Lavon Johnson, an Iraq War veteran who once starred in a US Army commercial and is now living on Veterans Row, a stretch of tents bearing American flags lined up outside the Veterans Affairs hospital in Brentwood, Los Angeles.

“My life is so fucked!” he declares as he lifts his hands from the piano he furiously plays despite the nerve damage caused by exposure to hydraulic fluid while in the Army.

In the next scene, viewers see the camp being demolished by police, juxtaposed with images of war, pollution, and environmental destruction, such as soldiers breaking down doors or dumping trash off of boats, oil pump jacks working, and beachside homes collapsing into a rising tide.

Martin said she was inspired to open the film with Johnson because of a letter that late Iraq War veteran Tomas Young wrote to former President George W. Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney before he died, referring to himself and other victims of the invasion as “human detritus your war has left behind”.

“That always stuck with me, that line, ‘the human detritus,’” Martin told Common Dreams. “And that is exactly what they do to veterans. That is exactly what they do to veterans… they’re churned up and spit out. They’re the cannon fodder of the system. And for what?”

Prysner is an Iraq veteran who spoke out against the war, and Martin is very clear that veterans are not the target of the pairs’ critique.

“This isn’t about service members,” she said. “This isn’t about hating the military. This is about accountability and justice for them. We’re fighting for service members and every living person on Earth, because we are all victims of this.”

The demolition of Johnson’s camp cut through with clips of war and weather disaster illustrates this point, and could serve as a sort of thesis for the film, showing that the US military ultimately turns everything it touches into detritus, including, if it’s not stopped, the planet itself.

“Everything on Earth is in Lavon’s tent,” Martin said.

A movie and a movement
This sense of connection is ultimately why Martin decided to keep Earth’s Greatest Enemy as a two-hour feature documentary rather than pivoting to a documentary series, despite the fact that, the more she dug, the more she realised “it could be 10 documentaries.”

She also ran into roadblocks when seeking Hollywood distribution. While environmentalist distributors would praise the film and compare it to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, they also said frankly, “You’re never going to be able to get anyone to buy this stuff.”

But, Martin said, “I was so committed to making a movie because movies were what radicalised me,” citing inspiration from films like The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, War Made Easy, and Michael Moore’s filmography.

Ultimately, her stubbornness paid off.

“It shows that everything from ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] to Gaza to the climate, that everything is connected,” she said. “Veterans, soldiers, the Indigenous people on the receiving end of this.

“If you care about cold water and good air, you can’t walk away from this not being impacted. And that was the goal. The goal is to lock people in and explain the totality and to bring you down to the depths of hell.”

She added: “We have to understand those depths, and you can’t get that with a 20-minute segment. You just can’t. You have to go through the pain of all the victims in this community and come out the other side empowered with the truth and the resolve that we have to change this.”

Change is a large part of Martin’s motivation for making the film, by educating people about the scope of the military’s destructive force and connecting them into a broader coalition.

Martin speaks in the film about coming to political consciousness and beginning her career as a journalist during the Iraq War, meeting Prysner through their shared opposition to war and empire, and developing “profound climate anxiety” following the birth of the pair’s first child.

She lamented that the climate and anti-imperialist movements have been largely siloed over the past two decades, though that is beginning to change.

Through local screenings, she said she wanted to “try to build the environmental movement with the anti-war movement together because… even though the consciousness is expanding, it’s not happening fast enough. And we are simply out of the luxury of time.”

The sense of urgency has only increased with US President Donald Trump’s second term. While the film does not cover this period, it points to many developments that have shaped the past 12 months, including Trump’s claim that he attacked Venezuela for oil, his imperialist push to control Greenland, and his deployment of ICE to terrorise US cities.

‘Big plan for climate crisis’
Toward the end of the movie, Martin includes a segment on the militarisation of US policing and warns that “this is our system’s big plan for the climate crisis.” She also films a panel on “Domain Awareness and Air Superiority in the Arctic” in which the generals speaking tell US companies they have an “open invitation” to experiment in Alaska.

“We know what they want the Arctic for, and it’s to pillage every last drop,” Martin said. “So if environmental organisations are not thinking this together, we have to do it for them. We have to do it for them quickly.”

So far, she has seen encouraging signs, with several Sierra Club chapters stepping up to host screenings and enthusiasm from the mainstream environmental groups, parks departments, and other city officials she has invited to attend.

But education is not her only goal.

“After we educate everyone, I hope to decommission the military empire,” Martin said.

For Martin, that doesn’t mean not having a military for self-defence, but rather decommissioning the 800 or so bases the US military maintains around the world and transforming the infrastructure into something that could help local communities in a climate-friendly way.

It also means accountability for harm caused and redirecting military spending toward basic needs like housing and healthcare, and certainly not giving the Pentagon another $600 billion as Trump desires.

While that may seem like an impossible task given the current political climate, Martin maintains a sense of revolutionary optimism, encouraged by the global mobilisation against the genocide in Gaza and the way that people are increasingly seeing the links between the multiple crises and struggles around the globe.

