Why Climate Disinformation Thrives Online and How to Fight It at Scale

Climate change is one of the most urgent challenges of our time. But we can’t address it if falsehoods continue to spread unchecked and access to trustworthy content and data on climate change is actively being removed. Climate disinformation isn’t just a misunderstanding; it’s a strategy. Nowhere is this more evident than in the United States, where a growing campaign to defund climate research is gaining momentum.

The Trump administration has already cancelled National Science Foundation grants for over 100 climate-related research projects, as part of a broader campaign to cut federal support for scientists and institutions investigating the growing dangers of a warming planet. The spread of climate disinformation is not about spreading harmless opinions. It’s about coordinated campaigns designed to mislead the public, stall regulation, and protect vested interests. As we approach COP30 in Brazil this year, one of the world’s most dangerous countries for environmental defenders, this issue has never been more urgent.

Disinformation delays climate action

Climate change disinformation has evolved. While the aim of undermining climate science remains, the tone has softened and the tactics have become more sophisticated. Rather than outright denial, today's disinformation efforts focus on casting doubt and delaying action. As the scientific consensus on human-driven climate change has grown undeniable, many former deniers have rebranded themselves as so-called "reasonable critics” and now advocate for delay rather than rejection.

This strategic shift from climate change denialism to climate change “realism," amplified by a network of skeptical websites such as Everything Climate, Climate Exit, CO2 Coalition, or Real Climate Science, serves the same purpose: to promote inaction. This is dangerous because disinformation slows down the public's will to act, making it harder for policymakers to pass legislation that could reduce emissions, protect ecosystems, and prepare communities for climate impacts. The EU’s nature restoration law, a regulation aimed at protecting the environment and restoring its natural state to a good ecological condition through renaturation, exemplifies the challenges of passing legislation in the face of disinformation.

Ana Romero-Vincente, a researcher at the EU DisinfoLab, describes the situation as follows: “Climate disinformation thrives in the information void, the gap between scientific consensus and public understanding. This void is deliberately widened by malicious actors who sow doubt and polarize debate, turning disinformation into a systemic barrier to the urgent, coordinated action that the climate crisis requires.”

The February 2025 Eurobarometer report on European citizens’ knowledge and attitudes towards science and technology highlights a concerning trend. Since 2021, more respondents incorrectly believe that “climate change is for the most part caused by natural cycles rather than human activities.” This marks an increase of 9 percentage points, while the proportion correctly identifying this statement as false has decreased by 7 percentage points. In 21 out of 27 EU Member States, a majority of respondents correctly reject the claim that climate change is primarily driven by natural cycles. However, in the remaining six Member States, respondents are more likely to believe the statement is true than false. Alarmingly, more than half of those surveyed in Poland (52%), as well as in Czechia, Slovakia, and Hungary (each at 51%), incorrectly agree with the false statement.

Disinformation has tangible, real-world consequences. In the aftermath of the severe storms and floods that struck Spain in October 2024, a wave of false claims and hoaxes further strained an already overwhelmed country. The Spanish non-profit independent fact-checking organization Maldita identified over 60 hoaxes circulating during this period. This steady stream of false narratives continued to erode public trust in authorities and official responses. This highlights how climate-related disinformation can deepen crises and undermine institutional credibility.

A similar situation was observed after the power outages in Spain and Portugal in April and May 2025. Speculation and disinformation about the cause of the outages spread quickly. An analysis by CAAD shows that renewable energy sources were blamed for the power cuts. The generation of electricity is responsible for a large proportion of the world’s carbon emissions, which is why it is such an important issue in the global climate discussion. Just hours after the blackout, critics of climate science began to blame the shift to renewable energy, claiming that it had caused the outage. Unlike fossil fuels, renewables were framed as unreliable and politically motivated. Although this idea started small, it quickly gained traction as anti-climate disinformation networks, especially in English-speaking circles like The Telegraph or The Daily Mail, began to blame renewable energy sources more widely.

Big Tech and climate obstruction

Social media platforms and digital advertisers are key players in spreading climate disinformation, as the report Deny, Deceive, Delay illustrates. The opaque supply chain of digital advertising increases the chances of monetizing mis- and disinformation. Over the past two decades, a digital environment has evolved where platform algorithms consistently prioritize the most inflammatory, sensational, and often unverified content. This highlights a stark reality: mis- and disinformation routinely outperform credible, facts-based information. This means unreliable sources and fringe voices that deny climate science or mock climate solutions often get more visibility than scientists or frontline communities, as also outlined in this recent study. This isn’t a bug, it’s a systemic issue.

Addressing it requires more than fact-checking; it demands meaningful tech regulation and its proper enforcement, and a fundamental rethinking of how we want the internet to work. To stop this, tech platforms must demonetize climate disinformation and end the algorithmic amplification of false content. It is not censorship to stop promoting lies. This is responsible platform governance. In this context, Meta's shift in content policy, scaling back fact-checking in favor of a community notes model where users can add context to posts, is not particularly helpful. X has taken a similar approach, using community notes to let users contribute context to certain posts, with an algorithm determining which notes are visible. More recently, X announced that it is piloting AI-generated community notes, a move that raises concerns given the risk of fabricated content.

Prominent tech figures like Elon Musk have claimed to champion free speech while simultaneously actively silencing critics and experts. Ironically, free speech is undermined when disinformation drowns out the truth, particularly when far-right narratives get preferential treatment, as studies show.

