Search Climate Insights Directory

The report details how fossil fuel companies use paid advertising and 'organic' content on platforms like TikTok, Meta, Google, and X/Twitter to control the narrative around carbon capture and storage (CCS). It highlights Chevron's use of a 'low-budget' aesthetic and diverse ambassadors on TikTok to target Gen-Z, and the prevalence of industry-sponsored results at the top of Google searches for 'carbon capture'. The analysis also notes a trend where organic opposition to CCS on social media is sometimes driven by conspiracy theories, such as those involving 'The Great Reset' or vaccines, alongside good-faith scientific criticism.

The report finds that while the overall volume of posts using terms like "climate cult" or "eco terrorists" on X has remained stable, the number of replies containing dehumanising language has more than doubled. On Facebook and Instagram, over 68,000 posts used denigrating terms, reaching a cumulative 1.86 million shares. TikTok users employ "coded violence" and "dog whistles" to evade moderation, with comments frequently endorsing police violence, including the use of cattle prods and pepper spray. The report argues that this digital rhetoric creates a "pipeline to violence," citing the 2023 fatal shooting of protesters in Panama and the broader criminalisation of environmental defenders.

The document outlines a shift from climate denial to 'discourses of climate delay' and provides a toolkit for 'pre-bunking' and rebutting misinformation. It emphasizes targeting 'Persuadables'—people without strong opinions on climate action—and using specific framing and paid media to break through social media echo chambers.

The report identifies a resurgence of climate denial and the rise of 'delayism' during COP27, highlighting how fossil fuel-linked entities used Meta's advertising tools for greenwashing and how Twitter's algorithms surfaced the #ClimateScam hashtag despite lower engagement than pro-climate terms. It details a 'narrative playbook' where climate action is framed as an elitist plot or a 'culture war' issue, often overlapping with anti-vaccine and right-wing conspiracy communities.

The report identifies three primary ecosystems driving climate mis- and disinformation: the 'attention economy' of online influencers, state-affiliated networks (specifically Russia), and the fossil fuel lobby. It details how the #ClimateScam hashtag has gained prominence on X, how ad tech companies monetise websites hosting climate denial, how Russian state media instrumentalises climate topics for geopolitical influence, and how fossil fuel companies use Facebook advertising for greenwashing. The document argues that these efforts undermine the public mandate for Net Zero and calls for structural changes to digital platform incentives and greater transparency in ad tech.

The document details the methodology for four distinct research areas: the analysis of the #ClimateScam hashtag and X's auto-complete function; the identification of 15 monetized websites sharing climate disinformation and the ad exchanges supporting them; the monitoring of Russian state media and diplomatic accounts on Facebook across four languages; and the collection of political advertising from major fossil fuel companies and petrostates via the Meta Ad Library.

The report finds that climate disinformation is widespread across Australia, Brazil, Germany, India, the UK, and the USA, with between 55% and 85% of surveyed populations believing at least one misinformation statement. Significant gaps exist between public perception and scientific consensus regarding the human cause of climate change and the role of natural gas. The study highlights that regular news consumption does not necessarily correlate with better scientific understanding and, in some cases, is linked to higher belief in misinformation narratives. Additionally, a substantial portion of respondents in all six countries believe their nations cannot afford to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

The document advocates for banning fossil fuel advertisements to prevent the industry from using greenwashing and disinformation to maintain its 'social license to operate'. It highlights existing partial bans in France and efforts in 10 countries, including Australia, Canada, Ireland, and South Africa, as well as over 50 cities. The text compares the fossil fuel industry to the tobacco industry, suggesting that similar regulatory tools are needed to protect public health and enable climate action. It also discusses the role of litigation, corporate campaigns like Clean Creatives, and the targeting of advertising finances to dismantle the industry's influence on public opinion.

The document argues that the rapid growth of generative AI is driving a significant increase in electricity demand, which threatens climate goals by incentivising the continued use of fossil fuels and diverting clean energy resources. It highlights a lack of transparency in corporate emissions reporting, where 'market-based' accounting masks actual grid impacts, and warns that 'moonshot' technology promises like nuclear fusion may act as mitigation deterrence. Specific examples include data centre growth in Ireland and Malaysia, and the rising emissions profiles of companies like Microsoft and Google.

The document outlines ten best practices for journalists to counter climate misinformation, emphasizing the need to assess the visibility of false claims before reporting and using specific communication techniques like the 'truth sandwich' to avoid reinforcing myths.

