Tens of millions of dollars are spent annually on political lobbying for the interests of the fossil fuel sector. That investment serves the interests of a small amount of company shareholders in keeping a legacy industry alive, despite the availability of newer, clean technologies, at lower cost.

In the wake of these behind-the-scenes policy negotiations, the real and present impacts of climate change, such as bushfires, coastal flooding and reduced crop yields are left at the door of future generations to deal with.

As the expensive fees of industry associations like the Minerals Council of Australia are claimed as business expenses, the fossil fuel companies are then able to receive generous tax concessions – paid for from the public purse. That’s why the hypocrisy was palpable last week, when the deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce said in an address to the Minerals Council that the charitable status of environmental groups is against the interests of Australia.

Mining lobby calls for 10% limit on environmental charities' spending on advocacy Read more

So, when there are no rules limiting the power that big mining wields over politics, why are environmental scientists being attacked by the government?

Recently, the government instituted an inquiry into Australian charities, seeking to curb the work of charities working to protect the environment. The inquiry’s most concerning recommendation, which came from the Minerals Council itself, is that all environmental charities, no matter if they are focused on research or public education, should be forced to spend 25% of their resources for on-the-ground remediation work, such as tree planting and weed control. Environmental remediation has great value, but ultimately the policy change required to solve climate change will only happen through scientifically informed policy change that allows businesses and communities to do the heavy lifting.

The Climate Council is an independent organisation dedicated to public education on climate change. We want to keep doing what we’re good at – which is providing independent, accurate information to Australians across society; from emergency services to farmers, schools and businesses. For the government to demand that the Climate Council spend 25% of its time on remediation is nonsensical and undemocratic. When it comes to Australia staying in step with the global race to address climate change, planting a few trees just won’t cut it.

The government inquiry is a cynical attempt to hamper support for charities by reducing our ability to execute on our purpose. The Climate Council’s purpose is to accurately communicate information on climate change, giving Australia the chance to be on the front foot in responding to climate change. Our information assists fire fighters, health professionals and communities. It helps journalists to report more accurately in what is a debate often awash with misinformation. Importantly, it helps the wider community make sense of what is a complex and confusing issue.

An informed public is absolutely vital to a well-functioning democracy. The science is not the only consensus on the issue. Most Aussies are worried about what climate change means for their jobs, property and families, especially the youngsters that are now stepping up to power our economy.

For the government to adopt the mining lobby’s recommendation would damage the ability of organisations protecting the environment to work effectively – and therefore damage our environment itself. It would also set a dangerous precedent for the interference of vested interests into our government. For beyond the Climate Council a broad range of charities stand to be affected should the government give itself powers to hamper any community group that they deem to be in conflict with its worldview.

The logic of curtailing an organisation like Climate Council, which fills the major chasm in public information on climate change, is unscientific and undemocratic.

Despite what we hear about the post-truth, fake news world in which we now live, the Australian public still values independent experts. When we go to the doctor, or fly in an aeroplane, we place our trust in the hands of qualified experts. Equally, for Australia to make sound decisions on our changing world, we expect to be advised by experts that operate independently of vested interests.

CSIRO a paid-up member of Minerals Council, which fights climate change action Read more

Past experience tells us we cannot rely on government to give us all of the facts, all of the time. Just last year it was widely reported that the Australian Department of Environment censored a Unesco report on climate change, removing the inclusion of the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu national park and the Tasmanian forests. The objections were made on the grounds that showing the impacts of climate change on Australian world heritage sites would be bad for tourism. When Unesco agreed to remove the sections requested, Australia became the only inhabited continent on the planet with no mention whatsoever.

It would be a wonderful world if the threat of climate change could be wiped away so easily. In the absence of a magic wand, both the Australian public and the broader international community have a right to accurate information in order to tackle climate change. We have a responsibility to future generations to take action. And our best chance for action is from the standpoint of knowledge that is open, shared and freely available. I have no doubt that a government that has the best interests of the Australian public at heart is one that champions and protects access to science and does not seek to restrict it.