“There’s so many of us,” Martin told Common Dreams. “We care about the planet. We have a vested stake in life. And that’s our vision.”

“It’s like they have a vision of death and destruction for profit,” she continued. “Our vision is life, and we have to fight for it with every fibre of our being. And let this movie assist you however you can do that.”

• Earth’s Greatest Enemy, directed by Abby Martin and Mike Prysner, The Empire Files, 120min.

Olivia Rosane is the opinion editor and a staff writer for Common Dreams. This article is republished under a Creative Commons licence.

• For more information about Abby Martin’s documentary Earth’s Greatest Enemy go to earthsgreatestenemy.com or email theempirefiles@gmail.com

• If your activist group wants to organise a community screening of this documentary in Aotearoa New Zealand, contact World Beyond War’s Liz Remmerswaal: lizrem@gmail.com

The political activist suing major New Zealand emitters over climate change damage says a law change blocking his case and others like it is “an affront to democracy”.

The government announced yesterday it would amend climate laws to prevent companies from being sued over damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

The change will prevent findings of liability in torts — a type of civil case where one person or entity claims another has caused them harm.

• READ MORE: Other climate change law reports

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said it would apply to current and future cases — stopping a landmark case against Fonterra and five other major emitters in its tracks.

In 2024, iwi leader and activist Mike Smith was granted permission by the Supreme Court to sue Fonterra and other major dairy and fossil fuel companies.

He argued the companies, which collectively contributed about a third of New Zealand’s emissions, had a legal duty to him and others in communities that are being damaged by the effects of greenhouse gas emissions.

The hearing, which was sent back to the High Court, was due to start in April next year.

‘Creating uncertainty’
Dr Goldsmith said Smith’s case was “creating uncertainty in business confidence and investments that the government must address”.

The law change would “remove the possible development of a new regime that contradicts the framework Parliament has already enacted to respond to climate change”.

New Zealand already had a legal framework to manage emissions, through the Climate Change Response Act and the Emissions Trading Scheme, he said.

“Our response to climate change is best managed by the government at a national level and not through piecemeal litigation in the courts.”

Smith told RNZ’s Nine to Noon programme the government’s decision was unprecedented and outrageous.

“It’s an affront to democracy,” he said.

“If Parliament can cancel a live court case, then no legal claim is secure at all, once it becomes politically inconvenient.”

‘Public interest case’
The legal case was asking the court to decide whether the companies involved could be held responsible for their emissions, he said.

He said they were not seeking costs or damages and it was instead a “public interest case” to establish that the companies were liable. They hoped to prompt the companies to take action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

“These companies are not fools. They’ve got some of the best science available to them … All we’re asking is that they act responsibly, and if they can’t decide that themselves then they need to be nudged along.”

He countered Dr Goldsmith’s claims that the case was undermining business confidence.

“Real business confidence comes from predictable law — not from government intervention in active court cases.”

What the big emitters should really worry about were the effects of climate change itself, Smith said.

“If the farmers are feeling nervous about [the case] and lobbying the government to have these cases struck out, if I were them I’d be more nervous about the the droughts that are pending… That’s the real threat to their model.”

‘Shocking abuse of power’
Greenpeace labelled the change a “shocking abuse of power” that would protect climate polluters from paying for the damage they had caused.

Greenpeace executive director Russel Norman, told RNZ Midday Report, it was “outrageous” and he believed it was being done to protect large corporations.

“People will have their right to go to court removed.

“They intervened mid-case. It is an outrageous overreach.”

Lawyers for Climate Action president Jenny Cooper KC said the decision was shortsighted.

“What it looks like is a kneejerk reaction to legislate over the top of the unanimous Supreme Court decision in Smith and Fonterra before that’s gone to trial.”

That would leave New Zealanders with no avenue to claim damages or compensation against emitters in future, she said.

“It’s really hard to understand why we would want to legislate now to say we could never bring claims against emitters for the harms and losses we’ve suffered.

“If they are not responsible for paying then who does? Well, everybody, basically.”

Climate ‘wrecking ball’
Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said the goverment was using its “dying breaths” to remove New Zealanders’ right to hold emitters accountable.

“They’ve spent two and a half years taking a wrecking ball to climate laws and, at the 11th hour, they’re now ripping away New Zealanders’ and the courts’ ability to do what this government lacks the spine to do.”

The minister’s claims that common law could cut across the government’s climate change framework made no sense, she said.

“The Climate Change Response Act and the ETS do not deal with this issue at all — there is no framework or mechanism for any type of compensation for climate related harm.”

Instead, the change “appears to be cutting off the only potential mechanism we have at the moment before we are anywhere near having legislation that would address these issues.”

The law change would not alter the government’s responsibilities under the Act, and businesses that had obligations under the ETS would still be required to meet them, Dr Goldsmith said.

Another landmark climate case, taken against Climate Change Minister Simon Watts over the government’s plan to tackle climate change, is also unaffected.

That case was heard in March and a reserved decision is expected later this year.