Public discourse on major online platforms is increasingly shaped not by free expression, but by opaque recommendation algorithms. These systems, developed and controlled by companies like Meta, X, and TikTok, operate without meaningful transparency. Their design prioritizes engagement and data extraction, filtering the content users see through a commercial lens that serves the interests of surveillance advertising rather than the public good.

These platforms have become dominant channels through which people access information, form opinions, and engage with the world. Yet the mechanisms that determine what is amplified or suppressed remain hidden from view. Without transparency, there can be no safeguards against algorithmic bias or manipulation, leaving society vulnerable to the unchecked power of platform operators.

Responsible platform governance and content moderation are not about silencing public opinion. They are about holding powerful actors, including fossil fuel companies, social media platforms, paid influencers, and even governments, accountable for manipulating information systems to serve narrow interests. When disinformation causes public harm, whether by inciting violence, undermining democratic institutions, or delaying critical climate action, there must be consequences.

Free speech does not mean speech without accountability. A healthy democracy depends on a level playing field, where factual information can surface and where a radical, well-funded minority does not drown out the voices of the majority. The increasing politicization of debate over freedom of expression must not hinder the enforcement of essential regulations, such as the European Digital Services Act (DSA), which aims to promote transparency, fairness, and responsibility in the digital public sphere.

Policy interventions to address climate disinformation

There is reason for hope, and the topic is gaining the necessary traction. The former Polish Council Presidency of the EU made the fight against climate disinformation one of its priorities. In April 2024, the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Climate Action (DG-CLIMA)officially acknowledged climate disinformation as a serious threat in its communication to the European Parliament, marking the first time DG-CLIMA has formally recognized the issue.

Importantly, the European Commission already has tools it can use to help protect the integrity of climate information. The DSA is one such tool. Many consider algorithmic mechanisms that favor spreading disinformation over accurate information to be harmful and a potential systemic risk. Article 34 of the DSA addresses systemic risks that Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) must mitigate. If such mechanisms were treated as systemic risk, this could be a crucial entry point in the fight against disinformation, particularly climate disinformation. In this case, the European Commission could invoke Article 35 of the DSA and demand specific measures to restore a level playing field for facts, potentially including a ban on engagement-based ranking. One could argue that climate change disinformation represents the most systemic risk of all, undermining not only the integrity of information ecosystems but also the health and future of our planet.

However, there are downsides to the systemic risk approach. Svea Windwehr, the co-chair of D64 (Center for Digital Progress), points out: “One of the main challenges of the DSA’s systemic risk governance approach is the vagueness of key terms. The DSA neither includes a definition of risk nor details on how concepts like 'negative effects on civic discourse' should be operationalized.”

“To clarify whether climate disinformation can be addressed as a systemic risk, we will need ambitious investigations by the European Commission into the role that the designs, practices, and policies of VLOPs play in the dissemination of climate tech,” she said. “To encourage the Commission to include climate disinformation in its enforcement agenda, civil society researchers can play a critical role in gathering the necessary evidence and submitting a robust complaint to the Commission. But it is crucial to also explore other avenues to combat climate disinformation, including a ban on personalized ads and much stricter limits on what data can be used to personalize recommendations,” Windwehr noted.

The European Commission is not the only actor assessing risks; platforms themselves also conduct risk assessments. Additionally, Article 40 of the DSA, which governs data access for vetted researchers, can contribute valuable insights into identifying systemic risks.

Concrete steps to monitor the spread and impact of climate disinformation include the upgrade of the voluntary EU Code of Practice on Disinformation to a Code of Conduct, which is now integrated into the DSA. This is a step in the right direction, providing platforms with concrete technical guidance. Under the DSA, the code is now elevated to the status of a compliance tool, meaning that failure by platforms to honor their commitments can lead to investigations and potential fines. The European Commission needs to show bold political leadership and properly enforce the law.

Global cooperation is equally essential. The G20's launch of the Global Climate Information Integrity Initiative on Climate Change at its summit in Rio de Janeiro marked a significant step forward. As the first multilateral acknowledgment of climate disinformation as both a democratic and environmental threat, the initiative expands the scope of action as a global topic. It aims to develop cross-border strategies to counter false narratives, bolster independent journalism, protect environmental defenders, and push for democratic oversight of social media platforms. Although the initial funding call for civil society proposals closed on July 6, 2025, the outcomes of the initiative will build a critical platform for international engagement.

Global coalitions like Climate Action Against Disinformation are at the forefront, backing research, pushing for regulation, and building resilience against climate manipulation and falsehoods. Continued public awareness, institutional support, and regulatory momentum are vital to its success.

Challenges ahead

People are not powerless in the face of climate lies. Fighting disinformation is climate action. However, tackling disinformation at scale demands sustained investments, and this is where the major challenge lies. Despite the growing threat, the climate counter-disinformation community remains underfunded. Regulation and research that tackle the problem of disinformation are discredited as “narrative control” and against free speech. This gap is particularly alarming given the broader geopolitical climate. Across Europe and beyond, far-right parties, many of which downplay climate science and amplify anti-democratic and anti-regulatory narratives, are gaining ground. These political shifts not only embolden disinformation actors but also threaten to shrink the space and support for those fighting back.

As Ana Romero-Vicente, a researcher at EU DisinfoLab, puts it: “The work of the climate counter-disinformation community is more vital than ever.”