Climate denial and disinformation: old tricks, new technology

Image

The post below draws on my presentation in the workshop “How do we counter mis & dis information and the far right?” at the Climate and Nature Education Festival on 14 March, organised as part of the trade union year of climate action. Note that disinformation is strategically promoting untruths while misinformation can be unintentional.

Disinformation about climate change is an old problem. The 2010 book ‘Merchants of Doubt’ sets out how the same strategies were used to discredit climate science as had been previously used to throw doubt on the link between smoking and lung cancer: powerful industries using all the tools at their disposal.

Now these tools include social media algorithms and AI. We often think of climate denial as an issue mainly in older generations, the ‘cranky uncle’ stereotype, for example.  However, this workshop was part of a conference about education, because platforms used by young people such as YouTube are also promoting disinformation, and there is a strong link to the promotion of far right content, with overlaps between climate denial, misogyny, racism and right-wing authoritarianism.

Thomas Barton from the Council for Countering Online Disinformation spoke about the importance of regulation, and the panel was chaired by Matteo Bergamini from Shout Out UK, an NGO which works with schools to promote media literacy, critical thinking and democratic education.

Also on the panel was Effie Webb, a journalist who recently broke the story about ‘Danny Bones’, the AI ‘rapper’, a creation with millions of views across multiple platforms, which turned out to be funded by the far right party, Advance UK.

Four types of climate disinformation:

1. Aiming to discredit science

‘Old school’ climate denial largely focused on trying to prove that the earth wasn’t heating up, or alternatively, that it was warming up but this was caused by natural processes, not humans. It has been said that there are four stages of climate science denial: climate change isn’t happening -> it is happening but we’re not causing it -> it’s happening but it’s not a big problem -> it’s a big problem but it’s too late to do anything about it now. 

The first two are now much less often seen since the visible impacts of climate breakdown have become more apparent, but they still shape the policies of the far right. The third - downplaying the impacts - is still common.

2. Aiming to discredit climate solutions

The messaging that it’s impractical to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels because alternative technologies are too expensive / not reliable is very popular. It can be seen all over any right wing newspaper, despite the fact that renewable energy is not just cheaper than fossil fuels, but not subject to global price shocks. For example, a gas industry lobby group was found to have paid a PR firm to generate hundreds of newspaper articles and interviews to generate negative publicity for heat pumps in an attempt to influence government policy.

There may be elements of valid criticism, for example environmental and social concerns about the supply chain for critical minerals and renewable technologies, but used in a way that is entirely misleading, not to improve our energy system, but to keep us hooked on fossil fuel extraction with its own much greater impacts.

3. "Climate action is being used by the powerful to crush ordinary people"

This is where it really starts to get into political conspiracy theories, in which climate change is just a pretext for totalitarian governance and personal restriction. See for example the discourse around the ‘15-minute city’ idea aimed at providing people in cities with basic services within a quarter of an hour's walk or bike ride of where they live. Influencers were so successful in presenting this as a sinister plot to confine people to their local areas that councillors in Oxford received death threats over a simple traffic scheme.

Climate change is also framed as a ‘scam’, with claims that clean energy solutions are only promoted to enrich wealthy elites or green energy companies. The implication being that these solutions will cause financial harm to ordinary people as well as restricting their freedom. And there’s the idea that the UK taking action to cut emissions is anti-patriotic, that UK emissions don’t even matter compared to China, and that they will damage the UK economy

4. Personal attacks

If you can’t argue with the facts, attack the person presenting them. Greta Thunberg, for example, has been the target of vile misogynistic vitriol. Chris Packham has also received death threats for his environmental and climate campaigning. And in the six months since Labour won the election there were an average of two newspaper editorials every week personally attacking Ed Miliband.

Often the criticism is aimed at climate activists in general, portrayed as naive, hypocritical (not just wealthy celebrities criticised for their flights but ordinary campaigners berated for using a smartphone or shoes ‘made from fossil fuels’). It is often stated or implied that we only have time for activism as we are (in contrast to ‘hard working ordinary people’) layabouts who are either wealthy or else claiming benefits and living off the state.

Is climate denial / minimisation only a far right issue?

We are all concerned about the rise of far right ideologies and the capture of governments, most notably under Donald Trump. It is frightening when powerful figures endorse lies about climate change being a ‘scam’ and use this to unleash dangerous anti-climate, pro-fossil fuel policies. It is less obviously frightening, but arguably just as dangerous, when more ‘moderate’, ‘pragmatic’ voices derail climate action, not in the name of outright climate science denial but of delay. “It’s too expensive to take action.” “There are other more urgent issues.” “We can adapt.” “We’re doing enough already, what about other countries?” “Technology will give us clean fossil fuels.”

These arguments found within mainstream political arguments, on the centre right, and on the left are beautifully summed up by the ‘Discourses of Climate Delay’ original article and cartoons. 

So what can we do to counter climate disinformation?

There is definitely a need for regulation of social media platforms which profit from hosting and promoting dangerous content around climate denial, racism and misogyny. And to hold mainstream media to higher standards, promoting alternatives to billionaire-owned newspapers. We should also all support efforts to improve education that encourages media literacy and critical thinking.

A large part of what we need to do is to combat disinformation and misinformation with effective communication about the climate crisis. Sharing accurate factual information is important, about what’s causing climate breakdown, its impacts and what we can do - as for example the National Emergency Briefing initiative aims to do. Through our own website and other campaign organisations it is very easy to find information that debunks myths like “fossil fuels are cheaper than renewables”.

However, we know that simple facts aren’t enough to derail conspiracy theories, and that these are so appealing because they resonate with many people’s existing beliefs that things are unfair and that politicians, the mainstream media, the ‘elite’ can’t be trusted. Being aware of this means we need to think about who can be trusted and have our own strong story to tell. One participant in the workshop explained that Unison reps are engaging with members who may be likely to support right wing anti-migrant politicians and campaigns, because trade union reps are known and trusted.

One of the reasons that trade unions can be a powerful voice on climate action is that when nurses, teachers, firefighters or bus drivers speak out about how climate change is affecting them they are clearly ‘hard working ordinary people’ and this breaks down the myth that climate change is an elite, middle class concern. The messaging for the trade union year of climate action is all about climate change being a working class issue and a trade union issue.

Another myth we need to counter is that most people aren’t that bothered by climate change, as this belief undermines willingness to take action personally and support for societal change. For example, a global survey across 125 countries found 89% thought their national government “should do more to fight global warming”, and in almost all countries a majority said they would personally be willing to “contribute 1% of their household income every month to fight global warming” - but they also believed only a minority of their fellow citizens would be willing to contribute. There are many other studies with similar findings, for example young people in Ireland underestimate how worried older people are about climate change. And crucially, UK MPs massively underestimate support for climate action among their constituents.

Linked to this, we need to promote and encourage the values that are needed for climate action - policies for collective action and collective care, establishing mutual trust and support in our campaigns and with other social justice campaigns. We need to stand up against the divisive messaging of the far right which seeks to tell us that the people causing our problems are arriving in dinghies, not the billionaires arriving in super-yachts and private jets. That's why the Campaign against Climate Change is supporting the Together mobilisation on 28th March when people will come together from across the country to show that the majority in the UK reject the far right.