Search Climate Insights Directory

The Conscious Advertising Network (CAN) responds to UK riots fueled by online misinformation and hate speech, urging advertisers to break the economic link between their spending and harmful content. CAN advocates for a review of the Online Safety Act and encourages members to audit their site lists, review misinformation policies, and support staff from global majority backgrounds.

Global Witness analyzed 45 bot-like accounts on X, finding that many consistently spread climate disinformation and conspiracy theories. These accounts often frame climate action as a 'scam' or a tool for elite control, linking climate denial to other divisive political stances. The report highlights the difficulty of verifying account authenticity due to limited data transparency from social media platforms like X.

The Conscious Advertising Network (CAN) attended the 2024 Cannes Lions festival to increase its profile and network with industry leaders. Key activities included co-hosting a panel with VCCP on the risks of AI and misinformation, participating in dialogues on greenwashing and ad fraud, and forming partnerships with organizations such as The Marketing Society and Goals House. The report highlights a tension between the industry's focus on AI and the relative lack of attention given to sustainability, while noting CAN's role as leading advisors on the United Nations Global Principles on Information Integrity.

The United Nations has introduced the Global Principles for Information Integrity to address the rise of mis/disinformation and hate speech, particularly those amplified by AI. The framework calls for accountability from governments, tech companies, and the advertising industry, emphasizing human rights and the need for a trustworthy information environment. Additionally, the document notes a UN call to ban fossil fuel advertisements to protect information integrity and address the climate crisis, supported by various civil society organizations.

The document serves as an introductory resource for journalists to understand the causes and impacts of climate change and how to report on them accurately. It defines key terms, explains the role of greenhouse gases and fossil fuels, and details the effects of warming on weather patterns. The guide offers specific phrasing to help reporters connect extreme weather events to human-caused climate change and distinguishes between mitigation and adaptation strategies. It also outlines international and national policy frameworks, such as the Paris Agreement and the US Inflation Reduction Act, while advising journalists on how to avoid pitfalls like greenwashing and the platforming of climate deniers.

The 2024 IPIE expert survey of 412 researchers across 66 countries reveals a growing pessimism about the global information environment, with 63% expecting it to deteriorate. Experts identify the availability of accurate information and diversity of opinion as the most critical features of a healthy information environment. Social media platform owners and governments are viewed as the most severe threats. While generative AI is seen as a tool for both hope and concern, 63% of experts fear its potential to amplify disinformation and harassment. The report advocates for supporting free and independent media and improving data access for researchers to build resilience.

The report identifies a systemic link between Indonesia's coal industry, political elites, and national banks, which continues to fund fossil fuel expansion despite global climate commitments.

The report argues that climate change and the energy transition provide new vectors for mis- and disinformation that extend beyond simple climate denialism. It categorizes these threats into physical risks (e.g., misattributing disasters), cascading risks (e.g., xenophobic narratives around climate migration), and response risks (e.g., backlash to green policies). The document highlights the role of geopolitical competition, particularly involving Russia and China, and the amplifying effect of low institutional trust and AI technology. It recommends integrating misinformation risk assessments into climate policy design and strengthening monitoring capabilities.

The document argues that climate change is a critical electoral issue in the 2024 US elections and urges journalists to move beyond 'red-blue' political binaries to report on the scientific consensus and local impacts. It provides specific questioning frameworks for candidates, methods for debunking common climate myths, and suggestions for localizing climate stories across sectors like infrastructure, housing, and energy. The guide emphasizes that reporting on the climate crisis is a matter of professional journalism rather than activism, citing the role of the press in holding power accountable during historical crises.

Based on Fall 2023 survey data, the report finds that while most Americans are most interested in climate solutions, those less worried about climate change prioritize evidence and causes. The findings suggest that tailored communication strategies—focusing on solutions for the 'Alarmed' and 'Concerned' and on scientific consensus for the 'Doubtful' and 'Dismissive'—can better support public understanding and action.