The case against Watts was taken jointly by the Environmental Law Initiative (ELI) and Lawyers for Climate Action.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

New Zealand’s Finance Minister says she has “never felt so dependent on the actions and feelings of one administration and its leaders”, as concerns grow about the fuel shock triggered by the US-Israel war on Iran.

And the Prime Minister has called the US President’s foul-mouthed threats to Iran “unhelpful” and the US’ goals and objectives in Iran “unclear”.

Few ships carrying stock have been allowed to pass through the Strait of Hormuz since Iran effectively closed it just over a month ago, in retaliation for the attacks.

• READ MORE: Monsters of war – the men who have put the world at risk
• Iran’s ceasefire proposal response significant but ‘not good enough’: Trump
• NZ’s Peters called on to stress Palestine ‘open wound’ with Rubio
• Other US-Israel war on Iran reports

That has triggered a global spike in prices at the pump, and New Zealand — wholly dependent on importing refined fuels — has not been spared.

At the weekend, US President Donald Trump issued an expletive-laden threat at Iran, telling it to “open the F*****’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell” or its civilian infrastructure would be attacked.

He followed that up on Monday (US time) with a claim the “entire country can be taken out in one night”.

The comments come as Foreign Minister Winston Peters heads to the US to meet US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Asked about Trump’s comments today, Finance Minister Nicola Willis first was diplomatic.

‘Acting with restraint’
“We actually want to see all parties acting with restraint, moving toward a negotiated solution so the crisis can end,” she told RNZ Morning Report.

“And it’s simply the fact that the longer the conflict goes on, the more severe the impact. And once again, we call on the US, Iran, all actors in this conflict to uphold international law.”

Asked again, she replied: “Well, I have reflected that never have I felt so dependent on the actions and feelings of one administration and its leaders as New Zealand is right now.

“And I see the pain that so many New Zealanders are experiencing as a result of this fuel shock, and I wish for it to end.

“And the sad reality is that it’s not in New Zealand’s hands, that lies in the hands of countries very far away.”

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, appearing on Morning Report shortly after Willis, said Trump’s rhetoric was “unhelpful”.

“I think the bottom line is that the focus needs to be on not seeing this conflict expand any further. It is critical that the US and Iran find a way to de-escalate. Absolutely critical for the world and certainly for us in New Zealand.

“But, you know, yeah, I mean, unhelpful — because more military action is not necessary.”

‘Comply with international law’
He said he expected “all parties to comply with international law, as you’d expect, and international humanitarian law”.

‘Totally unacceptable’
On Trump’s social media comments, Labour leader Chris Hipkins told Morning Report, the threats he made were “totally unacceptable” and there was no justification for it.

“It would be an attack on innocent civilians and not something New Zealand should in any way condone.

“Threatening to blow up innocent civilians is not the sort of thing you would expect to see the president of the United States engaging in — it’s totally unacceptable and New Zealand should condemn it.”

Steady as she goes
Willis was resisting the temptation to cut fuel taxes and road user charges (RUC) as prices spiked — particularly for diesel — saying it would make no sense to encourage fuel consumption at the same time as calling for restraint.

According to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s (MBIE) latest data national fuel stocks are stable, with sufficient stock levels — for now.

Diesel levels have dipped slightly since the last report, while jet fuel and petrol levels have risen slightly. There is now just 17.5 days’ worth of diesel in the country, with more on ships headed this way — 12 outside our exclusive economic zone and four inside.

“We haven’t had any reports of any issues with those shipments that are in international waters,” Willis told Morning Report. “We would expect to get reporting from fuel importing companies if they were seeing any issues with those. They seem to be safely on their way.”

Gaspy figures show diesel is now more expensive than 91 at more than $3.70 a litre, while its users also have to pay RUC.

“That price is really, really tough on many, many businesses in our economy, and also individuals and families who use diesel,” Wilis said. “We’re used to seeing diesel at the pump cheaper than 91.

Prime Minister Luxon said he was “gravely concerned” that the longer the conflict went on, the “harder it gets for Kiwis here at home”. Just how long it would take to get back to normal was “unknown”, he said, but no restrictions on use were yet planned.

Supply challenges
“Even if we’ve got a ceasefire miraculously and a quality one tomorrow, there clearly will be supply challenges as production has ramped back up again, as storage is always put in storage and it’s transported out through the Hormuz out into the refineries around the world.”

Luxon said Peters would be making it clear to Rubio the conflict was impacting New Zealand and “pushing them to deescalate”.

“I think the goals and the objectives from the US administration have been somewhat unclear. For us, that’s why the world is suffering, everybody around the world. I’ve spoken to a number of world leaders.

“Some of those developing economies are doing it incredibly tough. I know it’s difficult for our New Zealand folk here at home as well, dealing with higher prices at the pump.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

The iconic Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior will return to Aotearoa this year to mark the 40th anniversary of the bombing of the original campaign ship at Marsden Wharf in Auckland by French secret agents on 10 July 1985.

The return to Aotearoa comes at a pivotal moment — when the fight to protect our planet’s fragile life-support systems has never been as urgent, or more critical.

