"How do you take your energy transition spin, sir?

"Do you like it pro-fossil fuel, driven by anti-renewable astroturfing?

"Do you want genuine, grassroots anti-oil and gas?

"Or we have pro-renewable views, pushed by well-coordinated but covert green lobby groups?

"Or how about anti-renewable sentiment, pushed by well-funded fossil fuels actors?"

Now this might sound like something from a Monty Python sketch, but this is a taste (pardon the pun) of what the members of the Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy are having to contend with as they carry out their examination of the extent of dis- and mis-information swirling around as the energy transition transforms Australia.

These six senators – charged with distilling the evidence presented to them into a report due to be tabled at the beginning of next February – face a gargantuan task.

Sifting through the emotive spin and bluster, heartfelt testimony and scientific rhetoric which they will be presented with is a daunting task. Already the committee has received almost 200 written submissions and on Monday and Tuesday of this week the first of what will be several public hearing sessions were held in Canberra.

Speaking on Tuesday, Senator Peter Whish-Wilson who is chairing the committee described it as a "pretty intense" 24hrs.

"This is the beginning of a conversation in this country, around the impact that disinformation and misinformation is having on climate policy, the broader attack that we're seeing on science right around the world, and it's part of a global conversation," he said.

But for those people at the coal face of the argument (yes, apologies for yet another pun) – the people living in the communities in rural and regional Australia which are either set to play host to the renewable projects or who are set to see their way of life disrupted by the closure of a coal fired power-station which has provided reliable employment for decades - the stakes could not be higher.

And so similarly emotions run high.

Yes, it can be NIMBY-ism but it can also be BANANAs too which can be the problem (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything, for the uninitiated) as is seen in the case of the proposal to build the Yanco battery energy storage system in New South Wales. This project was forced by weight of public opinion (objection) to be heard by the state's independent planning commission, even though the majority of the objections received came from people living many miles away from the project's proposed location.

In the interests of walking a mile in their shoes, I'd wholeheartedly recommend taking a peek over the ideological fence. Try joining a Facebook group whose opinions on these matters are diametrically opposed to yours and you'll quickly have your eyes opened to the passion (and vitriol) which is driving these discussions.

To be honest, I take my hat off to Senator Whish-Wilson and his fellow committee members. Theirs is a thankless task which will culminate in a report which is going to be derided at every turn, by every side of this multi-faceted debate.

Yours, 

Russell Yeo