Page 159 - Carbon Capitalism and Communication Confronting Climate Crisis

150 B. BREVINI AND T. WORONOV

‘Truth’ in current regimes of truthiness is therefore not just facticity.
Truthiness organizes affect, shaping judgments based on a pervasive sense
that “all unwanted facts are political, uncertain and equally debatable”
(Banning 2009, p. 293). Truthiness “aligns with a confused field of truth
claims that alternates between false impressions and willful trades of
complicated truths for constructed lies” (Gilbert 2016, p. 96). Public
knowledge thus becomes “as much a matter of emotional expression as it is
a collection of facts” (Gilbert 2016, p. 97).
Drawing on these theoretical elaborations, we suggest that when the
following three traits characterize any particular political discourse, it may
be labeled a regime of truthiness. First, arguments should follow “gut
feelings” and emotional qualities. Second, it renders any ‘inconvenient’ or
politically undesirable facts as debatable, doubtful or mere political ideol-
ogy. Third, it relies on passionate political biases that are not based in
scientific facts, logical argument, or empirical data.
To demonstrate this point, we look to both media and official discourses
1
by Australian policy-makers on Adani’s Carmichael Coal Mine to inves-
tigate the extent to which a regime of truthiness dominates the debate on
coal mining in Queensland.

THE LOGIC OF ‘GUT FEELINGS’

In the speeches and debates by Australian politicians in support of the
Carmichael mine, the logic of affect and ‘gut feelings’ has emerged as a key
element in public and political discourse.
One of the champions of this form of argument was the former
Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, who faced an onslaught of criti-
cism from environmentalists after declaring that “coal is good for
humanity, coal is good for prosperity, coal is an essential part of our eco-
nomic future, here in Australia, and right around the world” and that it is
Australia’s “destiny” to “bring affordable energy to the world” (SMH
2014).
The passion with which Abbott and his fellow politicians defend coal
mining cannot be solely explained as neoliberal ideology or corporate
capture. The dominant discourses focusing on the ‘destiny’ or the impor-
tance of coal for humanity not only flies in the face of scientific facts, but
adds an almost a religious connotation to the claims of coal’s benefittothe
nation and to mankind. In embracing a language based on facts that are
‘affectively legitimated,’ the former Prime Minister also relies upon a vision