Here in Aotearoa, the Luxon government is waging an all-out war on nature, and on a planetary scale, climate change, ecosystem collapse, and accelerating species extinction pose an existential threat.

• READ MORE: Rainbow Warrior back in Marshall Islands on nuclear justice mission
• ‘Under no illusions’ about France, says author of new Rainbow Warrior book
• Eyes of Fire: The Last Voyage of the Rainbow Warrior

As we remember the bombing and the murder of our crew member, Fernando Pereira, it’s important to remember why the French government was compelled to commit such a cowardly act of violence.

Our ship was targeted because Greenpeace and the campaign to stop nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific were so effective. We posed a very real threat to the French government’s military programme and colonial power.

It’s also critical to remember that they failed to stop us. They failed to intimidate us, and they failed to silence us. Greenpeace only grew stronger and continued the successful campaign against nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific.

Forty years later, it’s the oil industry that’s trying to stop us. This time, not with bombs but with a legal attack that threatens the existence of Greenpeace in the US and beyond.

We will not be intimidated
But just like in 1985 when the French bombed our ship, now too in 2025, we will not be intimidated, we will not back down, and we will not be silenced.

We cannot be silenced because we are a movement of people committed to peace and to protecting Earth’s ability to sustain life, protecting the blue oceans, the forests and the life we share this planet with,” says Norman.

In the 40 years since, the Rainbow Warrior has sailed on the front lines of our campaigns around the world to protect nature and promote peace. In the fight to end oil exploration, turn the tide of plastic production, stop the destruction of ancient forests and protect the ocean, the Rainbow Warrior has been there to this day.

Right now the Rainbow Warrior is preparing to sail through the Tasman Sea to expose the damage being done to ocean life, continuing a decades-long tradition of defending ocean health.

This follows the Rainbow Warrior spending six weeks in the Marshall Islands where the original ship carried out Operation Exodus, in which the Greenpeace crew evacuated the people of Rongelap from their home island that had been made uninhabitable by nuclear weapons testing by the US government.

In Auckland this year, several events will be held on and around the ship to mark the anniversary, including open days with tours of the ship for the public.

Dr Russel Norman is executive director of Greenpeace Aotearoa.

RNZ Pacific

Pacific climate activists this week handed a letter from civil society to this year’s United Nations climate conference hosts, Brazil, emphasising their demands for the end of fossil fuels and transition to renewable energy.

More than 180 indigenous, youth, and environmental organisations from across the world have signed the letter, coordinated by the campaign organisation, 350.org.

A declaration of alliance between Indigenous peoples from the Amazon, the Pacific, and Australia ahead of COP30 has also been announced.

• READ MORE: Other Pacific Climate Warrior reports

The “strongly worded letter” was handed to COP30 President André Corrêa do Lago and Brazil’s Environment and Climate Change Minister Marina Silva who attended the Acampamento Terra Livre (ATL), or Free Land Camp, in Brasília.

“We, climate and social justice organisations from around the world, urgently demand that COP30 renews the global commitment and supports implementation for the just, orderly, and equitable transition away from fossil fuels towards renewable energy,” the letter states.

“This must ensure that solutions progressively meet the needs of Indigenous, Black, marginalised and vulnerable populations and accelerate the expansion of renewables in a way that ensures the world’s wealthiest and most polluting nations pay their fair share, does not harm nature, increase deforestation by burning biomass, while upholding economic, social, and gender justice.”

‘No room for new coal mines’
It adds: “The science is unequivocal: there is no room for new coal mines or oil and gas fields if the world is to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius — especially in critical ecosystems like the Amazon, where COP30 will be hosted.

“Tripling renewables by 2030 is essential, but without a managed and rapid phaseout of fossil fuels, it won’t be enough.”

350.org’s Fiji community organiser, George Nacewa, said it was now up to the Brazil COP Presidency if they would act “or lock us into climate catastrophe”.

“This is a critical time for our people — the age of deliberation is long past,” Nacewa said on behalf of the group that call themselves “Pacific Climate Warriors”.

“We need this COP to be the one that spearheads the Just Energy Transition from words to action.”

COP30 will take place in Belém, Brazil, from November 10-21.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

COMMENTARY: By Victoria Fielding

I once heard someone say that when the Left and the Right became polarised — when they divorced from each other — the Left got all the institutions of truth including science, education, justice and democratic government.

The Right got the institution of manipulation: the media. This statement hit me for six at the time because it seemed so clearly true.

What was also immediately clear is that there was an obvious reason why the Left sided with the institutions of truth and the Right resorted to manipulation. It is because truth does not suit right-wing arguments.

• READ MORE: Other truth-telling reports

The existence of climate change does not suit fossil fuel billionaires. Evidence that wealth does not trickle down does not suit the capitalist class. The idea that diversity, equity and inclusion (yes, I put those words in that order on purpose) is better for everyone, rather than a discriminatory, hateful, destructive, divided unequal world is dangerous for the Right to admit.

The Right’s embrace of the media institution also makes sense when you consider that the institutions of truth are difficult to buy, whereas billionaires can easily own manipulative media.

