Search Climate Insights Directory

The report identifies 47 unchallenged cases of climate misinformation across six German TV channels (Sat.1, ZDF, ProSieben, RTL, Das Erste, and Kabel Eins) from April 2025 to April 2026. It finds that misinformation is often reactive, peaking around political events like the 2025 federal elections and the 2026 Climate Action Programme. The most dominant narratives target the economic and technical reliability of the Energiewende, while others focus on nuclear energy inaccuracies and the deflection of national responsibility. Politicians and guests are the primary vectors, accounting for 70% of cases, though journalists and commentators also contribute nearly 30%. Both public (ZDF) and private (Sat.1) broadcasters show vulnerability, with ZDF's risk linked to political talk shows and Sat.1's to the loosely structured format of morning shows. The report recommends journalist training on obstruction mechanisms, real-time fact-checking for live panels, and the creation of an independent media observatory.

The report identifies 815 cases of climate misinformation across 44 audiovisual channels in Brazil, Spain, France, and Poland. It finds that private media are significantly more porous to disinformation than public media, with 85% of cases occurring in private outlets. A strong negative correlation exists between the volume of climate coverage and the prevalence of disinformation, meaning media that cover climate issues more frequently tend to spread less misinformation. The study highlights a shift toward 'new climate denial,' which focuses on obstructing climate action and attacking renewable energy rather than denying the existence of warming. Renewable energy is a primary target, often linked to narratives of lost sovereignty, anti-EU sentiment, and social decline. The report recommends improved journalist training, stricter guest selection protocols, and increased accountability for broadcasters.

The report identifies 815 cases of climate disinformation across 44 audiovisual channels in four countries, finding that private media are significantly more prone to spreading such content than public media. It highlights a negative correlation between the volume of climate coverage and the prevalence of disinformation, suggesting that consistent reporting reduces the risk of misinformation. The analysis reveals distinct national narratives: France focuses heavily on renewable energy costs and inefficiency; Poland links climate policy to anti-EU sentiment and industrial decline; Brazil emphasizes agribusiness virtues and climate denial; and Spain shows a unique susceptibility to 'chemtrails' conspiracy theories. The document recommends journalist training on obstructionist discourses, more rigorous guest selection for TV sets, regular environmental coverage, and the establishment of accountability frameworks for disinformation spreaders.

The document debunks various climate myths, asserting that current global warming is caused by human CO2 emissions and supported by a scientific consensus of over 99%. It clarifies the difference between weather and climate, rejects the 'urban heat island' effect as a primary driver of warming, and argues that climate action is an economic risk management strategy rather than a political agenda. It further highlights the limitations of biological adaptation, the severe risks of exceeding a 1.5°C temperature increase, and the availability of existing technologies to mitigate the worst impacts.

The report identifies a persistent presence of climate disinformation in French mainstream media, noting 128 certified cases over three months. It highlights a significant over-representation of such content in private media, particularly Sud Radio, and observes peaks in disinformation coinciding with major political events. The analysis also employs the CARDS framework to identify 373 instances of 'inaction discourse,' primarily targeting climate solutions and messengers. The authors call for increased environmental coverage, better journalist training, and stronger regulatory action by ARCOM.

The report identifies 128 instances of climate disinformation and 373 narratives of inaction in French audiovisual media between January and March 2025. It highlights a significant concentration of disinformation in private media, particularly Sud Radio, and notes spikes in misleading content during major political events such as Donald Trump's inauguration. The analysis finds that energy and mobility are the most targeted sectors, with a strong tendency to discredit green transition solutions and messengers. The authors argue that traditional media are becoming catalysts for the normalization of climate disinformation, exacerbated by low overall airtime dedicated to environmental issues (2%) and a lack of journalistic challenge to inaccurate claims during interviews.

The briefing argues that the meat and dairy industry employs misleading narratives—such as claims regarding food security, growing demand, and emissions leakage—to distract from the need to reduce livestock numbers and methane emissions to meet Paris Agreement goals.

The document argues that the meat and dairy industry employs misleading narratives—including claims about food security, nutritional necessity, and 'regenerative' farming—to obstruct climate action and maintain high production levels. It contends that these tactics distract from the urgent need to reduce methane emissions and shift toward plant-rich diets to meet Paris Agreement goals.

