Search Climate Insights Directory

Global Witness conducted a global survey of 204 land and environmental defenders, finding that 92% have experienced online abuse or harassment. The report highlights a strong link between online attacks—such as doxxing and cyberattacks—and offline harms, including physical violence and criminalisation. Meta's platforms (Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram) are identified as the most common sites of abuse. The report argues that profit-driven business models, polarising algorithms, and inadequate content moderation resourcing exacerbate these threats, creating a chilling effect on climate activism.

The report analyzes the use of generative AI by the German far right to create tailored social media content, including AI-generated influencers and imagery depicting migrant crimes. It highlights the role of the AfD and far-right community groups in spreading these narratives and notes a significant failure in the enforcement of the EU's Digital Services Act (DSA), as most reported AI-generated far-right content remained unlabeled or unremoved.

The document identifies a strategic shift from outright climate denial to 'strategic doubt,' where influential economic and political actors—including fossil fuel companies and right-wing populist movements—deliberately spread misleading information to obstruct climate action. It highlights that policymakers are primary targets of these campaigns, which are disseminated through traditional media, social media, and non-public corporate channels. The report notes a significant research gap in the Global South and proposes four policy interventions: mandatory standardized carbon reporting, litigation against greenwashing, the creation of cross-sectoral voluntary alliances, and the enhancement of scientific and media literacy for the public and officials.

QuotaClimat asserts that climate disinformation poses economic, security, and democratic threats to the European Union, arguing that existing laws like the Digital Services Act and AI Act lack specific measures to address it. The organization advocates for the recognition of climate disinformation as a distinct risk and proposes a strategy based on sectoral action, regulatory reinforcement, and the protection of journalists. In collaboration with journalist federations and environmental NGOs, QuotaClimat supports a six-point manifesto to strengthen media regulation, combat false information on CSR policies and scientific consensus, and protect environmental journalists as whistleblowers.

The document identifies climate disinformation as a growing economic, security, and democratic threat to the European Union, noting that existing laws like the Digital Services Act and AI Act lack tailored measures for this specific issue. QuotaClimat, alongside journalists' federations and NGOs, proposes a three-pillar response—sectoral action, filling regulatory gaps, and protecting media—and a six-priority manifesto to strengthen media literacy, protect environmental journalists, and combat false information regarding scientific consensus on global warming.

The report analyzes 215 cases of GenAI use in 2024 elections across 50 countries, finding that 80% of these countries experienced GenAI-related incidents. The majority of these cases (90%) involved content creation, such as deepfake audio and video, and 69% were classified as harmful to the electoral process. A significant portion of the content (46%) had untraceable origins, while 20% was attributed to foreign actors, all of whom were found to be acting with harmful intent. The document advocates for increased transparency, disclosure mandates for AI-generated political content, and improved detection mechanisms to protect democratic integrity.

The report analyzes the spread of disinformation following a major power outage on the Iberian Peninsula on 28 April 2025. It identifies a pattern where initial speculation about cyberattacks transitioned into coordinated narratives blaming renewable energy and 'net zero' policies, largely driven by English-language actors and UK press. The document also details the emergence of conspiracy theories framing the event as a 'test run' for government control or a 'climate lockdown' linked to Agenda 2030. Analysis across Spanish, Portuguese, and English languages shows that X/Twitter was the primary vector for these narratives, while YouTube and TikTok favored conspiracy content.

A February 2025 survey of 1,000 Dutch citizens reveals strong cross-political support for measures to combat climate disinformation. A majority believe that banning misleading fossil fuel advertising (71%) and legally requiring Big Tech companies to stop spreading climate disinformation (79%) would be effective. While support is high, awareness of these specific policy options is lower, with only 30% of respondents having heard of increasing resources for fact-checking organizations. The report notes that older respondents are generally more convinced of the effectiveness of these measures than younger people, despite the latter being more exposed to online disinformation.

A survey of 1,000 Dutch citizens found broad cross-political support for regulatory measures to combat climate disinformation, including banning fossil fuel advertising and holding social media companies legally accountable for the amplification of false content. While a majority believe these measures are effective, awareness of specific policy options remains relatively low, particularly regarding the funding of fact-checking organizations.

Global Witness warns that a second Trump administration is likely to accelerate fossil fuel production, weaken protections for land and environmental defenders, and undermine global efforts to combat deforestation and climate disinformation. The organization highlights risks including the rollback of environmental regulations, the potential defunding of human rights initiatives, and a shift toward domestic mining on protected Native and Tribal lands. It also expresses concern over the 'anti-ESG' movement and the potential for social media platforms to spread disinformation under the guise of free speech.

GreenLatinos' 2025 Impact Report details a year of advocacy against federal environmental rollbacks and the implementation of community-led resilience projects. Key achievements include securing $10B in Proposition 4 funds in California, passing the Clean and Reliable Grid Affordability Act in Illinois, and managing over $30 million in funding for urban forestry and community grants. The organization mobilized over 250 environmental justice organizations to respond to EPA rollbacks and expanded its 'Climate Lotería' project to combat Spanish-language climate disinformation. Its Urban Greening Initiative diverted over 611,000 pounds of organic waste and planted hundreds of trees across Chicago, Los Angeles, and Albuquerque.