Just ask Elon Musk, who bought Twitter and turned it into a political manipulation machine. Just ask Rupert Murdoch, who is currently engaged in a bitter family war to stop three of his children opposing him and his son Lachlan from using their “news” organisations as a form of political manipulation for right-wing interests.

Right-wingers also know that truthful institutions only have one way of communicating their truths to the public: via the media. Once the media environment is manipulated, we enter a post-truth world.

Experts derided as untrustworthy ‘elitists’
This is the world where billionaire fossil fuel interests undermine climate action. It is where scientists create vaccines to save lives but the manipulated public refuses to take them. Where experts are derided as untrustworthy “elitists”.

And it is where the whole idea of democratic government in the US has been overthrown to install an autocratic billionaire-enriching oligarchy led by an incompetent fool who calls himself the King.

Once you recognise this manipulated media environment, you also understand that there is not — and never has been — such as thing as a rational public debate. Those engaged in the institutions of the Left — in science, education, justice and democratic government — seem mostly unwilling to accept this fact.

Instead, they continue to believe if they just keep telling people the truth and communicating what they see as entirely rational arguments, the public will accept what they have to say.

I think part of the reason that the Left refuses to accept that public debate is not rational and rather, is a manipulated bin fire of misleading information, including mis/disinformation and propaganda, is because they are not equipped to compete in this reality. What do those on the Left do with “post-truth”?

They seem to just want to ignore it and hope it goes away.

A perfect example of this misunderstanding of the post-truth world and the manipulated media environment’s impact on the public is this paper, by political science professors at the Australian National University Ian McAllister and Nicholas Biddle.

Stunningly absolutist claim
Their research sought to understand why polling at the start of the 2023 Indigenous Voice to Parliament Referendum showed widespread public support for the Voice but over the course of the campaign, this support dropped to the point where the Voice was defeated with 60 per cent voting “No” and 40 per cent, “Yes”.

In presenting their study’s findings, the authors make the stunningly absolutist claim that:

‘…the public’s exposure to all forms of mass media – as we have measured it here – had no impact on the result’.

A note is then attached to this finding with the caveat:

‘As noted earlier, given the data at hand we are unable to test the possibility that the content of the media being consumed resulted in a reinforcement of existing beliefs and partisanship rather than a conversion.’

This caveat leaves a gaping hole in the finding by failing to account for how media reinforcing existing beliefs is an important media effect – as argued by Neil Gavin here. Since it was not measured, how can they possibly say there was no effect?

Furthermore, the very premise of the author’s sweeping statement that media exposure had no impact on the result of the Referendum is based on two naive assumptions:

• that voters were rational in their deliberations over the Referendum question; and
• that the information environment voters were presented with was rational.

Dual assumption of rationality
This dual assumption of rationality – one that the authors interestingly admit is an assumption – is evidenced in their hypothesis which states:

‘Voters who did not follow the campaign in the mass media were more likely to move from a yes to a no vote compared to voters who did follow the campaign in the mass media.’

This hypothesis, the authors explain, is premised on the assumption ‘that those with less information are more likely to opt for the status quo and cast a no vote’, and therefore that less exposure to media would change a vote from “Yes” to “No”.What this hypothesis assumes is that if a voter received more rational information in the media about the Referendum, that information would rationally drive their vote in the “Yes” direction. When their data disproved this hypothesis, the authors used this finding to claim that the media had no effect.

To understand the reality of what happened in the Referendum debate, the word “rational” needs to be taken out of the equation and the word “manipulated” put in.

We know, of course, that the Referendum was awash with manipulative information, which all supported the “No” campaign. For example, my study of News Corp’s Voice coverage — Australia’s largest and most influential news organisation — found that News Corp actively campaigned for the “No” proposition in concert with the “No” campaign, presenting content more like a political campaign than traditional journalism and commentary.

A study by Queensland University of Technology’s Tim Graham analysed how the Voice Referendum was discussed on social media platform, X. Far from a rational debate, Graham identified that the “No” campaign and its supporters engaged in a participatory disinformation propaganda campaign, which became a “truth market” about the Voice.

The ‘truth market’
This “truth market” was described as drawing “Yes” campaigners into a debate about the truth of the Voice, sidetracking them from promoting their own cause.

What such studies showed was that, far from McAllister and Biddle’s assumed rational information environment, the Voice Referendum public debate was awash with manipulation, propaganda, disinformation and fear-mongering.

The “No” campaign that delivered this manipulation perfectly demonstrates how the Right uses media to undermine institutions of truth, to undermine facts and to undermine the rationality of democratic debates.

The completely unfounded assumption that the more information a voter received about the Voice, the more likely they would vote “Yes”, reveals a misunderstanding of the reality of a manipulated public debate environment present across all types of media, from mainstream news to social media.

It also wrongly treats voters like rational deliberative computers by assuming that the more information that goes in, the more they accept that information. This is far from the reality of how mediated communication affects the public.

The reason the influence of media on individuals and collectives is, in reality, so difficult to measure and should never be bluntly described as having total effect or no effect, is that people are not rational when they consume media, and every individual processes information in their own unique and unconscious ways.

