Climate science and conflicting media narratives

🔍 How Misinformation is Delaying Climate Action 🔍 A new synthesis by the International Panel on the Information Environment (IPIE) reveals how coordinated misinformation campaigns are undermining global efforts to address the climate crisis. The 2025 report systematically reviewed 300 peer-reviewed studies (2015–2025) and uncovered a troubling pattern: powerful actors—fossil fuel companies, governments, political parties, and media outlets—are actively distorting climate science across digital and traditional channels. 📌 Key Insights: Fossil fuel firms like ExxonMobil and TotalEnergies systematically funded denial campaigns while simultaneously greenwashing their public image. 44% of airline industry climate statements were misleading; similar trends were observed in the tourism and fast-food sectors. Bots and trolls play a major role: up to 25% of tweets during key climate policy moments were generated by bots. Right-wing populist parties and some state media continue to push climate denialism, especially in the U.S., Russia, and parts of Europe. Research gaps persist—particularly in the Global South—limiting our understanding of regional impacts and disinformation dynamics. 📢 The Way Forward: To restore trust and strengthen climate response, the report emphasizes: 1. Mandatory carbon labeling and reporting, 2. Legal enforcement against disinformation, 3. Broad-based stakeholder coalitions, 4. Educating both policymakers and the public. 🌍 The battle against climate change is also a battle for information integrity. Without credible, science-based narratives, public trust erodes—and policy stalls. 📖 Full report: https://lnkd.in/eUq58XQb #ClimateMisinformation #InformationIntegrity #Greenwashing #ESG #SustainabilityLeadership #ClimateActionNow

A super-majority of the world's citizens (from 74% in the US to 89% in parts of Europe) want their governments to do more about climate change, but the majority of that group is convinced they're a minority. That perception gap has a silencing effect that in turn enables politicians to think they can continue serving the interests of polluting industries with impunity. The media bears some responsibility for that gap. From taking the bait on false equivalence to creating the fossil fuel industry's advertorials pushing false solutions to treating advocates like criminals, media coverage of climate has often perpetuated the idea that only a fringe minority wants action or is willing to pay for it. In the new Climate Social Science Network book Climate Obstruction: A Global Assessment, Melissa Aronczyk and Max Boykoff led a chapter pulling together the peer-reviewed research on the media's role in climate obstruction, and a new book coming from Michelle Amazeen later this month looks at how advertorials in particular have been used to misinform the public on climate. As I wrote in The Nation, the media contributed to the creation and persistence of the perception gap on climate, but it's also uniquely positioned to close it. https://lnkd.in/gUYRAssR #climate #media

A recent study highlighted by Pilita Clark in the Financial Times sheds light on a striking disconnect: while 69% of people globally are willing to contribute 1% of their household income to fight climate change, the majority believe they are in the minority, thinking only 43% would do the same. I believe that this significant perception gap is partly due to the overwhelming spread of anti-climate action messages that overshadow the essential, yet underrepresented, facts provided by climate scientists. The conversation around climate action is being skewed by negativity and misinformation, preventing a realistic understanding of people's willingness to take action. Furthermore, we face another crucial gap: the disconnect between individual recognition of global warming and a collective consciousness about the issue. Many of us acknowledge the threat and are even prepared to contribute financially towards its mitigation. However, this awareness does not always translate into collective action. This could be because individuals feel - or were made to feel - that their contributions are too small to make a difference or they perceive a general indifference from the broader public. Bridging this gap between individual and collective awareness is vital for mobilizing concerted action against climate change. Addressing these perception gaps could indeed revolutionize the debate around climate policy as well. It shows that, contrary to the divisive rhetoric often seen in the media (especially right-wing media), there is broad support for meaningful climate action. This collective willingness challenges the narrative pushed by extreme right-wing groups that downplay the urgency of climate issues, revealing their views as not representative of the general populace. In the context of climate policy, this understanding could be a game-changer. Policies that might have seemed politically unviable due to a perceived lack of public support could receive the backing they (desperately) need. Governments and policymakers could be emboldened to propose and implement ambitious climate strategies, knowing there's a silent majority ready to support them. This shift could lead to more aggressive action against global warming, aligning policy more closely with the scientific consensus on what needs to be done to mitigate climate risks. PS: I urge you to also read the comments under the FT article to see the level of organized scepticism about climate change. It underscores the importance of our challenge but also highlights the silent majority's potential power to influence climate policy positively. #ClimateAction #Sustainability #EnvironmentalPolicy #GlobalWarming #ClimateCrisis