The Latino Climate Justice Framework 2025-2028 outlines systemic inequities facing Latino/a/e communities, including higher energy burdens, exposure to fossil fuel pollution, and lack of access to nature. It proposes specific policy objectives across energy justice, climate resilience, worker protections, and migration rights, while warning against 'false solutions' like carbon capture and storage. The framework emphasizes the need for equitable clean energy transitions, the protection of climate-displaced persons, and the liberation of Puerto Rico from restrictive energy and economic policies.

The 2025 Expert Survey on the Global Information Environment, involving 438 researchers across 76 countries, examines the state of 'epistemic security'—the reliability of information supply chains. The report finds that while social media can increase political participation, it also drives polarization and distrust in institutions. A significant 66% of surveyed experts reported experiencing harassment, intervention, or chilling effects in their scientific work, with funding constraints and data access remaining primary barriers. Regarding AI, there is strong expert consensus (60%) that AI-generated content should be clearly labeled, and 83% believe such labeling would improve the information environment. The document advocates for treating the information environment as critical infrastructure, recommending independent algorithmic auditing and stronger protections for researchers and journalists.

The report analyzes 215 recorded GenAI incidents across 50 countries during 2024 elections, finding that 80% of these countries experienced such incidents. GenAI was primarily used for synthetic content production, with 69% of cases deemed harmful to electoral integrity. Attribution is a significant challenge, as 46% of sources remained unknown, while political candidates and foreign actors accounted for 25% and 20% of incidents, respectively.

The report identifies a crisis of information integrity about climate science, characterized by a shift from outright denial to more nuanced skepticism and 'response skepticism' regarding climate solutions. It documents how powerful economic interests, particularly the fossil fuel industry, and political actors use strategies like greenwashing, delay, and obstruction to undermine scientific consensus. The review highlights the role of social media algorithms, bots, and 'source media' (such as corporate reports) in amplifying misleading narratives. It concludes that while individual-level interventions like inoculation and education are valuable, systemic governance through public regulation, standardized corporate reporting, and litigation is essential to restore information integrity.

The report presents findings from the 2025 IPIE Expert Survey, highlighting a growing pessimism about the future of the information environment. It identifies the availability of accurate information and diverse voices as essential for a healthy environment, while citing lack of platform accountability as a primary threat. The document also examines the mixed impact of social media, the negative perceptions of generative AI, and the increasing barriers faced by researchers, particularly regarding funding and academic freedom.

The report identifies a shift from outright climate denial to 'strategic skepticism,' where powerful economic and political actors intentionally spread misleading narratives to obstruct climate action. It highlights that policymakers are primary targets of this disinformation, which is disseminated through corporate sustainability reports, lobby groups, and social media. The document argues that this environment erodes public trust in science and creates a feedback loop of political inaction. To counter this, the report recommends standardized carbon emission reporting, legal recourse against greenwashing, the creation of multi-stakeholder coalitions, and enhanced science and media literacy education.

The report identifies a shift from outright climate denial to 'strategic skepticism,' where powerful economic and political actors—including fossil fuel companies and right-wing populist movements—undermine climate action by questioning the viability and cost of solutions. It highlights that policymakers are primary targets of this disinformation, which is disseminated through social media, traditional media, and corporate sustainability reports. This erosion of information integrity leads to a loss of public trust in climate science and a feedback loop of political inaction. The document recommends four key interventions: legislation for standardized carbon reporting and content labeling, judicial action against greenwashing, the formation of cross-sector coalitions, and enhanced scientific and media education for the public and policymakers.

The document identifies a shift from outright climate denialism to 'strategic skepticism,' where influential entities—including fossil fuel companies and right-wing populist movements—undermine climate action by questioning the economic efficiency and causes of climate change. It highlights that policymakers are primary targets of this disinformation, which is disseminated through social media, corporate sustainability reports, and interpersonal networks. The report argues that this environment erodes public trust in climate science and creates a cycle of political inaction. To combat this, the authors recommend standardized carbon reporting legislation, legal action against 'greenwashing,' the creation of multi-stakeholder coalitions, and the enhancement of scientific and media literacy for both the public and officials.

The report identifies a shift from outright climate denial to 'strategic doubt,' where powerful economic and political actors—including fossil fuel companies and right-wing populist movements—deliberately spread misleading narratives to obstruct climate action. It highlights that policymakers are primary targets of this misinformation, which is disseminated through social media, traditional media, and corporate sustainability reports. This environment erodes public trust and creates a feedback loop of scientific denial and political inaction. The document recommends four key policy interventions: legislation for standardized carbon reporting and content labeling, litigation against greenwashing, the formation of counter-alliances by civil society, and the promotion of scientific and media literacy.