One person can watch a manipulated piece of communication and accept it wholeheartedly, others can accept part of it and others reject it outright.

Manipulation unknown
No one piece of information determines how people vote and not every piece of information people consume does either. That’s the point of a manipulated media environment. People who are being manipulated do not know they are being manipulated.

Importantly, when you ask individuals how their media consumption impacted on them, they of course do not know. The decisions people make based on the information they have ephemerally consumed — whether from the media, conversations, or a wide range of other information sources, are incredibly complex and irrational.

Surely the re-election of Donald Trump for a second time, despite all the rational arguments against him, is proof that the manipulated media environment is an incredibly powerful weapon — a weapon the Right, globally, is clearly proficient at wielding.

It is time those on the Left caught up and at least understood the reality they are working in.

Dr Victoria Fielding is an Independent Australia columnist. This article was first published by the Independent Australia and is republished with the author’s permission.

As CHOGM came to a close, Samoa rightfully basked in the resounding success for the country and people as hosts of the Commonwealth leaders’ meeting.

Footage of Prime Minister Fiame Naomi Mata’afa swaying along to the siva dance as she sat beside Britain’s King Charles III encapsulated a palpable national pride, well deserved on delivering such a high-profile gathering.

Getting down to the business of dissecting the meeting outcomes — in the leaders’ statement and Samoa communiqué — there are several issues that are significant for the Pacific island members of this post-colonial club.

• READ MORE: Other CHOGM 2024 reports

As expected, climate change features prominently in the text, with more than 30 mentions including three that refer to the “climate crisis”. This will resonate highly for Pacific members, as will the support for COP 31 in 2026 to be jointly hosted by Australia and the Pacific.

Samoa’s Prime Minister Fiame Naomi Mata’afa opening CHOGM 2024. Video: Talamua Media

One of the glaring contradictions of this joint COP bid is illustrated by the lack of any call to end fossil fuel extraction in the final outcomes.

Tuvalu, Fiji and Vanuatu used the CHOGM to launch the latest Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative report, with a focus on Australia’s coal and gas mining. This reflects the diversity of Commonwealth membership, which includes some states whose economies remain reliant on fossil fuel extractive industries.

As highlighted ahead of CHOGM, this multilateral gave the 56 members a chance to consider positions to take to COP 29 next month in Baku, Azerbaijan. The communiqué from the leaders highlights the importance of increased ambition when it comes to climate finance at COP 29, and particularly to address the needs of developing countries.

Another drawcard
That speaks to all the Pacific island nations and gives the region’s negotiators another drawcard on the international stage.

Then came the unexpected, Papua New Guinea made a surprise announcement that it will not attend the global conference in Baku next month. Speaking at the Commonwealth Ministerial Meeting on Small States, PNG’s Foreign Affairs Minister Justin Tkatchenko framed this decision as a stand on behalf of small island nations as a protest against “empty promises and inaction.”

As promised, a major output of this meeting was the Apia Commonwealth Ocean Declaration for One Resilient Common Future. This is the first oceans-focused declaration by the Commonwealth of Nations, and is somewhat belated given 49 of its 56 member states have ocean borders.

The declaration has positions familiar to Pacific policymakers and activists, including the recognition of national maritime boundaries despite the impacts of climate change and the need to reduce emissions from global shipping. A noticeable omission is any reference to deep-sea mining, which is also a faultline within the Pacific collective.

The text relating to reparations for trans-Atlantic slavery required extensive negotiation among the leaders, Australia’s ABC reported. While this issue has been driven by African and Caribbean states, it is one that touches the Pacific as well.

‘Blackbirding’ reparative justice
South Sea Islander “blackbirding” is one of the colonial practices that will be considered within the context of reparative justice. During the period many tens-of-thousands of Pacific Islanders were indentured to Australia’s cane fields, Fiji’s coconut plantations and elsewhere.

The trade to Queensland and New South Wales lasted from 1847 to 1904, while those destinations were British colonies until 1901. Indeed, the so-called “sugar slaves” were a way of getting cheap labour once Britain officially abolished slavery in 1834.

The next secretary-general of the Commonwealth will be Ghana’s Minister for Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration Shirley Ayorkor Botchwey. Questions have been raised about the quality of her predecessor Patricia Scotland’s leadership for some time and the change will hopefully go some way in alleviating concerns.

Notably, the CHOGM has selected another woman to lead its secretariat. This is an important endorsement of female leadership among member countries where women are often dramatically underrepresented at national levels.

While it received little or no fanfare, the Commonwealth has also released its revised Commonwealth Principles on Freedom of Expression and the Role of the Media in Good Governance. This is a welcome contribution, given the threats to media freedom in the Pacific and elsewhere. It reflects a longstanding commitment by the Commonwealth to supporting democratic resilience among its members.

These principles do not come with any enforcement mechanism behind them, and the most that can be done is to encourage or exhort adherence. However, they provide another potential buffer against attempts to curtail their remit for publishers, journalists, and bloggers in Commonwealth countries.

