We must clean up the information ecosystem to win ambitious climate policy – Inside track

This post is by Oliver Hayes, head of policy & campaigns at Global Action Plan.

To nobody in the green movement’s surprise, 2023 was the hottest year on record. We all understand that the bar will continue to rise and that every future year will be among the hottest.

Opponents of net zero know this too, which may be why they are changing tack in their efforts to throw progress off course.

Deniers, for the most part, no longer pursue the old denial strategies, focused on the rejection of anthropogenic climate change. Instead they favour “attacks on climate science and scientists, and rhetoric seeking to undermine confidence in solutions to climate change”, according to a new report from the Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH).

This ‘new denial’, as CCDH coins it, now constitutes 70 per cent of all climate denial on YouTube, up from 35 per cent six years ago.

It appears to be working. A new survey of teenagers shows that a third agreed with the statement “Climate change and its effects are being purposefully overexaggerated”. This number rose among teens who considered themselves heavy users of social media.

Online climate denial is systemic Our response to this worrying trend should not focus on denialists’ online content or the individuals involved (nor, rather obviously, should it be to chastise teens). Online climate denial is a systemic issue.

In an attention economy, outrage and conspiracy trump nuance and reason. Tech platforms curate the public square, but their business model – drive clicks, keep us hooked, harvest our data, target us with ads – incentivises the creation of whole industries around the production of junk.

According to CCDH, YouTube makes up to $13.4 million a year from channels posting denial, so it is not in its interest to mute salacious content about exploding EVs or hypocritical activists, whatever its PR people might say.

This is not a problem restricted to just one company. All online platforms have their own peculiar characteristics but share a common vulnerability to anyone capable of harnessing ‘virality first’ algorithmic design to suit their own ends.

See, for example, a recent investigation by Wales Online journalist Will Hayward, who revealed how a councillor from Sunderland spread anger and lies in local Welsh Facebook groups about 20mph speed limits. That he had in fact advocated such limits in his own constituency reveals the impunity with which malign actors can behave online.

It is hard to know the true scale of the problem. We know there is vast amount of disinformation and misinformation out there, and that AI tools like ChatGPT and the image creation software MidJourney make it quicker, cheaper and easier to produce it at scale.

But we also know people form their beliefs based on myriad individual, cultural and political inputs. It is over simplistic to suggest online content is the only thing that makes someone believe a lie.

Disinformation and misinformation is an urgent issue As a movement we should, however, assume the problem is real, growing and urgent. We are not alone: the World Economic Forum this month declared disinformation and misinformation to be the top threat facing the world economy over the next two years.

This is of course a critical timeframe for climate action. Over 60 elections are taking place in 2024, with about 50 per cent of the world’s adult population heading to the polls. They will do so in the context of a woefully under-regulated online space where systems are inherently vulnerable to the spread of disinformation by those with far deeper pockets than civil society.

So what can we do?

One: we must recognise the problems of the online world are not peripheral to our climate cause, but are at its heart. A polluted information ecosystem will see more new deniers elected to office, and climate policy chilled. Just look to the political response to bot-amplified ULEZ opposition in the Uxbridge by-election to see what that looks like in the UK.

Two: we must call on the state to take its role in regulating these systems seriously: ‘safety by design’ and a duty of care to platform users should be compelled; an advertising model based on mass surveillance and the invasion of privacy (and upon which the whole attention economy stands) should be reformed; political parties should be pushed to explain how they will create an information ecosystem that facilitates well informed public debate on climate and all progressive causes.

Three: we must take steps not to fuel the system. Every time we repost an obnoxious climate claim online, the deniers and the platforms win. Just as with our offline comms strategies, we must set out our own narratives online, and avoid amplifying those of our opponents.

And four: we must join forces and add power to the tech accountability movement and all those who are pushing for the reform of online systems.

Photo credit: Thomas Lefebvre on Unsplash