The current energy shock makes the case for renewables more obvious than ever. It also generates the windfall profits and public anxiety that the architects of delay reinvest into manufactured doubt. As I argued in an earlier post, our information systems are structurally vulnerable to disinformation, mostly because of economic incentives. To fix that, we should apply the "polluter pays" principle to the information environment. There is a growing body of evidence showing how legitimate concerns are deliberately amplified and distorted by private and state actors whose revenues depend on prolonging fossil fuel dependence. Last week, a WindEurope report mapped 573 accounts spreading anti-wind power disinformation across Europe: 42,000 posts reaching tens of millions. Wind projects worth billions have been delayed or cancelled, sometimes violently, on the back of false claims. A recent DeSmog / POLITICO Europe investigation uncovered a Paris PR firm running fake Facebook accounts for a gas trade group, discrediting heat pumps with fabricated stories and AI-generated images. Sometimes so clumsily that even group members began questioning whether the accounts were real. Earlier this year, Clean Creatives documented 1,217 active contracts between ad agencies and fossil fuel companies in 2025. EUvsDisinfo and NATO have analysed how Russia, whose revenues remain tied to fossil fuel exports, is a major driver of climate disinformation in Europe. For Europeans, the consensus is there; people are not confused. 88% support more renewables, 81% back climate neutrality by 2050 (EU Commission). But when misleading narratives are produced and distributed on an industrial scale, even informed citizens struggle to know what is true. The energy transition involves real trade-offs that can only be navigated honestly in an information environment that is not deliberately distorted. Just as individual carbon footprint is sometimes used to shift the climate burden onto people rather than systems, we now risk shifting the burden of disinformation onto individual media literacy. The problem starts with an unregulated supply chain of falsehoods. The Declaration on Information Integrity on Climate Change, signed by 27 countries at COP30, provides a framework. Governments and the private sector must now act on it. Funding independent journalism; taxing windfall profits that fund delay; and regulating the intermediaries such as PR firms, platforms, even media outlets when they produce and distribute false narratives, are essential steps to take.

On Monday September 18, 2023, the first day of Climate Week in New York City, I was privileged to attend the global launch of the recommendations of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD)hosted by the NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE. That morning ImpactAlpha published “From scientific to doomsday, the five climate change narratives shaping discourse and decisions” by Melita Leousi, Ph.D. and me. In this piece we describe five ideal type narratives: Scientific, Skeptical, Moral, Opportunity, and Doomsday. The actual narratives of people and groups about climate change combine these ideal types in various ways. We argue that understanding these narratives can facilitate the ability of people who share different views to communicate with each other to solve a common problem. I also think that these narratives are useful ideal types that apply to other global challenges, such as nature and inequality. While I had some familiarity with the work of the TNFD, I had not been following it closely and wondered what the narrative of the event would be. In particular, I wondered about the extent to which the Doomsday narrative would be employed. It was. But in contrast to many pushing the Doomsday climate narrative, it was balanced out by a strong sense of a science-based approach and, importantly, of Opportunity. The approach they are taking is also a very sensible one. They have and continue to engage with key stakeholders, including companies and investors. They are working hard to integrate their framework with other reporting frameworks including those being developed by EFRAG (the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group), the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB). They are calling for voluntary adoption rather than regulators to make it mandatory. This is particularly important in the United States where climate has become a highly politicized issue as illustrated by the controversy surrounding the much-anticipated SEC climate disclosure rule. Nature is a more local phenomenon and protecting the environment is something that matters to people of all political stripes. U.S. support for the work of the TNFD is absolutely critical. Their balanced and sensible narrative and approach should resonate well here. In this they are getting strong support from Ceres, Inc. is the convener of the U.S. Consultation Group for the TNFD. Ceres also co-leads Nature Action 100, a global investor-led engagement initiative focused on driving greater corporate ambition and action on nature loss. I'd like to end with a little shout out to Tony Goldner and Barbara Sanderson (COO of the TNFD) for the great work they and their team are doing. https://lnkd.in/e4CUtZAg