The outcomes reveal both progress and persistent challenges for Pacific island nations. While Apia’s Commonwealth Ocean Declaration emphasises oceanic issues, its lack of provisions on deep-sea mining exposes intra-Commonwealth tensions. The change in leadership offers a pivotal opportunity to prioritise equity and actionable commitments.

Ultimately, the success of this gathering will depend on translating discussions into concrete actions that address the urgent needs of Pacific communities facing an uncertain future.

But as the guests waved farewell, the question of what the Commonwealth really means for its Pacific members remains until leaders meet in two years time in Antigua and Barbuda, a small island state in the Caribbean.

Tess Newton Cain is a principal consultant at Sustineo P/L and adjunct associate professor at the Griffith Asia Institute. She is a former lecturer at the University of the South Pacific and has more than 25 years of experience working in the Pacific Islands region. Republished with the permission of BenarNews.

Tuvalu’s Transport, Energy, and Communications Minister Simon Kofe has expressed doubt about Australia’s reliability in addressing the climate crisis.

Kofe was reacting to the latest report by report by the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, which found that Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom are responsible for more than 60 percent of emissions generated from extraction of fossil fuels across Commonwealth countries since 1990.

Kofe told RNZ Pacific that the report proves that Australia has essentially undermined its own climate credibility.

• READ MORE: Is New Zealand’s immigration ‘set up’ to take in climate migrants from the Pacific?
• Other CHOGM reports

He said that there is a sense of responsibility on Tuvalu, being at the forefront of the impacts of climate change, to continue to advocate for stronger climate action and to talk to its partners.

“When the climate crisis really hits these countries, I think that might really get their attention. But that might actually be too late when countries actually begin to take this issue seriously,” he said.

He noted that Australia approved the extension of three more coal mines last month, which demonstrates that “there’s a lot of work to be done”.

‘Shoots their credibility’
“I think [that] kind of shoots their own credibility in the in the climate space.”

While Pacific leaders have endorsed Australia’s bid to host the United Nations climate change conference, or COP31, in 2026, Kofe said that if Australia really wanted to take leadership on the climate front, then they needed to show it in their actions.

“They are in control of their own policies and decisions. All we can do is continue to talk to them and put pressure on them,” he said.

“We just have to keep pressuring our partner, Australia, to do the right thing.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

The President of Palau has slammed New Zealand’s new government for its oil and gas exploration plans as the COP28 global climate summit gets underway.

The National-led government intends to reopen Aotearoa waters to oil and gas exploration, despite a commitment to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees.

Pacific leaders are poised to hold what they describe as “perpetrators of climate chaos” to account.

The National-led government intends to reopen Aotearoa waters to oil and gas exploration, despite a commitment to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees.

Pacific leaders are poised to hold what they describe as “perpetrators of climate chaos” to account.

While the new Climate Change Minister Simon Watts was not expecting criticism over fossil fuels at the summit, Palau President Surangel Whipps Jr has served it up.

“What a backward position that an island that is part of the Pacific Island Forum that should understand the challenges that we’re facing,” Whipps Jr said.

NZ ‘should take lead’
“New Zealand as a Pacific Island and a member of the forum should take a leadership role and should be active in doing all they can to transition away from fossil fuels. That’s what they should be working on,” he said.

“They shouldn’t be going out and exploring more gas and oil.”

The Pacific Islands Climate Action Network (PICAN) has also taken aim at the New Zealand government’s plans.

Regional coordinator Lavetanalagi Seru said it was not the time to be exploring and expanding the extraction of fossil fuel including gas.

“At a time when the Pacific and many climate frontline communities are grappling with the single greatest security threat of climate change, intensifying fossil fuel dependency, not only undermines collective efforts, but also sends a very strong sense of wrong market signals, neglecting broader environmental and social ramifications,” Seru said.

“It will undermine all our efforts to ensure climate resilience for communities, and this isn’t the time to be exploring and expanding the extraction of fossil fuels, including gas.”

Watts said the overturning of the ban did not weaken New Zealand’s climate position.

‘We rely on NZ’
Tuvalu’s former prime minister and now opposition leader Enele Sopoaga has a reminder for the new government: “We rely on New Zealand to stand up strong with the island countries”.

Niue’s Minister for Natural Resources Mona Ainu’u will be drumming home the tangable impacts felt in the Pacific while in Dubai.

“We come to COP, without any commitment from a lot of these countries and these perpetrators of climate chaos, as I call them,” she said.

“It’s very difficult to hold them accountable. We continue to travel 1000s and 1000s of miles, because our people are suffering. People continue to find innovative ways to survive on this earth. From no fault of ours. But we need to hold these countries accountable.”

Ainu’u said there had been little to no movement on last year’s commitment by the world’s biggest emitters to contribute to costs caused by climate change.

This year, one of the main Pacific priorities is building up that loss and damage fund.

A delegate from Palau, Xavier Matsutaro said there was a lot to put into action.

“Let’s just put it this way, there’s a lot to prove on COP28, and every subsequent COP becomes more and more urgent because it narrows down that window that we need to do to wrap up in emission reduction,” he said.

