Welcome to a crucial discussion from Covering Climate Now, where Santiago Sáez Moreno, Director of Training, and Elena González, journalist and Engagement Manager, peel back the layers of disinformation, misinformation, and greenwashing in climate reporting. This session, designed for both emerging and seasoned journalists, dives deep into how these manipulative tactics sow confusion and hinder meaningful climate action. It’s a candid look at the challenges journalists face in painting an accurate picture of our planet’s future, offering practical tools and insights to navigate this complex landscape.
Elena kicks off by drawing a clear distinction between misinformation (false information shared by mistake) and disinformation (false information intentionally spread to deceive or profit). She highlights that climate disinformation is not an accidental oversight; it’s a calculated, strategic effort, often bankrolled by fossil fuel industries with deep pockets and vested interests. Their goal? To keep the public uncertain, deflect blame from polluters, and pump the brakes on climate policies that could threaten their bottom line. Elena reveals that this playbook isn’t new; it’s a refined version of tactics used in the 90s, when oil companies funded campaigns to create the illusion of scientific disagreement about climate change. Today, this strategy has evolved to viral disinformation online—false claims about everything from wind turbines killing more birds than oil spills, to heatwaves being “natural cycles.” These narratives are crafted to erode public trust, making climate action seem either unnecessary or futile, and they don’t shy away from fear-mongering about solutions or attacking those who advocate for change. The session then unpacks the primary narratives of climate disinformation, showing how they attempt to redirect blame, use “whataboutism” to block domestic action, and ultimately create a false social reality that distorts public perception and stalls progress.
A powerful segment of the discussion debunks the myth of scientific disagreement. Elena emphasizes that the consensus on human-caused climate change among scientists is overwhelmingly strong—around 97% of publishing scientists agree. This level of consensus is comparable to the scientific agreement on gravity. The perception of a significant debate has been artificially manufactured by the “disinformation machine,” which amplifies the voices of a tiny minority who disagree. A clip from John Oliver’s “Last Week Tonight” humorously illustrates this imbalance, showing how a truly representative climate debate would feature one climate denier against 97 scientists. The session traces the historical roots of this “false balance” in newsrooms, where a journalistic instinct to present both sides inadvertently lent legitimacy to fringe views. Through an excerpt from the documentary “Merchants of Doubt,” the audience sees how fossil fuel companies funded think tanks to produce their “experts,” who, often lacking relevant scientific credentials, were presented as credible counter-voices to climate scientists, further muddling public understanding. However, Elena notes that increased fact-checking and accurate data have begun to correct this skewed perception, with public opinion data now showing that 80-89% of people worldwide understand climate change as a serious threat and support action. Curiously, most people don’t realize they’re part of this majority, believing themselves to be in the minority—a misconception that limits their willingness to speak up. Covering Climate Now’s “89% Project” aims to close this gap, demonstrating that climate concern is a mainstream, shared global priority.
Santiago then takes the stage to tackle greenwashing—a pervasive issue where companies or governments present themselves as more environmentally friendly than they are. Greenwashing isn’t necessarily outright lies, but rather exaggerated, incomplete, or misleading claims designed to polish an entity’s green image. Santiago stresses that journalists bear a significant responsibility to recognize and expose greenwashing, especially given the public trust they command. He points out that greenwashing is rampant, appearing in corporate PR, advertising, government sustainability claims, and even event sponsorships (like COP conferences funded by polluting industries). He outlines common greenwashing tactics, starting with vague language (“climate positive,” “carbon neutral,” “net zero by 2050” without concrete plans) and selective disclosure (highlighting small green efforts while obscuring larger polluting activities). Misleading visuals, such as serene nature scenes or families enjoying pristine environments, are also common ploys. Santiago introduces “ClimateBert,” an AI tool that detects vague climate language, and encourages critical evaluation instead of simply accepting claims at face value.
He further dissects greenwashing by examining “false comparisons”—claims of being “greener” or having “lower emissions” without specifying the baseline—and the highly problematic “carbon offset” myth. While carbon offsets theoretically allow companies to compensate for emissions by funding projects like tree planting, investigations frequently reveal that these programs fail to deliver genuine, permanent emission reductions and can even serve as a distraction from the urgent need to cut emissions at the source. Santiago advises journalists to look for independent certifications, audit reports, and transparent data, urging them to “follow the money” by investigating where companies invest their resources and whether they lobby against climate regulations. Tools like Influence Maps and LobbyMap can help uncover discrepancies between public messaging and financial actions. He advises reading the “fine print” in sustainability reports, looking for non-binding phrases that undermine real commitment, and most importantly, asking tough questions about timelines, verifiable targets, revenue sources, and data verification. Ultimately, journalists should seek out independent sources—environmental agencies, NGOs, and local experts—for informed perspectives that can counter corporate narratives and uncover new stories.
Elena returns to discuss strategies for debunking disinformation. She introduces “inoculation” or “pre-bunking,” which involves preemptively warning audiences about common disinformation tactics before they encounter them. A key tool she recommends is the “truth sandwich”: start with the accurate fact, carefully introduce the myth (warning the audience and briefly explaining it without amplifying it), explain why it’s wrong (who benefits from its spread), and end by reiterating the truth. This method ensures that the audience remembers the correct information rather than the false claim. She likens disinformation to a toxic syringe: you wouldn’t inject it to understand it, but handle it carefully and safely analyze it. The FLICC framework (Fake experts, Logical fallacies, Impossible expectations, Cherry-picking, Conspiracy theories) helps journalists categorize and understand the tricks used to distort facts. She emphasizes that recognizing these patterns allows journalists to debunk false claims without getting bogged down in debating every detail. Elena also offers practical tips for fact-checking, such as avoiding disinformation in headlines, using neutral and verified language, focusing on local impacts and solutions, and framing disinformation stories as accountability journalism. She points to resources like Skeptical Science and Covering Climate Now’s own “10 Myths Debunked” guide for further assistance.
The session concludes with a swift Q&A where Santiago addresses audience questions, including the impact of figures like Bill Gates changing positions on climate issues. He highlights how different media outlets (like The Guardian versus Fox News) frame the same story, underscoring the influence of political leaning on climate narratives. He cautions against a common misconception that humanity is on the brink of extinction due to climate change, noting that while scientists convey alarm, this is not a consensus view, and it can be exploited by those seeking to downplay the severity or urgency of climate action. He emphasizes the critical importance of localized reporting, encouraging journalists to connect with local scientific experts and draw inspiration from similar communities facing climate challenges, rather than solely relying on global figures. Elena adds that scientists are increasingly communicating about climate change, and journalists can collaborate with them to make complex information accessible. Finally, Santiago touches upon the underreported issue of repression against climate activists globally, acknowledging that the press, including climate journalists, could do a better job of covering these struggles. He ends with a poignant thought, agreeing that poverty and disease remain humanity’s biggest problems, but stressing that climate change acts as a “multiplier,” exacerbating these issues, particularly for the vulnerable. The hosts reiterate their commitment to supporting journalists and offer their resources free of charge, encouraging continued engagement in this vital field.