Bold claim: fossil fuels aren’t the problem; they’re the solution to a problem that’s hard to fix without them. But here’s where it gets controversial: a Queensland museum faces accusations that its climate-change education materials may be misrepresenting the root cause by not clearly naming fossil fuel burning as the primary driver. This stems from a multimillion-dollar partnership with one of the world’s largest oil and gas companies.
Since 2015, Shell’s Queensland Gas Company has sponsored the museum’s Future Makers learning program, producing teaching resources and offering free professional development for teachers. Critics, including the climate advocacy group Comms Declare, argue that these materials downplay the role of fossil fuels in driving the climate crisis.
Comms Declare’s assessment contends that while Future Makers explains rising greenhouse gas levels and rapid warming for students in years 7–10, it stops short of explicitly attributing that rise to fossil fuel combustion. In lessons about ocean acidification for years 9–10, the group says the materials fail to identify fossil fuel burning as the dominant driver of changes in ocean chemistry.
Pupils are also guided to design carbon capture and storage (CCS) systems, with the materials claiming that many scientists are working to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and oceans. Climate scientists typically emphasize that the most effective solution is to stop burning fossil fuels in the first place.
Comms Declare reports that the museum disclosed Shell’s sponsorship totalled about $10.25 million across various programs since the partnership began, and that Future Makers materials had been downloaded roughly 400,000 times. The museum also notes that Shell’s support helped provide free STEM teacher development for around 1,700 educators.
Some scientists have voiced concern. Lesley Hughes, a climate scientist and Climate Council councillor, described involvement by a fossil-fuel sponsor in science education for young people as alarming and potentially harmful given the students’ vulnerability to climate impacts. Past scrutiny of Shell’s sponsorship includes a long-running partnership with Questacon in Canberra, which ended in 2022 after 37 years of collaboration.
Academic research on industry-funded education—sometimes called petro-pedagogies—has highlighted how corporate philanthropy can influence teaching norms and resource availability. Critics argue that such funding creates conflicts of interest and may steer how climate topics are taught, especially when teachers rely on externally produced materials.
The Comms Declare report argues that omitting fossil-fuel origins from climate-change lessons weakens students’ grasp of cause and effect. Without a clear link to fossil fuels, students may understand CO₂ as a concept but not recognize its primary sources or why reducing fossil fuel use is essential to solving climate change. This, they say, undermines climate literacy at a foundational level.
The organization calls for the Queensland Museum to review the materials, withdraw or rewrite them, and to end Shell’s sponsorship when current contracts lapse. Shell Australia has declined to comment.
Inquiries from Guardian Australia to the Queensland Museum about a potential program review or the appropriateness of fossil-fuel sponsorship for educational content yielded a defense: the program has delivered hands-on science and technology experiences, empowered teachers and students, and aligned with national and state curriculums. The museum reiterated that all learning resources are reviewed with upcoming curriculum updates and that the initiative aims to strengthen STEM skills for Queensland’s future.
Should educational bodies accept corporate sponsorship when it might influence how critical issues like climate change are framed? What safeguards should be in place to preserve objectivity and ensure students receive a full and accurate picture of the causes and solutions to climate change? Share your thoughts below.
