In an ever-evolving world where information travels at the speed of light, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to discern fact from fiction, especially when it comes to critical issues like climate change. A groundbreaking report, released on April 21, 2026, by QuotaClimat, Data For Good, and Science Feedback, shines a much-needed spotlight on the pervasive issue of climate misinformation plaguing television and radio in four diverse nations: France, Spain, Poland, and Brazil. This comprehensive study, encompassing 44 media outlets, has unearthed a stark reality: out of 815 instances of climate misinformation, a staggering 85% originated from private media channels. What’s even more concerning is the subtle shift in tactics – misinformation is no longer confined to outright denial of climate science but has evolved to skillfully undermine climate action by hyper-focusing on the perceived financial burdens. In Europe, the report highlights renewable energy as a prime target for these misleading narratives, painting a worrying picture of how easily public opinion can be swayed on such a vital matter.
This collaborative effort, bringing together the expertise of QuotaClimat, Science Feedback, and Data for Good, wasn’t just a casual observation; it was a meticulous semi-automatic detection process for climate misinformation in broadcast media. To ensure accuracy and context, the methodology and data analysis were rigorously developed in partnership with specialized fact-checking organizations from each country: Lupa in Brazil, Maldita.es in Spain, Science Feedback in France, and Demagog in Poland. In France, the findings are readily accessible through the Observatoire des Médias sur l’Ecologie, offering a localized view of this global challenge. This collaborative approach underscores the importance of a multi-faceted strategy in combating misinformation, recognizing that local nuances play a significant role in how false narratives are constructed and consumed. It’s a testament to the power of collective action when tackling a problem as complex and widespread as disinformation, signaling a global commitment to truthful reporting on climate change.
The report’s analysis of 7 Brazilian, 6 Spanish, 18 French, and 13 Polish channels paints a vivid picture of uneven exposure to climate disinformation across these nations. France, with a staggering 665 detected cases, bears the brunt, followed by Brazil with 76, Poland with 54, and Spain with a comparatively lower 20 instances. This uneven distribution not only highlights the varying susceptibility of national media landscapes but also emphasizes that the problem isn’t uniformly spread. The 85% concentration of misinformation in private media outlets across all countries is a particularly alarming statistic, suggesting a potential correlation between private ownership and a greater propensity for disseminating misleading information. Furthermore, the national exposure to climate disinformation isn’t just about country-wide trends; it’s also heavily skewed by a select few channels. Fourteen media outlets, for instance, broadcast more than one instance of disinformation for every two hours of environmental coverage. This list includes prominent names like Sud Radio, Jovem Pan, CNEWS, and TV Republika, with a notable presence of French, Polish, Brazilian, and Spanish outlets. What’s more, in France and Poland, rolling news channels, with their constant stream of information, appear to be more vulnerable to disinformation than general-interest channels, indicating that the speed and volume of information can sometimes compromise accuracy. Interestingly, the report also suggests a counter-intuitive trend: generally, media outlets that cover climate-related topics more extensively tend to disseminate fewer instances of misinformation. However, exceptions like SudRadio, TV Brasil, and Trwa stand out as they provide substantial coverage while simultaneously being significant conduits for disinformation, highlighting the complex interplay between coverage volume and content integrity.
The report uncovers a fascinating pattern: climate disinformation often surfaces during politically charged moments or in the wake of extreme weather events. Between January 2025 and March 2026, four distinct periods emerged as hotbeds for disinformation. First, debates surrounding environmental public policies, such as discussions on low-emission zones or energy planning in France, Poland’s new energy roadmap, or even the implementation of European deforestation regulations in Brazil, frequently became fertile ground for misinformation. These discussions, often laden with economic implications, create an environment where misrepresentations can thrive. Second, major international and European events, like the Weimar Triangle summit in Poland, also served as catalysts for disinformation, as narratives often twist facts to align with nationalistic or critical perspectives of multi-national cooperation. Third, and perhaps most predictably, extreme weather events like heatwaves in France or devastating forest fires in Spain became prime opportunities for those seeking to downplay climate change or shift blame. These moments of crisis, when emotions run high and scientific explanations can feel complex, are particularly vulnerable to oversimplification and false attribution. Finally, statements from influential figures, such as Donald Trump’s speech at the United Nations, often trigger a wave of amplified disinformation, demonstrating the power of prominent voices to shape public perception, regardless of the factual basis of their claims.