The document outlines how heat pumps are targeted by 'Cost of Net Zero' misinformation, which portrays them as expensive, inefficient, and unsuitable for certain homes. It provides factual rebuttals—such as the potential for £340 savings when replacing G-rated boilers and the ability of pumps to operate at -25 degrees—and advises communicators to use positive case studies and avoid social media algorithms to reach 'Persuadables'.

The document evaluates statements from three political figures on topics including immigration, youth unemployment, public finances, and energy contracts, frequently labeling claims as 'Faux' (False) or 'À nuancer' (To be nuanced).

A panel of over 30 experts analyzed claims from the June 27, 2024, France 2 legislative debate, focusing on immigration, security, economy, and environment. The analysis identifies several inaccuracies, including claims about France's global CO2 emissions, the efficiency of wind turbines, and the relationship between immigration and insecurity.

The document evaluates statements from Jordan Bardella (RN), Gabriel Attal (Ensemble), and Manuel Bompard (NFP) regarding the 2024 French legislative debate. Key findings include the correction of claims about France's public debt, the impact of immigration on security and finances, and the technical and economic realities of the energy transition, such as electric vehicle costs and wind turbine efficiency.

The report evaluates claims made by candidates from the Socialist Party, Renew, La France insoumise, and Les Écologistes across five key sectors: transport, housing, agriculture, international trade, and finance. It corrects misconceptions regarding railway privatization, energy renovation rates, agricultural demographics, and the financial impact of proposed green taxes.

A fact-checking cell composed of experts from QuotaClimat, INRAE, the Institut Rousseau, Egis, and Blunomy analyzed ecological statements made during the May 2, 2024, European election debate. The cell found that ecology was not a priority for the moderators, leading to a lack of discussion on key transition themes such as agriculture, energy, and transport. Specific claims by candidates were flagged as false or misleading: Léo Deffontaines' claim about energy production for carbon neutrality was deemed partially false for omitting energy sobriety; Manon Aubry's figures for taxing super-profits and super-fortunes (125 and 250 billion euros) were identified as global rather than European estimates; and François-Xavier Bellamy's claims regarding French taxation and public spending levels were labeled as fallacious or false based on GDP percentages and investment needs.

The document identifies numerous factual errors made by candidates from various political parties during a debate on the ecological and social transition. Key corrections include debunking claims that the EU Green Deal currently imposes norms on farmers, correcting the ranking of France as the EU's third-largest agricultural exporter rather than the first, and clarifying that France's energy mix is the second most decarbonized in Europe, behind Sweden. It also addresses misconceptions about the carbon footprint of Chinese-made renewables, the efficacy of hydrogen cars, and the actual population and migration figures in Mayotte.

The document debunks ten common climate change myths, asserting that over 99% of climate scientists agree human activity is overheating the planet. It argues that the current rate of carbon release is unprecedented in 66 million years and that while the climate has changed naturally before, the current rapid change is caused by burning fossil fuels. The guide highlights that the US is the largest cumulative emitter of greenhouse gases in history, followed by China. It further states that current global temperatures are approximately 1.2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels, which is already intensifying extreme weather. Finally, it emphasizes that humanity possesses the necessary tools and technologies to limit temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius and that a significant portion of the global population is concerned about climate change.

The briefing highlights a viral video by John Stossel featuring Mark Mills that spreads debunked claims about EV battery mineral requirements and their impact on global oil consumption. It notes the video's high engagement across YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter, and links the content to funding from Koch foundations. The document counters these claims using data from Argonne National Laboratory, IHS Markit, and the Union of Concerned Scientists to affirm that EVs generally emit less carbon over their lifespan than internal combustion engine vehicles.

The report challenges the "carbon neutral" claim of the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar, finding that the estimated 3.6MtCO2e footprint likely underestimates actual emissions due to flawed accounting of stadium construction. It further argues that the carbon credits provided by the Global Carbon Council lack integrity due to non-additionality and that the event's mitigation measures, such as a desert turf farm, are not durable.

The document contrasts scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change with the activities of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). It asserts that ALEC, funded by fossil fuel interests, promotes misinformation to state legislators to block EPA regulations and repeal renewable energy standards.