No, Agriculture & Meat Aren’t A Bigger Driver Of Climate Change Than Fossil Fuels Burning fossil fuels accounts for 70% of global warming. That's the overwhelming scientific consensus supported by the biggest, longest running meta-analysis in the history of science. However, a recent peer-reviewed letter in solid journal Environmental Research falsely claims livestock and agriculture are responsible for 60% of historical warming—more than triple the impact it assigns to fossil fuels. It’s gotten media attention. It shouldn’t have. Full assessment: https://lnkd.in/gZqYNMer The methodology is deeply flawed. It cherry-picks gross land-use emissions without accounting for carbon sinks, uses instantaneous forcing instead of long-term global warming potential, and counts short-lived aerosol cooling as if it offsets fossil CO₂ forever. It doesn’t. This isn’t just a bad paper—it’s a misleading one, driven by ideological bias rather than rigorous science. The author, a plant-based advocate, builds his case on assumptions that warp the science to fit a narrative. Peer review failed here. Climate scientists—from the Global Carbon Project to Duke and Leeds—have pushed back hard, rightly so. Fossil fuels are, and remain, the dominant driver of global warming. That’s not a debate. That’s settled science. Yes, agriculture and land use are a large driver of climate change and we have to address them, but the way to do that isn't by pretending due to bias that they are the overwhelming problem. We need better scrutiny from journals, and sharper media literacy when it comes to climate science. Bad analysis, no matter how well intentioned, is still bad for policy. Environmental Research should yank the paper. Giving it the authority of being peer-reviewed does the journal and the world no favors.

As wildfire smoke blankets the east coast, images of orange sky and apocalyptic burning forests flood social media feeds. You'd think these images would spur climate action, but here's the counterintuitive truth: They do the exact opposite. Research shows that positive images of climate solutions (e.g., solar panels) capture MORE attention than negative images of climate disasters (e.g., wildfires). Climate disaster images can even trigger a "freeze" response in viewers. https://lnkd.in/ghr2E5yz This is exactly why cognitive science needs to be at the heart of how we design and communicate climate solutions. In our upcoming chapter "Cognitive Foundations of Climate Solutions" (to be published later this year), we outline 4 cognitive processes that determine the success of climate solutions. ATTENTION: Solutions need to be visible and positive. For example, rooftop solar visibility increases adoption by neighbors within 500m; eye-level placement of sustainable dishes increases uptake. PERCEPTION: People misjudge climate impacts (23% rate canvas bags as high-impact, but only 19% say the same about skipping a trans-Pacific flight). Carbon labels, in-group messengers, and accessible risk communication can help. MEMORY: Stories beat statistics: 62% recall accuracy for narratives vs. 29% for stats. Interactive experiences are remembered months later. If it's not memorable, it won't be adopted. EXECUTIVE FUNCTION: Present bias and status quo bias are powerful. Green defaults increase renewable energy uptake in Switzerland from 3% to 80%. People are willing to pay 2.5 times more to remain in a carbon mitigation policy than those who are told they would be joining the policy. Here's the bottom line: Successful climate solutions should be salient, available, memorable, and rewarding, working with our cognition not against it. Chapter link: https://lnkd.in/guFzvWsW See more joyful climate solutions here: https://happyclimate.org/

How do we make climate communication resonate with the very people it affects the most? 💡 🌎 In my latest essay for Question of Cities, I reflect on this pressing question, drawing on my experience in journalism and storytelling, as well as research and fieldwork in the climate space over the last few years. The article outlines how dominant climate narratives often remain inaccessible, overly technical, and disconnected from everyday lived realities. Some key takeaways: 🔁 1. Translation isn’t enough—localisation matters. Efforts like the UNDP Climate Dictionary are welcome, but we need to go further. People don’t say “Jalvayu Parivartan”—they talk about rain delays, changing festivals, and crop failures. Climate terms must emerge from how people experience change, not how we define it. Climate must be framed as an everyday issue. For most people in India, climate change competes with daily concerns like food, housing, and livelihoods. 📚 2. Storytelling enables agency. We need to shift from policy briefs to bottom-up storytelling, where a fisherwoman in the Sundarbans or a tribal woman in Odisha becomes the knowledge holder. 🎭 3. Embrace diverse media and people’s science. From metaphor-rich language to theatre, dance, and music—creative formats hold emotional and cultural power. Even community-defined terms like “wet drought” offer nuance and should shape climate adaptation strategies. 📰4. Mainstream media must build capacity. At a recent workshop in Maharashtra, we saw how rural reporters struggle to differentiate between climate and weather. There’s little support for them—especially women—to cover these stories. Climate needs to be integrated into all beats, not confined to disaster or weather coverage. 🎯 5. Climate communications is not just outreach—it’s strategy. Too often, communication is underfunded and under-prioritised. But to build inclusive, impact-driven programmes, we must invest in grassroots media literacy, storyteller training, and long-term behavioural change campaigns. 🌏 In the coming years, we will witness a growing wave of efforts to communicate climate change in new and compelling ways as climate becomes centre stage in policy and mainstream narratives. But the real test of these approaches won’t lie in international recognition or polished campaigns. It will lie in how meaningfully they resonate on the ground—in how a coal worker in Jharkhand or a landless labourer in Maharashtra understands, imagines, and navigates a world that is 1.5 degrees C warmer. 🔗 Read the piece here: https://lnkd.in/dGG8ZNZn A big thanks to Smruti Koppikar and Shobha Surin for trusting me with this piece. And of course, this would not be possible without Asar and all the fabulous work that I have got to be a part of in the last 3+ years! #ClimateCommunication #ClimateJustice