Digging deeper into the narratives, the report reveals that in Europe, renewable energy lies at the heart of many disinformation campaigns, spun around four central themes. First, the idea of “sovereignty” is frequently invoked, portraying renewable energy as an imposed “external intrusion,” dictated by distant urban or foreign decision-making centers. This narrative taps into a sense of national pride and resentment against perceived external control. Second, anti-European Union sentiment is skillfully woven into these narratives, with the EU often depicted as a “mastermind” behind a punitive transition, allegedly imposing standards that are disconnected from the realities on the ground. This plays into existing Euroscepticism and fosters distrust in international collaborations essential for climate action. Third, narratives of “industrial and social decline” link renewable energy to the demise of traditional industries like coal, nuclear power, and combustion-engine vehicles, while simultaneously fueling fears of rising energy prices. This generates anxiety about job losses and economic hardship, distracting from the long-term benefits of a green economy. Lastly, an “anti-elite sentiment” is cleverly exploited, with wind turbines becoming a potent symbol of an “out-of-touch” elite imposing its aesthetic and moral values on ordinary citizens. In France, over half of the detected cases specifically target renewable energy, often making misleading claims about skyrocketing electricity prices or unfounded assertions about its inefficiency due to intermittency. In Poland, disinformation peaks align with major European events, leveraging narratives of industrial decline and anti-EU sentiment even more intensely than in other analyzed countries. Spain, surprisingly, exhibits fewer instances of climate disinformation in the media studied, partly attributed to a limited number of rolling news channels and the consistent presence of expert voices in environmental debates. However, a peculiar vulnerability to the “chemtrails” conspiracy theory stands out, contrasting with the narratives seen elsewhere. The summer 2025 forest fires in Spain also triggered misinformation, denying the link between global warming and the fires or even accusing renewable energy of causing them. In Brazil, climate disinformation frequently intertwines with pro-agribusiness narratives, bolstering domestic agriculture and livestock farming, often accompanied by a more pronounced denial of climate change and its human origins compared to other countries.
The insights gleaned from this exhaustive analysis underscore a critical vulnerability in traditional media to disinformation narratives, a vulnerability that risks significantly amplifying their impact on public discourse. To fortify the integrity of climate information within these traditional media channels, the report puts forth four crucial recommendations. First and foremost, there’s an urgent need to train journalists in new narratives of obstruction. Disinformation tactics are constantly evolving, and journalists must be equipped to recognize and critically analyze these subtle, often sophisticated, attempts to mislead. This isn’t just about identifying outright lies, but understanding the nuanced ways in which facts are distorted, contexts are omitted, and emotions are manipulated. Second, the report advocates for a more careful selection of panellists on television programmes to ensure expertise is represented. The casual inclusion of ill-informed or biased individuals, often for the sake of “balance,” can inadvertently legitimize false narratives. Ensuring that environmental discussions are driven by genuine experts, whose insights are grounded in scientific consensus, is paramount to fostering public understanding. Third, the report stresses the importance of daily and regular coverage of environmental issues. Climate change isn’t a sporadic event; it’s an ongoing crisis that demands consistent media attention. By integrating environmental news into the daily programming, media outlets can normalize these discussions, educate the public over time, and prevent the issue from being sensationalized or relegated to occasional spotlights, which can leave room for misinformation to fill the gaps. Finally, the establishment of an accountability framework for those spreading disinformation is a critical, albeit complex, recommendation. This would involve holding individuals and organizations responsible for intentionally disseminating false or misleading information that undermines public understanding and obstructs climate action. This could range from clearer editorial policies and fact-checking protocols to, in extreme cases, legal ramifications for malicious disinformation campaigns. These recommendations, though challenging to implement, are essential steps towards safeguarding the integrity of information and empowering the public to make informed decisions about our planet’s future. The report’s scope covers a wide array of news programmes across various channels in each country, with specific analysis periods for Brazil (March–December 2025), Spain (August–December 2025), France (January–December 2025), and Poland (January–March 2026), providing a robust foundation for its stark conclusions and invaluable recommendations.