We are living in an age of information overload, which makes it increasingly difficult to discern accurate information from disinformation. In the context of climate change, this challenge is particularly acute. The UNDP defines climate disinformation as “deliberately false and fabricated [claims intended] to deceive people about climate change and climate action for political, financial or ideological reasons.” [1] Crucially, climate disinformation is distinct from climate misinformation, which refers to false information spread without malicious intent [1]. This article will focus on climate disinformation and what it means for climate action.
The evolving narratives of international big oil – how did it strategically work to influence public opinion?
As major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, multinational fossil fuel companies have repeatedly and strategically adapted their narratives to defend their interests [2]. Beginning in the 1960s, firms like Exxon Mobil highlighted their environmental initiatives for marketing purposes, even as research within the company warned of GHG-associated risks such as sea-level rise [2]. In the 1980s and 1990s, their messaging pivoted towards framing climate science as uncertain or unproven [2]. By the late 1990s, firms focused on the economic burdens of environmental regulation and the supposed threat to standards of living [2].
The early 2000s brought another reframing, as companies like BP promoted the idea of the “individual carbon footprint,” effectively putting the onus of responsibility on individuals [2]. Soon after, firms started advertising their “green” initiatives and partnerships with academic institutions, the irony being that they were often spending more on this marketing than on academic research [2]. Since the 2010s, they have positioned themselves as necessary actors in the energy transition, while simultaneously downplaying their continued contribution to global emissions [2].
These strategies constitute both greenwashing and climate disinformation because firms’ internal evidence completely contradicted their public, economically-incentivised claims. Such strategies aimed to mislead the public as to their understanding of the climate crisis, though the exact impact is difficult to quantify.
Case study: Climate disinformation and international climate action
Active from 1989 to 2001, the Global Climate Coalition (GCC) brought together major U.S. companies and trade associations from sectors such as utilities, steel, rail, and oil [3]. During its existence, the organisation used four main strategies to obstruct climate policy: challenging the legitimacy of climate science, commissioning economic analyses to support their preferred narratives, deploying PR campaigns to reshape public perceptions of climate change, and intensively lobbying political elites [3].
Despite their efforts, the Clinton Administration endorsed mandatory emissions reductions after COP2 in 1996 [3]. In response, the GCC escalated its lobbying in the U.S. Senate where it testified against the Kyoto Agreement, and held frequent meetings with legislators [3]. Their collaboration with Senators Robert Byrd and Chuck Hagel led to the Byrd–Hagel Resolution of 1997, which stated that the United States should not join any climate agreement that did not require commitments from developing countries [3], [4]. Consequently, the U.S. did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, which was passed in 1997, as the protocol only implicated industrialized nations. This is a clear demonstration of how coordinated disinformation and lobbying can significantly and negatively impact international climate action [3]. Indeed, the Bush Administration told the GCC that ‘POTUS [president of the United States] rejected Kyoto, in part, based on input from you.’ [3]
Case study: Climate disinformation within the Brazilian national context
Turning to the domestic causes and impacts of climate disinformation, national context is key [5]. Indeed, factors such as “political economies, ecologies, energy profiles, social formations and development trajectories” shape how obstruction takes form in practice [5]. Research on Brazil, for instance, points to three main drivers of climate disinformation specific to its national context: the rise of the far right, the weight of agribusiness, and a persistent developmentalist narrative [5].
Interviews with local experts show that Bolsonaro’s election made climate denialism more vocal. Unlike in the U.S., this denial is not anchored in organized networks tied to academic institutions, but instead circulates mainly on social media [5]. Agribusiness, which represents a key industry to the Brazilian economy, employing up to 16% of the labour force, has denied anthropogenic climate change during debates on the Forest Code, in an effort to limit environmental regulations [5] [6]. Lastly, a widespread zero-sum developmentalist worldview, pitting nature against economic progress, has been used to justify expansion into the Cerrado and the Amazon [5].
Through this case study, we can see how climate disinformation can manifest and operate differently depending on national context. The Brazilian case also shows that the impacts of disinformation can be domestic, as opposed to the GCC’s influence on international agreements.
To conclude, climate disinformation refers to deliberately false claims that aim to deceive individuals for financial, political or ideological reasons. It can be used to strategically influence public opinion and policy, delaying or preventing climate action both on the national and international level. Crucially, climate disinformation can take different forms and influence action through different channels depending on national contexts.