🌏 An infographic that reduces a planetary‑scale thermodynamic system to a cartoon recipe crosses the line from simplification into infantilization. Here’s why it qualifies as pseudoscience rather than pedagogy: 🎨 Cartoon Logic vs. Climate Physics - Step‑by‑step or “5 easy steps” makes it sound like baking a cake, not grappling with a chaotic, coupled ocean–atmosphere system. - By presenting the global average temperature as a simple arithmetic mean of anomalies, it hides the statistical and methodological controversies: station dropout, homogenization adjustments, sparse coverage in oceans and poles, and the heavy reliance on interpolation. 🧩 What’s Missing - Energy balance: Climate is governed by enthalpy flows (latent heat, convection, phase changes), not just thermometer readings. None of that appears. - Error bars: No mention of uncertainty ranges, confidence intervals, or the fact that different datasets (HadCRUT, GISTEMP, UAH, RSS) diverge. - Historical context: The method assumes the “baseline” is stable and representative, ignoring that climate has always varied (e.g., Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age). - Data integrity: Thousands of stations have been moved, urbanized, or discontinued. Averaging anomalies doesn’t magically erase those biases. 🎭 Why It’s Pseudoscience - Appeal to simplicity: It’s designed to persuade, not to inform. By stripping away complexity, it creates the illusion of certainty. - Authority by cartoon: The smiling Earth and “easy steps” infantilize the audience, discouraging scrutiny. - Unfalsifiable narrative: The method is presented as airtight, but the choices of baseline, grid size, and homogenization rules are subjective — and yield different results depending on who applies them. 👉 In short: this isn’t education, it’s propaganda. It reduces climate science to a children’s workbook, where the messy realities of thermodynamics, uncertainty, and data integrity are erased in favor of a feel‑good story about “global temperature.” ---

YouTube users watch over 1 billion hours of content daily but what are millions learning about our climate solutions? A disturbing shift is happening in real time. New research from the Center for Countering Digital Hate analyzed 12,058 videos and nearly 186 days of YouTube content from known climate contrarian channels. The findings should alarm every business leader preparing for COP30 in Belém. While outright climate denial dropped from 65% to 30% of claims, something far more insidious emerged: The New Climate Denial now represents 70% of all climate disinformation (up from 35% in 2018). Here’s what this actually looks like: • “Clean energy won’t work” claims jumped 10.8% • “Climate policies are harmful” narratives up 8.1% • “Climate movement is unreliable” attacks grew 7.8% • “Climate science is unreliable” messaging increased 4.3% These 325 million video views aren’t just numbers. They represent employees, customers, investors, and communities consuming content that systematically undermines the viability of the very solutions your organization is implementing. We’ve moved from “climate change isn’t real” to “your solutions won’t work and your scientists can’t be trusted.” In some ZIP codes, decarbonization is a strategic imperative. In others, it’s still “up for debate.” Meanwhile, YouTube is generating up to $13.4 million annually from channels spreading this doubt, even as brand name advertisers inadvertently fund these narratives. As supply chain and sustainability leaders architect net zero operations and invest billions in climate resilience, we face a paradox. We’re engineering the transition while a massive audience is being systematically convinced none of it will succeed. Is this a communications problem? An accountability problem? Or a business risk that could threatens stakeholder confidence, talent acquisition, supplier alignment, and the social license to operate? Three questions for leaders heading to COP30 or observing the process: 1. How are you building stakeholder confidence in climate solutions while you build your sustainability roadmap? 2. Are you prepared to address solutions skepticism that’s now more prevalent than climate denial itself? 3. What role will business play in countering misinformation that delays the collective transition we all need? What else are we missing? The report is linked below for reference.