‘Hybrid weapon of war’: Why climate disinformation could be a growing public health threat

There is a kind of panic that comes with not knowing whom to trust in a crisis. Imagine a wildfire advancing toward your community, and you are staring at your phone, trying to decide whether the official evacuation order is real or a trap. Imagine a parent with an asthmatic child, reading a post that claims air quality warnings are just a government scheme, and hesitating before keeping their child indoors. This is the world that health experts are now asking us to confront. The World Health Organization’s member states, along with health and civil society organizations, are being called on to recognize climate disinformation as a public health threat on the same level as disease outbreaks or environmental hazards. In a new report titled Protecting Health in the Age of Climate Disinformation, produced by the WHO Civil Society Working Group on Climate and Health, experts argue that the intentional spread of false and misleading information about climate change is not merely an online annoyance. It is a dangerous force that undermines emergency warnings, weakens public-health guidance, delays policies on air pollution and clean energy, and puts lives at risk. The report is being described as the first time the global health community has directly addressed how climate disinformation harms human health around the world. Its central message is powerful: a healthier information environment is not a communications luxury but a fundamental condition for climate justice, public health, and the right to a healthy future. It is about whether people can make informed decisions to protect themselves, their families, and their communities.

To understand what is at stake, it helps to understand what climate disinformation actually is. It is not the same as climate misinformation, though both are dangerous. Climate disinformation is the deliberate spread of false or misleading information about climate change and climate action, often driven by vested interests, political agendas, or a desire to confuse and divide. It includes outright denial that global warming is happening, as well as elaborate conspiracy theories designed to make people distrust scientists, governments, and the media. Climate misinformation, on the other hand, is false or out-of-context information that someone may share without knowing it is wrong. It might be a poorly researched article, a misleading chart, or a rumor that gets passed along in good faith. While misinformation lacks the same intentional malice as disinformation, its consequences can be equally deadly. A grandmother may share a fake story about a disaster relief program because she wants to protect her family, not because she wants to harm anyone. But that story can still prevent someone from receiving food, medicine, or shelter. This distinction matters because it shapes how we respond. We need to hold the architects of disinformation accountable, while also building resilience against the accidental spread of misinformation. In a world where climate change is making wildfires, floods, heatwaves, and hurricanes more intense, the information environment is becoming as important as physical infrastructure. A warning system is useless if people have been taught not to believe it. A vaccine or a clean-energy policy cannot succeed if communities have been convinced it is a plot against them. The report makes clear that the harm is not abstract. It reaches into kitchens, emergency shelters, doctor’s offices, and city council meetings, shaping the choices people make every day.

One of the most haunting examples in the report comes from the 2023 Maui wildfires. In the aftermath of the disaster, as survivors were sorting through the ashes of their homes and trying to find the strength to rebuild, false claims began circulating online. The rumor claimed that residents who applied for disaster assistance could have their land or property seized by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA. Fact-checkers quickly established that this was false, but the damage had already been done. The rumor had the power to deter survivors from seeking aid at exactly the moment they needed housing support, financial assistance, medical care, and recovery services. Imagine the cruel irony of that: a person has lost everything, and then they are told that asking for help will cost them what little they have left. They hesitate. They wait. They decide to manage on their own. Meanwhile, their wounds fester, their mental health deteriorates, and their recovery is delayed, all because of a lie designed to sow confusion. The report puts it plainly: in a disaster setting, misinformation is not just confusing; it can directly obstruct access to life-saving and stabilizing support. This is not just a technical problem for emergency managers. It is a profound human tragedy. When public trust collapses, the entire system of care collapses with it. People do not evacuate. They do not report symptoms. They do not accept help. And the consequences are measured not in clicks or shares, but in illness, displacement, and death. The report stresses that climate disinformation interacts with existing inequalities and power structures, meaning that the most vulnerable people, those with the fewest resources and the least access to reliable information, are often hit hardest.