The letter argues that large language models (LLMs) increase carbon emissions through high energy demands and accelerate the spread of climate disinformation. It calls for mandatory reporting on energy use, emissions, and critical mineral consumption, as well as safeguards against AI-generated disinformation.

The report by Climate Action Against Disinformation (CAAD) analyzes the persistence of climate disinformation across digital platforms, highlighting how Big Tech infrastructure enables the spread of false narratives regarding renewable energy, extreme weather events, and fossil fuel industry claims. It details a growing crisis in researcher access to platform data and provides a set of policy recommendations to dismantle the 'economy of disinformation'.

The report analyzes a disinformation campaign that falsely blamed wind energy for the February 2021 Texas power outages. It finds that while mainstream media debunked these claims, right-wing outlets and fossil fuel-funded politicians used social media to spread the narrative, with very few high-performing posts receiving fact-check labels. The authors conclude that current platform moderation is insufficient and recommend a 'two-strike' policy for repeat disinformers and the removal of climate disinformation from organic and paid content.

The report finds that between 55% and 85% of surveyed populations in six countries believe at least one piece of climate misinformation, with the highest prevalence in India and the lowest in the UK. Significant portions of the public hold beliefs contrary to scientific consensus, such as the idea that natural gas is a climate-friendly energy source or that net-zero targets are unaffordable. The study identifies a strong correlation between high-frequency news consumption and a higher likelihood of believing misinformation, highlighting specific media outlets like Fox News in the US and the Daily Mail in the UK as being associated with higher rates of misinformation belief.

The report by Climate Action Against Disinformation (CAAD) analyzes ten 'misleading claims' used by fossil fuel interests to delay the energy transition. It argues that fossil fuels are the primary driver of climate change, with 36.6 billion tonnes of the 40.5 billion global CO2 emissions in 2022 originating from their use. The document debunks claims that emissions—rather than fossil fuels themselves—are the problem, and challenges the industry's focus on Scope 1 and 2 emissions, noting that Scope 3 emissions account for 80-95% of total carbon emissions for oil and gas companies. It further critiques technological 'solutions' like Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), Direct Air Capture (DAC), e-fuels, and 'blue' hydrogen, characterizing them as expensive, inefficient, or unproven at the scale required to limit warming to 1.5C. Finally, it argues that fossil fuel reliance hinders economic growth in Africa and Asia and exacerbates the global cost-of-living crisis.

The report by the Center for Countering Digital Hate and the Climate Action Against Disinformation (CAAD) coalition finds that YouTube continues to monetize climate disinformation. Researchers identified 200 videos with 73.8 million views as of April 17, 2023, that carried ads. This includes 100 videos that explicitly breach YouTube's policy against content "contradicting authoritative scientific consensus on the existence of and causes behind climate change", amassing 18.8 million views. An additional 100 videos, which fit the broader CAAD definition of climate disinformation (including "discourses of delay"), amassed 55 million views. The report notes that major brands like Nike, Hyundai, and Costco have appeared in these ads. Furthermore, the report claims Google has failed to keep similar promises across other platforms, noting that 63% of popular climate denial articles still carry Google ads. The authors recommend that Google proactively enforce its policies and adopt the comprehensive CAAD definition of climate disinformation.

The document outlines a strategy for challenging fossil fuel misinformation in Canada by filing complaints with Advertising Standards Canada and the Competition Bureau of Canada. It provides a detailed comparison of these two avenues, step-by-step filing instructions, and templates for writing complaints. Additionally, it offers guidance on reporting deceptive ads to social media platforms and Google, while highlighting common 'red flags' of greenwashing such as vague language and misleading imagery.

The survey indicates high levels of public concern regarding disinformation and hate speech on social media, with strong support for government and corporate interventions to ensure accuracy during extreme weather events and increase algorithmic transparency.

The document is a joint open letter signed by 189 individuals and numerous organisations calling for the COP30 summit to address the systemic threat of climate disinformation. The signatories argue that the proliferation of false information undermines the Paris Agreement and hinders the transition to a sustainable future. They demand that COP30 establish a formal framework for information integrity, increase transparency regarding the funding of climate-related communications, and hold actors accountable for the intentional spread of disinformation. The letter emphasizes that without a commitment to truth and evidence-based policy, global efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C are at risk.

The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment and other organizations call for the expansion of the Online Harms Act to combat disinformation. They argue that tech platform architectures prioritize profit over safety, allowing climate disinformation and foreign interference to thrive. The letter proposes six recommendations: implementing a duty of care for safety, increasing algorithmic transparency, requiring financial disclosure for monetization, regulating online advertising, establishing digital sovereignty, and investing in information resilience.