Read more in the November 28 edition of Invert Insights.
Climate change is accelerating, and its impacts are unfolding across the globe with growing severity. Extreme weather, rising temperatures, and escalating losses to people and ecosystems have made science-based action more urgent than ever. Yet alongside these physical threats, a parallel crisis has emerged: a wave of climate misinformation and disinformation that undermines the public understanding and political will necessary to confront the climate emergency.
In their latest report, Digital distortion: How social media platforms are driving climate disinformation in Europe and beyond, ClientEarth details how the business models and design of the major online platforms like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, and Twitter actively incentivize and amplify the spread of climate change dis- and misinformation. The analysis concludes that these platforms are failing to comply with their obligations under the European Union’s Digital Services Act (EU DSA) to mitigate this systemic risk.
Climate disinformation narratives have evolved from outright denial of global warming to more subtle and sophisticated strategies, often referred to as “New Denial“. These newer narratives, which flourish on digital platforms, include:
ClientEarth identifies several key groups that consistently produce or amplify climate disinformation:
1. Fossil fuel companies and adjacent industries.
These entities have long histories of selling doubt about climate science while simultaneously deploying greenwashing campaigns to exaggerate the sustainability of their activities. Their social media advertising spends are enormous: an InfluenceMap study documented nearly USD 10 million spent on Facebook climate-related ads by just 25 entities in 2020. Such advertising often misleads or directly contradicts climate science.
2. Political parties and politicians.
Right-wing populist parties in Europe, like Germany’s AfD, Spain’s Vox, and France’s Rassemblement National, regularly spread misleading or false climate narratives. Research finds these groups rely heavily on social media to gain traction and push polarizing content, including outright rejection of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change.
3. Interest groups and think tanks.
Organizations like the Heartland Institute, which have long denied or downplayed climate science, continue to influence public debate in Europe and the US. Despite portraying themselves as neutral, many such groups have received fossil fuel funding and work actively to shape policy debates in climate-delaying directions.
4. State actors and covert networks.
The report includes evidence of state-affiliated actors using bots and troll networks to amplify disinformation and manipulate climate conversations during key political moments, such as climate summits or announcements related to energy policy. In one documented example, an estimated 25% of tweets about climate change surrounding the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement came from suspected bot accounts.
One of the report’s central findings is that social media platforms do not merely host climate disinformation; they amplify it. False and misleading climate content consistently outperforms accurate information on platforms. Their study of over 20 million posts found significantly higher engagement for unreliable content.
For example, during COP26, Facebook’s official Climate Science Center pages (which have since been taken down) averaged roughly 7,500 interactions per post, compared to 92,000 for posts by climate-skeptic actors, twelve times higher engagement. This is not accidental. Platform systems are built to maximize engagement, meaning algorithms often promote polarizing, sensational, or misleading content because it generates more reactions, shares, and viewing time. Machine learning tools reinforce this cycle by predicting and boosting the posts most likely to hold user attention, regardless of accuracy.
Climate disinformation is also incentivized in more direct ways. Influencers and popular accounts are paid by fossil fuel-linked companies to promote misleading narratives or defend fossil-fuel–intensive products. Meanwhile, monetization schemes on platforms like YouTube reward creators who post inflammatory climate content that attracts high engagement. Super-spreader accounts, often run by a small set of users generating a disproportionate share of misleading posts, also thrive in this environment.
Finally, covert manipulation is enabled by networks of bots and trolls, which inflate engagement numbers, manipulate trending topics, and create the illusion of widespread support for climate-denial narratives.
The report makes clear that platforms have shown they cannot be relied upon to self-regulate. Their business models and incentive structures prioritize engagement and advertising revenue over information integrity or societal well-being. Without regulatory intervention, climate disinformation will continue to thrive, hindering the urgent climate action needed to avoid catastrophic impacts.
By detailing how platforms amplify harmful content, identifying the actors behind disinformation, and mapping the legal obligations they must meet, Digital Distortion provides a compelling evidence base for enforcement and reform. In an era of escalating climate risks, ensuring the integrity of the digital information environment is not a secondary issue; it is central to the world’s ability to respond to the climate crisis.
ClientEarth’s analysis concludes that the promotion of climate dis- and misinformation by platforms constitutes a clear systemic risk that must be addressed under the EU DSA. The risk is severe, affects a vast number of EU citizens, can be irreversible, and is demonstrably worsening the harms of climate change.
Invert Insights.
💡 You may have noticed Invert’s own Stick to the Facts social media campaign launched in early 2025. Sticking to facts isn’t just a communication choice; it’s ultimately a responsibility and one we don’t take lightly. Climate misinformation spreads quickly and often outperforms accurate content online, fueling confusion, delay, and polarization at the exact moment when we need clarity and momentum. By intentionally refusing to repeat or amplify false claims, even in the context of debunking, we help prevent those narratives from gaining additional traction. Choosing to ground our work in science-based evidence protects public understanding, supports sound decision-making, and keeps the conversation anchored in what really matters: solutions, accountability, and meaningful progress on climate action.
💡 Climate dis- and misinformation is now getting its moment in the priority list of climate leaders. COP30 saw countries formally committing to information integrity for the first time, and the summit members of the Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change committed to addressing climate disinformation and promoting accurate, evidence-based information on climate issues by signing the Declaration on Information Integrity on Climate Change. The declaration has since acquired 15 signatories, including Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and Uruguay. Closer to home, the Invert team had the opportunity to attend Climate at a Crossroads, an event presented by The Walrus on tackling climate disinformation in economic and environmental policy. While the right conversations are starting to happen, critical participation is paramount to combat the increased spread of falsehoods and inaccuracies.
💡 The reality is climate dis- and misinformation is a real threat facing our online experience. Given that the platforms are designed and optimized to maximize user engagement (clicks, likes, views, comments) to boost their advertising revenue, it’s reasonable to assume that content that is crafted to be polarizing, emotional, or misleading will continue to thrive over more nuanced science-based content. It is critically important for members of the climate community to continue to spread valid, evidence-based climate information (check out independent, investigative journalism site DeSmog) and actively avoid engaging in the misinformation cycle. Climate misinformation is designed to distract, confuse, and polarize, pulling time, energy, and attention away from the solutions and policies that actually move us forward. Engaging directly with falsehoods, especially in ways that repeat or amplify them, can unintentionally strengthen the very narratives we’re trying to counter.