“And that’s one of the things are the heart of this meeting. And one of the things that will spell out the level of success.”

‘Affect real lives’
A Pacific youth delegate, Metoyer Lohia who is also there, wants to remind the world of the reality of the situation:

“There’s a lot of that. I guess media and the Western world don’t really understand about the real problems and the real challenges that are faced by our communities and people on the ground,” Lohia explained.

“Because at the end of the day, although these are very high level discussions, they ultimately affect real people with real lives and as a Pacific.”

Whipps Jr said US President Joe Biden was a noticeable absence from this year’s meeting.

“The United States needs to be active, it needs to show leadership. And of course, not having Biden here definitely weakens at least or gives us concern about our hope for the future,” he said.

“But there’s Australia, there’s China, there’s India, there’s the EU. I mean, everybody’s got to step it up.”

“As a Pacific island country. I believe that New Zealand should understand better than any other country in the world the challenges that Pacific islands have,” Whipps Jr said.

“We have Marshall Islands, Tuvalu, Kiribati, all their islands are less than two metres above water.

“I mean, if you’re a Pacific island nation, and you don’t understand that, I don’t know, I don’t know how, what else we can say.

“It’s just tragic to be hearing these kinds of actions by the New Zealand government.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Pacific youth climate champion Suluafi Brianna Fruean has likened her first time in the United Nations building to primary school.

“It was my first time being in the [UN] General Assembly space,” Suluafi said.

“I sat there and I was watching everyone and it kind of reminded me of a mock UN we did when I was in primary school.”

• LISTEN TO RNZ PACIFIC WAVES: Big countries ‘lack ambition’ over climate crisis

But not in a jovial sense, she was seriously reflecting on the lessons she was taught as a child by her teachers.

“The three main lessons they always told us; be kind to your classmates, your neighbours, clean up after yourself, and be careful with your words.”

The lesson that was front of mind though was the importance of words — a lesson she hoped was dancing in the minds of the world leaders taking the floor.

And at the Climate Ambition Summit last week, the word “ambition” was underscored.

Climate ambition missing
“Yet [climate ambition is] not something we saw from everyone, including the US Head of State who was not present,” Suluafi said.

However, nations that did demonstrate ambition were Chile and Tuvalu, who named the “culprit” of the climate crisis — fossil fuels, oil, gas and coal.

Suluafi said it was critical those words are spoken in these spaces.

“How can we talk about the fight against climate change if we are not naming who we are fighting?”

“Words are important. It is words that literally can mean the sinking or the surviving of our islands.”

Suluafi wants to put to bed a “big misconception” perpetuated by the Western world.

“Pacific Islanders don’t want to move,” she stressed.

“The Western world will tell us that climate change is an opportunity for us to come and live in the West.

“We don’t want to live here!”

‘Go down with our islands’
For years [Pacific] elders have said that they “will go down with our islands”, she said.

Suluafi went on to say Pacific people live in reciprocity with the land.

“We are the land.

“Let’s call a spade a spade. Let’s call the fossil fuel industry out and let’s save my islands.”

“How can we talk about the fight against climate change if we’re not naming who we’re fighting? “– climate activists at #UNGA78 #Vanuatu presser read into weekend energy of NYC 75,000-strong climate march and absence of major emitters speaking at #climateambitionsummit #COP28 pic.twitter.com/v1t3bzh0tL

— Pacific Islands Forum (@ForumSEC) September 20, 2023

Message to polluters
As Australia bids to host COP31, she requests that they take it upon themselves to be “ambitious” with climate initiatives.

“They should not be given the hosting right if they are not actually going to be ambitious enough to represent our region,” Suluafi said.

She believes they have a real opportunity to champion the Pacific Ocean and region but need to be ambitious.

To demonstrate they are being ambitious, Australia will need to at the very least make solid commitments to climate financing, she said.

“What are the commitments that they will make to financing those most vulnerable to climate change including those in their very ocean, their neighbours in the Pacific?”

Phasing out fossil fuels will be another important step.

She said Australia, the UK and the US fail to name fossil fuels as the “culprit” and that needs to change now. Because of their inaction those nations were not invited to speak at the Climate Ambitions Summit last week.

“Because Australia and the US were examples of countries that have not been moving at the same speed as which they have been talking,” Suluafi said.

She said even the US, who was in the Climate Ambition Summit room, was not allowed to speak.

“The UN wanted to give the voices to those who have been ambitious to be able to speak at the Climate Ambition Summit.”

Lifting up the next generation
Suluafi believes having young people in the room at important meetings held at the UN is vital.

According to her, something she noticed while at the UNGA meeting was most of the people were paid to be there.

“It is their job to be here from nine to five or whenever the conference starts,” she said.

“And then you look around at the young people, the civil society, the volunteers, the indigenous people who have made their way into the room who are there because of passion and because of heart.

“We need more heart in these rooms.”

Suluafi commends the UN for inviting young ambitious climate warriors, even if she did not make it into the room this time.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.