Based on a Fall 2023 survey of 1,033 U.S. adults, the report finds that while Americans are generally interested in climate change, their information needs vary significantly by their prior beliefs. The most sought-after information overall is regarding solutions (44%), though those less worried about climate change prioritize evidence of its existence and its causes. The study uses the 'Six Americas' framework to show that 'Alarmed' and 'Concerned' groups seek solutions, while 'Doubtful' and 'Dismissive' groups focus on whether global warming is happening or a hoax.

The document advises journalists to treat climate change as a factual urgency rather than a partisan debate, urging them to proactively question candidates on specific plans for emissions reduction and infrastructure resilience. It highlights a disconnect between political discourse and public sentiment, noting that 62% of registered US voters prefer candidates who support climate action. The guide also provides a framework for debunking common climate myths and suggests local reporting angles such as the impact of the Inflation Reduction Act, green job programs, and climate-driven insurance rate increases.

The report identifies that climate change creates systemic stressors for the UK Home Office, ranging from direct threats to public health and infrastructure to indirect risks like societal polarization and organized crime. It argues that the Home Office must move from a reactive to a proactive posture by establishing a high-level climate security policy initiative. The proposed Action Plan is built on four pillars: exercising sustained leadership, understanding and anticipating risks through better data and literacy, collaborating with domestic and international partners, and implementing specific preventative measures to protect citizens and maintain social cohesion.

The document asserts that international development funding for media is critically insufficient, stagnating at approximately 0.3% of annual expenditure. It links this lack of investment to the proliferation of misinformation and disinformation, citing examples in the UK, Colombia, Kenya, and Indonesia. WACC calls for an urgent increase in media development spending based on principles of transparency, social cohesion, and inclusivity of marginalized voices.

The statement emphasizes the necessity of a human rights-based approach to environmental policies, arguing that climate action must be scientifically proven, address root causes like fossil fuel phase-out, and ensure the participation of affected communities—particularly Indigenous Peoples—in the assessment of geoengineering risks. It also warns against the distortion of scientific discourse by vested interests, such as the fossil fuel industry.

The document outlines ten prevalent climate myths, attributing their spread to fossil fuel companies and political allies to confuse the public and press. It counters these myths with scientific consensus, noting that over 99% of climate scientists agree human activity is overheating the planet. The guide emphasizes that while the climate has changed naturally in the past, the current rate of change is unprecedented in 66 million years due to 250 years of fossil fuel combustion. It asserts that the tools to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius exist and that renewable energy is increasingly cost-competitive with oil. Geographically, it highlights the United States as the largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases, followed by China, and notes that current warming of approximately 1.2 degrees Celsius is already intensifying extreme weather globally.

The guide outlines how to detect greenwashing by analyzing emissions data, target setting, and the use of controversial technologies. It emphasizes the importance of absolute emissions over intensity targets and warns against the over-reliance on carbon offsets, natural gas, and unproven carbon removal technologies.

Clean Creatives claims the Edelman Trust Barometer is compromised by the firm's ties to climate deniers and autocratic states, alleging that the data overstates trust in governments that are Edelman clients and contradicts the firm's public climate commitments.

The author contends that a polluted digital information environment undermines democracy, public trust in institutions, and social cohesion, thereby threatening basic human rights. The text highlights how disinformation fuels climate denial, electoral instability, and hate speech, while calling for a multinational approach involving governments, the UN, and the private sector to regulate harmful content without it being mischaracterized as censorship.

The 2024 IPIE expert survey reveals a growing pessimism about the global information environment, with 63% of experts expecting it to worsen. Key threats are identified as social media platform owners and government actors. While generative AI is seen as a tool for improving content detection and reporting, experts primarily fear its role in amplifying misinformation, harassment, and bias. The consensus emphasizes that accessibility to accurate information and diversity of speech are fundamental to a healthy information environment.