The report also turns its attention to Europe, where clean air policies designed to protect public health have become battlegrounds in a culture war. Taking the example of London’s Ultra Low Emissions Zone, or ULEZ, the report acknowledges that there are real concerns about affordability and implementation. Charging a fee for vehicles that do not meet emissions standards can place a heavy burden on low-income households, workers, small businesses, and people who depend on older cars. These are legitimate worries that deserve serious public debate. But what has happened, the report argues, is that these concerns have been amplified and distorted. Misinformation, politicized attacks on air quality evidence, fake social media claims, and even violent backlash against ULEZ infrastructure have turned a public health intervention into a symbol of resentment and distrust. Instead of focusing the conversation on how to reduce pollution while protecting those least able to bear the costs of transition, disinformation shifts attention toward fear, mistrust, and false claims. This is devastating because clean air is not a luxury. Air pollution directly damages lungs, hearts, pregnancies, children, and communities that are already exposed to the most harmful traffic-related pollution. When public support for these policies is weakened, the people who suffer are not the ones spreading the lies. They are the children with asthma, the elderly with heart conditions, the pregnant women breathing toxic fumes, and the families living next to congested roads. The report’s warning is stark: disinformation can turn a public-health intervention into a culture-war issue, and in doing so, it threatens to undermine the very policies that save lives. It is a reminder that the fight against climate change is not just about technology or economics. It is also about truth, trust, and the ability of communities to come together and protect one another.

Behind all of this lies a deeper problem of power, incentives, and accountability. Climate disinformation does not emerge from nowhere. It is often fueled by interests that benefit from delaying action on climate change, including the fossil fuel industry and those who engage in greenwashing. The report argues that to truly address the health harms of climate disinformation, governments and health institutions must go beyond simply providing better information and messaging. They must establish robust conflict-of-interest safeguards against fossil fuel greenwashing and against those who wield climate disinformation as a hybrid weapon of war. Dr. Jeni Miller, Executive Director of the Global Climate and Health Alliance and co-chair of the WHO Civil Society Working Group on Climate and Health, emphasizes that governments must integrate tools for mis- and disinformation response into how they prepare and communicate heat, wildfire, flood, storm, drought, and infectious disease scenarios. She is also clear that this is not just a technical communication challenge. It is about power and accountability. Those who spread disinformation are often doing so deliberately, with the aim of sowing doubt and confusion, and they must be held responsible. Dr. Laura Jung, Chair of the Working Group on Environment at the World Medical Association, adds that the public health impacts of climate disinformation can be immediate. Misleading information can discourage people from evacuating during wildfires or floods, undermine confidence in heat and air-pollution warnings, interfere with access to disaster assistance, and create confusion about health risks during emergencies. In other words, this is a medical emergency happening inside the information ecosystem. Doctors and nurses see the consequences in emergency rooms, in clinics, and in the bodies of their patients. Climate disinformation is not a privacy-integrity issue or a sympathy problem; it is a serious public health risk that demands the same level of coordinated response as any other major threat.

So what can be done? The good news is that awareness is growing, and tools are emerging to help people navigate this poisoned information landscape. The European Commission’s Directorate-General for Climate Action recently launched a campaign called #ClimateFactsMatter, designed to empower people to see through climate disinformation and reveal the techniques used to mislead the public. The campaign encourages people to always check the source of an article they are reading, to fact-check so-called expert comments, to watch for loaded or emotional language, and to be skeptical of stories that claim to offer a quick solution to climate change. These are simple, practical steps, but they represent something important: a shift from passive consumption to active citizenship. We all have a role to play in protecting the information environment, just as we all have a role to play in protecting the physical environment. But individual actions are not enough. Governments must treat information integrity as a core part of climate and health policy, preparedness, and response. They must invest in public communication that is clear, honest, and rooted in science. They must regulate the platforms and actors that profit from chaos. And they must build systems that are resilient to the inevitable attempts to undermine trust. This report is a call to action, not just for policymakers but for all of us. It asks us to recognize that the fight for a livable planet is inseparable from the fight for a truthful public discourse. It asks us to be skeptical of those who seek to confuse us, to be compassionate toward those who have been misled, and to be courageous enough to stand up for facts, especially when the truth is inconvenient. The climate crisis is already here, and so is the disinformation that surrounds it. But by working together, in communities, in governments, and across borders, we can build a world where people have the information they need to protect their health, their homes, and their future. That is not just a policy goal. It is a moral duty.