The Cost Of Confusion

The report finds that while 85% of the UK public recognizes human impact on climate change, significant gaps in understanding and a high prevalence of disinformation persist. 82% of respondents believe in at least one piece of climate disinformation, with common myths centering on the unaffordability of net zero and the inability of the electricity grid to support electric vehicles. Trust in corporate climate commitments is very low, with 91% of respondents not fully trusting brands to accurately portray their commitments. Social media is identified as the primary source of disinformation by 40% of the public.

• There is a significant gap between the public's recognition of human-driven climate change and their belief that humans are the primary cause; while 85% acknowledge human impact, only 50% believe humans are the main cause, a decrease from 54% in 2022.
• Climate disinformation is widespread in the UK, with 82% of the public believing in at least one of the seven tested false narratives, averaging 2.4 false beliefs per person.
• Specific false narratives are prevalent, including the belief that the UK cannot afford net zero by 2050 (40%) and that the electricity grid cannot handle increased electric vehicle adoption (44%).
• Public trust in corporate sustainability claims is very low, with 91% of respondents stating they do not fully trust brands to accurately portray their climate commitments and 88% not fully trusting brands to follow climate science.
• A lack of conceptual understanding makes a large portion of the population vulnerable to disinformation; 44% of the public does not understand both the term 'net zero' and the concept of 'greenhouse gas emissions'.
• Social media is the most cited source of climate disinformation, named by 40% of respondents, followed by news articles at 20%.
• There is a disconnect between the perception of global climate impacts and personal experience; for example, 66% believe climate change affects human health generally, but only 41% believe it affects their own physical health.
• Consumers indicate a willingness to penalize brands that fund disinformation, with 45% stating they would stop supporting a brand known to fund climate disinformation.

APA

Conscious Advertising Network (n.d.). The Cost Of Confusion. https://www.consciousadnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Cost-of-Confusion.pdf

Chicago

Conscious Advertising Network. The Cost Of Confusion. n.d. https://www.consciousadnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Cost-of-Confusion.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Conscious Advertising Network |title=The Cost Of Confusion |url=https://www.consciousadnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Cost-of-Confusion.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{consciousadvertisingnetworkndcost, author = {{Conscious Advertising Network}}, title = {{The Cost Of Confusion}}, institution = {Conscious Advertising Network}, url = {https://www.consciousadnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Cost-of-Confusion.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }