Debunking misinformation and disinformation: The media’s role in fighting climate change

0 Comments

Compiled by Batanai Mutasa

This week, I was invited by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) to discuss climate change misinformation and disinformation on the Conservation Conversation with Rumbidzai Takawira on ZiFM stereo. We set out to localise the climate change discourse and bring attention to the unique challenges faced by communities affected by climate change such as devastating droughts, floods, and food insecurity which are becoming more frequent. These challenges are exacerbated by information disorders, unreliable information which curtails efforts to adapt to and mitigate against the effects of climate change. This is a follow-up blog to the radio discussion which provides more information on how the media can take a leading role in debunking misinformation and disinformation.

As the climate crisis continues to unfold, it’s crucial that the public has access to accurate, science-based information. Unfortunately, the spread of misinformation and disinformation around climate change has become a significant challenge. In this blog, we’ll explore the differences between climate change misinformation and disinformation and discuss how media outlets can improve their coverage of climate change while also working to dispel harmful myths for their audiences.

Climate Misinformation vs. Disinformation

Climate change misinformation refers to false or inaccurate information that is shared, often unintentionally, due to a lack of knowledge or understanding. Climate change disinformation, on the other hand, is deliberately false or misleading information that is spread with the intent to deceive. Although the difference is determined by intent, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) notes that regardless of intent, “scientifically misleading information” can have “negative implications for climate policy.”

This is because both climate change misinformation and disinformation can have serious consequences when it comes to public understanding and engagement on this critical and technical issue. It’s essential that media outlets and journalists work to identify and correct these falsehoods, while also providing their audiences with reliable, fact-based reporting.

Examples of climate change (mis) disinformation

Climate denial is one of the oldest climate disinformation narratives which rejects the causes of climate change or the existence of climate change. This narrative has been pushed by fossil fuel companies and other vested interests for decades in an attempt to sow doubt and confusion around the scientific consensus on climate change. Climate denial typically involves making claims that contradict the overwhelming evidence that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are the primary driver of global warming and climate change. Deniers may argue that the climate is not actually warming, or that any changes are part of natural cycles rather than human influence. However, the scientific evidence for climate change is unequivocal. Numerous independent studies, datasets, and lines of evidence all point to a clear human fingerprint on the global climate system. Denying this established science in the face of such robust evidence is not a credible or defensible position.

Another form of climate disinformation is where individuals and organisations actively work to delay or undermine action on this critical challenge through an insidious form of disinformation known as “climate delayism”. This involves the following:

  • Climate delayism encompasses a range of tactics that aim to slow down or derail meaningful progress on climate action. These tactics include:
  • Redirecting Responsibility: Shifting blame onto individuals or smaller entities rather than addressing systemic change.
  • Pushing Non-Transformative Solutions: Advocating for incremental steps that fail to address the scale and urgency of the climate crisis.
  • Emphasising the Downsides: Exaggerating the potential economic or social costs of climate action while downplaying the devastating impacts of inaction.
  • Surrendering: Promoting a sense of helplessness or fatalism, suggesting that climate change is too complex or too late to address.

By employing these methods, climate delayists seek to sow doubt, create confusion, and ultimately delay the critical actions needed to mitigate and adapt to climate change. It is essential to recognize and call out these tactics to maintain a focused, evidence-based approach to addressing the climate emergency.

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) says although most of the world rightly acknowledges that climate change is real, misinformation is delaying the action that is so vital to countering what is one of the greatest challenges facing humanity and lists the following eight common climate-related myths:

  • Climate change has always happened, so we should not worry about it.
  • Climate change is a natural process. It has nothing to do with people.
  • A couple of degrees of warming is not that big of a deal.
  • An increase in cold snaps shows climate change is not real.
  • Scientists disagree on the cause of climate change.
  • It is too late to avert a climate catastrophe, so we might as well keep burning fossil fuels.
  • Climate models are unreliable.
  • We do not need to worry about lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Humanity is inventive; we can just adapt to climate change.

What the media can do to dispel climate change myths

The London School of Economics and Political Science says ‘pre-bunking’, which involves pre-emptively warning and exposing people to diluted forms of misinformation, can foster ‘mental antibodies’ against false or harmful information. Unlike debunking, which reacts to misinformation after it circulates, pre-bunking empowers the public with tools to identify misleading information before it gains traction. This is an approach which can be taken by media organisations to dispel climate change myths. However,

Improving Climate Change Coverage

To combat the spread of misinformation and disinformation, media outlets should strive to:

  • Rely on authoritative, scientific sources: When reporting on climate change, journalists should consult with climate scientists, research institutions, and other experts to ensure the accuracy of their information.
  • Provide context and nuance: Climate change is a complex issue, and it’s important to present the full picture, including the scientific consensus, the range of potential impacts, and the ongoing debates and uncertainties.
  • Fact-check claims and correct errors: Whenever a questionable or false claim is made, media outlets should take the time to investigate and provide accurate information to their audiences.
  • Engage with the community: By hosting panel discussions, interviews, and other interactive content, media outlets can create opportunities for their audiences to ask questions, express concerns, and engage with the topic in a meaningful way.

By following these best practices, media outlets can play a crucial role in dispelling climate change myths and empowering their audiences with the knowledge they need to make informed decisions about this critical issue.